Go to First Page</s>EXPAND MARTIAL LAW? The Supreme Court says President Rodrigo Duterte has the prerogative to impose martial law nationwide.

MANILA, Philippines (UPDATED) – The Supreme Court (SC), in a landmark decision on Tuesday, July 4, said the Chief Executive should be trusted to declare martial law and should have the sole discretion on its scope.

"The Constitution grants him the prerogative whether to put the entire Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. There is no constitutional edict that martial law should be confined only in the particular place where the armed public uprising actually transpired," the SC said in its ruling penned by Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo.

Del Castillo's ponencia upheld the constitutionality of President Rodrigo Duterte's martial law in Mindanao, with concurrences from Associate Justices Lucas Bersamin, Presbitero Velasco Jr, Jose Mendoza, Bienvenido Reyes, Diosdado Peralta, Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Estela Perlas-Bernabe, Noel Tijam, Samuel Martires, and Francis Jardeleza.

Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio believes martial law should be limited only to Marawi City while Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Associate Justice Benjamin Caguioa voted to limit martial law to the provinces of Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, and Sulu.

Associate Justice Marvic Leonen was the lone dissenter in the High Court, siding with the petitioners' bid to nullify Proclamation No. 216.

Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) chief General Eduardo Año and Philippine National Police (PNP) chief Director General Ronald dela Rosa have indicated that they would recommend to Duterte the extension of martial law in Mindanao, which is supposed to end on July 22.

Presidential prerogative

In the 82-page ruling released late Wednesday, July 5, the High Court said all issues of martial law and circumstances of its proclamation are upon Duterte's prerogative.

The SC said the President does not need the approval of the High Court, not even Congress, to impose martial law – it's up to him to determine that there is rebellion and to impose military rule.

"The Court, as Congress does, must thus accord the President the same leeway by not wading into the realm that is reserved exclusively by the Constitution to the Executive Department," the SC said.

The SC also said Duterte has the power to declare martial law not only in the area where he finds rebellion to exist but also in "other areas where present hostilities are in danger of spilling over."

"In fine, it is difficult, if not impossible, to fix the territorial scope of martial law in direct proportion to the range of actual rebellion and public safety simply because rebellion and public safety have no fixed physical dimensions," the SC said.

"The Constitution must have considered these limitations when it granted the President wide leeway and flexibility in determining the territorial scope of martial law. Limiting the proclamation and/or suspension to the place where there is actual rebellion would not only defeat the purpose of declaring martial law, it will make the exercise thereof ineffective and useless," the SC added.

The High Court cited incidents related to the Marawi clashes one way or the other which occurred outside the besieged city, such as the arrest of Maute matriarch Farhana Maute in Masiu town, and even the attack of the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) in Cotabato City.

Sereno said, however, that the SC should not have given the President carte blanche, or the exclusive discretion to determine the matter.

"Validating a Mindanao-wide coverage is indeed convenient for the Court but it is not right. If, to use the words of the ponencia, the most important objective of Article VII, Section 18 is to 'curtail the extent of the power of the President,' then this Court miserably failed," Sereno said in her opinion. (READ: Sereno, Carpio opinions: Watch Duterte's martial law closely)

Probable cause enough

The Constitution says martial law may be declared in the event of a rebellion, but for the SC, Duterte does not need to be sure that there is actual rebellion; he only needs to have probable cause to believe so.

"The President only needs to convince himself that there is probable cause or evidence showing that more likely than not a rebellion was committed or is being committed. To require him to satisfy a higher standard of proof would restrict the exercise of his emergency powers," the SC said.

Carpio, although voting to restrict martial law to Marawi City, agreed that only probable cause is required of the President. "Probable cause is the same amount of proof required for the filing of a criminal information by the prosecutor and for the issuance of an arrest warrant by a judge," Carpio said in his opinion.

As for the convincing factors, the SC said the President does not need to be correct but only needs to have "sufficient factual basis" for making the declaration.

"The Court does not need to satisfy itself that the President's decision is correct, rather it only needs to determine whether the President's decision had sufficient factual basis," the SC said.

For majority in the SC, the inaccuracies in Duterte's martial law report to Congress are "irrelevant" in view of the necessary haste in deciding on the imposition of military rule.

