After perusing the ponencia or the majority decision of the Supreme Court upholding the declaration of martial law in the whole of Mindanao, the opposition congressmen-petitioners have resolved to contest the ruling in a motion for reconsideration.

Serious errors in the majority decision will be exposed and expounded in the motion for reconsideration.

The grant of special and specific jurisdiction to the Supreme Court under Section 18 of Article VII of the Constitution to review the sufficiency of the factual basis for the imposition of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is one of the many safeguards enshrined in the 1987 Constitution to preempt the recurrence of the abuses and excesses which martial law spawned under the Marcos regime.

This safeguard was denigrated by the majority decision which effectively deferred to the discretion of the President and gave him “much leeway and flexibility” to declare martial law because it is he who has the arsenal of intelligence information to warrant such declaration.

This disquisition virtually closes the door for the Supreme Court to fully review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the President’s exercise of extreme emergency powers.

The majority decision even went to the extent of pronouncing that the territorial coverage of martial law is subject to the President’s discretion, thus paving the way for an expanded territorial ambit of a martial law declaration.

The ponencia declared: “Clearly, the Constitution grants the President the discretion to determine the territorial coverage of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. He may put the entire Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.”

The foregoing obiter dictum was completely unnecessary other than to further embolden the President to place the entire country under martial law.

The following are the serious flaws, among others, in the majority decision:

1. Finding that the factual allegations in Proclamation No. 216 and subsequent President’s Report to the Congress constitute “sufficient factual basis” for the declaration of martial law and suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.

   This determination failed to appreciate that the factual averments in the two aforesaid fundamental documents are irrelevant, false and/or not evincing actual rebellion.

   The majority decision proceeded to emphasize that “the purpose of judicial review is not the determination of accuracy or veracity of the facts upon which the President anchored his declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.” If this is so, how can inaccurate or false facts satisfy the quantum of sufficiency?

   The decision further said that “the President is expected to decide quickly on whether there is need to proclaim martial law even only on the basis of intelligence reports, it is irrelevant, for purposes of the Court’s review, if subsequent events prove that the situation had not been accurately reported to him.” If the facts reported to the President are not accurate, then the sufficiency of the factual basis is eroded.

2. The decision failed to judiciously determine that actual rebellion existed in Marawi City and in the whole of Mindanao as of 23 May 2017 because the element of culpable political purpose is palpably absent.

3. Since it is the Executive which has the “monopoly of information”, news accounts as secondary sources of information must be given credence and removed from the hearsay rule considering that said news reports are: (a) statements of government officials whose acts are clothed with presumption of regularity; (b) the news accounts are not contradicted; and (c) they are corroborated by independent news outlets.

EDCEL C. LAGMAN