A MEMBER of the 1986 Constitutional Commission said Tuesday the grounds for declaring martial law under the 1987 Constitution were limited, and that mere threats of rebellion and invasion were not included to justify a martial law proclamation.
During the oral arguments at the Supreme Court on the petition seeking to nullify the one-year extension of martial law in Mindanao, former Commission on Elections chairman Christian Monsod, one of the drafters of the 1987 Constitution, said the framers included the martial law provision despite its past horrors because “we want to cover an extraordinary situation. That is why the provision is specific, extraordinary and ultimate.”
“Martial law is supposed to be for an exceptional case,” Monsod told the justices.
“We made the window smaller for the declaration of marital law. We took away imminent danger, insurrection and the like.”
Monsod said Congress’ decision in July last year to uphold President Duterte’s martial law declaration “seems to say that it is a measure of first resort rather than a last resort.”
He reminded the justices of their duty to review the factual basis of the extension of martial law, arguing there was no rebellion or invasion to justify it.
‘‘You asked your honor why are we relying more on 15 justices rather than 292 Congressmen and 24 Senators, [and that’s because] that is the essence of the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances in our Constitution, and there is a vetting process by which the 15 justices are assumed to have the wisdom, experience and the fortitude to stand up to the other powers of government,’’ Monsod said.
‘‘I was taught in law school that the executive is the sword, the legislative is the purse and the judiciary is the conscience of the nation. That is why we are here today.”
Monsod is one of the four petitioners in the latest legal challenge on the martial law declaration, which was upheld by the high court last year.
The other three are former Commission on Human Rights chairwoman Loretta Ann Rosales, a group of congressmen led by Rep. Edcel Lagman and another group led by Representatives Carlos Zarate and Ariel Casilao.
The petitioners again argued that there is no factual basis required by the 1987 Constitution to justify the extension of martial law, claiming that the administration has even admitted that there is no actual rebellion in Mindanao.
The groups cited Duterte’s admission that the government has achieved victory over the ISIS-linked Maute terror group in October last year after a nearly five-month campaign to oust them from Marawi city.
They insisted that the grounds raised by the executive branch in extending martial law, which was approved by Congress, “do not rise to the level of rebellion that constitutes a threat to public safety as contemplated by the Constitution.”
The petitioners said the extension order violated the constitutional provisions, which only allowed the imposition of martial law during an actual rebellion or invasion, and when the operations of the civilian government were substantially impaired that public safety required its declaration.