"As the President is expected to decide quickly on whether there is a 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," the SC said.

The SC also agreed that Duterte does not need the recommendation of anyone, not even his top security officials, for his proclamation to be valid.

The petitioners had cited inaccuracies in the martial law report in seeking to nullify Proclamation No. 216, mostly based on news reports that fact-checked Duterte's report. The SC said news reports are inadmissible.

The SC also said the presence of true and accurate incidents in the report would be sufficient.

The ruling also said that Duterte, as Commander-in-Chief, and not the High Court, can "properly assess the ground conditions."

The SC said it would be up to Duterte if he wants to disclose to the public certain information.

"He cannot be forced to divulge intelligence reports and confidential information that may prejudice the operations and the safety of the military," the High Court said.

Vague martial law?

The Bayan group of petitioners alleged that the martial law declaration was too vague because of its inclusion of "other rebel groups."

In fact, the military's operational directive for martial law in Mindanao also targets communist rebels, drug syndicates, and other peace spoilers.

The petitioners' counsel, Neri Colmenares, even showed a copy of the annex that Solicitor General Jose Calida submitted to the SC listing the BIFF, a splinter group of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), as among the peace spoilers in the region.

For Colmenares, rebel groups outside of the Maute network are irrelevant to the case. He accused Calida of inventing facts to justify martial law.

For the SC, the vagueness doctrine only applies to cases of free speech, and martial law is not such a case.

The High Court also said the absence of clear operational guidelines does not make martial law vague. It said it is not the SC's job anyway to determine the legality of operations when ruling on the constitutionality of martial law.

The SC said it would address questions about the legality of a martial law-related operation when raised before the High Court.

"Any act committed under the said orders in violation of the Constitution and the laws, such as criminal acts or human rights violations, should be resolved in a separate proceeding."

Constitutional safeguards

The High Court also cited "sufficient safeguards" in the 1987 Constitution to prevent abuse of the power to declare martial law.

"The Constitution has provided sufficient safeguards against possible abuses of the Commander-in-Chief's powers; further curtailment of presidential powers should not only be discouraged but also avoided," the SC said.

For the SC, it is enough that the 1987 Constitution limits the basis of martial law to only rebellion, and that it imposed a 60-day expiry on the proclamation.

The High Court said the public should not be scared or biased against martial law because of the country's experience of military rule under the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos. (READ: Martial law, the dark chapter in Philippine history)

"After all, martial law is critical and crucial to the promotion of public safety, the preservation of the nation's sovereignty and ultimately, the survival of our country," the SC said.

The petitioners and opposition lawmakers have expressed fears that the SC ruling may embolden Duterte to declare martial law in the entire Philippines. They cited the "creeping authoritarianism" in the country under the year-old Duterte administration. – Rappler.com</s>'If the President lifts martial law one week prior to the expiration, and then suddenly there is another rebellion, are you saying he cannot declare martial law again? He can,' says Chief Presidential Counsel Salvador Panelo in response to the criticism of Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon

MANILA, Philippines – The 1987 Constitution does not set a limit to the number of times President Rodrigo Duterte can declare martial law, Chief Presidential Counsel Salvador Panelo said on Thursday, July 6.

Panelo made the statement after Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon called him out for saying that the Chief Executive can issue another martial law declaration if Congress rejects a request to extend martial law in Mindanao.

"I don't think there is a provision in the Constitution that you can only declare martial law once. Otherwise, you will be tying the President's hands in quelling a rebellion," Panelo said in a media interview on Thursday.

Panelo also clarified that he had said Duterte "theoretically" will need to make a new declaration if the 60-day period of his current declaration expires with no extension granted by Congress.

His earlier text to reporters read: "If Congress does not extend on the 60th day upon initiative of the President, then there can be no extension. Another proclamation is necessary."

The Constitution limits the duration of martial law to 60 days, which can be extended if Congress approves, by a joint vote, a request from the President.

Drilon said Panelo's suggestion was tantamount to a "circumvention" of the Constitution which states Duterte needs Congress approval before there can be a martial law extension.

Drilon, a former justice secretary, said while it would be technically a "new" proclamation," if the basis for it is the same as the proclamation which had lapsed, then "for all intents and purposes, it is nothing more but an extension of the existing proclamation."

