SC already ruled that rebellion exists in Mindanao, says Calida
The extension of martial law in Mindanao has already been justified as the Supreme Court (SC) already ruled that President Rodrigo Duterte had “sufficient factual bases” in issuing Proclamation No. 216, according to Solicitor General Jose Calida.
Calida argued that Congress only extended Duterte’s proclamation and that the SC had already ruled that the proclamation had sufficient factual basis to show that actual rebellion exists.
The SC had received four petitions, all of which sought to declare the extension as unconstitutional argued that there was “no actual rebellion” in Mindanao, Marawi had already been liberated and that the extension would only lead to human rights violations.
“In Lagman v. Medialdea and Padilla v. Congress, the Court held that “the President in issuing Proclamation No. 216, had sufficient factual bases tending to show that actual rebellion exists,” Calida said in his 63-page petition filed at the SC on Saturday.
“The rulings in Lagman and Padilla should have laid to rest the issue of whether rebellion exists in Mindanao,” the solicitor general stressed.
In its 82-page landmark decision, the SC said the parameters for Duterte’s declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao “have been properly and fully compiled with.”
“Proclamation No. 216 has sufficient factual basis there being probable cause to believe that rebellion exists and that public safety requires the martial law declaration and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus,” the decision read.
Calida argued that contesting the issue of whether or not there was actual rebellion “sets a bad precedent for endless suits and runs counter to the principle of judicial economy.”
“Inasmuch as the Court already ruled in Lagman and Padilla that the President had sufficient factual basis to show that actual rebellion does exist in Mindanao, such issue can no longer be raised in the present Petition,” he said.
Moreover, in a separate statement, Calida explained that the proclamation of martial law was “entirely different” from the act of extending it.
“The declaration of martial law is an act of the President. The extension, on the other hand, is the prerogative of the Congress,” Calida said.
“It follows that the judicial review of the proclamation of martial law is different from judicial review of the extension,” he said.
The SC has consolidated the four petitions against the extension and scheduled the at the En Banc Session Hall on Jan. 16 at 2:00 p.m. and Jan. 17 at 10:00 a.m.
The first petition was filed by the minority bloc from Congress, while the second petition was filed by human rights advocates. The third petition was filed by former Commission on Human Rights Chair Loretta Ann Rosales. The fourth petition was filed by a group led by Christian Monsod, a former Commission on Elections (Comelec) chairman and one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution . /atm
Subscribe to INQUIRER PLUS to get access to The Philippine Daily Inquirer & other 70+ titles, share up to 5 gadgets, listen to the news, download as early as 4am & share articles on social media. Call 896 6000.