House independent minority mulls questioning martial law in SC
Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman. INQUIRER.net FILE PHOTO/RYAN LEAGOGO
Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman on Tuesday said the independent minority bloc in the House of Representatives is mulling the filing of a petition before the Supreme Court to question President Rodrigo Duterte’s declaration of martial law in Mindanao.
In a press briefing, Lagman said the Supreme Court, which does not delve on political questions, can tackle constitutional violations on the part of Congress.
He said Congress clearly violated its mandate under the Constitution to convene in a joint session to revoke the martial law declaration in a majority vote.
“Political questions cannot be raised. There’s a clear constitutional violation on the part of the House. There is a constitutional issue,” Lagman said.
“We believe that this is more than a political question. It is a constitutional violation which the Supreme Court has the power to review and adjudicate,” he added.
Lagman said the Supreme Court can tackle not just Congress’ constitutional violations, but also the factual basis of the President’s declaration.
He said the martial law declaration covered the whole of Mindanao even though Marawi City is only a small area in the island region.
“Anyone who intends to file a petition before the Supreme Court should include two aspects – one, refusal of the leadership supported by the majority to comply with the constitutional mandate for joint session and joint voting; and two, question on the factual basis of martial law,” Lagman said.
Lagman said he has talked with the following experts to aid them in filing the petition before the Supreme Court: Christian Monsod, who was part of the constitutional commission that crafted the 1987 Constitution, former solicitor general Florin Hilbay, and former senator Wigberto “Bobby” Tañada.
According to the 1987 Constitution, Congress may vote jointly to revoke the declaration of martial law in a majority vote. The President is required to submit to Congress within 48 hours a report on the martial law declaration.
The Supreme Court may also review the need for a declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus upon an appropriate proceeding filed by a concerned citizen.
Without a plan for Congress to convene, the lower house would convene itself into a Committee of the Whole House on Wednesday to tackle President Duterte’s report on the imposition of martial law in Mindanao.
READ: House to meet as committee of whole to tackle martial law report
This after Duterte’s martial law report was referred to the committee on rules during Monday’s session.
According to Section 137, Rule XVIII of the Rules of the House, the lower House may constitute itself into a Committee of the Whole House upon the motion of the Majority Leader to act upon a bill or resolution.
LOOK: Duterte’s martial law report to Congress
Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez and Majority Leader Rudy Fariñas earlier said there is no need for Congress to convene if it has no intention of revoking the martial law declaration in Mindanao anyway.
READ: No need for Congress to convene on martial law report – Fariñas | Alvarez says no need for Congress to convene on martial law report
Duterte earlier said he would not listen to Congress or the Supreme Court, even though these were the checks and balances in the 1987 Constitution, adding that he would only listen to the military when to lift martial law.
READ: Duterte vows to ignore Supreme Court on martial law
In a press conference Tuesday, Alvarez said the 1987 Constitution does not require Congress to convene in a joint session.
He said the Constitution only requires the President to report to Congress, which means that the legislature is required to listen to the President, not the other way around.
“Wala naman nakalagay sa Constitution na kailangan pakinggan ng Pangulo ang Kongreso. Kung ako presidente, talagang sasabihin ko na hindi ako makikinig,” Alvarez said.
(There is nothing in the Constitution that states the President has to listen to Congress. If I were the President, I would also say that I won’t listen.)
“Basahin mo ang Constitution. Ano sabi – ang Presidente ang dapat mag-report sa Congress. Siya ang magrereport, kami ‘yung makikinig. Alangan naman siya ‘yung magrereport, makikinig sa amin,” he added.
(Read the Constitution. What does it say – the President should report to Congress. It is he who should report, while we should listen. Not that he would report, he would also listen.)
Alvarez rejected ed criticisms that Congress is being subservient to the President’s whims.
“Ibig bang sabihin, kagaya niyan, tama ang ginagawa ng Presidente. ‘Pag sinabi namin tama siya, subservient na kami? Napaka-unfair naman ng statement na ‘yan. Tingnan natin objectively ‘yung sitwasyon,” Alvarez said.
(Does that mean, for instance, the President was doing right – if we say he was right, we are already being subservient? That’s such an unfair statement. Let’s look objectively at the situation.)
Alvarez advised critics of the President’s martial law remark to shut up, especially if they’re not from Mindanao which is directly affected by the proclamation.
“Ang dami lang kyaw kyaw, karamihan ng nagrereklamo hindi naman taga-Mindanao!” Alvarez said.
(They have a lot to say, most of those complaining are not even from Mindanao!)
Alvarez said residents of Mindanao feel the need to impose martial law in the region due to the threat of terrorism there.
“Alam mo, pag taga-doon ka, nafi-feel mo na kailangan talaga, at tama ang ginawa ng Presidente. ‘Pag ‘di ka taga-roon, taga-rito ka, medyo tumahimik ka na lang muna,” Alvarez said.
(You know, if you’re there, you would really feel the need to, and that the President was right in declaring martial law. If you’re not from there, if you’re from here, better keep quiet and shut up.)
President Duterte declared martial law and suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao following the attack of the Maute group in Marawi City, where buildings were burnt, people hostaged, and flags of the Islamic State (ISIS) hoisted in the siege carried out by the ISIS-inspired terror group.
Duterte warned that his orders would be shoot to kill, and that warrantless arrests could be carried out in Mindanao following his declaration. He also warned that martial law there would be no different and as harsh as that declared by the dictator Marcos.
The President even said he is considering imposing martial law nationwide if terror groups inspired by ISIS gain a foothold in Luzon and Visayas.
READ: Martial law will be harsh, says Duterte | Duterte considering nationwide martial law
According to the 1987 Constitution, the president as commander-in-chief of all armed forces may declare martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus to “prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion” for 60 days subject to approval of Congress.
“In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law,” the Constitution states.
“Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President,” it adds.
Congress may also extend the proclamation or suspension of martial law upon the initiative of the President “if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it,” the Constitution says.
The Constitution states that a state of martial law “does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.” JE/rga