Panelo countered that the Constitution does not give a limit to the number of times the President can declare martial law within a given period.

"For example, if the President lifts martial law one week prior to the expiration, and then suddenly there is another rebellion, are you saying he cannot declare martial law again? He can," he said.

He reasoned that the 1987 Constitution recognizes the need to give the President enough powers to quell rebellion or invasion when it compromises public safety.

The Charter also saw to it that there are safeguards to check this power.

"That is his constitutional duty. Because I do not think that the framers of the Constitution intended the President to be tied to one particular declaration of martial law. There are many safeguards. The Congress is there to review," Panelo said.

Duterte's martial law proclamation, and the Marawi siege that triggered it, marked their 45th day on Thursday, July 6. Proclamation 216 is set to expire by July 22, days before he delivers his second State of the Nation Address.

The Supreme Court upheld Duterte's martial law proclamation, though 3 justices – Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, and Associate Justice Benjamin Caguioa – said it should not cover the entire Mindanao. In their opinions, Sereno and Carpio said Duterte must be watched closely as he exercised his power to implement Proclamation 216.

Associate Justice Marvic Leonen wanted to nullify the proclamation, saying the Marawi crisis is not a rebellion. – Rappler.com</s>Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno says President Rodrigo Duterte must not be allowed to broaden the use of martial law 'to solve other social ills'

MANILA, Philippines – Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio said in separate opinions on petitions against martial law in Mindanao that President Rodrigo Duterte must be watched closely as he exercises his power to implement Proclamation 216.

Sereno, who partially granted the petitions against Proclamation 216, said in her opinion that Duterte should not have been given the sole discretion to proclaim martial law over the entire Philippines, or in areas where he is convinced there is rebellion.

Sereno criticized the majority ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) which, she said, "effectively gave Duterte carte blanche" or the exclusive right to decide over the matter.

"Validating a Mindanao-wide coverage is indeed convenient for the Court but it is not right. If, to use the words of the ponencia, the most important objective of Article VII, Section 18 is to 'curtail the extent of the power of the President,' then this Court miserably failed," Sereno said in her opinion which sought to limit the scope of martial law to Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, and Sulu.

In his opinion, Carpio said Duterte's words should not be taken lightly, especially when the Chief Executive had said that his martial law "will not be any different from what Marcos did."

Noting that the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos "abolished Congress, shut down media, imprisoned leaders of political opposition, packed the SC with his law school classmates and loyalists and ruled by decree," Carpio said the Court should make sure Duterte does not repeat history.

"It is apparent that President Duterte does not understand, or refuses to understand, this fundamental principle that forms part of the bedrock of our democracy under the 1987 Constitution, despite his having taking a solemn oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitution," Carpio said in his separate opinion seeking to limit martial law to Marawi City.

Over 9 pages, Carpio enumerated the possible consequences of martial law which include wiretapping and government takeover of businesses, the news media, and even services such as telecommunications, power supply, and airlines.

He reminded that these are all powers given to the President if national security or public safety requires it.

Carpio said, however, that these powers cannot be exercised without a specific law enacted by the Congress, in a seeming nudge to the legislative department, which is dominated by Duterte allies.

"A declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ has a built-in trigger mechanism for the applicability of other constitutional provisions that may lawfully restrict the enjoyment of constitutional rights, provided there are existing laws specifically authorizing such restrictions," Carpio said.

Sereno said that based on the private briefing by Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana and Armed Forces chief General Eduardo Año, some of the violence in Mindanao "may have been committed by the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), or the New People's Army (NPA)."

In fact, the military's operational directive for the imposition of martial law in Mindanao targets communist rebels, drug syndicates, and other peace spoilers.

"Unless the President is saying that the publicly-announced peace negotiations being conducted with the MNLF, the MILF and the NPA/NDF are being completely abandoned, acts attributable to these 3 rebel groups cannot serve as the factual basis for Proclamation No. 216," Sereno said. (READ: Duterte slams communists for NPA attacks despite promises)

The Chief Justice went further and said Duterte must not be allowed to broaden the use of martial law "to solve other social ills." Sereno said the Constitution does not give Duterte "and his officials...unhampered discretion to wield his powers in any way and whichever direction he desires."

