PETITIONERS told the Supreme Court Tuesday that it should nullify President Rodrigo Duterte’s declaration of martial law, not only because it was unconstitutional but because it was based on falsehoods and “a litany of facts that turned out to be inaccurate.”
During the oral arguments on the three petitions seeking to strike down Proclamation 216 placing the entire Mindanao under martial law, petitioners led by Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman told magistrates that there was no sufficient factual basis to justify martial law as some of the information cited in the proclamation was “false, inaccurate and contrived.”
Lagman cited inaccurate pronouncements made by the government, including a supposed beheading of the Marawi City police chief, who was later interviewed by the press, as well as a report that a hospital and a school were taken over by terrorists, which also turned out to be false.
President Duterte, who cut short his trip to Russia when the fighting broke out on May 23, should have validated the situation on the ground upon arriving home, and exercised due discretion, Lagman said.
He also said the imposition of martial law went against the government’s pronouncements that the situation was under control.
“National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon Jr. categorically said that the Armed Forces of the Philippines was in full control of the situation,” Lagman said.
“Except for self-serving conclusions of fact and law, neither Proclamation 216 nor the President’s report to Congress laid down the factual basis for the need to secure public safety,” Lagman said.
In the hours before martial law was declared, officials such as Esperon, Armed Forces chief Gen. Eduardo Año and Col. Eduardo Arevalo said they were in control or that the situation in Marawi had stabilized, Lagman said.
The petitioner also said a key element in the act of rebellion—the culpable purpose of removing allegiance from the Philippines and preventing the President and Congress from exercising their functions—was not present in the Marawi siege.
Lawyer Marlon Manuel, representing another group of petitioners composed of women from Marawi, said the military could have addressed the Marawi siege without martial law.
“Under the 1987 Constitution, martial law must be an instrument of last resort. If there is a remedy less severe than martial law, such less severe remedy must be resorted to. Only when there is a showing that the situation cannot be contained unless martial law is declared, can the use of such extraordinary power of the President be justifiable,” he said.
On these grounds, the petitioners asked the Court to strike down the proclamation.
Solicitor General Jose Calida rebutted the allegations and insisted that an actual rebellion by the Maute group exists.
“Who would ever believe that what is happening now in Marawi is not rebellion? All the elements of rebellion are there—armed public uprising and allegiance to ISIS,” Calida said in an interview.
During interpellation, Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo asked Lagman if he personally witnessed the situation in Marawi to claim that there is no rebellion.
“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?” the magistrate asked.
Lagman said he did not have to personally fly to Marawi since the basis of their questions could be found in the mandatory report submitted by the President to Congress.
Associate Justices Lucas Bersamin and Estela Perlas-Bernabe cited the 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 the grave abuse of discretion on the part of the President.
Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio asked why the declaration covered the entire Mindanao.
“Under the present Constitution, there must be actual rebellion,” Carpio stressed, citing the absence of rebellion in other provinces covered by the proclamation.
Lagman agreed and said imminent danger in the other provinces in Mindanao cannot be basis for their coverage in the martial law declaration.
Associate Justice Marvic Leonen said martial law needs to “have clear operational guidelines because it’s not simple declaration but, rather, it has real effects.”
Leonen added that the Supreme Court 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 with the continuation of interpellation by the justices on the petitioners.
Two other petitions were filed by separate groups led by former senators Rene Saguisag and Wigberto Tañada both seeking issuance of a mandamus that would compel Senate and the House of Representatives to convene jointly to review the declaration. The Court has consolidated the cases and ordered the solicitor general to also answer them.
Reacting to the petitions, Senator Francis Escudero said what is happening in Marawi “complies with all the elements of rebellion” under the Revised Penal Code and the 1987 Constitution.
He said the continuous fighting in Marawi was the best proof of the gravity of the situation, contrary to the view of those opposing martial law.
Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III said the Maute group was “using terrorism to foster rebellion.”
He said those seeking to nullify the declaration of martial law in Mindanao should be sent to Marawi City.
Senator JV Ejercito also dismissed Lagman’s arguments that there was no rebellion.
“I don’t know how it will be called since the Maute group took over Marawi and it came out in the video that they planned it,” he said.
Also on Tuesday, Transport Secretary Arthur P. Tugade ordered the Coast Guard to take control and supervision of security operations in all seaports nationwide, given the security threat posed by the Maute group terrorists.
The order allows the Coast Guard to arrest, seize and detain persons, cargo and vessels found violating maritime security and other pertinent laws and to file the necessary charges against them.
The Department of Interior and Local Government, meanwhile, said Agusan del Norte may soon implement curfew hours from midnight to 4 a.m. for the duration of martial law in Mindanao.
DILG regional director Lilibeth Famacion said the Agusan del Norte Provincial Peace and Order Council passed a resolution recommending the curfew hours to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, even though Agusan del Norte is about six hours and 30 minutes away from Marawi City, where Maute group terrorists have been battling government troops since May 23.