Calida defends Duterte: Defense advice not required to declare martial law

MANILA, Philippines — The absence of a recommendation for martial law from Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana is not a requirement for the president to declare it, Solicitor General Jose Calida argued.

 

The argument was among those included in his consolidated comment against petitioners questioning President Rodrigo Duterte's Proclamation No. 216, which placed Mindanao under martial law and suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus there.

 

Supreme Court oral arguments on the petitions are set this week.

 

The petitioners alleged that Duterte committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring martial law and questioned if there was even sufficient factual basis to make the proclamation.

 

LIVE: Oral arguments on Mindanao martial law

 

To answer petitioners, Calida highlighted a portion of Article 7, Section 18 of the Constitution:

 

"The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion."

 

He said the Constitution bestows the full authority to proclaim martial law upon the president "and no one else, and without need for the prior approval of any other public official, much less his alter ego."

 

Calida added that Duterte could also disregard the counsel of military officials as these "would merely be advisory."

 

He said that instead of the focus on the lack of recommendation by defense authorities, the question should be on whether the proclamation was founded on facts.

 

FACT CHECK: Inconsistencies in Duterte's martial law report

 

As president, Calida said, Duterte has access to a vast intelligence network. 

 

"As head of state and chief architect of foreign affairs, he is even expected to keep abreast of international developments, especially those affecting the country’s national security," the solicitor general said.

 

"He cannot close his eyes to the spread of ISIS worldwide, and the spate of attacks launched by its wide network of allied terrorist groups, such as the November 2015 attacks in Paris."

 

READ: Solgen to SC: Marawi siege meant to trigger uprisings

 

On the first day of the oral arguments on Tuesday, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman—House opposition leader and one of the petitioners—pointed out that the proclamation has no "factual anchorage."

 

He said the proclamation is not backed by facts that warrant the imposition of martial law to secure public safety and has no sufficient basis to prove the existence of rebellion—conditions required by the Constitution to allow the declaration of martial law.

 

Lagman detailed a timeline of military statements hours before martial law was declared that he said show that it was uncalled for.

 

 

A source who was part of Duterte's presidential entourage in Moscow also told The STAR that Duterte asked Gen. Eduardo Año, Armed Forces chief, for an update on the Marawi siege. The military official assured the president at that time that the situation was under control.

 

Despite this, Duterte still issued the proclamation.

 

Under the Constitution, Congress can, in joint session, review and revoke the declaration of martial law. Congress leaders said that there was no need to do so since neither of the chambers had any intentions to revoke martial law. The House of Representatives and the Senate opted instead to pass resolutions of support.