Proclamation No. 216 also suspends the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao

MANILA, Philippines – A copy of President Rodrigo Duterte's Proclamation No. 216 declaring martial law in Mindanao was released on Wednesday evening, May 24.

The proclamation, signed on Tuesday, May 23, while Duterte was in Russia for an official visit, also suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao.

"Habeas corpus" is a Latin phrase that means "that you have the body."

Through the writ of habeas corpus, a court can order the state to produce the physical body of a person detained. "In general, the purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to determine whether or not a particular person is legally held," the Supreme Court (SC) said in a previous ruling.

"The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion," according to the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

"During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released."

Proclamation No. 216 cited as justification "the series of violent acts committed by the Maute terrorist group" last year as well as their attack on Marawi City on Tuesday. The clashes in the city have left at least 5 soldiers dead and forced thousands to flee.

"This recent attack [on Tuesday] shows the capability of the Maute group and other rebel groups to sow terror, and cause death and damage to property not only in Lanao del Sur but also in other parts of Mindanao," states the proclamation. (READ: FAST FACTS: What you should know about the Maute Group)

Below is a copy of the two-page Proclamation No. 216.

Duterte warned on Wednesday that he will be "harsh" in implementing martial law, which he said "will not be any different" from the military rule under dictator Ferdinand Marcos.

Duterte also said he might expand martial law to include Luzon and the Visayas if the threat of the Islamic State (ISIS) persists. (READ: Maute Group waves ISIS black flag on Marawi streets)

If the President wants to extend martial law beyond the 60 days specified in the 1987 Constitution, he must get the approval of Congress.

Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution says that the President, as commander-in-chief, may "in case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it" suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the country under martial law.

Crafted after the EDSA People Power Revolution that ousted Marcos in 1986, the 1987 Constitution highlights the role of other branches of government in the martial law declaration. The provisions are meant precisely to prevent grave abuse and stop another Marcos from tinkering with civil rights.

Congress may revoke the declaration of martial law, while the SC may review it following an "appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen." (READ: Martial Law 101: Things you should know) – Rappler.com </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> Manila: Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has threatened to jail critics of his use of martial law in the violence-wracked south, days before the Supreme Court is set to rule on its legality this week.

Duterte declared military rule across the region of Mindanao, home to about 20 million people, in late May to quell what he said was a fast-growing threat from the Islamic State (IS) group there.

The Philippine leader has insisted he would ignore the findings of the court, which has constitutional oversight, vowing only to listen to recommendations from the armed forces.

"It's not dependent on the whim of the Supreme Court. Should I believe them? When I see the situation is still chaotic and you ask me to lift it? I will arrest you and put you behind bars," Duterte said in a speech before local officials on Saturday.

"We can talk of anything else and make compromises maybe but not when the interest of my country is at stake."

Government forces are continuing to battle militants occupying the city of Marawi, with aerial bombardment and ferocious street-to-street combat that has left some 400 people dead and forced nearly 400,000 people in the wider area to flee their homes.

Duterte has faced a backlash from opposition lawmakers, who last month asked the Supreme Court to reject the declaration of martial law, which they have slammed as unconstitutional.

The 1987 constitution imposes limits on martial law to prevent a repeat of the abuses under dictator Ferdinand Marcos, who was deposed by a famous "People Power" revolution the previous year.

The charter allows the Supreme Court to review the factual basis for proclaiming martial law, which is limited to an initial period of 60 days. If a president decides to extend martial law, congress can review and revoke it. </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> 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> '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 </s> PRESIDENT Rodrigo Duterte has threatened to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, a move that would allow warrantless arrests, if illegal drugs and terrorism spread across the country.

In a speech in Davao City on Friday night, Duterte said he was considering suspending the writ as it is among the constitutional provisions “intended to protect the Republic of the Philippines.”

“If lawlessness spreads, I might be forced to — I don’t want, it’s a warning but I don’t want to do it because it doesn’t look good – but if you force my hand into it, I will declare the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus,” he said at the launching of Pilipinong May Puso Foundation Inc.