"These standards ensure that Marcosian martial law does not happen again and the foundations of a just and humane society envisioned by the Constitution remain intact," Sereno said.

Carpio echoed Sereno's caution. "The Court cannot play with the fire of martial law which could turn into ashes the very Constitution that members of the Court are sworn to preserve and defend, a tragic event that that once befell the Court in 1972 and brought the Court to its lowest point in history," he said in his opinion.

On Tuesday, July 4, the High Court voted 11-3-1 upholding the constitutionality of Duterte's Proclamation 216. Aside from Carpio and Sereno, Associate Justice Benjamin Caguioa also partially granted the petitions against the presidential proclamation while Associate Justice Marvic Leonen was the lone dissenter. – Rappler.com</s>'Huwag naman sana nating lokohin ang taumbayan,' Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon tells Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador Panelo, who said Duterte can just declare martial law again if Proclamation No. 216 is not extended

MANILA, Philippines – Only Congress has the power to extend martial law.

Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon slammed as unconstitutional the claim of Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador Panelo that President Rodrigo Duterte can just issue a new martial law declaration if Congress refuses to extend Proclamation No. 216.

"The Constitution is clear that it is Congress that has the power to extend martial law and the President may only recommend," Drilon said in a statement on Thursday, July 6.

Drilon said Panelo's advice is "an affront to the Constitution."

"Such action will be a circumvention of the Constitution because for all intents and purposes, it is nothing more but an extension of the existing proclamation," Drilon said.

"You cannot circumvent the Constitution. Huwag naman sana nating lokohin ang taumbayan (Let us not fool the people). Let us not try to go around with the constitutional requirements. Let us respect the process," he added.

The senator said Panelo's advice "would violate the principle of checks and balances between the executive and Congress."

The executive, he added, should respect the constitutional duty of Congress to review and approve or disapprove any extension of martial law.

Duterte earlier declared martial law in Mindanao, after clashes between government troops and the Maute Group erupted in Marawi City on May 23.

To prove his point, Drilon cited Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, which states, "[U]pon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it."

Drilon said the provision is meant to prevent a repeat of the abuses committed during martial law under dictator Ferdinand Marcos.

"[It is meant] to provide a safeguard in the president's exercise of [his] martial law powers," the senator said.

Drilon earlier slammed Panelo for claiming that Duterte can declare martial law on the basis of the worsening problem of illegal drugs in the country. (READ: Drilon hits Panelo on martial law: Review some more)

Senator Francis Escudero, for his part, cautioned Panelo on his martial law remarks.

"If it's for the same area and to address the same threat, it is, for all intents and purposes, an extension and not a re-declaration," Escudero said in a text message to reporters on Wednesday.

"I hope the legal advisers of the President will exercise more prudence instead of advising him about 'trailblazing legal theories' that may raise more constitutional issues than settling them," added Escudero, who is also a lawyer.

Earlier, Congress supported the proclamation and refused to convene to discuss Duterte's declaration of martial law in Mindanao. The Supreme Court also upheld the constitutionality of the proclamation, prompting petitioners and critics to predict that Duterte would declare martial law nationwide. – Rappler.com</s>Opposition lawmakers at the House of Representatives have warned against extending the 60-day declaration of martial law and suspension of the writ of habeas corpus (warrantless arrest) in Mindanao that they said rested on uncertain grounds at best.

Reps. Teddy Baguilat of Ifugao and Tomas Villarin of Akbayan party-list, petitioners against President Rodrigo Duterte’s Proclamation 216, issued a day after the Supreme Court affirmed the legality of Duterte’s martial law which was declared as a result of the Marawi City siege perpetrated by terrorist Maute group.

“We opposed Duterte’s creeping authoritarian rule and the Supreme Court decision will embolden him to expand martial law,” Villarin told reporters.

“Our contention is that we can effectively fight terrorists and rebels even without the extraordinary powers of martial law. The administration has to justify how one month of martial law rule in Mindanao was successful in quelling the uprising in Maute and improving the security situation in the islands,” Baguilat added.

Since Duterte’s martial law declaration last May 23, the military has yet to fully retake Marawi City from the Maute group.

Villarin also disclosed that he was filing a House Resolution seeking to investigate human rights abuses and excesses committed under Duterte’s martial rule.

