240- 24 – that is how the Senate and the House of
Representatives voted in the estension of martial law in Mindanao.
But still those who cannot take the result of the majority
are sounding the alarm as if chastisement has been handed out to the people of
Mindanao. On the spot surveys from the different media outlets is very much consistent, people in Mindanao are
all in favor of the martial law rule in their respective areas. While the other
side of the fence or those oppose to it are mostly based on the island of Luzon.
Opposition lawmakers have had their respective press
statements and interviews with the big media outfits regarding the result of
the joint session between the House of Representatives and the Senate. *
 |
| Solicitor General Jose Calida (photo credit Rappler) |
Solicitor General Jose Calida,said in his twitter account that
anyone is free to challenge the Congress' approval of President Rodrigo
Duterte's request for a one-year extension of martial law in Mindanao, adding
that he wishes them luck.
“The extension of martial law in the whole of Mindanao,
having been approved overwhelmingly by Congress, underscores the factual basis
of the ongoing rebellion. To those who intend to challenge the extension of
martial law before the Supreme Court, I wish you luck. You'll need it,”
The top government counsel's remarks came after Congress, voting jointly 240-27, approved on Wednesday the President's request to extend the martial law and suspend the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018.
On May 23, Duterte declared martial law over Mindanao following the attack by Maute terrorists in Marawi City for 60 days.
In a joint session in July, the Congress, voting 261-18, extended martial law in Mindanao until Dec. 31, 2017.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court (SC) upheld with finality its ruling on the legality of the measure.
The SC’s 82-page landmark decision, penned by Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo, said that the 1987 Constitution grants Duterte the prerogative to put any part of the country under martial rule. *
“There is no constitutional edict that martial law should be confined only in the particular place where the armed public uprising actually transpired,” the SC declared.
report from PNA
0 Comments