HIGH COURT SCHEDULES OPEN DEBATE ON MARTIAL LAW EXTENSION
The Supreme Court on Wednesday set a two-day open-court debate on the petitions questioning President Duterte’s order prolonging the martial law implementation in Mindanao.
It was the second time that the 15-member tribunal would hear the petitions challenging the President’s decision to place Mindanao under martial rule following the attack of the Maute group in Marawi City in May last year.
Theodore Te, the high court’s spokesperson, said the magistrates ordered the consolidation of the petitions, separately filed by a group of opposition lawmakers and members of the Makabayan partylist bloc in the House of Representatives.
Oral arguments
During its en banc session, Te said the justices gave the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) until Saturday to submit its comment in time for the oral arguments set for Jan. 16 and 17.
He said the OSG and the petitioners were also directed to submit their respective memorandum not later than 5 p.m. on Jan. 20.
As spelled out in the Constitution, the high court should resolve within 60 days any petition challenging the legality of a martial law declaration.
The high court on July 6, 2017, affirmed the constitutionality of the President’s Proclamation No. 216 that imposed a Mindanao-wide martial law.
The opposition congressmen, led by Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, argued that the 1987 Constitution did not allow extending such order more than once to avoid its perpetuation.
No factual basis
Lagman’s group said the decision of Congress to grant the President’s request to extend martial law until Dec. 31 should be declared unconstitutional since it did it not have any factual basis.
Besides, they said the threats allegedly posed by the Islamic State-linked Maute group “do not constitute a constitutional basis for extension of martial law because ‘imminent danger’ has been deleted as a ground for imposing martial law.”
“The Constitution does not allow a series of extensions or reextensions of a martial law proclamation, which may lead to ‘extensions in perpetuity,’” they argued.
In their own petition, the Makabayan party-list lawmakers warned that the extension of martial law was aimed at silencing dissent by “lumad” leaders and other progressive organizations in Mindanao.