THE Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday stood pat on its ruling issued in July affirming the legality of President Duterte’s declaration of martial law in the entire Mindanao region.
“In the matter of the consolidated petitions…the Court, voting 10-3-1, denied with finality for mootness and lack of merit all three motions for reconsideration filed by petitioners from the Court’s decision dated July 4, 2017,” the resolution stated.
SC Spokesman Theodore O. Te said the 15-man High Tribunal made the decision at its regular en banc session on Tuesday.
In its July 2017 ruling, the Court held that there was sufficient factual basis for the declaration of martial law in Mindanao and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the region after the attacks of local terror group Maute in May in Marawi City.
It reiterated its finding that 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.
The SC added that Congress did not gravely abuse its discretion in not convening jointly upon President Duterte’s issuance of Proclamation 216, placing the entire Mindanao under martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The Court held that Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution, which allows the President to declare martial law and suspend the writ of habeas corpus only “in case of invasion or rebellion, when public safety requires it,” imposes no duty on Congress to convene.
The government had repeatedly said martial law was necessary to quell rebellion since Islamic State of Iraq and Syria-inspired local rebel groups had taken up arms against the Philippine government to secede Mindanao from the republic and to deprive Duterte of his powers and prerogatives.
Petitioners filed motions for reconsideration, insisting that there was no sufficient factual basis to justify martial-law implementation, as several information cited in the proclamation were “false, inaccurate and contrived.”
Edcel C.Lagman and two other petitioners—local Mindanao leaders led by Lumad leader Eufemia Campos Cullamat and a group of women from Marawi led by Norkaya Mohamad—claimed in their separate appeals that a key element in act of rebellion—culpable purpose of removing allegiance from the Philippines and preventing the President and legislature from exercising their functions—was not present in the attack of local on May 23 that triggered martial-law proclamation.
But the government, through Solicitor General Jose Calida, urged the Court to dismiss the appeals, insisting that the attack of Maute Group was not just an act of terror, but was a clear rebellion and actually part of a plot to establish a Islamic State in Mindanao.
Martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus are still in effect in Mindanao.