Martial law challengers ‘misread the Constitution’ – Panelo
Presidential chief legal counsel Salvador Panelo. (File photo by VINCE F. NONATO / Philippine Daily Inquirer)
There is no need for Congress to convene in a joint session to deliberate the validity of President Rodrigo Duterte’s proclamation of martial law in Mindanao, the chief executive’s lawyer said on Tuesday.
Presidential Chief Legal Counsel Salvador Panelo said the petitioners in the Supreme Court “apparently have misread the provision of the Constitution.”
“The Constitution cannot be clearer. Congress is only required to convene and vote jointly on the proclamation of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus if it intends to revoke such proclamation and suspension,” Panelo said in a statement.
“It might be unknown to the petitioners, but the majority of both houses of Congress have already publicly expressed their support [for] the President’s swift and decisive initiative to address the then deteriorating situation in Mindanao,” he added.
On Tuesday, constitutionalist Christian Monsod, former senator Rene Saguisag, former partylist lawmaker Loretta Ann Rosales, Senator Leila De Lima, former PhilHealth Director Alexander Padilla and law Professor Rene Gorospe sought the intervention of the high court to compel both House of Representatives and the Senate to convene in a joint session and deliberate Duterte’s martial law decree.
Article continues after this advertisementThe President declared martial law on May 23 after Islamic State-led Maute terrorists attacked Marawi City.
Article continues after this advertisementOn May 25, Duterte submitted his report to Congress on martial law to comply with the 48-hour rule after its declaration.
On May 31, the Senate adopted Resolution 388 while the House of Representatives approved House Resolution 1050 supporting the declaration of martial law.
“Since both houses of Congress have effectively voted to support the proclamation of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, there is therefore no reason for it to convene to vote to support or revoke Proclamation No. 216,” Panelo said.
Congress, however, may still jointly convene and vote on the extension of the effectivity of Proclamation No. 216, he said.
“Pursuant to the Constitution, Proclamation No. 216 shall be effective only for a period of 60 days. However, upon the initiative of the President, Congress may extend Proclamation No. 216 if the rebellion persists and public safety requires it,” he said.
