NUPL, Bayan question legality of Mindanao martial law extension at SC
Another petition challenging the legality of President Rodrigo Duterte’s martial law extension in Mindanao has been filed with the Supreme Court (SC) on Monday.
In filing the petition, human rights advocates and militant groups such as the National Union of Peoples Lawyers (NUPL) and Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) asserted that the extension of martial law in Mindanao lacks the factual basis required by the Constitution.
“This is a violation of the Constitution which only allows the imposition of martial law when there is actual rebellion and when the operations of civilian government are substantially impaired that public safety should be preserved,” said NUPL Chairman Neri Colmenares.
“The government is functioning in Davao City and the entire country, so why replace it with martial rule?” he also asked.
Besides, the petitioners said the government already declared that siege in Marawi City is already over.
They likewise pointed out that the rehabilitation of Marawi City as well as the total eradication of rebels could not be valid grounds for martial law under the Constitution.
“Allowing these dangerously vague grounds will pave the way for President Rodrigo Duterte’s imposition of martial law in the entire county since he can claim that there are rebels even in Metro Manila. We will have a “24/7 convenience store martial law” that is imposed at all hours every day of the week in the entire country. This cannot be allowed,” Colmenares added.
The groups believed that martial law is actually more a threat against dissenters and activists than armed rebels.
“The real targets here are ordinary activists and dissenters who are critical of President Duterte’s human rights record and anti-people policies such as people’s organizations, the church, media and independent government bodies. The massive human rights violations in Mindanao will be extended with the extension of martial law,” NUPL Secretary General Ephraim Cortez said.
The petitioners urged the high court to conduct an “open, inclusive, thorough judicial determination of the sufficiency of the factual basis for such extension.”
They also wanted to know why the extension is longer than the original declaration when the fighting was still ongoing.
“Is it not strange that the second extension is set for a period that is much longer than the period when fighting was still ongoing, there being no fighting in Marawi now? What are the parameters for setting the time frame? What would be the parameters for the possible earlier lifting of martial law? How will the AFP (Armed Forces of the Philippines) gauge their success?” the groups asked.
“Or is this arbitrary or subjective and left entirely to the absolute discretion beyond the pale of legislative query or judicial review? Is Martial Law intended to quell a rebellion or is it just intended to restore public order and make government function again?”
“If there are no parameters, then Martial Law can exist until there are rebels in Mindanao, even if such rebels do not pose a threat to public safety. These are nagging questions begging for satisfactory constitutional and factual answers,” the petitioners further stated.
The groups pleaded the SC to issue a restraining order against the implementation of the martial law extension in Mindanao.
Earlier, the minority bloc from Congress led by Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman filed a similar petition before the SC. /kga
