SolGen: Petitioners vs. Mindanao martial law extension downplaying communist threat

Solicitor General Jose Calida on Saturday defended the one-year extension of martial law in Mindanao as he slammed the petitioners for supposedly downplaying the impact of communist insurgency.

"Apart from disregarding the SC ruling, Petitioners want us to believe that communist rebellion is not detrimental to public safety, notwithstanding the numerous attacks made on civilians in the name of the Marxist ideology," the government's top lawyer said in a 60-page consolidated comment to the Supreme Court.

The consolidated comment is made in response to the four petitions filed by opposition lawmakers and human rights groups against the extension of martial law in Mindanao until Dec. 31, 2018.

"The petitioners rail against the extension of the martial law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus because Marawi has been liberated, and there is no rebellion, or the communist rebellion in Mindanao allegedly does not endanger public safety to warrant the extension and suspension," Calida said.

"In effect, the petitioners want this Honorable Court to disregard its ruling in Lagman v. Medialdea that there is rebellion in Mindanao and not just in Marawi," he added, referring to reference to the high court ruling that upheld the original proclamation of martial law after the ISIS-inspired Maute group laid siege to Marawi City on May 23 last year.

Calida said that the high court has already recognized in "Lagman v. Medialdea" case that there are other rebel groups carrying out atrocities in Mindanao.

"Because of the widespread atrocities in Mindanao and the linkages established among rebel groups, the armed uprising in Marawi cannot be equated with the rebellion in the other parts of Mindanao," the government's top lawyer said.

Calida also argued that the proclamation of martial law is a matter entirely different from its extension.

“The declaration of martial law is an act of the President. The extension, on the other hand, is the prerogative of the Congress,” he said.

“It follows that the judicial review of the proclamation of martial law is different from judicial review of the extension," he added.

According to Calida, the President requests the martial law extension but it is the Congress that extends martial law, if it finds that invasion or rebellion persists and public safety requires it.

“In view of the presumption of constitutionality accorded to the extension of martial law, it is incumbent upon all the petitioners to overturn the presumption, meaning, show facts that the extension is without basis,” the government's top lawyer said.

Calida further argued that it is not the place of the petitioners to dictate on the President as to which executive power is most appropriate in dealing with the ongoing rebellion.

“Due deference must be made to the judgment call of the President, as it is based on vital, relevant, classified, and live information not ordinarily available to the public. The President is privy to such sensitive data, release or publication of which could do more harm than good,” Calida said, addressing petitioners’ contention that martial law is unnecessary. —Ted Cordero/ALG, GMA News