(UPDATED – 5:11 p.m.) MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court has upheld President Rodrigo Duterte’s martial law in Mindanao, dismissing petitions against the chief executive’s May 23 declaration to address the crisis in Marawi City.
Eleven associate justices favored Duterte’s imposition of martial law in the whole of Southern Philippines and said that Proclamation 216 was constitutional.
They are Presbitero J. Velasco; Teresita Leonardo-De Castro; Diosdado M. Peralta; Lucas P. Bersamin; Mariano C. del Castillo; Jose C. Mendoza; Bienvenido L. Reyes; Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe; Francis H. Jardeleza; Samuel R. Martires; and Noel G. Tijam.
Three other magistrates agreed with the President’s imposition of military rule but said that this should only cover Marawi. They are Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, and Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa.
Associate Justice Marvic Leonen was the only magistrate who said that Duterte’s martial law proclamation should be nullified.
SC spokesperson Atty. Theodore Te declined to issue an official confirmation of who among the justices voted for or against the declaration.
Malacañang welcomed the high court’s decision. It a statement, it said:
“The President is sworn to protect the Filipino people. He will not waver in this commitment to end rebellion, the evil of terrorism and to liberate Marawi. With the Supreme Court decision, the whole government now stands together as one against a common enemy.” The Palace added: “We ask the public to give their full support and cooperation to local authorities. After all, securing communities is a responsibility that must be shared by everyone,” it added.
‘SC is one with the President in protecting PH’
Solicitor General Jose Calida called the ruling a “monumental decision” that “underscores the existence a real and present rebellion that threatens the lives of our fellow Filipinos in Mindanao, and their much-cherished liberties.”
“As the conscience of our nation, the Supreme Court did not sit idly to watch our country get dismembered. In fact, this decision shows that the Honorable Supreme Court is one with the President in protecting and defending our country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” added Calida.
Kabayan party-list Rep. Harry Roque praised the ruling and said that he was “happy that the court respected and acknowledged the information that is readily available to the executive, which the high tribunal does not have access to.”
“And in the absence of its ability to discern for itself the factual basis for Martial Law, it should accord the executive the presumption of regularity of discharge of function, which in this case it did,” said Roque.
Setting the bar lower?
But Akbayan party-list Rep. Tom Villarin, one of the petitioners against martial law, said that with the ruling, Duterte “might push it to the limit and declare a drug-induced nationwide rebellion by terror groups.”
“Martial law becomes a hard habit to break,” added Villarin.
Former Solicitor General Florin Hilbay, the counsel of the petitioners, said the question now is whether the high court’s decision on martial law “relaxes the constitutional standard so low it gives license” for Duterte “to declare nationwide” martial law.
Question now is whether SC decision on ML relaxes the constitutional standard so low it gives license for Pres to declare nationwide ML.
— florin hilbay (@fthilbay) July 4, 2017
Hilbay said that the high court’s ruling “makes it even more important” for Congress “to have a joint session” on martial law especially on “any new declaration or extension.”
SC decision upholding martial law makes it even more important to have a joint session on ML, esp. on any new declaration or extension.
— florin hilbay (@fthilbay) July 4, 2017
Ifugao Rep. Teddy Baguilat Jr., also a petitioner, said he would first study the reasons cited by the high court in its ruling before he makes a long comment.
“But for now, we will continue to vigorously oppose ML declaration and possible extension and expansion. We also maintain that martial law must be subject to the people’s scrutiny,” said Baguilat.
“Just like clockwork, the leadership has now proposed its extension. This is one draconian step to institutionalizing a dictatorship and must be opposed by democracy defenders in Congress,” he added.
VP Leni: democratic process affirmed
While her partymates in the Liberal Party held a dismal view of the ruling, Vice President Leni Robredo said it affirms the democratic processes in the Constitution, but urged Congress to carryout its constitutional mandate to review it as well.
Text of VP Robredo’s statement below:
“The Supreme Court decision on Proclamation No. 216 is an affirmation of the democratic process set in our Constitution. This is an important component of the mandated checks and balances to martial law.
“We expect that Congress will likewise fulfill its Constitutional duty to review, on behalf of the people, the declaration of martial law in Mindanao.
“Together with remaining vigilant in safeguarding our rights and Constitutional processes, we must continue to work on providing relief for our brothers and sisters affected by the Marawi Clash, and, furthermore, prepare for the more difficult task of helping them rebuild their lives.”
