Lumad teachers, student challenge 3rd martial law extension in Mindanao

Lumad teachers and a student all claiming to have witnessed military excesses during martial law have joined the legal challenge to the third extension of military rule in Mindanao.

Four petitioners asked the Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday to review the sufficiency of the Congress-approved extension, stop its implementation, and declare it "unconstitutional, null and void, and of no force and effect."

They also urged the justices to order the national police, the military, and any of its paramilitary components to cease and desist from militarizing areas where Lumad schools are located, forcibly closing the schools and harassing teachers and students.

The Lumad are the indigenous people of Mindanao. Jose Manuel Diokno, the petitioners' lawyer, said the Lumad are directly affected by militarization brought about by martial law.

In the petition, the four Mindanaoans alleged that military and paramilitary men burn down schools for Lumad children, displacing them; and abduct teachers and accuse them of being communist rebels.

They claimed that the alleged acts of impunity are a result of "overbroad, undefined and unchecked powers" of the military under martial law, which will be effective over Mindanao up to the end of 2019 unless stopped by the High Court.

"Without clear standards and parameters, a wholesale acceptance of the sufficiency of the factual basis of the President's proclamation of martial law will result in more instances of 'red tagging,' intimidation, harassment and militarization," they said.

The petitioners are Rius Valle, Jhosa Mae Palomo, Jeany Rose Hayahay, all teachers; and Rorelyn Mandacawan, a student of legal age. Valle and Hayahay alleged they had to relocate to Metro Manila due to security concerns.

Hayahay also said her mother was abducted for 18 days last October by military elements who questioned about her alleged involvement in the communist insurgency. Her mother has since been released, she said.

Palomo, for his part, was allegedly accused of being a teacher of a school for the New People's Army, the armed wing of the Communist Party of the Philippines, while Mandacawan allegedly witnessed a shooting incident in her school involving the Alamara, a paramilitary group.

Represented by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), the petitioners brought the fourth case of its kind before the SC in a bid to halt the implementation of martial law in Mindanao, which was first declared by President Rodrigo Duterte when Islamic State-inspired militants occupied Marawi City in Lanao del Sur in 2017.

Despite the liberation of Marawi in October 2017, Duterte got congressional approval for martial law extensions due to what he claimed were continued hostilities by terrorist and communist groups. The SC upheld the constitutionality of the first two extensions.

The 1987 Constitution allows the president, subject to approval by Congress, to declare martial law in cases of invasion or rebellion or when the public safety requires it. The SC may review the sufficiency of the factual basis for such declarations or extensions.

But the challengers of the extension said there is no more basis for martial law in the region up to the end of the year, warning of human rights violations allegedly perpetrated by state security forces.

The SC will hear oral arguments on the first three petitions — by lawmakers and a group of lawyers — on January 29. It remains to be seen whether or not the newest petition will be consolidated with the three. — MDM, GMA News