SC sets dates for oral arguments on martial law proclamation
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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