Villarin cited accounts by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in Lanao which has reported that it was “utterly shocked, to use a milder term, by sheer magnitude of wanton disregard of sanctity of domicile, the right against deprivation of property without due process of the law, the right to be sure in one’s person, house, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and the privacy of communication and correspondence of innocent civilians committed by the Armed Forces and the Philippine National Police.”

“Congress cannot just gloss over this account of IBP as it hastens to do the bidding of Malacañang for a possible extension of martial law,” Villarin added.

Under the Constitution, the President can only declare martial law and suspend the writ of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion, invasion or when public safety requires it.

The Constitution mandates Congress to review the President’s martial law declaration which is only limited to 60 days. Likewise, Congress is empowered to revoke such declaration in a joint session—a revocation that cannot be set aside by the President.

But in Duterte’s case, both the House and the Senate decided not to convene in a joint session and instead adopted a resolution, respectively, supporting the President’s declaration of martial law.</s>Members of the House of Representatives welcomed the Supreme Court ruling upholding President Rodrigo Duterte’s Proclamation 216 which declared martial law in Mindanao at the onset of the Maute terror group attack last May.

In a majority vote, the Supreme Court on July 4 affirmed President Duterte’s declaration of martial law.

Eleven justices voted to uphold the president’s declaration over all of Mindanao, said Supreme Court spokesperson Theodore Te in a press briefing.

Three others voted to limit the declaration to Marawi City, the conflict zone. A lone justice, meanwhile, voted to nullify the proclamation altogether.

The decision validated Duterte’s declaration on May 23, when he placed the entire Mindanao under military rule following clashes between government troops and Islamic State-inspired Maute and Abu Sayyaf group terrorists in the Islamic city of Marawi.

It dismissed several petitions that questioned the basis of the president’s declaration.

In justifying his declaration, President Duterte had told Congress in a report that the extremists were planning to create an Islamic State province in Mindanao.

Several petitioners- opposition lawmakers, leftist leaders and four women from Marawi City- had asked the high court to invalidate the martial law declaration over all of Mindanao, saying there was no basis for military rule.

They asserted that the President could have addressed the crisis even without declaring martial law, saying the conflict was confined within Marawi City.

During oral arguments from June 13 to 15, magistrates sought government’s clarification on the President’s reasons for placing all of Mindanao under martial rule amid clashes between state troops and terrorists in Marawi City.

Solicitor General Jose Calida insisted that “all the elements of rebellion were present” when Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216. The President also suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus to allow police to make warrantless arrests of terror suspects.

Rep. Robert Ace Barbers (2nd District, Surigao del Norte), chairman of the committee on dangerous drugs, lauded the SC decision and commended the 11 justices who saw the light and wisdom in President Duterte’s decision in declaring martial law in Mindanao.

“Being a Mindanaoan myself, I share the President’s insight and knowledge of the culture and mentality of the people there. This is a clear vindication of President Duterte’s resolve to crush the Maute rebellion at all cost. Putting the entire Mindanao under Martial Law proved to be a wise move as it prevented possible reinforcements from reaching the rebels in Marawi. This is a victory for every peace-loving Filipino who condemned the senseless loss of lives in that rebellion,” said Barbers.

Rep. Roger Mercado (Lone District, Southern Leyte), chairman of the House committee on constitutional amendments, said the Supreme Court has proven that the Filipino people should support President Duterte.

“Our Muslim brothers must do their part in rebuilding Mindanao in order that the Mindanaoans can see and feel the funds and infrastructure projects of the National Government. It’s bringing the government to the people,” said Mercado.

Rep. Gus Tambunting (2nd District, Parañaque), chairman of the committee on games and amusements, said the Supreme Court ruling is good for the country.

“It avoids a constitutional crisis. It also recognizes that the problem in Mindanao is complex, and the solution is something that the judiciary must not impede the executive from achieving. Now more than ever, we must rally behind President Duterte and the rest of his government in their efforts to stamp out the Daesh and its attempt to bring radicalism and violence to our country,” said Tambunting.

Minority Leader Danilo Suarez said that even before the congressional break, he mentioned that the incident in Marawi may be difficult to contain, with the news coming out that there were pre-positioned fighters, well-armed and well-equipped with unlimited supply of ammo. He said the events justified the President’s martial law declaration, and the SC ruling settled it.

