Scope of martial law questioned

Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonen on Tuesday warned that the government might be falling for the propaganda campaign of terrorists by employing the “hardest, harshest solution” to terrorism, such as the imposition of martial law.

Leonen raised this caution as the Supreme Court opened the three-day oral arguments on the three petitions questioning the legality of President Duterte’s martial law proclamation and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao.

Mr. Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216, which he said “would not be different” from what the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos imposed in 1972, after members of the Maute terror group occupied Marawi City on May 23.

The petitioners, led by Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, insisted that Mr. Duterte’s order did not have sufficient factual basis and violated Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, which authorizes the President to declare martial law “in case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.”

Leonen, who once served as the government’s chief negotiator in peace talks with Moro secessionist rebels, asked lawyer Marlon Manuel, who represented a group of women from Marawi, if all the other provinces in Mindanao were also under threat from the Islamic State (IS)-inspired Maute group.

Manuel said he agreed with Leonen that most parts of Mindanao were actually peaceful and that the area covered by martial law was “definitely not reasonable” and “too expansive.”

“Just because we see gory details on television, just because atrocities can be committed by barbaric individuals, it does not necessarily mean that we should impose the hardest, harshest solution,” Leonen told the open court proceedings.

“If we do that, then we are playing into the hands of modern-day terrorists who use social media and want to elevate themselves to a stature that the world can see through the social media and [mainstream] media,” he said.

Last resort

Manuel argued that the terror acts committed by the Maute group were not tantamount to rebellion as defined under the law, pointing out that the 30-year-old Charter was actually an “antimartial law document” that was crafted to avoid a repeat of a dictatorial regime.

“In the context of the 1987 Constitution, martial law cannot be a precaution. It’s a means of last resort. It cannot be a psychological strategy to instill fear. It has to address a specific situation,” the lawyer said.

“We do not intend to dilute the violence and terror that exists in Marawi or the gallant sacrifices of our soldiers and police officers,” Manuel said.

“We assert, however, that military [power] can be exercised without the imposition of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus,” he added.

Grilled by Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo, Lagman said Mr. Duterte’s order was “ill-conceived” and that it was based on “false, inaccurate, wanting and flawed” incidents that the President used to justify the imposition of military rule.

For one, the lawmaker said Mr. Duterte’s claim that the terrorists took over a private hospital, burned down two schools and beheaded a local town police chief turned out to be erroneous.

Del Castillo asked Lagman if he and the other petitioners had been to Marawi for them to claim that the atrocities perpetrated by the Maute group could not be considered rebellion.

Lagman replied, “The petitioners need not be in Marawi City before, during and after the proclamation because the assessment and review [of the situation] is the presidential proclamation itself.”

 

Safeguards

Del Castillo said he also could not understand why the petitioners were worried when the Constitution had put in place safeguards against government abuses like what happened during the Marcos regime.

But Lagman said the deaths of dozens of civilians and state forces actually happened after Mr. Duterte issued the martial law proclamation, which, he stressed, should not “in any way validate the continuance of martial law.”

“The Armed Forces has the capability to suppress this terrorism in Marawi without the President imposing martial law,” Lagman said.

Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro said terror groups had been sowing violence not just to kill people, but to promote their political agenda.

Solicitor General Jose Calida defended the President’s decision, saying the Maute group’s violent acts constituted a crime of rebellion.

“Who would believe that what is happening now in Marawi is not rebellion? All the elements of rebellion are there,” Calida said before the start of the five-hour proceedings.

“The IS-inspired local rebel groups have taken up arms against the Philippine government for the purpose of removing Mindanao from its allegiance and of depriving the Chief Executive of his prerogatives therein,” he said.

Sen. JV Ejercito on Tuesday said that the Senate would request another round of briefing from defense and security officials before they met in a joint session to decide whether there was a need to extend beyond 60 days the imposition of martial law in Mindanao.

Ejercito said the briefing, initiated by the Senate leadership, would help lawmakers have a better assessment of the situation in Marawi.

“Before we decide on the extension of martial law in a joint session, at least we know the situation,” he said.

An extension is possible, he said, if the military has not gained full control of the predominantly Muslim city.  Mr. Duterte’s proclamation is limited to 60 days.

“We will see after 60 days and if the situation has not yet improved we will assess. But personally, I would want another briefing from security officials so we know the real situation in case we need to extend or we need to revoke it because they can already handle the situation there,” Ejercito said.

Abdication

But Sen. Francis Escudero said it would be presumptuous and an abdication of Congress’ powers and prerogatives for any of its members to volunteer an extension ahead of Mr. Duterte’s decision.

“Under the Constitution, it is only the President who can ask for an extension of martial law and Congress should approve it,” Escudero said in a statement.

“It is only the President who is in possession of intelligence information that, if at all, would necessitate such an extension,” he added.

Escudero also maintained that the fighting in Marawi was the “best proof” of the gravity of the situation, contrary to the position taken by critics of the proclamation.

“What is happening in Marawi ‘falls on all fours’ with the definition of rebellion under the Revised Penal Code,” he said.

“While it is now called or branded as ‘terrorism’ mostly by [the] media given that it is the current international norm in relation to similar incidents, it does not change the fact that it complies with all the elements of rebellion under [the law] and the Constitution when the word terrorism was not yet coined,” he said. —WITH A REPORT FROM JOCELYN R. UY