Petitioners: Duterte, Congress must be cautious in declaring martial law

MANILA, Philippines — Martial law petitioners said that President Rodrigo Duterte and the Congress should not be "trigger happy" in declaring martial law as human rights abuses may happen under such period.

Rep. Edcel Lagman (Albay) and six other opposition lawmakers, while "conceding" that human rights abuses cannot be used to nullify Duterte's year-long extension of martial law in Mindanao, said that Duterte and the Congress must be "extra cautious" in proclaiming the military rule.

"This is so because martial law and the suspension of the [privilege of the writ of habeas corpus] trigger the commission of human rights violations and suppression of civil liberties because the military and police establishments are emboldened to commit excesses detrimental to the people's civil and political rights," the 35-page memorandum filed by the martial law petitioners read.

Lagman, in the memorandum, raised that the military's claim that "not a single human rights violation has been reported" is belied by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Lanao del Sur chapter resolution.

In the said resolution dated June 9, 2017, the IBP detailed human rights abuses, privacy invasion and ransacking in residential and commercial establishments perpetrated allegedly by soldiers in Marawi City.

READ: IBP-Lanao del Sur condemns alleged illegal seizures

The Armed Forces of the Philippines, however, denied that its troops are involved in illegal looting of Marawi establishments and residents. They said that it was the Maute group who carried out the robbery.

The petitioners stressed that: "It is not a question of petitioners' alleged paranoia of martial law, but it is a matter of verifiable and documented experience that martial law and the suspension of the writ spawn human rights violations and transgression of civil liberties, despite the fact that the enforcement of such emergency powers does not suspend the operation of the Constitution like the provisions of the bill of rights."

Lagman joined three other group of petitioners challenging the factual basis of Duterte's extension of Proclamation No. 216 that placed Mindanao under martial law and suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the area.

Members of the National Union of Peoples' Lawyers, for their part, asked the SC to define "public safety" as it is the "most decisive element in the martial law powers of the President."

The petitioners sought the SC to ask the nullification of the year-long martial law extension.

Solicitor General Jose Calida, who defends the government in the case, asserted that terrorism and rebellion exist in Mindanao.

He said, in the memorandum he also filed on Wednesday: "Martial law as an option of the president exists precisely to address a rebellion that endangers public safety."