Makabayan bloc lawmakers cried foul on Monday over the proposal of Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez to extend martial law in Mindanao until the end of President Rodrigo Duterte’s term in 2022.
In a statement, Kabataan Rep. Sarah Elago said it was obvious that Duterte’s martial law was only a “pretext” to launch all-out offensives against state enemies, including the New People’s Army (NPA).
“It is becoming more apparent that the ‘counter-terrorism’ bogey is merely a pretext for a nationwide all-out offensive against the people, that has long been floating around their heads,” Elago said. “Even the Armed Forces of the Philippines’ head honchos have admitted that the real purpose of martial law is to target NPA rebels and other most wanted targets.”
Elago lamented the Speaker’s move to extend martial law, saying that it had been used “against the civil rights of Moro civilians in Marawi, Lumad communities in Surigao del Sur, and other unsuspecting civilians, on the mere accusation of being Maute members or NPA rebels.”
“It has only resulted in hourly airstrikes, hordes of forced evacuations, and harrassments and killings by trigger-happy state forces,” Elago said.
In a statement, Act Teachers Rep. Antonio Tinio lamented that the crisis in Marawi City, where government troops have been fighting Maute terrorists, had become a mere “pretext” to put the whole of Mindanao under a permanent martial law.
“It’s becoming more evident that the Marawi crisis was not merely the pretext, but the Duterte regime’s plan all along is to place all of Mindanao under permanent martial rule,” Tinio said.
He added that martial law in Mindanao would only allow Chinese investors allied with the President to implement infrastructure and agribusiness investments in Mindanao that would only displace farmers, lumad, and the Moros.
“His administration is turning towards more repressive tools, such as martial law, in the hope of suppressing the resistance of the poor and marginalized so that these big ticket projects will push through,” Tinio said.
Tinio called permanent martial law in Mindanao an “appalling prospect,” which was to be expected, especially after the Supreme Court ruled it as valid to curb terrorism in Mindanao.
In a separate statement, Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Zarate said Speaker’s proposal to extend martial law was “just his personal opinion.”
But he said the proposal ran contrary to Bayan Muna’s position to oppose any plan to extend the 60-day period or to expand the coverage outside Mindanao.
“Martial law should not be extended because it is like giving premium to a grave failure and tolerating incompetence,” Zarate said, referring to the military’s underestimating the strength of the Maute terrorists.
“Instead of extending martial law it should immediately be lifted,” he added. “Mindanao’s peace and development do not hinge on martial law or its extension or expansion; rather, these depend on how the historical wrongs and injustices that bred so much poverty, inequality and rebellions are being addressed.”
In an interview with the Inquirer, Alvarez said there would be a need to extend martial law until the end of President Duterte’s term, especially to address the communist insurgency and the threat of the Islamic State in Mindanao.
READ: Speaker pushing for 5 more years of martial law
With 60-day period prescribed by the Constitution, martial law in Mindanao, which Duterte proclaimed on May 23, will expire on July 23, just a day before Duterte delivers his State of the Nation Address (Sona).
Kabayan Rep. Harry Roque, who belongs to the minority bloc, said that the President could ask Congress to extend martial law during his Sona, although the chief executive said he had no plans of lifting it unless the military would tell him to.
READ: Solon fears Congress may extend martial law on day of Sona
Duterte could even take the opportunity of the joint session of Congress during his Sona to ask lawmakers to extend his martial law declaration, there being no prohibition against it, Roque, who’s a lawyer, said.
READ: Duterte urged to ask for martial law extension during Sona
According to Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution: “Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President.”
“Upon the initiative of the President,” the Constitution further states, “the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.” /atm
RELATED VIDEO