The House of Representatives will come out with its stand on the proposed martial law extension in Mindanao before the Christmas break, Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez said on Saturday.
Alvarez, who hails from Mindanao, said the House would wait for President Rodrigo Duterte’s formal request to Congress whether to extend or not to extend martial law beyond Dec. 31, 2017.
“The Palace has to communicate with us within the week so that we can discuss it by next week whether it will be approved or not,” Alvarez told a radio interview.
The Palace’s move whether or not to extend military rule in Mindanao needs the concurrence through a joint session.
But Alvarez said lawmakers may not have enough time during the last session weeks of Congress from Dec. 11 to 13.
“That is difficult to do because all lawmakers have programmed themselves to go on vacation. This is Christmas, which is unlike other breaks wherein lawmakers can still be summoned. It is very difficult,” Alvarez said.
President Duterte declared martial law in Mindanao last May 23 after the ISIS-linked Maute terrorist group occupied Marawi City in Lanao del Sur.
The initial martial law declaration was supposed to last only two months, but the President sought an extension in July despite the fact that Congress was in recess.
Alvarez earlier said he would want the martial law in Mindanao extended until 2022.
This developed as Negros Oriental Rep. Arnolfo Teves Jr. said he would abide by majority decision on the issue of martial law extension.
“If majority of Mindanao congressmen say, martial law is better for us, who am I to question? I’m not from here,” Teves said.
Two opposition lawmakers, however, said they don’t see any need to extend martial law in Mindanao.
Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman said extending martial law in Mindanao “defies grounds and duration imposed by the 1987 Constitution.”
He added that the extension was “constitutionally infirm both as to grounds and duration, saying that martial law can only be declared and its extension authorized in “case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.”
The Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police had recommended to extend martial law in the region.
But Lagman argued that “there is neither actual invasion or rebellion in Mindanao after Marawi City was declared by President Duterte as liberated from rebel and terrorist forces almost two months ago.”
He added that even the PNP and the AFP only admit the existence of threats from remnants of terrorist groups who are reportedly recruiting fighters and regrouping to exact “vengeance” against government forces.
Mere “threat or imminent danger of rebellion or invasion has been obliterated by the 1987 Constitution as a ground for declaring martial law because it is contingent, nebulous and self-serving,” he added.
Lagman’s position was echoed by Akbayan Rep. Tom Villarin, who said that the extension has no constitutional basis.
“The bases for martial law extension mentioned, i.e. potential terrorist threats and for expedient rehab of Marawi, do not fall under the constitutional basis of actual rebellion or insurrection and when public safety so requires,” Villarin said.
According to Villarin, martial law extension will also put on hold the May 2018 barangay elections in Mindanao because of security concerns.
“It will be a dangerous precedent that may lead to the expansion of the iron rule all over the country especially.''
Over at the Senate, minority bloc members likewise aired their opposition to a martial law extension in Mindanao, arguing that a military rule may hinder a needed “people-centered” rehabilitation in Marawi City.
Last July 22, the Congress approved President Duterte’s request to extend martial in Mindanao until Dec. 31, 2017.
Duterte himself declared Marawi City “liberated from terrorist influence” on Oct. 17.
