It would be difficult for Congress to justify the extension of martial law in Mindanao for five more months, Senate Majority Leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III said on Tuesday.
READ: Duterte wants martial law in Mindanao extended until end of 2017
Sotto said chances are high that Congress will grant 60 more days of army rule in the region but as for the extension of martial law until December 31, 2017, that will not be easy for the lawmakers to explain.
“The President said 60 days. Madali mag extend. Mahihirapan kami sa explanation niyan ‘pag longer (It’s easy to extend. We’ll be having a hard time explaining that when it’s longer),” Sotto said in a text message.
Asked if under the Constitution the president can ask for an extension longer than 60 days, Sotto replied: “I’m not sure… perhaps.”
In a letter to Congress, Duterte called on the legislature to extend martial law until December 31, 2017 as well as the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole region of Mindanao.
Senator Sherwin Gatchalian, who was also present in the evening meeting at Malacañang along with select lawmakers, said President Rodrigo Duterte’s proposal to extend martial law was not discussed in the meeting.
What the President only presented was the serious threat of terrorism in the whole of Mindanao and the possibility of it spilling over to other areas.
“In-explain niya ‘yong pagdami at potensyal na pagkalat nitong terorismo sa Mindanao and baka rin umabot pa sa ibang parte ng ating bansa (He explained the increase and the potential spread of terrorism in Mindanao and the spillover in other parts of the country). So the threat is real and the President is very clear that terrorism is here in our country now,” he said in an ambush interview.
Senator Risa Hontiveros also agreed that Congress will have a hard time defending the extension of martial law for five months.
Hontiveros reiterated that Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana himself admitted that martial law is not needed to fight terrorism in Marawi City.
“Ang hirap isipin kung papapano nila ija-justify ang extension na mas mahaba pa sa orihinal na (60-day period) (it’s very hard to think how they would justify the extension that is quite longer than that of the original 60-day period),” Hontiveros said. JPV/rga