MANILA – On Tuesday, July 4, the Supreme Court voted, with one dissent, to uphold the constitutionality of President Duterte’s 60-day martial law proclamation in Mindanao. Associate Justice Caguioa was one of three who voted to uphold, but partially–limiting it only to Marawi City.
Here’s how the SC Public Information Office summarized his opinion:
Associate Justice Caguioa voted to partly grant the petitions; similar to the Chief Justice’s vote, his position is that there existed sufficient factual basis for the proclamation of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus only in three provinces. His vote is reflected in his Dissenting Opinion, as follows:
“Therefore, I vote to declare the proclamation of martial law over the entire Mindanao as having been issued without sufficient factual basis. I concur with the findings and recommendations of the Chief Justice that martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be justified only in Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, and Sulu.”
1. He is of the opinion that there is sufficient factual basis for the declaration of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus only over Marawi City, and the provinces of Lanao del Sur (where Marawi City is), Maguindanao, and Sulu. He disagrees with the ponencia that there is sufficient basis for finding that there is actual rebellion in all other parts of Mindanao.
2. He agrees with the ponencia that the sufficiency of factual basis is a justiciable question because of Article VII, Section 18 and that the third paragraph of Section 18 is an express grant of jurisdiction to the Court sui generis to conduct a factual and legal review. Under Section 18, the Executive has the burden of proof to show the sufficiency of the factual basis by substantial evidence. The Executive’s burden is discharged by showing probable cause of the existence of an actual rebellion and the necessity for public safety.
Below, full text of his opinion:
