MANILA, Philippines - With the lifting of martial law in Maguindanao, House Speaker Prospero Nograles said Monday, December 14, will be the last day of Congress joint session.

"We will still meet on Monday to formally adjourn the joint session," he said in a text message.

Congress has consumed 11 hours of the 20 hours allotted for deliberations on Proclamation No. 1959 imposing martial law in Maguindanao.

It was set to vote on the revocation of Martial Law on Tuesday.

"The action of Malacañang only affirms our position that martial law in Maguindanao was only declared to ensure the swift restoration of peace and order in the province and quell the escalation of violence in the area," said Nograles, who had filed a resolution supporting martial law in Maguindanao.

Nevertheless, some groups are still urging the Supreme Court to review the legality of Proclamation No. 1959.

Critics of the proclamation argued that there was no "actual rebellion" to justify the declaration as required under the Constitution.

"Malacañang wants to pre-empt what Congress may do and what the Supreme Court may say on the legality of the Proclamation 1959. I hope the Supreme Court continues with its hearings and comes out with a decision whether Proclamation 1959 is legal and constitutional or not," said Liberal Party spokesman Quezon Rep. Lorenzo Tañada III.

"Whatever decision the SC will make will be used to guide future presidents of our country as to what the definition of rebellion is," Tañada added.

Supreme Court urged to still decide on case

Leftist group Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) expressed a similar view.

"The lifting may have been the result of the numerous legal and factual loopholes in the declaration that's now being assailed by a broad range of sectors. It is clear that the declaration was unnecessary. Just the same, we urge the SC to review the factual bases of the declaration, even if martial law has been lifted," said Bayan secretary-general Renato Reyes Jr.

Akbayan party-list representative Risa Hontiveros said they are also considering filing charges and launching a congressional inquiry into the involvement of government officials in the proclamation.

"Proclamation 1959 sets a dangerous precedent. It was a trial balloon to check if they can manufacture a rebellion to impose iron rule, and, because Congress dilly-dallied, it turned out that they can. We must hold the government accountable for this abuse of constitutional powers," Hontiveros said.

Reyes also warned people to remain vigilant.

"We call on the people to be ever vigilant against any future attempts to impose martial law again, especially as we approach the elections. The temptation on GMA to use it again may be too irresistible," Reyes said.

Human rights lawyer Harry Roque, one of those who asked the Supreme Court to issue a ruling against martial law, said the lifting of martial law just over a week since it was imposed on December 5 was "typical GMA [Gloria Macapagal Arroyo]."

"Violate the Constitution and lift it when the review and defeat is imminent," he said, adding that he hoped the High Court would still rule on the various petitions filed against Proclamation No. 1959.

"I hope the court will repeat what it did in David vs. Arroyo: declare martial law as unconstitutional, as despite its mootness, it involves a major violation of the Constitution and capable of repetition, and yet evasive of judicial review," Roque said.