SC urged to nullify one-year Mindanao martial law extension

Opposition lawmakers on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to nullify the one-year extension of martial law in Mindanao that was requested by President Rodrigo Duterte and overwhelmingly approved by Congress.

Led by Albay Representative Edcel Lagman, the petition called on the high court to issue a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction to stop the implementation of the extension of martial law and of the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao, effective January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018.

The other petitioners are Caloocan Representative Edgar Erice, Ifugao Representative Teddy Baguilat Jr., Capiz Representative Emmanuel Billones, Magdalo party-list Representative Gary Alejano, and Akbayan party-list Representative Tomasito Villarin.

Saying there is no sufficient factual basis for the extension, the petitioners argued there is no actual rebellion in Mindanao and that threats of violence and terrorism by remnants of terrorist groups do not constitute a constitutional basis for extension because “imminent danger” has been deleted as a ground for imposing martial law under the 1987 Constitution.

The petition also said Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III and Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, supported by the supermajority in both chambers of Congress, "unduly constricted the period of deliberation and interpellation on the subject extension so much so that the President’s request for extension was approved baselessly and with inordinate haste."

"The supermajority sacrificed the Constitution at the altar of presidential importuning. The rampage of the supermajority ruled the day with grave abuse of discretion and inordinate alacrity. In gutter parlance, it was a swift and wanton action 'without thinking,'" the petitioners said.

The petitioners added the Constitution does not allow a series of extensions of a martial law proclamation, which may lead to “extensions in perpetuity."

"Unlike in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions when the respective durations of martial law and the suspension of the writ were limitless, the 1987 Constitution mandates that the period of martial law and suspension of the writ shall not exceed 60 days," the petition stated.

"It stands to reason that any authorized extension must be similarly limited in duration. For how can a mere extension be inordinately longer than the original proclamation sought to be extended?" it added.

Without extending martial law in Mindanao, the President has the constitutional power as commander-in-chief to call out all the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion in Mindanao, according to the petitioners.

The petitioners also asked the SC to accord judicial notice to the joint approval by both houses of the Congress of the extension because the copy of the enrolled joint resolution was not immediately available.

Named respondents are Pimentel, Alvarez, Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno and Armed Forces chief General Rey Leonardo Guerrero.

On May 23, Duterte placed the entire island of Mindanao under martial law after the ISIS-inspired Maute group attacked Marawi City in an alleged attempt to secede Mindanao from the republic and to deprive the President of his powers and prerogatives.

The initial declaration was supposed to end after 60 days, but Congress, in a joint session on July 22, approved Duterte's request to extend it until December 31.

In October, Duterte declared Marawi free from terrorists following the killings of terror leaders Isnilon Hapilon and Omar Maute.

Duterte, however, saw the need to extend the martial rule for another year following the military and police’s assessment pointing to continuing terrorist recruitment, increasing violence from the communist rebels and the rehabilitation of Marawi.

Congress approved Duterte's request on December 13.

Under the Constitution, any citizen may challenge the proclamation before the high court on the ground of lack of sufficient factual basis.

The SC has 30 days from the filing of the petition to issue a ruling. —KBK, GMA News