Contact Details

Rm. N-411, House of Representatives, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
+63 2 931 5497, +63 2 931 5001 local 7370

Re SC's decision on Martial Law petitions

Press Statements

PRESS STATEMENT
Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
0917-1023737 / 0916-6406737
05 July 2017

Pending release of the majority decision and the separate concurring and dissenting opinions of the Supreme Court Justices in the consolidated Petitions for the nullification of the declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, I am limiting my reactions to the following:

  1. The petitioners (opposition Congressmen) in G.R. No. 231658 are prepared to respect the majority decision of the divided Supreme Court upholding the declaration of martial law in Mindanao with a strong reservation or caveat that the majority could be in error.

  2. Petitioners fully appreciate the separate dissents of Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justice Alfredo Caguioa who limited the coverage of martial law to Marawi City, and Associate Justice Marvic Leonen who voted to void Proclamation No. 216 in its entirety.

  3. The determination of the sufficiency of the factual basis of the imposition of martial law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus must be limited to the prevailing facts on 23 May 2017 when Proclamation No. 216 was issued.

  4. The ongoing armed confrontation, military air strikes and land offensives and the escalating deaths, destruction and displacement of civilians after 23 May 2017 are the aftermath or result of the martial law declaration which should not be considered as the appropriate actual basis for such controverted declaration and suspension.

  5. The High Court must have been overwhelmed by the horrific and tragic aftermath of the declaration of martial law and suspension of the writ of habeas corpus which made the majority of the justices oblivious that the current escalating deaths, destruction and displacement of civilians were not the prevailing facts on 23 May 2017 when Proclamation No. 216 was issued.

  6. In fact, authoritative military officials had consistently reported that hours before and contemporaneous to the declaration of martial law, the Marawi situation was under control, the military was on top of the situation and subsequently admitted that it was the military who precipitated and initiated the armed confrontation by attempting to arrest or capture Isnilon Hapilon and the Maute brothers, which offensive was resisted by the Maute and Abu Sayyaf groups.

  7. Moreover, the facts alleged by the President in Proclamation No. 216 and his Report to the Congress must be the ones considered for determining the sufficiency of the factual basis. But the facts contained in these two principal documents fail the standard of sufficiency.

  8. To meander outside the periphery of Proclamation No. 216 and the President’s Report to the Congress is to unduly supplement and augment the factual basis used by the President in his declaration and suspension.

  9. The crucial issue is whether there was sufficient factual basis for the President’s finding that actual rebellion existed in Marawi City and the rest of Mindanao on 23 May 2017 when Proclamation No. 216 was issued.

  10. This singular issue is of overriding import because martial law can only be declared by the President in case of invasion or rebellion when public safety requires it.

  11. Although there were acts of terrorism and lawless violence in Marawi City, which could be considered “uprising against the government”, the other element of rebellion which is the culpable purpose of removing a part of the country from allegiance to the Republic or preventing the Congress or the President from exercising their powers and prerogatives is palpably absent.

  12. This culpable purpose is not evinced by the mere raising of IS flags which has been done previously by the terrorists as cheap propaganda to support their claim that they are ISIS-inspired.

  13. Neither is criminal objective evidenced by unsubstantiated claims of establishing a wilayah in Marawi or Mindanao as part of the ISIS caliphate, which is not even reliably confirmed by ISIS itself.

  14. To believe that the objective of the Maute and Abu Sayyaf groups is to establish a wilayah in Marawi or Mindanao as part of the ISIS caliphate is to succumb to terrorist propaganda and propel these local terror groups to the world stage. Except for the drumbeating say-so of the terrorist leaders, there is no evidentiary mooring for this bare propaganda.

  15. This projected wilayah is another terrorist propaganda, which the military unfortunately purveys as truth.

  16. The numerous safeguards in the 1987 Constitution against the repetition of the abuses and excesses of martial law are only good if the President and Armed Forces respect the constitutional injunctions.

  17. No less than President Duterte said that Marcos’ martial law was “very good”, despite the repressions and abuses it spawned, and his own martial law will be “harsh”.

  18. But the reported violations of human rights and civil liberties by the armed forces and the police authorities in Marawi City and Lanao del Sur as documented by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Lanao del Sur Chapter show how safeguards are disregarded and violated.

  19. The SC decision in effect gave credence to the policy of the Duterte administration on “destroy and compensate”, which is flawed because there is no logic in inordinately devastating Marawi City and then appropriating billions of pesos to reconstruct and rehabilitate the City.

  20. Calling out of the armed forces to subdue terrorism and lawless violence would have been sufficient without giving primacy to military rule consequent to the declaration of martial law.

  21. While no new legitimate powers are vested or exercised by the President and the armed forces with the declaration of martial law, extra-legal powers are assumed by them, like:

    1. Projecting the primacy of the role of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces;

    2. Intensifying the emergence of military rule;

    3. Instilling fear among the citizens who are apprehensive of the atrocities and repressions committed during the regime of Marcos’ martial law; and

    4. Fomenting opportunities for violation of human rights and civil liberties under the pretext of protecting national security.

  22. News accounts are removed from the hearsay rule if:

    1. The sources are government authorities whose statements are clothed with the presumption of regularity;

      • According to responsible military officials, the situation in Marawi City was under control and the military was on top of the situation shortly before and at the time Proclamation No. 216 was issued.

      • At 7:28 PM or four hours before President Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216 in Moscow at 11:20 PM (Philippine time), on 23 May 2017, National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon, Jr. categorically said that the Armed Forces of the Philippines was in full control of the situation.

      • About two hours later, at 9:45 PM on 23 May 2017, Respondent Gen. Eduardo Año, Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, who was with the President in Moscow, told ANC Live that the military was in full control.

      • One hour before the issuance of Proclamation No. 216 or at 10:30 PM on 23 May 2017, Marawi Operations Spokesperson Lt. Col. Jo-Ar Herrera confirmed in an interview with CNN Philippines that the military was on top of the situation.

      • Twenty minutes before the issuance of Proclamation No. 216, or at 11:00 PM on 23 May 2017, Col. Edgard Arevalo, Chief of the AFP Public Affairs Office, asserted in a briefing that the situation in Marawi has stabilized and security forces are in full control of the situation.

    2. The statements are not contradicted; and

    3. The news accounts are corroborated by independent news outlets.

  23. Moreover, the SC instructed the Solicitor General to submit an affidavit of Col. Edgar Arevalo, AFP Public Affairs Officer, debunking his statement that the military was fighting local terrorists and there are no ISIS in the Philippines, and the military was in control as of 23 May 2017, as announced in the AFP website and reported in the AFP Facebook page with a video dated 11:14 PM on 23 May 2017, but the Solicitor General failed to submit the required affidavit. Consequently, the news and website accounts of Col. Arevalo are uncontradicted.

  24. While filing a motion for reconsideration is an option for the petitioners, a “rematch” with the 11 justices may be an exercise in futility, as they may not be disposed to change their “stance” in favor of President Duterte.

 

 

EDCEL C. LAGMAN