Charter set geographical restriction on martial law, says Sereno

Contrary to the belief of most of her colleagues on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno said the 1987 Constitution set a geographical restriction on President Duterte’s prerogative to put the country or any part of it under martial law.

In her 51-page dissenting opinion, the Philippines’ first female Chief Justice argued that “it is possible and feasible to define the territorial boundaries of martial law” under the 1987 Charter.

Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution states that the President “in case of invasion or rebellion, when public safety requires it … may place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.”

“The phraseology of the Constitution is purposive and directed … The phrase ‘when public safety requires it’ can only mean that the court must ask whether the powers being invoked is proportional to the state of the rebellion and corresponds with its place of occurrence,” Sereno said.

Additional powers

She stressed that the majority ruling penned by Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo failed to discuss the additional powers the President would acquire by imposing military rule and its effects on the people’s civil liberties.

Interestingly, Del Castillo  cautioned during  oral arguments in the court that Mr. Duterte’s decision might “embolden” him to implement martial law nationwide.

Sereno said  Mr. Duterte did not have “unbridled discretion as to when, where and how martial law is to be declared.”

“The Supreme Court, as the guardian of the Constitution, has the obligation to see to it that these parameters are complied with,” she said. “The court, as the vanguard of the rule of law, must see to it that the rule of law is upheld.”

She said that Mr. Duterte, who had repeatedly said he could end decades-old unrest in Mindanao with martial law, “cannot broaden its use to solve other social ills.”

“The danger of misusing martial law is related to the need to protect the military from returning to its misshapen role during the Marcos martial law (era),” she said.

No factual evidence

Sereno, along with Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, rejected this, pointing out that there was no factual evidence showing that the Maute-led rebellion was happening all over Mindanao.

She lamented that her colleagues “emaciated the power of judicial review by giving excessive leeway to the President.”

Sereno said the majority ruling only led to “the absurdity of martial law in places (that are) terrorism- and rebellion-free” like the provinces of Dinagat Islands and Camiguin.

While she agreed with Carpio that martial law must be imposed in Marawi, Sereno  said it should also cover the provinces of Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao and Sulu from where many of the supporters of the Maute group hailed.

“The military has said as much: there are places in Mindanao where the Mautes will never gain foothold. If this is so, why declare martial law over the whole of Mindanao?” said the Chief Justice.

“There is insufficient showing that the requirements of public safety necessitated the declaration of martial law over the entire Mindanao,” Caguioa said.