In September, Duterte placed the country in a “State of Emergency on Account of Lawless Violence in Mindanao” following the blast in a night market in his home city of Davao that killed 15 people.

‘No martial law’

 But the President quickly made it clear he would not place the country under martial rule.

“I will declare the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, not martial law. I have no intention to play politics,” Duterte said.

The President said he had “no remedy” to the drug and terrorism problems, citing the attacks waged in Mindanao by the Maute terror group, which was tagged in the September 2 Davao City blast.

“I will declare a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, I will pick them all up. I will bring them to Samal Island. I will open up Samal Island in the middle so they sink with it,” Duterte said in a mix of English and Filipino. “They choose. It’s true. If you don’t give me a choice then you box me in a corner and I find myself helpless.”

If the Supreme Court blocks the suspension of the writ, the President said he would remain undeterred.

“Those are really provisions intended to protect the Republic of the Philippines. I can be ordered by the Supreme Court to stop it but there are things that they cannot, and maybe, I will not, stop,” Duterte said.

“I’ll tell them I will finish this first then I can go to jail. File all the charges that you can think of. But this country, in my time, will not deteriorate any further,” he added.

The writ of habeas corpus refers to the power of the courts to require the state to produce a person in custody.

Under the Constitution, the suspension of the privilege of the writ is only allowed with respect to “persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.”

Once suspended, authorities will have the power to arrest anyone without a warrant. It also allows prolonged periods of detention without charges. </s> Martial law in Mindanao might last for the rest of the year as President Duterte has appealed to lawmakers to allow the extension of military rule on the island until December 31.

In a news briefing on Tuesday, Presidential Spokesman Ernesto C. Abella said the President wrote a letter to Congress asking for almost a half-a-year extension of Proclamation 216, which imposes martial law and suspends the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao. The executive proclamation is due to expire on Saturday, or 60 days after it was issued on May 23.

Under Article 7, Section 18 of the Constitution, the President is given the power to declare martial law and suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus for a period of not more than 60 days.

In his letter to Congress, Duterte said his motion to extend martial law is upon his individual review of the conflict in Marawi City, Lanao del Sur, and other parts of Mindanao. Abella said the possible martial-law extension is intended to “deal with local terrorist groups and anything that threatens public safety in Mindanao”.

“The primary objective of the possible extension is to allow our forces to continue with their operation and to focus more on the liberation of Marawi City and its rehabilitation and rebuilding,” Abella said.

In a text message to the BusinessMirror, Mindanao Development Authority Deputy Executive Director Romeo M. Montenegro said he is certain the President assessed the situation well before making such appeal to Congress.

“The President has certainly considered key elements in calling for the extension, noting the need to completely quell rebellion in parts of Mindanao,” Montenegro said.

Business is as usual in Mindanao, he added, in spite of the declaration of martial law in the whole of the island and extremist threats in Marawi City.

“The overall business mood for the rest of Mindanao had remained normal notwithstanding, except perhaps for some sectors, as heightened security weighed in on travel movements,” Montenegro said.

Lawmakers on Tuesday asked the Philippine National Police (PNP) and Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to justify the proposed extension of martial law in Mindanao.

While they support the extension of martial law, Rep. Luis Raymund Villafuerte of Camarines Sur, Party-list Rep. Harry Roque of Kabayan and Party-list Rep. Alfredo Garbin Jr. of Ako Bicol said there’s still a need for the AFP and the PNP to prove that the extension is warranted.

Majority Leader Rodolfo C. Fariñas of Ilocos Norte said Duterte has called on the Congress to conduct a special session at 9 a.m. on Saturday to consider the extension of martial law.

House Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez vowed for the passage of the measure extending martial law.

However, Rep. Teddy Baguilat of Ifugao, a member of Magnificent 7 and petitioner of martial law before the Supreme Court, asked the Palace and the leadership of Congress to give lawmakers more time to study the situation before considering the extension.
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.