For Gabriela party-list Rep. Arlene Brosas, another petitioner, the ruling means the Filipinos would “face a dark era with the three branches of government throwing their support to the declaration of the Mindanao-wide martial law, which has only wrought destruction in Marawi and enabled worse military-sponsored rights violations across Mindanao.”
“We call on Filipino women and the people to vigorously defend human rights and civil liberties in the face of a looming full-blown dictatorial rule with military at the helm,” added Brosas.
‘We did right in supporting ML’
At the Upper Chamber, Sen. Panfilo Lacson, said that “the factual basis for the proclamation is clear enough that there could not have been any other ruling as overwhelmingly decisive as the one rendered by the SC.”
“I knew we did right in supporting the martial law proclamation in Mindanao when we debated on it in caucus and in plenary,” said Lacson.
“I can only hope that none of our senate colleagues will call the magistrates lapdogs and cowards of the administration,” he added.
Sen. Joseph Victor “JV” Ejercito also welcomed the ruling.
“Now that the two branches of government have already affirmed the President’s actions, it is time to show a united front against terrorism and lawless violence, and more importantly, begin the urgent work of rebuilding the communities of Marawi City,” said Ejercito.
Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian likewise favored the high court’s decision. He said that with the ruling, “the President now has a free hand to use all necessary means to crush the Maute terrorists, once and for all.”
“Now that the SC has spoken, it is time to set aside politics and work together in reclaiming Marawi and bringing the city back to its glory,” added Gatchalian.
For Sen. Gregorio Honasan, the ruling signifies “Philippine pluraristic democracy at work.”
“Whatever the issue, Congress legislates the Executive implements and the Judiciary rules on questions of law and of fact. Whatever its flaws politics and democracy in its worst forms are much better than no rules, which is anarchy. Everything else is procedural,” he said.
Meanwhile, the left-leaning Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) deplored “in the strongest terms the decision” of the high tribunal.
“The SC has just made it easier to declare Martial Law nationwide, not just in Mindanao. It has also given the Duterte government the legal basis to extend Martial Law beyond 60 days,” said Renato Reyes Jr., Bayan secretary general.
Reyes said the ruling would “embolden militarists” and made the high court a “complicit in the abuses being committed under martial law.”
Martial law will now target groups sympathetic to Reds
For Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Carlos Zarate, the ruling had “apparently” put the the country in the hands of “a de facto military junta.”
“This is an ominous development that may place the country in an even more dangerous position. We could expect an emboldened military and police to commit more human rights violations and further endanger the lives of our people not just in Marawi but the whole of Mindanao,” he said.
He said the “martial law monster will now target civilians and organizations considered as sympathetic and supportive” of the Communist Party of the Philippines-New Peoples’ Army.
He said the Armed Forces of the Philippines’ Key Task No. 3 in its Operational Directive Number 2-2017 or the AFP’s Implementation of Martial Law in Mindanao “makes the NPA the target of Martial law.”
ACT Teachers Rep. Antonio Tinio had this to say: “I’m utterly dismayed. The Supreme Court has reneged on its role as last institutional rampart against abuse of the Executive’s martial law power. I’m afraid that this Supreme Court will go down in history as having paved the way for state repression against citizens in the name of a prolonged and expanded martial law based on nebulous and shifting grounds.”
ACTS OFW Rep. Bertiz III: “It was the last recourse available to the President … I look forward to the eradication of the terrorist threat and the continuation of peace and development efforts in Mindanao.”
Davao Rep. Karlo Nograles: “The decision puts to rest any and all questions on the validity of President Duterte’s declaration of Martial Law. In other words, the President was clearly and correctly justified in his decision to … protect the integrity of our republic and guarantee the safety of our people.”
National Union of People’s Lawyers, counsel for the Petitioners in GR No. 231171 (Cullamat Petition) composed of Mindanao residents, leaders of peoples’ organizations and militant solons: ” … a big letdown and disappointment fraught with even greater dangers as it apparently dilutes the already inadequate constitutional safeguards of the anti-dictatorship 1987 Constitution. If they can declare an expansive martial law in Mindanao based on alternative and magnified facts as well as exaggerated scenarios, they can do the same for the entire Philippines. It is a dangerous precedent not much unlike the Martial Law cases jurisprudence of the dictator Marcos Supreme Court.
