3 motions ask SC to reverse decision affirming Duterte’s martial law
Update
The Supreme Court has reneged its constitutional mandate if it will take “hook, line and sinker” the factual basis used by President Rodrigo Duterte in issuing Proclamation 216 declaring martial law in the entire Mindanao.
In three separate motions for reconsideration filed on Friday, all petitioners sought a reversal of the high court’s July 4, 2017 decision affirming Duterte’s martial law proclamation.
The high court, in its ruling, said it relied only on the same facts presented to the President that led to the proclamation.
Defense Secretary and martial law administrator Delfin Lorenzana briefed the high court justices on the situation in Marawi which is currently under attack by the Maute terror group.
The high court, in its ruling, explained that it was the President’s prerogative to determine the scope of the martial law considering he has access to various intelligence information, unlike the Supreme Court or the legislative branch of government.
“Indeed, this Honorable Court may say that it does not have the intelligence network that the President has in getting his information. But certainly, this Honorable Court is not powerless to subpoena the same sources of intelligence reports of the president and satisfy itself of the sufficiency of the factual basis,” one of the three motions said.
“It cannot merely rely on the alleged facts narrated by the President in the Proclamation itself and in the report submitted to Congress. For this Honorable Court to merely rely on the said ‘facts’ presented and taking them ‘hook, line and sinker’ simply means that this Honorable Court has reneged on its constitutional duty to determine the sufficiency of the factual basis,” petitioners Norkaya Mohamad and the other women from Marawi said in their motion.
The minority bloc from Congress, led by Albay Representative Edcel Lagman, in their separate motion for reconsideration, said that for the Supreme Court to say it does not have the competence or logistical machinery compared to the President “is an ominous prelude to an abandonment of its power of judicial review.”
Lagman pointed out that when the framers of the Constitution gave the Supreme Court the power to review the factual basis in declaring martial law, they were fully aware of the “presidential superiority” that is prone to abuse.
“Verily, citing the Honorable Court’s lack of ‘competence’ and ‘logistical machinery,’ compared to the President, to access and validate intelligence reports as bases for the President’s exercise of extreme emergency powers, is a virtual forfeiture of the special power of judicial review granted to it by the Constitution,” Lagman said adding that such a defeatist stance was not only a failure to sanction the President’s actions but also failure to protect the rights of the public.
Other petitioners, Eufemia Campos Cullamat and other Mindanao residents represented by the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL), insisted that the Supreme Court, under Section 18 Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, was allowed to conduct an investigation on the factual basis in declaring martial law.
Petitioners pointed out that it was one of the safeguards put in place by the framers “as a safeguard to the repeat of the sham imposition of martial law by then President Marcos.”
“Petitioners assert that this Honorable Court is competent and capable of conducting such investigation,” NUPL said, adding that if the high court is not competent in analyzing the factual basis, then “the Constitution would not have given the Supreme Court the duty to look into the factual basis of the declaration of martial law.”
While it is true that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, petitioners pointed out that the high court itself recognized that a review of factual basis in the declaration of martial law was a “sui generis” (a class of its own kind) proceeding, it can then devise a type of proceeding to review the factual basis.
“There is no rule or constitutional edict that limits the proceedings to be devised by this court. The Constitution only requires the Court to ensure that the proceedings is ‘appropriate’ to its objective and function to review the sufficiency of facts used as basis for the imposition of martial law and use the rules on evidence in determining such factual basis,” NUPL said.
The minority bloc’s motion for reconsideration added that the Supreme Court has not fully utilized its fact-finding jurisdiction in reviewing Duterte’s martial law proclamation.
Lagman and his co-petitioners maintained that there was no actual rebellion in Marawi City and the rest of Mindanao when the President declared martial law and suspended the writ of habeas corpus on May 23, 2017, and what was occurring in Marawi then was lawless violence amounting to terrorism.
Under the Constitution, the declaration of martial law or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is based solely on actual rebellion or invasion when the public safety requires it.
Lagman told the High Court that the “appalling escalation of deaths of soldiers and terrorists, including innocent civilians; massive destruction of both public and private properties; and the widespread displacement of residents, many of whom have died in cramped and unsanitary makeshift evacuation centers, are the horrific aftermath of the declaration of martial law, which were not the prevailing conditions at the time Proclamation No. 216 was issued on May 23, 2017.”
“This tragic aftermath could have been avoided had martial law not been declared. The improvident and unconstitutional imposition gave the military and police forces the go-signal to inordinately intensify their air strikes and land assaults which resulted to the wanton devastation of Marawi City and a looming humanitarian crisis”, Lagman added.
