SC sets oral arguments on petitions vs. one-year Mindanao martial law extension

The Supreme Court (SC) will hold oral arguments next week on the consolidated petitions seeking to nullify the one-year extension of martial law in Mindanao.

Slated for January 16 and 17, the oral arguments will tackle the petitions separately filed by six opposition congressmen led by Albay Representative Edcel Lagman and human rights lawyers and militant lawmakers including Bayan Muna Representative Carlos Zarate and Gabriela partylist Representative Emmie De Jesus.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) is expected to represent the respondents led by President Rodrigo Duterte in the hearings.

SC spokesperson Theodore Te said the Court also ordered the OSG to submit its comment to the second petition not later than 5 p.m. of January 13 with the comment to be personally served on counsel for the petitioners.

The parties are directed to submit their respective memorandum not later than 5 p.m. of January 20.

In their petition, the six opposition congressmen argued that 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.

They also accused Malacañang’s allies in Congress of approving the one-year extension with “inordinate haste” on December 13, roughly three weeks before the December 31 expiration of the six-month extension of the May 23 proclamation that placed the whole of Mindanao under martial rule following attacks by ISIS-inspired Maute group in Marawi City. 

The second petition, meanwhile, said the extension would give way to “alarmingly intensified and increased human rights violations” allegedly aimed at “quelling legitimate redress of grievances against the government.”

It also said the martial rule was extended despite government admission that the Marawi siege is over in October last year.

“Hence, by the government’s own admission, there actually exists no factual nor legal basis to support the extension of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao – for a longer period than the original one at that - considering that the facts constituting the rebellion and threat to public safety in the assailed original proclamation, have already been resolved and no longer persist,” stated the petition prepared by the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL).

Solicitor General Jose Calida has since asked the high court to dismiss the Lagman petition, insisting there is factual basis for the extension of martial rule in Mindanao.

"There is rebellion in Mindanao. Until the rebellion is quelled, there is reason to extend martial law and suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus," the OSG said in its comment filed on Monday.

“The danger and risks the DAESH-inspired Da'awatul Islamiyah Waliyatul Masriq (DIWM), local terrorist groups, and the NPAs [New People's Army] pose still remain high and the extension of martial law will necessarily address the rebellion being waged by these groups,” it added.

The government said for as long as Congress believes that the rebellion continues to exist, and public safety requires it, the proclamation of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be extended, subject only to the condition that any such extension be upon the initiative of the President and for a period to be determined by Congress. —ALG, GMA News