MARTIAL LAW ORALS- Martial Law petitioners Cong. Edcel Lagman with former Rep. Neri Colmenares at the 1st day of the oral arguments at the Supreme Court against President Rodrigo Duterte’s declaration of Martial Law in Mindanao.
INQUIRER/ MARIANNE BERMUDEZ
Even with the presentation made by Defense Secretary and martial law administrator Delfin Lorenzana and Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Chief of Staff and martial law implementor Eduardo Año, Albay Representative Edcel Lagman — one of the anti-martial law petitioners — told the Supreme Court Tuesday that there is still not enough basis for the declaration of martial law.
In his supplemental motion submitted Tuesday, Lagman said the details mentioned by Lorenzana and Año during the internal session with the Supreme Court Justices was also mentioned by Solicitor General Jose Calida in his memorandum submitted to the high court Monday.
“The subject details referred to by the Solicitor-General in his Memorandum, albeit not supporting the sufficiency of the factual basis for the assailed declaration of martial law and suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, were not mentioned in Proclamation No. 216 and the President’s report to Congress,” Lagman told the high court.
READ: DND, AFP execs brief SC on rebellion
Calida, in his memorandum, told the high court that there are 20 other terrorist cells in Mindanao. He said the attack in Marawi is a signal for the other terror cells to launch an attack in the entire Mindanao.
But Lagman maintained that the principle, which rebellion is a continuing offense, is limited to the lawful arrest of a suspected rebel wherever he is found, even outside of the place where he committed rebellion.
“The import of this principle does not include a ‘creeping rebellion’ which may be considered to spread to other places without the commission of the acts of rebellion in such ‘other places’ other than presence of a rebel or rebels coming from elsewhere,” Lagman said.
He added that “it does not sustain the proposition that the rebel automatically carries with him the acts of rebellion he has committed elsewhere, unless he repeats the inculpatory acts in the new place where he is located or found.”
Currently, he pointed out that there are no other actual incidents of rebellion happening in some parts of Mindanao.
Lagman reiterated his call for the Supreme Court to nullify Proclamation 216 or Duterte’s martial law proclamation covering the entire Mindanao. JE