SC upholds validity of martial law in Mindanao

(Updated, 1:25 p.m.) The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the validity of Proclamation 216 or President Rodrigo Duterte’s martial law proclamation in Mindanao.

During Tuesday’s en banc (full court) session, the high court, voting 11-3-1, dismissed the petitions filed by House of Representatives’ minority bloc, residents of Mindanao and women from Marawi.

“The Court dismissed the petitions by a vote of 11 of its members,” the high court said.

Eleven Justices affirmed the martial law proclamation in the entire Mindanao while the three–Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa–wants martial law confined in Marawi. Associate Justice Marvic Leonen was the lone dissenter.

The Philippine flag at the Supreme Court flies at half-mast as tribute to the troiops killed in Marawi City.  MARIANNE BERMUDEZ / INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

The decision was issued on the 43rd day of the declaration of martial law. Duterte on May 23 placed the entire Mindanao under martial law following the attack of the Islamic State-inspired Maute group. The battle between government forces and the extremists continues with more than 400 dead and thousands displaced.

High Court’s Information Chief Atty. Theodore Te said all the 15 justices have submitted their respective opinion on the matter whether concurring or dissenting.

BACKSTORY: Duterte declares martial law in South

The President earlier said he would adhere to the decision of the SC on his proclamation.

The first of the three petitions against martial law was filed last June 5 by the minority bloc from the House of Representatives led by Albay Representative Edcel Lagman followed days later by similar pleas filed by a group led by Lumad leader Eufemia Campos Cullamat and the group of women from Marawi led by Norkaya Mohamad.

Petitioners argued that the President’s declaration lacked sufficient factual basis and that the conditions which are the aftermath of the declaration or suspension cannot be used to justify an errant declaration or suspension which is bereft of sufficient factual basis.

The high court’s ruling was the second time to address martial law petitions under the 1987 Constitution.

The last time the high court has taken such a contentious issue was in 2012 when it dismissed the seven petitions questioning the legality of the martial law proclamation of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in 2009.

The high court dismissed the petitions not on any constitutional issue raised by the petitioners but on the ground of being moot and academic.IDL

BACKSTORY: Duterte: I’ll follow any SC ruling on martial law