[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’Supreme Court upholds 1-year Mindanao martial law extension ‘ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=” av-medium-font-size-title=” av-small-font-size-title=” av-mini-font-size-title=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
BY ADRIAN STEWART CO
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
February 7, 2018
[/av_textblock]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
MANILA – The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the yearlong extension of the martial law in Mindanao.
Voting 10-5 on Tuesday, high court justices dismissed four opposing petitions to rule in favor of the extension of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
Favoring the extension were justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Teresita de Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Mariano del Castillo, Estela Perlas-Bernabe, Samuel Martires, Andres Reyes Jr., Alexander Gesmundo, and Noel Tijam, ponente of the decision.
Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and associate justices Antonio Carpio, Marvic Leonen, Francis Jardeleza, and Benjamin Caguioa dissented.
President Rodrigo Duterte and Congress had sufficient factual bases to extend the martial law in Mindanao because of continuous rebellion in the region, the Supreme Court said.
“Rebellion that spawned the Marawi crisis persists, and public safety requires the extension of martial law as shown by facts presented by (the Armed Forces of the Philippines),” read part of the decision.
“There are also enough safeguards in the Constitution against possible abuse…and there are enough laws and legal remedies,” it added.
Moreover, the petitioners “failed to satisfy requisites for injunction” and “their claims on the violation of human rights are speculative,” said the high court.
According to the Supreme Court, the Constitution was silent on the duration of any extension of martial law, and Congress has the right to determine how many times the military rule may be extended.
“Congress has the power to extend the period of martial law,” it said. “The alleged inordinate haste in approving President Duterte’s request is not a ground to nullify the extension.”
Four petitions – including one from opposition representatives Edcel Lagman, Tomasito Villarin, Rodolfo Alejano, Emmanuel Billones, Teddy Baguilat Jr., and Edgar Erice – were filed before the high court.
All four asserted that there was no factual basis for the military rule since there was no actual rebellion or invasion in the southern region.
Duterte first declared martial law on May 23 after the clash between government troops and the Islamic State-allied local terrorist group Maute.
The President requested for an extension twice – first, until Dec. 31, 2018 and second, until Dec. 31, 2018 – upon recommendations from the Armed Forces and the Philippine National Police, and Congress approved these./PN
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
