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.
The House and Senate leaders have constricted to virtually a day the deliberations on whether or not to accede to the President’s request for a one-year extension of martial law in Mindanao.
The joint session of the Congress to decide on the requested extension is set on Wednesday, December 13, 2017, the previously scheduled last session day before the Christmas recess.
President Rodrigo Duterte’s request for the Congress to extend martial law in the entire Mindanao for one more year amounts to a:
Where is the actual invasion or actual rebellion in Mindanao? The Constitution provides that martial law can only be declared and its extension authorized in case of invasion or rebellion when public safety requires it.
The projected extension of martial law in Mindanao is constitutionally infirm both as to grounds and duration.
Martial law can only be declared and its extension authorized in “case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it”.
There is neither actual invasion or rebellion in Mindanao after Marawi City was declared by President Rodrigo Duterte as liberated from rebel and terrorist forces almost two (2) months ago.
The accusations and testimonies against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno on alleged protracted processes and delays in the release of death benefits are mere peanuts, good for a drinking spree but not for a serious charge of an impeachable offense.
As shown by the testimonies and deliberations before the House Committee on Justice, the charge against the Chief Justice for allegedly delaying the release of death benefits to various claimants is both unwarranted and does not constitute an impeachable offense.
