It’s unconstitutional, they say
(Eagle News) — Some opposition lawmakers thumbed down the idea of extending martial law in Mindanao for a third time, calling the same “unconstitutional.”
During the joint session of Congress on Wednesday, Dec. 12, Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon said the four grounds which President Rodrigo Duterte had cited in his Dec. 6 letter calling on Congress to allow the third extension did not mention an “actual rebellion” taking place in the region in the first place.
He said the Constitution requires that there be an actual rebellion for martial law to be imposed.
“The continued extension of martial law is a psywar (based on a briefing provided to us by security government forces previously). Di sinabi na it was to quell an armed uprising,” Drilon said.
Senator Risa Hontiveros, for her part, noted that the imposition of martial law in the first place was a “reversal of civilian democracy” that the 1987 Constitution enshrines, also likening the imposition of martial law in Mindanao during the time of Duterte to the martial law imposed during the time of then-President Ferdinand Marcos, when she said abuses had been recorded.
Senator Kiko Pangilinan, for his part, noted that based on the Constitution, martial law can only be imposed “in extreme circumstances” and “only for a limited period.”
“We cannot understand how two years can be defined as a limited period,” he said, apparently echoing Rep. Edcel Lagman’s concern the imposition of martial law in Mindanao was being done “in perpetuity.”
“This is authoritarian and contrary to democracy,” Pangilinan added.