MANILA – On Tuesday, July 4, the Supreme Court voted, with one dissent, to uphold the constitutionality of President Duterte’s 60-day martial law proclamation in Mindanao. Associate Justice Jose Mendoza was one of 11 who voted to uphold it completely.
Here’s how the SC Public Information Office summarized his opinion:
1. On the “appropriate proceeding”, Justice Mendoza’s opinion is that the framers intended the petition to be a unique proceeding, sui generis, with a different threshold of evidence.
2. On the burden of proof, his opinion is that this lies with government and the threshold of evidence required is sufficient factual basis or clear and convincing proof, not probable cause or arbitrariness.
3. On the “sufficiency of factual basis”, he observed that the intention of the rebels to isolate and sever Marawi from the government to serve as the center of operations to access all points in Mindanao was proven by the video retrieved by the military.
4. On the territorial scope of martial law, his opinion is that there is no constitutional provision suggesting that martial law may only be declared in areas where actual hostilities are taking place. The President must be given leeway in deciding what is reasonably necessary to successfully quash such rebellion or invasion. Limiting the coverage of martial law to Marawi City is unrealistic and impractical as ISIS-linked local groups come from different parts of Mindanao.
Below, full text of his opinion:
