Guevarra notes, however, that SC itself said state of rebellion exists in Mindanao
(Eagle News) — Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon on Wednesday said an extension of martial law in Mindanao would be unconstitutional.
Speaking before the joint session of Congress that will determine the fate of President Rodrigo Duterte’s proposal for such, Drilon said Congress, after all, can only extend the proclamation of martial law “in case of an actual public uprising and taking of arms against the government.”
For this, Drilon cited a Supreme Court decision in the Lagman vs Medialdea case that he said upheld Proclamation No. 216 that required actual rebellion or uprising.
“There is no more state of rebellion as admitted by our resource person. These are only threats. Actual armed conflict is the basic foundation for the continued imposition of martial law,” Drilon said.
But Deputy Executive Secretary Menardo Guevarra noted that the basis for Duterte’s request for a one-year extension was “based on a continuing actual rebellion.”
He added that in that particular decision cited by Drilon, the Supreme Court found that there was indeed a state of rebellion in Mindanao, not in Marawi.
“And therefore the Supreme Court in that decision mentioned other events happening elsewhere other than in Marawi. The court even concluded that all these suggest that the rebellion in Marawi has spilled over,” Guevarra said.
Even then, he said that the Supreme Court itself said that the “determination of violent acts or firefights is not conclusive that a state of rebellion” exists.
“The Supreme Court itself said a state of rebellion consists of many acts and not just isolated incidents of firefights. The Supreme Court gave an example of hypothetical people entering the Supreme Court, raising the ISIS flag, asking hypothetically if should martial law be declared,” Guevarra said.