Lagman told: Convince me rebellion in Mindanao has ended
In deliberating on the sufficiency of factual basis of the martial law extension, Reyes raised that petitioner, Rep. Edcel Lagman (Albay), needs to "convince" the court that rebellion in Mindanao has ended. File
MANILA, Philippines — "When does a rebellion end?"
Associate Justice Andres Reyes posed this question to petitioner Rep. Edcel Lagman (Albay) who challenged the constitutionality of President Rodrigo Duterte's year-long extension of martial law in Mindanao.
"When does a rebellion end? Does it end when a siege is finished? Or when each and every member of that rebellion movement has surrendered or eliminated or neutralized? You have to convince me," Reyes said.
"What really are the overt acts of rebellion? Amassing of weapons? Going around with weapons? Recruiting personnel or amassing weapons or amassing funds are not overt acts of rebellion? Where the issue has to be enlightened, and perhaps you can convince me otherwise that the rebellion is not happening anymore," Reyes added.
In deliberating on the sufficiency of a factual basis for martial law extension, Reyes said petitioners need to "convince" the court that rebellion — the justification for the extension — in Mindanao has ended.
Under the 1987 Constitution, the President can declare martial law "in case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it."
Lagman said that the existence of rebellion "would be dependent on the statements of government authorities. In the case of Marawi siege, no less than the President said that Marawi is now liberated."
But Reyes pointed out that there was no mention that rebellion is over. "Military operations can end on day-to-day basis," he said.
The SC, in July 2017, held that a rebellion staged by terrorist groups in Marawi City affected all of Mindanao and justified Duterte's martial law.
Eleven justices voted to junk the petitions challenging the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 216 that placed the entire Mindanao under martial law and suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the region.
Last October, Duterte, in a rousing speech before government forces, declared that Marawi had been liberated from terrorist influence, however, martial law was not lifted. Less than two months later, Duterte asked Congress to extend martial law until Dec. 31, 2018.
Lagman stressed before the SC: "It's the President saying that Marawi, the epicenter of theater of war has been liberated from terrorist influence. Defense Secretary [Delfin Lorenzana] said that combat operation is terminated. That would tell us that if there was any actual rebellion, that rebellion has been quashed."
Lagman, and three other petitioners, raised that the martial law is not needed to quell the "remnants" of the terrorist groups in Mindanao. They asked that the extension of martial law be declared unconstitutional.
Reyes, however, said that the president holds discretion on measures to implement in the country, as such in quashing the remaining terrorists in Mindanao.
Lagman replied: "Such discretion is not absolute. It is circumscribed by the Constitution itself. That is why the Supreme Court is given by Constitution the special and specific jurisdiction whether the action of President would be based on sufficient factual basis," Lagman said.
The SC continues on its second day of oral arguments on the petitions challenging the factual basis of martial law extension on Wednesday.
RELATED: Monsod tells SC democracy is on the line during martial law hearing
- Latest
- Trending
