Headlines

Mindanao martial law: Similar petitions, slightly different SC

January 29, 2019 | 7:30am

Mindanao martial law: Similar petitions, slightly different SC

President Rodrigo Duterte expresses his high praises to the troops of the 1st Infantry Battalion (1IB) who were preparing to leave at the Laguindingan Airport in Cagayan de Oro City on October 20, 2017. The 1IB were among the first units deployed in Marawi City when the battle against the terrorists broke out.

Presidential Photographers Division / Ace Morandante, file

MANILA, Philippines — President Rodrigo Duterte’s basis for placing Mindanao under martial law will undergo scrutiny by the Supreme Court for the third time on Tuesday.

There are four petitions filed against the government’s martial law extension: From members of the House of Representatives’ “Magnificent Seven” and Makabayan blocs, human rights lawyers led by Christian Monsod, and Mindanao residents represented by the Free Legal Assistance Group.

The SC set the oral arguments on the petitions on January 29 and 30. The fourth petition—filed by Mindanawons—was not consolidated with the earlier filed petitions, the latest advisory from the SC showed.

The SC has ruled on Duterte’s martial law twice: In 2017, when three petitioners challenged the constitutionality and factual basis of Proclamation No. 216 that placed Mindanao under martial law for 60 days, and in 2018, when the government pushed for a year-long extension.

Both times, the SC backed the constitutionality of martial law in Mindanao.

Duterte asked Congress for another year-long extension in late 2018—it was swiftly granted—and four petitioners ran to the SC to stop it.

Here is a look at how previous petitions against martial law in Mindanao fared at the SC:

2017

Duterte first placed Mindanao under martial law through Proclamation No. 216, which was issued in response to clashes in Marawi City between government forces enforcing the arrest of Abu Sayyaf leader Isnilon Hapilon.

Three groups of petitioners—from the “Magnificent Seven,” residents of Marawi City and human rights groups—argued that Proclamation No. 216 lacked factual basis for the justifications set in the Constitution: “In case of invasion or rebellion, when public safety requires it.”

Part of the petition of the Magnificent Seven, led by Rep. Edcel Lagman (Albay), read: “Consequently, the alleged ‘siege’ of Marawi City was actually an armed resistance by the Maute Group to shield Hapilon from capture, not to overrun Marawi and remove its allegiance from the Republic.”

The SC held three-day oral arguments on the consolidated petitions, and put the petitions to a vote on July 4, 2017 en banc session.

Eleven justices voted to dismiss the petition as they held that: “The Court finds sufficient factual bases for the issuance of Proclamation No. 216 and declares it as constitutional. Accordingly, the consolidated petitions are hereby dismissed.

Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo wrote the main decision.

The voting was as follows:

Concur: Proclamation No. 216 is constitutional, has factual basis

Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo (ponente, wrote main decision)
Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco, Jr. (retired)
Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro (retired)
Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta
Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin
Associate Justice Jose Mendoza (retired)
Associate Justice Bienvenido Reyes (retired)
Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe
Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza (retired)
Associate Justice Samuel Martires (retired)
Associate Justice Noel Tijam (retired)

Partially grant: Martial law be limited in some areas

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno (since ousted through quo warranto petition)
Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio
Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa

Dissent: Proclamation No. 216 is unconstitutional

Associate Justice Marvic Leonen

2018

In October 2017, Duterte, in a rousing speech, declared the liberation of Marawi City after Abu Sayyaf leader Isnilon Hapilon and Maute terror group founder Omarkhayam Maute were killed by government forces.

Despite this, the president asked Congress to extend martial law to cover 2018—a “re-extension” that petitioners slammed as “inordinately long” and as being against the Constitution.

Lagman once again challenged the government’s move, saying the Constitution does not allow a “re-extension” of martial law based on the same proclamation.

Lawyers of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers also challenged the year-long extension.

They also argued before the SC that the military said that they are only fighting the "remnants" of the terrorist groups. They held that Mindanao need not be placed under martial law to "quell" the remaining forces.

Ten justices of the 15-member court voted to junk the petitions on Feb. 6, 2018. The tribunal held that Congress’ deliberation on the president’s request for the extension “is not subject to judicial review.”

It also explained: “The rebellion that spawned the Marawi incident persists. Public safety requires the extension, as shown by facts presented by the AFP.”

Concur: Uphold martial law extension

Associate Justice Noel Tijam (ponente, wrote main decision; since retired)
Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. (retired)
Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro (retired)
Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta
Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin
Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo
Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe
Associate Justice Samuel Martires (retired)
Associate Justice Andres Reyes Jr.
Associate Justice Alexander Gesmundo

Dissent: Declare martial law extension as unconstitutional

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno (ousted)
Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio
Associate Justice Marvic Leonen
Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza
Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa

2019

Three groups of petitioners challenge the Duterte administration’s third martial law extension before a full court led by Chief Justice Lucas Bersamin.

The groups include lawmakers who argued that incidents contained in Duterte’s letter to Congress that supposedly show rebellion do not endanger public safety. No detailed report to support the government’s ground of continuing rebellion in the region was also given to the members of the Congress.

READ: SC orders gov't, military: Submit 2018 reports on martial law

Human rights lawyers meanwhile pointed out that the Commission on Elections held barangay and sangguniang kabataang elections in May 2018, which proved that “the conditions or basis of martial law was no longer existing in Mindanao.”

READ: Calida insists rebellion exists in Mindanao

On Sunday, two bombs exploded at the Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Cathedral in Jolo, Sulu.

The Palace, which swiftly condemned the attack and vowed that the perpetrators would be shown no mercy, claimed Monday that the attack shows the need for martial law in Mindanao.

Panelo: Imagine how many bombings there would have been if there were no martial law there | @alexisbromero
— Philstar.com (@PhilstarNews) January 28, 2019

"Imagine how many bombings there would have been if there were no martial law there," lawyer and presidential spokesperson Salvador Panelo, who also said that there likely were security lapses that led to the bombings, said.

Earlier Monday, Director General Oscar Albayalde, PNP chief, said that security personnel may have become complacent because Sulu had been generally peaceful in recent years.

"Probably, because it has become normal here for so many years [and there have been] no incidents, seccurity might have become relxed. And at the same time, who would think that a church would be attacked," Albayalde said in Filipino and English in a Pilipino Star Ngayon report.

Last week, residents of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao put into a vote the landmark Bangsamoro Organic Law that was ratified on January 25.

The historic plebiscite voting, however, was followed by twin bombings in Jolo that claimed at least 20 lives and injured more than 80, law enforcement officiers and civilians alike.

For the oral arguments on Tuesday, Solicitor General Jose Calida would be presenting the government's side first before the petitioners make their case.

SC composition

While petitioners against martial law failed to receive a favorable ruling from the court in the past, they are arguing before a court with members who have yet to weigh in on Mindanao martial law.

Leonen, meanwhile, has maintained his stance that martial law is unconstitutional.

Carpio and Caguioa have also turned their partial dissent to full dissent in the voting on the martial law extension. The 2018 petition also saw Justice Jardeleza dissent against the martial law extension petition. He had previously been in the majority of concurring justices.

The four groups of petitioners will have two days, January 29 and 30, to make their arguments before the 15-member court composed of: