Martial law petitioners: SC decision will embolden Duterte to 'flout' rule of law

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court's upholding of the year-long extension of martial law in Mindanao will only embolden President Rodrigo Duterte in "flouting the rule of law," one of the petitioners said.

Rep. Edcel Lagman (Albay), opposition lawmaker and petitioner in the case, said the majority of the Supreme Court justices "can be supreme even in their error."

The petitioners—composed of opposition lawmakers, human rights lawyers and constitutionalist Christian Monsod—asked the SC to declare the martial law extension as null as they argued that rebellion does not exist in Mindanao.

They sought the SC asking it to enact its duty to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the martial law extension.

But the SC, on Tuesday, voted 10-5 to junk the petitions.

SC spokesperson Theodore Te, in a briefing, said: "The court finds sufficient factual basis for the issuance of resolutions of both houses and finds it constitutional."

But Lagman argued: "When the majority of the justices of the SC fall in cadence with the president and the Congress in violating the Constitution, then the country is abandoned in the quagmire of tripartite derogation of the people's civil liberties."

'Human rights violations follow martial law'

Edre Olalia, one of the petitioners, said that "the majority of the court gifted the executive, especially its martial rules, the legislative underserved full faith and confidence in the claim of the supposed factual basis and that its reason for being persists."

"When there is martial law, human rights violations follow as a matter of course. An ounce of prevention against repetition is better than a pound of cure for a violation. Now the President's judgment is practically absolute and we are none the safer," he added.

But the SC, in weighing in on the case, noted that "there are legal remedies for violation of human rights."

"The claims of violation of human rights are speculative and lack a nexus between the exercise of martial law powers and their apprehension of such violations," the SC added.

Meanwhile, Solicitor General Jose Calida hailed the SC decision as a "legal victory" that would "help not only the Armed Forces, but also other stakeholders, in putting an end to the ongoing strife, and in restoring public order, safety, and stability in Mindanao."

"To this day, the rebellion continues, impeding on the daily lives of our fellow Filipinos, and threatening our country's sovereignty and territorial integrity," Calida added.

Calida represented the government in the two-day oral arguments on the case held in January.

He maintained that rebellion could not be quelled in just 60 days. 

"Anyone who doubts the necessity of the extension should visit the various strongholds of the rebellious groups scattered all over Mindanao and see for himself their awesome armaments and the cadres of combatants whose avowed missions are to overthrow the government or to carve out provinces away from the sovereignty of the Philippines," Calida earlier said.

In the decision of the SC, it held that the "manner of Congress' deliberation with respect to the president's request for extension of martial law in Mindanao for one year is not subject to judicial review."

The SC also said that the two houses of Congress have the "full discretionary authority" to promulgate its own rules, and the said power is exempt from judicial review and interference "except on a clear showing of such arbitrary and improvident use of the power such as would constitute a denial of due process."

A copy of the decision and the separate concurring and dissenting opinions were yet to be released in public by the SC.