The Supreme Court found that the petition filed by Rep. Edcel C. Lagman and the Magnificent 7 opposition group assailing the extension of martial law in Mindanao appears “sufficient in form and substance” and accordingly required the respondents to file their comment.
This augurs well for the petition which has survived the preliminary gauntlet which petitions have to pass through in the High Court.
In the resolution dated today, December 29, 2017, the Supreme Court said that “the petition appears to be sufficient in form and substance” and consequently required the respondents Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III and Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, among others, to “comment on the petition and the prayer for temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice hereof.”
The petitioners anchored their petition and the prayer for temporary restraining order (TRO) or writ of preliminary injunction on the following grounds:
-
There is no actual invasion or rebellion in Mindanao to constitutionally justifying any extension.
-
Threats or “imminent danger” of rebellion is not a constitutional ground because “imminent danger” as a basis for the imposition or extension of martial law has been deleted by the 1987 Constitution.
-
Remnants of vanquished terror groups are residual phantoms which have no capability of launching a rebellion, and they can be defeated by ordinary police and military operations without extending martial law.
-
The Constitution does not allow a series of extensions which would defeat the constitutional intent of short duration of martial law and its extension.
-
Martial law spawns violations of human rights and civil liberties and it emboldens the military and police forces to commit atrocities with impunity.
-
Without declaring martial law, the President as Commander–in-Chief is empowered to call out the armed forces to prevent and subdue lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.
EDCEL C. LAGMAN