By Moira Encina
Eagle News Service
A third petition questioning the constitutionality of the one-year extension of martial law in Mindanao was filed before the Supreme Court on Friday.
The petition was filed by former Commission on Human Rights chairperson Etta Rosales on Friday, a day after the SC set oral arguments for the first two petitions separately filed by lawmakers from the Makabayan bloc, and militant groups, respectively.
In her petition, Rosales echoed the arguments of the first two petitioners—-that there was “no actual rebellion” nor invasion in Mindanao that warranted such a declaration in accordance with the Constitution.
She said threats emanating from organizations such as the New People’s Army, among others, which President Rodrigo Duterte used as bases for making the declaration, do not constitute “actual rebellion or invasion,” and could therefore not be used “to justify the extension of martial law.”
She noted that “imminent danger” was no longer a ground for declaring martial law as it had been deleted as a requirement by the very framers of the Charter.
While acknowledging that the President “has an unbridled discretion in using his other prerogatives – eg., the calling out power, ” she said “martial law is and should not be used as a convenient substitute for normal and even intensified police operations and military intelligence gathering.”
““The Honorable Court is the last institution that can prevent the misuse and ‘normalization’ of martial law for ordinary peacekeeping and governance activities,” she said.