SC sets dates for oral arguments on martial law proclamation | Inquirer News

SC sets dates for oral arguments on martial law proclamation

/ 02:50 PM June 06, 2017

The Supreme Court has set oral arguments on the validity of the martial law proclamation of President Rodrigo Duterte for June 13, 14, and 15.

In an en banc session on Tuesday, the high court gave respondents on or before noon of June 12 to submit their comments.

Article continues after this advertisement

Among the respondents are Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana and Gen. Eduardo Año, chief of staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).

FEATURED STORIES

Lorenzana and Año are the martial law administrators appointed by Duterte.

The petition seeking a review of the martial law declaration over the whole of Mindanao was filed by the House minority bloc led by Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman.

Article continues after this advertisement

In the petition, the minority bloc said the proclamation of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus were unjustified and lacked sufficient factual basis.

Article continues after this advertisement

The petitioners are Akbayan Rep. Tomasito Villarin, Magdalo Rep. Gary Alejano, Capiz Rep. Emmanuel Billones, Ifugao Rep. Teddy Brawner Baguilat Jr., and Caloocan Rep. Edgar Erice.

Article continues after this advertisement

“The President’s proclamation of martial law in Mindanao has no sufficient factual basis as it is feebly based on mostly contrived and/or inaccurate facts, self-serving speculations, enumeration of distant occurrences and mere conclusions of fact and law on the purported existence of ‘rebellion or invasion’,” the petitioners said.

They said both leadership of the House of Representatives and the Senate also failed to comply with their constitutional mandate to vote jointly on whether or not to revoke the declaration.

Article continues after this advertisement

Thus, the petitioners said they had no other recourse but to ask the high court to take jurisdiction and review the factual basis for the declaration of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

The petitioners branded as “inaccurate, simulated, false and hyperbolic” the facts contained in Proclamation No. 216 and the report submitted by the President in the Senate and House of Representatives justifying the imposition of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

They further tagged Proclamation No. 216 as “flawed” as it  imposed martial law without consultation with and the recommendation of officials of the AFP and the Department of National Defense. /atm/rga

TAGS: Edcel Lagman, Supreme Court

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.