RE:the Extension of the Period of Martial Law in Mindanao

An extension of the period of martial law in Mindanao even for one day, much more for one full year, has no factual anchorage and constitutional basis.

Aside from the cavalier assertion of the military and police authorities that there is a “continuing rebellion” in Mindanao, there is no well-documented support for such contrived submission.

Moreover, the threats of terrorism and violence in Mindanao do not constitute a constitutional ground for extension of martial law because imminent danger has been deleted by the 1987 Constitution as a ground for the declaration of martial law and its authorized extension. Any further extension of martial law is unconstitutional because such extension of an extension is not allowed under the Constitution because what is authorized is only the extension of the original proclamation.

Moreover, a series of extensions would defy the clear intent of the Constitution for a limited period of martial law and its extension, wherein the initiatory proclamation should not even exceed 60 days. Any extension is subject to the same constitutional constraints on the limited period.

Consequently, I vote against the extension of the period of martial law in the entire Mindanao.

EDCEL C. LAGMAN