I had wanted to keep this weekend light for JamBayan, but the developments in Maguindanao dashed all hopes of that. I got wind of the declaration of martial law in Maguindanao Province around 1:15 a.m. on December 5, and even though it was an ungodly hour I sent a text to Secretary Jesus Dureza, Presidential Adviser on Mindanao, asking him to confirm it. I guess he was asleep because his reply did not come until exactly 6:34 a.m.:
“Jon, just saw ur txt. No info on dat. Lets wait. Those decisions are made n d highest level. Am here now n dvo.”
We now know, of course, that less than an hour later Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita would give a press conference confirming that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo had indeed declared martial law in Maguindanao through Proclamation 1959.
Now I don’t care how allegedly necessary it was to place the province under military rule, the term “martial law” just distresses me. I was six years old when then-President Ferdinand Marcos placed the entire country under martial law on September 21, 1972, and being a kid I couldn’t really understand what was happening. All I knew was that the grown-ups appeared to be afraid of something, and there was this thing called a karpyu that was frightening them out of their wits and forcing them to come home early. I pictured this karpyu as a monster that prowled the city at night, attacking those who happen to be still out. It was a little later that I realized that the word was “curfew.”
I have heard a number of people say martial law was necessary in Maguindanao because the government could not arrest the prime suspects — members of the powerful Ampatuan clan — in the November 23 massacre any other way. But when I heard the news my brain automatically rushed back to 1986-1987 and recalled that the framers of the new constitution had wanted to place safeguards so that no President could impose martial law in order to perpetuate himself (or herself) in power as Marcos had done.
I googled the 1987 Constitution and, sure enough, this is what Section 18 of Article VII says:
“In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.”
The rest of Section 18 does not give any other reason for the imposition of martial law: it may only be declared in case of invasion or rebellion. Was there an invasion or a rebellion in Maguindanao? I don’t think anyone is buying Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera’s statement that government “noticed and observed that there was a rebellion in the offing.” A rebellion is not something one “notices” or “observes.” It is something one is confronted with, an in-your-face uprising that requires an immediate military response.
Senators Noynoy Aquino and Mar Roxas — two men who obviously have a political reason for everything they say these days — nevertheless came up with some very valid points in their joint statement regarding the declaration of martial law in Maguindanao. They say there is “no additional advantage to having a martial law regime – legally and militarily.”
“It does not strengthen the position of government to serve justice to the victims of the massacre. The declaration of martial law can even lead to changing the character of the crimes committed in Maguindanao:
1. The crimes allegedly committed are murder, rape, kidnapping and more. These capital crimes are non-bailable. In a state of martial law, these common crimes may be absorbed into the single crime of rebellion.
2. Except for its leaders, supporters of the rebellion are bailable. And worse, all those charged with rebellion may be subject to amnesty. Are they laying the basis for a political solution to the crimes committed?
3. The other offenses of rape and mutilation are aggravating for a case of multiple murders which results in maximum penalties. These would be overtaken by the absorption into rebellion.
4. The only difference is 36 hours – presently an accused must be charged with capital offenses within 1 ½ days. Under martial law the accused must be charged within 3 days but only with the lesser crime of rebellion. Does this 36-hour difference provide sufficient substantial advantage to justify the imposing of martial law?”
They also pointed out that President Arroyo “need not declare martial law” because:
“She could have swiftly ordered that charges be filed against all those who carried out the lawless orders allegedly of Mayor Andal Ampatuan Jr.
She could have directed that all those charged be preventively suspended.
She could have ensured the filing of non-bailable charges like multiple murder and allowed the succession of local officials under the Local Government Code take effect.”
They closed their statement with an appeal to their colleagues to follow the Constitution and “come together immediately and ascertain the validity of this imposition.” That is, however, becoming less and less probable given that the Speaker of the House, Davao City’s own Rep. Prospero Nograles, has already said there is “no need to convene Congress” because most of its members agree with the President’s decision.
“Joint session [is] needed only if Congress wants to revoke the decision. It’s not needed to go into joint session if we agree with the President,” Nograles said.
Begging your pardon, Mr. Speaker, but the Constitution requires you to convene within 48 hours of the imposition of martial law. If you do not do so, you will not only be breaking the law but you will be setting a precedent for Mrs. Arroyo and future Presidents to follow. They would know they can impose martial law without Congress raising a hoot, and that’s an extremely dangerous thing.
Random Posts:
