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 Noel Tijam was one of 11 who voted to uphold.
Here’s how the SC Public Information Office summarized his opinion:
1. On the “appropriate proceeding”, Justice Tijam concurred that the action is sui generis. There should be a prima facie showing of insufficiency of the factual basis for the declaration of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
2. On the quantum of evidence and the burden of proof, he opined that petitioners have the burden of proving the insufficiency of the factual basis. He pointed out that in previous cases challenging the exercise of the President’s power as Commander-in-Chief, the Court had ruled that the burden of proof lies with the petitioners. He also noted that there is a presumption of the regularity of official functions and that the who alleges must prove his allegations.
3. On the sufficiency of the factual basis, Justice Tijam noted that the acts of the Maute group show a culpable intent to bring the city of Marawi under the regime of ISIS, regardless of whether ISIS recognizes the group or not.
4. On the necessity for public safety, he noted that violent attacks had resulted in the destruction of property and in human casualties and that the government had been prevented from delivering basic services and in sending troop reinforcements.
5. On the territorial scope of the proclamation and suspension, he noted that the President is presumed to have taken into account intelligence reports regarding the actual situation on the ground. Absent countervailing evidence, these statements indicate a plan to take over and establish control over the entire Mindanao. This suffices as basis for the proclamation to cover the entire Mindanao.
Below, full text of his opinion:
