SolGen defends martial law extension in Mindanao

Solicitor General Jose Calida yesterday justified the one-year extension of martial law in Mindanao, saying it is necessary.

In a statement, he rebutted the arguments raised in the petition filed before the Supreme Court last week by opposition lawmakers led by Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman.

Calida stressed that the extension was necessary even if the Marawi siege stemming from the attack of local terror group MauteISIS in May last year had ended.

“The rebellion staged by various secessionist, jihadist, terrorist and communist groups in various places in Mindanao has been festering for several decades now. The argument that this rebellion can be quelled in 60 days is asinine,” he explained.

“Anyone who doubts the necessity of the extension should visit the various strongholds of the rebellious groups scattered all over Mindanao and see for himself their awesome armaments and the cadres of combatants whose avowed missions are to overthrow the government or to carve out provinces away from the sovereignty of the Philippines,” Calida said.

The solicitor general also rebutted petitioners’ argument that since the Constitution limits the period for declaration of martial law, its one-year extension was “unwarranted, oppressively long and patently unconstitutional.”

“He (Lagman) should concede that the Supreme Court already decided that the martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus covered the entire Mindanao,” he said.

Calida explained that there is “no provision in the Constitution that limits the period of extension to 60 days only.”

“The only criteria: that the invasion of rebellion shall persist and that public safety requires it,” he said.

Calida also again argued that the validity of the extension of martial law was resolved by Congress as provided in the Constitution.

“The 1987 Constitution vested Congress with the authority to extend the proclamation of martial law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus for a period to be determined by it,” Calida said. “This is a political question as it is a controversy which revolves around policy choices and value determinations constitutionally committed to the executive or legislative branches for resolution.”

President Duterte cited the threats posed by extremists and “continuing crime” of rebellion by the New People’s Army in his request for oneyear extension of martial law, which Congress approved via an overwhelming 240-27 vote earlier last month.

In their petition, Lagman and company asked the SC to issue a temporary restraining order “before the effectivity on Jan.1, 2017 of the challenged re-extension” of martial law.

Others who signed as petitioners were Reps. Tomasito Villarin (Akbayan Citizens’ Action party-list), Edgar Erice (Caloocan City, 2nd District), Teddy Baguilat Jr. (Ifugao), Gary Alejano (Magdalo party-list) and Emmanuel Billones (Capiz, 1st District).

Petitioners pointed out that under the 1987 Constitution, the phrase “imminent danger” was deleted, as part of the safeguards against abuse of power.

“Rebellion or invasion is neither a state of mind nor state of fear. It must be actual, not contingent. It must be real, not contrived,” they stressed.

The lawmakers further alleged that the “leadership and supermajority of Congress of the Philippines” violated the safeguards of the Constitution when it “approved baselessly and with prudent alacrity” Duterte’s request for extension.

Even while on holiday recess, the SC required Calida’s office to answer the petition and submit its comment within 10 days.