“Iyong extension (ng martial law) is a call of the House and the Senate, if the President will ask for it. I think it’s more of a military decision and the President will be guided accordingly by the decision of the military. I think the situation is still far from being normal. An extension may be in order,” Suarez said.

Rep. Johnny Ty Pimentel (2nd District, Surigao del Sur), chairman of the committee on good government and public accountability, said martial law in Mindanao may be extended to solve the big problem confronting Marawi City.

“Nakita naman po natin na almost 400 na ang namatay and marami na ang napinsala sa Marawi, and in fact, kapag hindi pa ito mabibigyan ng lunas baka ma-extend pa ang martial law, I will still support it,” said Pimentel.</s>Albay 1st District Representative Edcel Lagman says they will 'expose serious errors in the majority decision' of the Supreme Court when they file a motion for reconsideration

MANILA, Philippines – Opposition lawmakers plan to file a motion for reconsideration against the Supreme Court (SC) decision upholding the constitutionality of President Rodrigo Duterte's declaration of martial law in Mindanao.

Albay 1st District Representative Edcel Lagman said on Thursday, July 6, that they made the decision after reading in full the majority decision of the High Court, which voted 11-3-1 in favor of martial law.

"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," said Lagman in a statement.

"Serious errors in the majority decision will be exposed and expounded in the motion for reconsideration," he added.

Among those expected to file the motion for reconsideration along with Lagman are his co-petitioners Magdalo Representative Gary Alejano, Ifugao Representative Teddy Baguilat Jr, Capiz 1st District Representative Emmanuel Billones, and Akbayan Representative Tom Villarin.

On May 23, government troops clashed with members of the Maute Group and the Abu Sayyaf Group in Marawi City. The police and military had attempted to arrest Abu Sayyaf leader Isnilon Hapilon, the supposed "emir" in the Philippines of international terrorist group Islamic State (ISIS).

The clashes prompted Duterte to declare martial law over the whole of Mindanao, a move questioned in several petitions before the SC.

In his statement, Lagman outlined the "serious flaws" they found in the SC's majority decision:
• The SC found sufficient basis in Duterte's Proclamation No. 216 despite several factual errors in the President's report to Congress. The 11 SC justices had said the inaccuracies are "irrelevant" in view of the necessary haste in deciding on the imposition of military rule.
• The SC justices "failed to judiciously determine" that actual rebellion existed in Marawi City when the terrorist groups clashed with the military "because the element of culpable political purpose is palpably absent."
• News accounts of the Marawi siege "must be given credence" and removed from the hearsay rule because they contain statements of government officials whose acts are clothed with presumption of regularity; the news accounts are not contradictory to each other; and the news reports are corroborated by independent news outlets.

According to Lagman, the SC gave Duterte "much leeway and flexibility" to declare martial law nationwide through its decision. (READ: SC ruling: Duterte can put 'entire PH' under martial law)

"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," said Lagman, also a human rights lawyer.

Lagman previously said the 11 SC justices "must have been overwhelmed" by the aftermath of the Marawi City siege, forcing them to rule in favor of martial law. – Rappler.com</s>'That's the best part of the decision. The Court made it clear that it had the power to review the President's decision,' says a legal expert of the SC ruling on the petitions against martial law in Mindanao

MANILA, Philippines – In its landmark ruling on petitions against martial law in Mindanao, the Supreme Court declared that martial law proclamations are sui generis or a case of its own kind.

This means that the High Court is retaining its right over judicial review of future proclamations independent from the actions of Congress which is good news, according to lawyer and political analyst Tony La Viña.

"That's the best part of the decision. The Court made it clear that it had the power to review the President's decision. There is no condition for that and it is independent of Congress," La Viña said.

In the ponencia written by Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo, the SC ruled that "the jurisdiction of the Court is not restricted to the cases enumerated to Sections 1 and 5 of Article VIII."

In the constitutional provision, the SC shall have jurisdiction over "cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus."

Interestingly during the oral arguments, it was Del Castillo who raised the possibility that the petitions seeking to nullify President Rodrigo Duterte's martial law in Mindanao may not be for SC review since it is not included in the list under Article VIII.

Ruling that martial law proclamations are sui generis now means that the SC can resolve questions on martial law.

