(Eagle News) — Voting 10-5, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the year-long martial law extension in Mindanao, saying that the court “finds sufficient factual basis” for the decision.
The high court also dismissed the consolidated petitions that questioned the constitutionality of the decision by Congress that had earlier voted for the extension of martial law in Mindanao until year-end.
According to the high court, Congress had sufficient factual basis when it approved last December the year-long extension of martial law in Mindanao that had been sought by Malacanang.
“The President and Congress had sufficient factual bases to extend Proclamation No. 216,” a summary of the SC decision said, citing that the rebellion that spawned the Marawi incident “still persists,” and that “public safety requires the extension, as shown by facts presented by the AFP (Armed Forces of the Philippines).”
The SC decision upholding the constitutionality of the martial law extension for another year, was penned by Associate Justice Noel Tijam.
Those who concurred in the decision were Associate justices Presbitero Velasco Jr, Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Mariano del Castillo, Estela Perlas Bernabe, Samuel Martires, Andres Reyes Jr., and Alexander Gesmundo.
Those who dissented were Supreme Court Chief Maria Lourdes Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, and Associate Justices Marvic Leonen, Francis Jardeleza and Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa.
The high court’s ruling was announced to reporters by Supreme Court spokesperson Theodore Te.
Congress in a joint 240-27 vote on December 13 last year, approved the extension of martial law until the end of 2018.
-Not subject for judicial review-
In the summary of the high court’s ruling, it said that “the manner of Congress’ judicial deliberation with respect to the President’s request for extension of martial law in Mindanao for one year is not subject to judicial review.”
“Each House of Congress has full discretionary authority to formulate, adopt, and promulgate its own rules; the exercise of this power is generally exempt from judicial supervision and interference, except on a clear showing of such arbitrary and improvident use of the power such as would constitute a denial of due process,” the high court explained in its ruling.
It noted that the “alleged inordinate haste in approving the request for extension cannot serve as a ground to nullify the extension.”
It also observed that the “Rules governing the Joint Session of Congress were adopted without objection by both Houses of Congress on December 13, 2017.”
“The Transcript of Plenary Proceedings of the Joint Session showed that members of Congress were upon request, granted extension of their time to interpellate,” the Supreme Court majority ruling read.
-Congress has the power to extend martial law;, says SC-
The high court also said that “Congress has the power to extend and determine the period of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under Section VII Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution.”
“The Constitution is silent on how many times Congress may extend a proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. It also does not fix a period for the duration of any extension of a proclamation or suspension but expressly leaves the matter to Congress-‘for a period to be determined by Congress'” it said.
In its ruling, the high court also said that it found “no merit” to the petitioners’ theory that “the extent of the threat to the public safety to justify a declaration or extension must be such that the government is unable to sufficiently govern, assure public safety, and deliver government services.”
“Reading this theory into the Constitution would be to incorporate something that does not exist in the Constitution’s text,” it said.
The high court said that whenever the President and Congress ascertain whether public safety requires the declaration and extension of martial law, “they do so by calibrating not only the present state of public safety but the further repercussions of the actual rebellion to public safety in the future as well.”
It also said that “there is no necessity to impose tests on the choice and manner of the President’s exercise of military powers.”
“The determination of which among the powers granted to the Commander-in-Chief should be exercised in a given set of factual circumstances is a prerogative of the President,” it said.
-Safeguards vs abuse present-
The Supreme Court also observed that “there are safeguards against abuse” citing Article VII section 18 of the Constitution, and the legal remedies for violation of human rights contained in existing laws. These are Republic Acts 7438, 9372, 9745, the Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
“Petitioners failed to satisfy the requisites for the issuance of an injunction. The claims of violation of human rights are speculative and lack a nexus between the exercise of martial law powers and their apprehension of such violations,” it said.
(with a report by Moira Encina, Eagle News Service)