[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-desktop-hide=” av-medium-hide=” av-small-hide=” av-mini-hide=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=”]
[/av_textblock]
[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’Palace insists on ‘legal, factual bases’ of M’nao martial law extension ‘ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=” av-medium-font-size-title=” av-small-font-size-title=” av-mini-font-size-title=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
BY PRINCE GOLEZ
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
MANILA – Malacañang has insisted that the one-year extension of the martial law in Mindanao has “legal and factual bases.”
Opposition lawmakers have asked the Supreme Court to issue a temporary restraining order on the military rule in the southern major region.
“The legislative and executive departments have decided that the further extension of martial law in Mindanao is necessary to quell the remaining terrorists who brought destruction to Marawi and its neighboring communities,” Presidential Spokesman Harry Roque said.
Voting 240-27 on Dec. 13, Congress has granted President Rodrigo Duterte’s request for a second extension of the martial law.
Malacañang is “prepared” to defend the extension before the Supreme Court, Roque said.
Mere “surmises and conjectures, and not supported by law and the Constitution” was how the Palace official described the petitioners’ allegation that the second extension may lead to an “extension in perpetuity.”
Those who sought a stop to the extension were representatives Edcel Lagman, Edgar Erice, Teodoro Baguilat Jr., Emmanuel Billones, Gary Alejano, and Tom Villarin.
“Martial law in perpetuity is a scenario that neither the President, Congress or the Supreme Court will allow, as it is patently unconstitutional,” said Roque.
The opposition lawmakers questioned the constitutional basis for the second extension, stressing that there was no more actual rebellion or invasion in Mindanao.
“Threats of violence and terrorism by remnants of vanquished terrorist groups do not constitute a constitutional basis for extension of martial law because ‘imminent danger’ has been deleted as a ground for imposing martial law under the 1987 Constitution,” they said.
Duterte proclaimed martial law in Mindanao on May 23 amid the war against Islamic State-allied extremists in Marawi City.
He requested for an extension twice – first, until Dec. 31, 2018 and second, until Dec. 31, 2018 – upon recommendations from the Armed Forces and the Philippine National Police, and Congress approved these./PN
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