"The Court cannot simply trust blindly the President when he declares martial law or suspends the privilege of the writ," Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio said.

The High Court voted 11-3-1 on Tuesday upholding the constitutionality of Duterte's Proclamation 216. Aside from Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Carpio, Associate Justice Benjamin Caguioa also partially granted the petitions against the presidential proclamation, while Associate Justice Marvic Leonen was the lone dissenter.

The SC also reverses its 2012 ruling on the petitions against then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's imposition of martial law in Maguindanao in 2009.

In the 2012 ruling, the High Court said it can only come in to review a martial law proclamation "when Congress defaults in its express duty to defend the Constitution."

In its 2017 ruling, the SC said, "By the above pronouncement, the Court willingly but unwittingly clipped its own power and surrendered the same to Congress as well as abdicated from its bounden duty to review."

It added, "Worse, the Court considered itself just on stand-by, waiting and willing to act as a substitute in case Congress defaults."

The SC said it was rectifying this mistake and declared that from now on, "the Court can simultaneously exercise its power of review with, and independently from, the power to revoke by Congress."

When Solicitor General Jose Calida defended Proclamation 216 before the High Court, he told the Chief Justice that martial law is a matter of political question.

Sereno dismissed Calida and said martial law could no longer be branded a matter of political question.

"How are you now justifying the resurgence of the political question doctrine which to all constitutional historians and scholars, was the principal mechanism by which the Supreme Court was blamed for having unduly validated Mr Marcos' martial law?" Sereno told Calida during the oral arguments.

This issue has gone back and forth at the High Court. In 1951, the SC said the martial law proclamation is only for the President to decide, but the Court overturned this in 1971 when it said martial law is "within the ambit of judicial review."

In 1983, the SC under the regime of the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos backtracked anew and said martial law should not be subject to judicial inquiry.

In the 2017 majority ruling, the SC declared that the 1987 Constitution is loud and clear on allowing judicial review of the declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

There is an order of extraordinary powers available to the President in times of need:
• Power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus

Petitioners asserted that martial law should have been the last resort, arguing before the SC that martial law does not add anything to the calling out power of the President.

In its latest ruling, the SC said that while the Court has the power to review the proclamation, that power "does not extend to calibrating the President's decision pertaining to which extraordinary power to avail given a set of facts or conditions."

"To do so would be tantamount to an incursion into the exclusive domain of the Executive and an infringement on the prerogative that solely, at least, initially, lies with the President," the SC said.

This means that according to the SC, it cannot limit Duterte to try the two other powers first before resorting to martial law. He can use whichever power he wants as he sees fit, the SC said.

This adds to the leeway given by the SC to the President insofar as declaring martial law, including giving the Chief Executive the sole discretion to determine rebellion and declare martial law in the entire Philippines, if he sees necessary.

For La Viña, the discretion to choose which extraordinary power to use is something the country "can live with."

"The basis for that is the thinking that it's the President who knows best how to respond to a threat. One cannot start with calling out power, for example, if we are invaded by a foreign country. I think you can go straight to martial law," La Viña said.

In their separate opinions, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Carpio said that Duterte must be watched closely as he exercises his power to implement martial law. Sereno said Duterte must not be allowed to broaden the use of martial law '"o solve other social ills." – Rappler.com</s>The Philippines’ top court has upheld President Rodrigo Duterte’s declaration of martial law in the southern third of the country, dismissing petitions to nullify it.

 Supreme Court spokesman Theodore Te said Tuesday that 11 of 15 justices voted to dismiss the consolidated petitions filed by opposition lawmakers, activist groups and four women from Marawi, the southern city where an attack by Daesh-aligned militants prompted Duterte to declare martial law on May 23.

 Te said three of the justices voted to partially grant the petitions while one voted to grant them.

 Details of the justices’ opinion and voting were not immediately known, with Te saying the justices’ draft opinions will be finalized and submitted Wednesday.

 The petitioners said there was no sufficient factual basis to justify Duterte’s declaration.—Agencies
The Supreme Court of the Philippines says President of the Philippines Rodrigo Duterte can declare martial law in the whole Philippines. Two days prior, the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 216 which declared Martial Law and suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao, in response to the Marawi crisis.