Rep. Edcel C. Lagman in a 54-page motion for reconsideration filed with the Supreme Court today at 8:04 AM, July 21, 2017, charged the Supreme Court with abdicating its special jurisdiction to fully review the factual sufficiency of Proclamation No. 216 which President Rodrigo Duterte issued imposing martial law in the whole of Mindanao for 60 days effective May 23, 2017.
Among others, Lagman together with Representatives Tomas Villarin, Gary Alejano, Emmanuel Billones and Teddy Baguilat, Jr. challenged the factual sufficiency of Proclamation No. 216 under Section 18 of Article VII of the Constitution which provides:
“The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.”
The Supreme Court in a majority decision on July 4, 2017 declared that Proclamation No. 216 is constitutional.
Lagman said that the High Court’s majority decision was flawed and tainted because it deliberately weakened the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review by according to the President undue concessions like the following:
-
Claiming its lack of competence to ably determine the facts on the ground;
-
Admitting a supposed “institutional incapacity” to vet relevant facts;
-
Unduly deferring to the President’s logistical superiority to gather and evaluate intelligence information;
-
Granting excessive leeway to the President’s exercise of emergency powers; and
-
Conceding the applicability of presumptions of regularity and good faith in favor of the President, thereby emaciating the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review under Section 18 of Article VII.
Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno in her dissent remonstrated that “the majority emaciated the power of judicial review by giving excessive leeway to the President”.
Lagman and his co-petitioners maintain that there was no actual rebellion in Marawi City and in rest of Mindanao when the President declared martial law and suspended the writ of habeas corpus on May 23, 2017, and what was occurring in Marawi then was lawless violence amounting to terrorism.
Under the Constitution the declaration of martial law or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is based solely on actual rebellion or invasion when the public safety requires it.
Lagman told the High Court that the “appalling escalation of deaths of soldiers and terrorists, including innocent civilians; massive destruction of both public and private properties; and the widespread displacement of residents, many of whom have died in cramped and unsanitary makeshift evacuation centers, are the horrific aftermath of the declaration of martial law, which were not the prevailing conditions at the time Proclamation No. 216 was issued on May 23, 2017.”
“This tragic aftermath could have been avoided had martial law not been declared. The improvident and unconstitutional imposition gave the military and police forces the go-signal to inordinately intensify their air strikes and land assaults which resulted to the wanton devastation of Marawi City and a looming humanitarian crisis”, Lagman added.
EDCEL C. LAGMAN