DND, AFP chiefs face Supreme Court on martial law

MANILA, Philippines -  Top martial law officials appeared before the Supreme Court (SC) yesterday to present what they called factual bases for President Duterte’s declaration of martial law in Mindanao.

Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, martial law administrator, and Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) chief of staff Gen. Eduardo Año, martial law implementor, faced the justices in internal or closed door session to
explain the justification for the proclamation.

In a press conference, SC spokesman Theodore Te confirmed the presentation of the two officials but declined to give details as these involved national security.

Te cited Rule 119, Section 21 of the Rules of Court that allows the SC to decline sharing with the public any information that may be detrimental or prejudicial to national security.

He said it was not the first time the high court held internal session to discuss issues, citing the Marcos vs Manglapus case involving the return of the remains of the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos to the country from Hawaii.

“After the presentation was made, the justices continued with the interpellation of the parties. After satisfying itself with the answers, the Court decided to conclude the oral arguments,” he said.

The justices continued interpellation on Solicitor General Jose Calida and Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, who represented the respondents and petitioners, respectively, during the closed-door session.

In an ambush interview, Calida said Lorenzana and Año presented intelligence information that bolstered the justification for Proclamation No. 216. He also did not give details.

“It was a Powerpoint presentation. Materials were given and they answered questions from the justices,” he bared.

Calida explained that they were able to prove that elements of rebellion – raising arms against the government and culpable purpose of removing allegiance from the government – were present in the Marawi crisis that required the President to use his power of declaring martial law under Article VII, Section 18 of the Constitution.

He said the officials were able to show that Maute and other rebel groups in Mindanao like the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters and Abu Sayyaf have established linkages to set up an Islamic state in Mindanao.

He also denied alleged human rights abuses raised by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Lanao del Sur chapter.

As earlier set, the parties were required to submit their memoranda on or before Monday, June 19, before the SC submits the case for resolution. 

This case involves three consolidated petitions filed by opposition lawmakers led by Lagman, local Mindanao leaders led by lumad leader Eufemia Campos Cullamat and a group of women from Marawi led by Norkaya Mohamad.

Two other petitions were filed by separate groups led by former senators Rene Saguisag and Wigberto Tañada, both seeking issuance of a mandamus that would compel the Senate and the House of Representatives to convene jointly to review the declaration.

Te said the SC has decided to require the Palace to answer these two other petitions, which were not consolidated with the first three.     

Misplaced concern

Chief presidential legal adviser Salvado Panelo, for his part, dismissed concerns raised by Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonen over martial law in Mindanao.

“The concern of the justice may be misplaced, and maybe the apprehension is based on the abuses committed by the previous martial law declared by the late president Marcos,” said Panelo.

“But that has been solved by the safeguards imposed by the Constitution to allay fears of any abuse. That’s precisely why the framers of the constitution provided certain safeguards, like that the period would only last 60 days,” he added.

Leonen, at last Wednesday’s hearing, expressed concerns over the scope of President Duterte’s martial law powers.

“It is not a question of whether or not the declaration of martial law would embolden the President, or any president for that matter. The question is whether or not the facts obtaining constitutionally required the declaration of martial law all over the Philippines,” Panelo said.

Panelo believes that placing the entire island of Mindanao under martial law is justified because the terrorists have presence in areas outside Marawi.

Citing military reports, Panelo said members of the Maute terrorist group were spread throughout Mindanao and, when assaulted, were likely to spread to other parts of the region.

“There is an actual rebellion. I cannot even understand why people may question that there is no such rebellion. There is an armed uprising, this is very clear... Just look at Marawi City now, it is a war-torn city,” he pointed out.

“The intention is to remove from the allegiance of the Philippine government certain territories, as well as to prevent the President from executing the powers of the office,” he added.

Panelo said Duterte was listening to the military in Mindanao, the “most competent and the most truthful source of information.”

He also pointed out intelligence information coming from the military should be “given the premium they deserve” and that no congressmen had actually visited Marawi City after the outbreak of hostilities.

Meanwhile, the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) said there is no legal basis for the participation of US troops in the campaign to liberate Marawi.

“The US Special Forces in Marawi provide battlefield awareness for Philippine commanders, allowing the US to influence military operations even at the tactical level,” Bayan secretary-general Renato Reyes said.

“It goes beyond ‘boots on the ground’ combat participation. The US is in a position to direct the entire combat operations in Marawi using their high-tech intelligence-gathering equipment and exclusive control of intelligence information,” Reyes added. –  Rhodina Villanueva, Janie Cameron