Petitioners tell Supreme Court no rebellion to justify martial law

June 13, 2017

Petitioners told the Supreme Court on Tuesday there is no basis to justify President Rodrigo Duterte’s proclamation of martial law in Mindanao last May 23. During oral arguments on the three petitions seeking to nullify Duterte’s Proclamation 216, the petitioners led by Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman told the justices  several information cited in the proclamation were "false, inaccurate and contrived." Lagman cited the supposed beheading of the Marawi City police chief who later on was interviewed by the media as well as a report that a hospital and a school were taken over by terrorists which also turned out false. “Verily, not only there was no sufficient basis of rebellion, there was also no factual anchorage for this necessity of imposing martial law to secure public safety. President Duterte should have validated the situation on the ground upon arriving home, exercise due discretion,” Lagman said. Four hours before Duterte issued Proclamation 216 in Moscow, National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon Jr. said the Armed Forces of the Philippines was in full control. Two hours before the proclamation, AFP Chief of Staff General Eduardo Año, in a television interview said the military was also full control in Marawi. Twenty minutes before issuance of Proclamation 216, Lt. Col  Edgard Arevalo, public affairs head of the AFP, said the situation in Marawi has stabilized. Lawyer Marlon Manuel, who represented another group of petitioners composed of a group of women from Marawi led by Norkaya Mohamad, echoed Lagman’s argument, saying the military forces can address the siege in Marawi without the need for martial law. Solicitor General Jose Calida insisted that a rebellion by Maute exists. "Who would ever believe that what is happening now in Malawi is not rebellion? All the elements or rebellion are there - armed public uprising and allegiance to ISIS (Islamic State of Iran and Syria)?" Calida said during an ambush interview. Calida reiterated that there is rebellion because "ISIS-inspired local rebel groups have taken arms against the Philippine government for the purpose of removing Mindanao from its allegiance, and of depriving the Chief Executive of his prerogatives therein." During interpellation, Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo asked Lagman if he saw the situation in Marawi. "You have not been there on the ground; you don't know what the situation is there. So how can you dispute now the findings of the sufficiency of the factual basis for the declaration?" del Castillo asked. Lagman said he did not have to fly to Marawi since the basis of their questions could be found in the mandatory report submitted by Duterte to Congress. Associate Justices Lucas Bersamin and Estela Perlas - Bernabe cited presumption of validity of the declaration by the president, who should be given deference on the matter as the Commander-in-Chief, and both put on petitioners the burden to prove grave abuse of discretion on the part of the president. Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio raised questions on why the declaration covered entire Mindanao. "You said that in rebellion, there should be an actual rebellion for martial law to be declared. Can you point to any incident that in the Agusan provinces that there was rebellion?" he asked during interpellation, to which Lagman responded with "no, your honor." Lagman agreed and explained that imminent danger in the other provinces in Mindanao cannot be basis for their coverage in the martial law declaration. Associate Justice Marvic Leonen stressed the need for martial law to “have clear operational guidelines because it's not simple declaration but, rather, it has real effects." Leonen added the SC has the power to review the declaration and should not give full deference to the chief executive and dismiss the petitions on technicalities. The oral arguments will continue at 10 a.m. Wednesday DMS