Martial law case off to rocky start
The Supreme Court case challenging martial law is off to a rocky start, in part because of how the petitioners clumsily frame parts of the case.
The case is supposed to be straightforward because the Constitution allows only one ground for challenging martial law before the Supreme Court: lack of factual basis.
Mirroring my outline last June 3 (“How can Supreme Court cancel martial law?”), Rep. Edcel Lagman argued that there is no rebellion because the Maute Group was defending itself from a military raid, not trying to overthrow the Marawi City government. The Constitution only allows a declaration of martial law for rebellion or invasion.
Further, Atty. Maria Cristina Yambot argued that the Maute Group only attacked Marawi, so there is no basis for martial law elsewhere in Mindanao.
Problematically, however, Lagman and other petitioners added many other arguments that have nothing to do with factual basis and, arguably, tenuous basis in the Constitution. The lead justice, Mariano del Castillo, immediately pounced on these side arguments in his initial questioning of Lagman.
What if the generals do not recommend declaring martial law but the President overrules them? Lagman argued this is problematic, but this is difficult to accept given the President is the Commander-in-Chief.
Do individual errors in the President’s report to Congress mean there is no basis for martial law? Lagman argued that the President’s report claimed that Amai Pakpak Hospital was occupied by Maute gunmen but the hospital adminstration later disclaimed this. Lagman said the context is that there were a litany of these errors, but del Castillo raised the greater context of how many troops are now deployed in Marawi.
Atty. Marlon Manuel argued there is no necessity to declare martial law, which is an out of bounds argument because the SC may review factual basis only, not whether the President’s decision was correct.
Atty. Ray Paolo Santiago seemed to argue the Marawi City government must actually be overthrown before the President can declare martial law. The actual SC doctrine is that there must be “actual” rebellion, not just a threatened or imminent one, and he stretched it much too far.
The petitioners will have to focus their case. In addition to the very basic questions del Castillo raised in his initial salvo, half of Solicitor General Jose Calida’s 45-page response cites infinite minor procedural defects in the petitions, from a lawyer stating an outdated professional tax receipt to one petition stating it was signed in Quezon City in one part and in Iligan City in another. These may distract further from the central question of factual basis.
(Procedural questions are pointless in this specific case since the Constitution allows “any citizen” to file a case anyway.)
Follow #MMLOrals at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw4fTFogEIQ&feature=youtu.be (although the SC sound system is creating a bizarre echo, making the livestream incomprehensible).
* * *
React: [email protected], Twitter @oscarfbtan, facebook.com/OscarFranklinTan.
