SC dissent: Martial law only proper in Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu

MANILA, Philippines — Three Supreme Court justices voted to partially grant the petitions to declare the proclamation of martial law in Mindanao as invalid.

Voting 11-3-1, the SC en banc ruled to uphold the constitutionality of Proclamation 216 or martial law in Mindanao.

Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa said that the declaration of martial law should be limited in scope and should not have covered the entire Mindanao.

The three justices, however, voted that the president had sufficient factual basis for the issuance of the proclamation as it covers Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao and Sulu.

In her dissenting opinion, Sereno noted that the military said that there are places in Mindanao where the Maute group will never gain a foothold.

"If this is so, why declare martial law over the whole of Mindanao?" Sereno said.

The Chief Justice listed the incidents alleged by Armed Forces of the Philippines chief Gen. Eduardo Año to have been orchestrated by the Abu Sayyaf Group, Maute group and Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters that threaten the peace in the region.

READ: Rebellion justified martial law – SC

She noted that all incidents are acts of lawless violence directed against either civilians or government forces and caused disturbance of peace in the areas where they were committed.

The validity of the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, however, does not vest Duterte and his officials with "unhampered direction to wield his powers."

"Their actions must meet legal standards even in a martial law setting," Sereno said.

Sereno concluded that Duterte, in the exercise of his commander-in-chief powers, does not have unbridled discretion as to when, where and how martial law is to be declared as set forth in the Constitution.

"There are clear legal standards dictating what he can and cannot do. The Court, as the vanguard of the rule of law, must see to it that the rule of law is upheld," Sereno said.

In a separate dissenting opinion, Caguioa noted that there has been no showing of specific reasons for the necessity to declare martial law over the entire Mindanao.

"Extending martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ even to contiguous or adjacent areas cannot be done without a showing of actual rebellion in those areas or a demonstration that they are so inextricably connected to the actual rebellion that martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ are necessary to ensure public safety in such places," Caguioa said.

Caguioa concurred with the recommendations of Sereno that the martial law declaration can be justified only in Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao and Sulu.

On the other hand, Carpio cited Duterte's statement that he declared a Mindanao-wide martial law to prevent a "spillover."

"This only confirms that there is no actual rebellion outside of Marawi City. However, the President feared a 'spillover' to other areas in Mindanao because 'it is easy to escape' from Marawi City 'because there is no division in terms of land,'" Carpio said.

Duterte declared martial law and suspended the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao on May 23 following a clash between government forces and ISIS-inspired local terror groups.

After more than six weeks of fighting, only four out of 96 barangays in Marawi City remain problematic for the military.

The AFP expressed its appreciation over the ruling of the SC and said that they will take the decision as a vote of confidence to continue their operations in Marawi.

RELATED: AFP: SC ruling on martial law a vote of confidence