Calida on martial law: Rebellion cannot be quelled in 60 days

MANILA, Philippines — Solicitor General Jose Calida defended the year-long extension of martial law by saying petitioners against are stupid for thinking a rebellion can be quelled in 60 days, the length of the initial declaration in May.

In a statement on Sunday, Calida said that "rebellion staged by various secessionist, jihadist, terrorist and communist groups in various places in Mindanao has been festering for several decades now."

"The argument that this rebellion can be quelled in 60 days is asinine," Calida added.

Calida has often branded the critics of the administration — including families of victims of drug-related killings before the Supreme Court — as "destabilizers".

Lawmakers from the House of Representatives' "Magnificent Seven" opposition bloc have challenged President Rodrigo Duterte's year-long extension of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao before the Supreme Court.

Knowledge on Mindanao situation

Calida also challenged the knowledge of the petitioners on circumstances in Mindanao.

"Anyone who doubts the necessity of the extension should visit the various strongholds of the rebellious groups scattered all over Mindanao and see for himself their awesome armaments and the cadres of combatants whose avowed missions are to overthrow the government or to carve out provinces away from the sovereignty of the Philippines," Calida also said.

One of the petitioners against the extension, Rep. Tom Villarin (Akbayan party-list), is from Davao City. He said in the petition that he is "personally adversely affected by the assailed extension of martial law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao."

READ: Calida: Solons vs martial law are ignorant, protective of rebels

Calida earlier hinted that those against the extension of martial law are either ignorant or want to protect the rebellion. Akbayan is, in fact, at ideological odds with the Communist Party of the Philippines and the New People's Army, which has been fighting to put up a revolutionary government since 1969.

The petitioners said that extended military rule is not needed to defeat what military reports call "remnants" of terrorists groups.

Duterte also cited the ongoing recruitment of the CPP-NPA as one of the grounds for extending the martial law. This, despite the government being in clashes with the armed group for more than 20 years.

Lagman statement

Calida also asked petitioner Rep. Edcel Lagman (Albay) to concede to the SC's earlier ruling that Duterte's martial law is constitutional.

Lagman also led a group of petitioners to challenge Duterte's Proclamation No. 216 that place the Mindanao under martial law due to terrorists groups invading Marawi City. But the SC, voting 11-3-1, junked the petitions and upheld the constitutionality of Duterte's martial law declaration.

Calida added that: "There is no provision in the Constitution that limits the period of extension to 60 days only. The only criteria: that the invasion of rebellion shall persist and that the public safety requires it."

“This is a political question as it is a controversy which revolves around policy choices and value determinations constitutionally committed to the executive or legislative branches for resolution," Calida also said.

The SC, on December 29, ordered key government officials to answer the petition filed by opposition lawmakers challenging President Rodrigo Duterte's year-long extension of martial law in Mindanao.

In a three-page order, the SC, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, ordered the government to file its comment on the petition "within a non-extendible period of ten days from notice" of order.