High court hard-pressed for landmark martial law ruling

The Supreme Court is under pressure to rule on the validity of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s declaration of martial law in Maguindanao, which has since been lifted, in what government critics say should be a landmark ruling. Malacañang lifted the edict on Saturday after defending it for eight days against rallies, legal suits and questions from legislators. But critics are seeking judicial review of what was allegedly the Executive’s abuse of power. “The Supreme Court must not miss this golden opportunity to define the parameters of presidential powers in order to prevent its abuse in the future. Several other important constitutional issues will be left unanswered if the high tribunal will opt for the easy way out," former Senate President Franklin M. Drilon said in a statement on Sunday. Drilon, a former Justice secretary, said the government would likely argue that the petitions should be dismissed for being moot. Lawyer Harry Roque, one of the petitioners, said he was “hoping that the court would still rule on the matter even if it has become technically moot." “The President is testing the limits of the Constitution and she shouldn’t get away with it," he said in a telephone interview. Gleoresty Guerra, the high court’s deputy spokesman, said the full court will discuss on Tuesday the seven petitions questioning the constitutionality of Proclamation 1959 notwithstanding its lifting by Mrs. Arroyo. “On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hold its en banc session where the martial law petitions are included in the agenda," Guerra said in a text message to GMANews.TV on Sunday. Chief presidential legal counsel Raul Gonzalez said the petitions are “basically moot." But he admitted that the Supreme Court will have the final say on the matter. Meanwhile, Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera declined to speak on the matter while she prepares the government’s comment on the suits, due tomorrow. “I cannot say anything that could preempt our comment," she said. Exceptional cases In judicial parlance, a case is said to be moot and academic if the act being complained of is no longer present, and a decision on the case would be of no practical value. In recent years however, the Supreme Court had ruled on controversial matters that involved grave violations of the 1987 Constitution. The high court has also repeatedly said that it would still rule on seemingly moot cases if, aside from a serious constitutional breach, the following conditions are present: • If the situation is paramount to public interest; • If there is a need to issue a policy that will guide the bench, the bar and the public; and • If the issue may come back and again evade review. In May 2006, the court favored seven petitions questioning the constitutionality of President Arroyo’s declaration of a state of national emergency three months earlier via Presidential Proclamation 1017. The government argued that the case had become moot after the President lifted the order pending review of the suits. The court, however, ruled that "the moot and academic principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts from resolving the case." The court also found PP 1017 constitutional "insofar as it constitutes a call by President Arroyo on the Armed Forces of the Philippines to prevent or suppress lawless violence." However, the provisions of PP 1017 commanding the AFP to enforce laws not related to lawless violence were declared unconstitutional. Unconstitutional deal In October 2008, the court also junked the government’s ancestral domain deal with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), which would have created a separate Bangsamoro republic, even after the Palace aborted the signing of the pact. The tribunal said the deal was unconstitutional, rejecting a government motion to dismiss the petitions that allegedly had also been mooted when the government peace panel negotiating with the MILF was dissolved. It noted that contrary to the Solicitor General’s arguments, the deal did not proceed only because the tribunal had issued a temporary restraining order. — NPA/LBG, GMANews.TV