Christian Monsod (right), one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution with Paolo Santiago (left), executive director of the Ateneo Human Rights Center, and Marlon Manuel, national coordinator of the Alternative Law Groups. (Contributed photo)
Four women from Marawi joined the call for the Supreme Court to nullify Proclamation 216 declaring martial law over the whole of Mindanao.
Petitioners are Norkaya S. Mohamad, Sittie Nur Dyhanna S. Mohamad, Noraisah S. Sani, and Zahria P. Muti-Pandi.
Named respondents are Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, who is martial law administrator; acting Interior Secretary Catalino S. Cuy; Gen. Eduardo M. Año, Armed Forces chief who is also a martial law implementor; Director General Ronald de la Rosa, chief of the Philippine National Police; and Secretary Hermogenes Esperon Jr., national security adviser.
Petitioners told the high court that the report submitted by President Rodrigo Duterte to Congress did not contain sufficient basis to show that the Marawi seige could not be addressed by the other powers and resources of the government.
“Had governance collapsed in Marawi at the time of the Proclamation of martial law? Was the violence so widespread and overwhelming that government had broken down to the extent that only the military could establish a semblance of governance? If not, then martial law is not warranted,” petitioners said.
The petitioners are represented two lawyers – Christian Monsod, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, and Marlon Manuel, a law professor at the Ateneo de Manila University School of Law and national coordinator of the Alternative Law Groups (ALG).
The petitioners said that the conclusion of the martial law report – that the Maute Group had the intention of establishing an Islamic State and strip the President of his powers and prerogatives – was “bereft of substance.”
“Succinctly, there is no sufficient factual basis for the imposition of martial law or the suspension of the privilege,” the petitioners said.
“Or is the May 23, 2017 declaration an attempt to test the waters by chipping away at the strict safeguards against martial law, (including the Court’s power of judicial review of “sufficiency” if the public statements of the President and the Speaker of the House in that regard are to be believed), towards ultimately revising Section 18, Article VII to allow constitutional authoritarianism reminiscent of the Marcos years,” the petitioners asked.
They told the high court that they were already exhausted yet they are hopeful that the Supreme Court would perform its mandate, which would eventually lead to the nullification of Proclamation 216.
This is the fifth martial law related petition and the third petition asking that the high court lift the martial law in Mindanao. /atm