Justice Bersamin: Duterte’s martial law proclamation may be sufficient to believe existence of Mindanao rebellion 

Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin is willing to presume that President Rodrigo Duterte acted in good faith in imposing martial law aimed at crushing terrorist groups accused of staging rebellion in Mindanao.

Bersamin made the statement as the SC began its three-day oral arguments on the petitions seeking to invalidate Proclamation No. 216 on the ground of lack of sufficient factual basis.

"We do not know what you want because you're the one challenging this proclamation but we are willing to presume the good faith of the government," Bersamin told Ephraim Cortez, counsel for petitioners composed activists and militant lawmakers, when the discussion centered on which party should present proof on the issue of factual basis.

"I am willing at least to presume the good faith of the government as of now because I believe that the proclamation may be sufficient."

Bersamin said the President has the advantage of knowing more about the situation in Mindanao because of intelligence information from agencies that operate under his control.

“Where will we get the information to dispute what the President has done now that you insist he was wrong? We do not know anything more so what can you expect us to do? If you want us to review, give us the pieces of information that are not under the [classification of] judicial notice,” he said.

Duterte had placed the whole of Mindanao under martial law for 60 days after the Maute group-led terror organizations attempted to establish an Islamic State province in the island group by assaulting Marawi City on May 23.

The petitioners, however, have argued that the declaration should be struck down as unconstitutional because there was allegedly no rebellion or invasion in which public safety required the declaration of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Marawi City or elsewhere in Mindanao.

'Not duty bound'

During the hearing, Cortez said the petitioners were not "duty bound" to prove there is no factual basis in the proclamation of martial law.

He said it is up to the government, through the Office of Solicitor General (OSG), to prove rebellion exists and that martial law is needed to quell such.

"We cannot downplay the violence and atrocities that are being committed in Marawi. However, the government should submit proof that this violence can be used as basis to conclude that there is rebellion and there is necessity to declare martial law," Cortez said.

The lawyer added the government cannot rely on presumption of constitutionality in defending the proclamation before the high court.

"Otherwise, the safeguards in the Constitution to review the acts of the President to determine whether there is sufficient factual basis would be put to naught," Cortez said.

Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr., meanwhile, asked the petitioners to submit more documents to support their allegation that Duterte's justifications for declaring martial law are false.

The OSG had said ISIS-inspired local rebel groups have taken arms against the Philippine government for the purposes of removing Mindanao from its allegiance, and of depriving Duterte of his powers and prerogatives.

Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo De Castro, for her part, observed that some terrorists have a political agenda with the end goal of overthrowing a duly constituted government.

She then asked Cortez if the use of terrorism to achieve political ends can be classified as rebellion.

In response, Cortez conceded that "some acts of terrorism" can be considered rebellion.

Another petitioner, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, earlier said terrorism does not equate to rebellion.

In his opening statement, Lagman said acts of terrorism "are not necessarily equivalent to actual rebellion and the consequent requirement of securing public safety" to justify the imposition of martial law and suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus.

He said the elements of rebellion such as  removing the Philippines or a part from allegiance to the Republic or preventing the President or Congress from exercising their powers and prerogatives were not present in the Marawi crisis.

"Consequently, the alleged 'siege' of Marawi City is actually an armed resistance by the Maute group to shield [Abu Sayyaf leader Isnilon] Hapilon from capture, not to overrun Marawi and remove its allegiance from the Republic," he added.

"Verily, there is no actual rebellion in Marawi City and elsewhere in Mindanao absent the culpable purpose."

The oral arguments will resume at 10 a.m. Wednesday. — RSJ, GMA News