Why 3 SC justices want martial law only in select areas of Mindanao

Three members of the 15-man Supreme Court (SC) disagreed with President Rodrigo Duterte's contention that martial law must cover the whole of Mindanao aimed at defeating militants trying to establish a province for international terror group ISIS.

In separate dissenting opinions, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa said the Duterte administration failed to present substantial evidence to show the necessity of placing the entire Mindanao under martial rule and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

Sereno and Caguioa said martial law should have been declared only in Lanao Del Sur, Maguindanao and Sulu. Carpio wanted it to be limited to Marawi City, the heart of skirmishes between government troops and militants.

Sereno said Lanao del Sur of which Marawi is a part, Maguindanao and Sulu are areas where significant support from the Maute group, Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) and the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) are coming from.

"Parenthetically, the Maute Group originated from Lanao del Sur, while the BIFF is from Maguindanao. Abu Sayyaf members largely come from Sulu," she said.

"Thus, the declaration of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus appear to have sufficient factual basis in the following three provinces: Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, and Sulu. Other than these provinces, the respondents [government] have not alleged any other incident reasonably related to the Maute attack in Marawi City," Sereno added.

Caguioa cited information drawn out during the oral arguments last month that there is no armed public uprising in the eastern portion of Mindanao, namely: Dinagat Island Province, Camiguin Island, Misamis Oriental, Misamis Occidental, Agusan, Zamboanga, Davao, Surigao, Pagadian and Dapitan.

"Without a showing that normative acts of rebellion are being committed in other areas of Mindanao, the standard of public safety requires a demonstration that these areas are so intimately or inextricably connected to the armed public uprising in order for them to be included in the scope of martial law," he said.

"Otherwise, the situation in these areas merely constitute an 'imminent threat' of rebellion which does not justify the declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ in said areas."

For his part, Carpio said Proclamation 216 and the President’s Report to Congress showed that the actual rebellion is confined to Marawi City only.

"In fact, the Proclamation itself states that the Maute-Hapilon armed fighters in Marawi City intended to remove 'this part of Mindanao,' referring to Marawi City, from Philippine sovereignty. The Proclamation itself admits that only 'this part of Mindanao' is the subject of separation from Philippine sovereignty by the rebels," the senior magistrate said.

"The President's Report did not mention any other city, province or territory in Mindanao, other than Marawi City, that had a similar public uprising by a rebel group, an element of actual rebellion."

Both Caguioa and Carpio agree that rebels who escape Marawi City may be issued a warrant of arrest anywhere within the Philippines without the need to declare martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ outside of Marawi City.

"The rebels may even be arrested by a civilian pursuant to the provision on warrantless arrests," Carpio said.

Backed by 11 justices, the decision said the president's duty to maintain peace and public safety is not limited only to the place where there is actual rebellion.

"It extends to other areas where the present hostilities are in danger of spilling over. It is not intended merely to prevent the escape of lawless elements from Marawi City, but also to avoid enemy reinforcements and to cut their supply lines coming from different parts of Mindanao," the SC said.

"Thus, limiting the proclamation and/or suspension to the place where there is actual rebellion would not only defeat the purpose of declaring martial law, it will make the exercise thereof ineffective and useless."

The ruling also said the power to determine the scope of territorial application of martial law belongs to the President and that there is no constitutional provision that such emergency power should be implemented only in the place where actual rebellion exists. —KG, GMA News