Filtered By: Topstories
News

SolGen: SC lacks authority to direct Congress to hold joint session over martial law declaration


Solicitor General Jose Calida on Tuesday said the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to compel the Senate and House of Representatives to to convene in a joint session by virtue of the principle of separation of powers.

"It is clear that under the separation of powers, 'courts may not intervene in the internal affairs of the legislature; it is not within the province of courts to direct Congress how to do its work,'" Calida said in his comment.

"Therefore, in the event that this Honorable Court takes cognizance of the instant petitions and eventually directs the Congress to convene jointly, such is a clear violation of the principle of separation of powers," he added.

Also in his comment, Calida asked the high court to dismiss the consolidated petitions urging for a joint session of Congress to tackle President Rodrigo Duterte's imposition of martial law in Mindanao aimed at crushing terrorist groups.

Representing Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III and Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, Calida said Section 18 Article VII of the 1987 Constitution does not impose a duty upon Congress to convene in joint session to determine the validity of the declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

"Nowhere does it state in Section 18 of Article VII of the Constitution that a joint session is an automatic and mandatory duty. In fact, the words 'joint session' did not appear at all," Calida said.

"The Constitution only provides for the conduct of 'voting jointly' and only for the purpose of revoking or extending the proclamation or suspension," he added.

Calida said had the members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission wanted Congress to conduct a joint legislative review of the proclamation and suspension of the writ, the "constitutional provisions would have explicitly stated so."

He cited the exchange between ConCom members Christian Monsod and Fr. Joaquin Bernas, who said the framers "should make it a little more easy for Congress to reverse such actions [martial law and suspension of the writ] for the sake of protecting the rights of the people."

"[I]t is clear from the intent of the framers of the Constitution that the requirement of 'voting jointly' is only applicable in case Congress intends to revoke or reverse the proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus," Calida said.

"To be sure, arguing that there is a need for both Houses of Congress to convene jointly for purposes of 'approving,' 'ratifying' or 'concurring with' the proclamation or suspension would simply introduce a requirement that was precisely and deliberately removed by the framers of our Constitution."

Separate resolutions

While insisting there is no requirement for Congress to affirm or concur with the President's declaration, Calida said both houses of Congress still issued separate resolutions expressing their support for Duterte’s proclamation and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

Senate Resolution No. 49 was adopted on May 30 while House Resolution No. 1050 was concurred by a majority of the members of the House of Representatives on May 31.

"Both houses also have no intention of revoking the president’s proclamation. In fact, resolutions calling for joint session by Congress introduced in both Houses were not adopted due to the lack of votes in the Senate and the House of Representatives," Calida said.

"Considering that the proposal to convene in joint session was not adopted by both Houses, it is clear that there was no intention to revoke the President’s proclamation and thus, there was no need for Congress to vote jointly."

The comment was submitted in response to the petitions filed separately by the group of Senator Leila De Lima, former Philippine Health Insurance Corp. president Alexander Padilla and from Catholic Church officials led by Manila auxiliary bishop Broderick Pabillo; former Sen. Wigberto “Bobby” Tañada; and student groups.

Both petitions said a joint session of Congress to review a declaration of martial law by the President is mandatory under the 1987 Constitution.

They also said that failure to convene a joint session deprives lawmakers of the chance to scrutinize the declaration and the public of transparent proceedings within which to be informed of the factual bases of Duterte's action.

The SC is also looking into consolidated petitions seeking to invalidate the martial law declaration on the ground of lack of factual basis.

A decision on the matter is expected to come out on or before July 5 in compliance with the constitutional provision that mandates the high court to resolve a petition questioning the factual basis of martial law within 30 days. — RSJ/KVD, GMA News

LOADING CONTENT