I asked this question because Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez on June 8 warned that the Supreme Court can’t dictate Congress to hold a joint session to tackle the martial-law issue.
He issued the warning of a possible constitutional crisis as a result of several petitions asking the High Court to compel Congress to call a joint session to determine the factual basis of President Duterte’s declaration of martial law in Mindanao.
Chiding the petitioners, Alvarez said in the vernacular: “Balikan muna nila [petitioners] ang law books. How can the Supreme Court dictate Congress what to do?
“Coequal body ’yan. O, mag-issue ng direktiba ang Supreme Court telling Congress, dictating Congress na mag- convene kayo ng joint session, punitin ko ’yan,” Alvarez said.
Alvarez said the petitioners have created a situation that could result to a clash between Congress and the SC.
“Eh, talagang magkakaroon ng constitutional crisis. At hindi namin kasalanan ’yun,” said Alvarez, who is among the respondents named in the petitions before the SC.
“Ipinasa ko na sa Office of the Solicitor General [OSG]. At ang position natin doon walang jurisdiction ang Supreme Court d’yan,” Alvarez added.
The Speaker said he could not understand why the petitioners are insisting on a joint session over martial law in Mindanao.
He noted that both the Senate and the House of Representatives have already adopted their respective resolutions supporting the declaration of martial law in Mindanao.
“Ngayon mag-convene ka ng joint session, anong pag-uusapan natin? Alam na natin kung anong decision,” Alvarez explained.
“Siguro baka naman gusto nilang mag-grandstanding lang diyan sa joint session,” he said.
“Basta kami hindi susunod kung anong sabihin ng Supreme Court diyan dahil wala silang karapatan para diktahan ang Kongreso kung anong dapat naming gawin,” Alvarez added.
Last Monday Solicitor General Jose Calida, in a 45-page comment, asked the SC to dismiss the three consolidated petitions questioning the legality of Proclamation 216 (martial law) for lack of merit.
Calida argued that declaring martial law was within the powers of Duterte, thus rejecting the petitioners’ argument of lack of recommendation from ranking defense and military authorities from the beginning.
The petitioners cited a reported admission by Defense Secretary Delfin N. Lorenzana before members of the Senate and the House of Representatives in a closed-door executive meeting that he had no prior knowledge about the declaration of martial law following the attack by terrorists on Marawi City on May 23.
It could be that Lorenzana was not told about the declaration of martial law by the President simply because he is not a member of the Chain of Command. The chain begins with the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, the chief of staff, the deputy chief of staff and all the commands down the line.
In fact, Calida articulated this when he said: “The recommendation of the secretary of national defense, or any member of the Executive department for that matter, is not a condition precedent to the President’s exercise of his power to proclaim martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.”
The OSG chief said the three consolidated petitions by opposition lawmakers, led by Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman; local Mindanao leaders, led by lumad (indigenous people) leader Eufemia Campos Cullamat; and a group of women from Marawi, led by Norkaya Mohamad, failed to prove grave abuse of discretion on the part of the President in issuing Proclamation 216.
“Quite the contrary, the proclamation is amply supported by facts that a rebellion does exist, and the public safety requires it,” Calida said, adding, “There is nothing arbitrary in this reliance, as the President—given his vast responsibilities as head of state, chief representative in foreign affairs and Commander in Chief of the Philippine Armed Forces—could not be reasonably expected to personally determine the veracity of all these reports.”
“The facts relied on by President Duterte for the issuance of Proclamation 216 sufficiently established the existence of a rebellion in Mindanao. IS-inspired local rebel groups have taken up arms against the Philippine government for the purpose of removing Mindanao from its allegiance, and of depriving the Chief Executive of his prerogatives therein,” Calida said.
The SC en banc started on Tuesday its three-day oral arguments on the validity of the declaration of martial law, and is expected to finish it on Thursday. Crisis or no crisis, we will soon get the answer.
To reach the writer, e-mail cecilio.arillo@gmail.com.