“I was surprised because there were a lot bodyguards,” Fr. Alejo told me at Freedom Park this morning right after a simple candle-lighting ceremony (pictured; Fr. Alejo is at left, Toto Mangudadatu is at center in this photo by Bing Gonzales of the Mindanao Daily Mirror) to commemorate the first month of the November 23, 2009 Maguindanao massacre. “It was Toy who was waiting for me.”

Toy would be ARMM Assemblyman Toy Khadafeeh Mangudadatu, younger brother of Buluan, Maguindanao Vice Mayor Esmael “Toto” Mangudadatu. Fr. Alejo said that was the first time he met a member of the Mangudadatu family.

What did Toy want, I asked, and Fr. Alejo said Toy — and later Toto himself by cell phone — told him the vice mayor was going to go ahead and file his certificate of candidacy at the Commission on Election in Sharif Aguak, Maguindanao. “They said they knew they were going to be killed by the Ampatuans, but they had decided and they were determined. They would not back down.”

Fr. Alejo said this was the backdrop against which Toto’s wife Genalin, his two sisters, and 55 others — 30 of them journalists — made their journey from Buluan to Sharif Aguak just three days later. “It was a conscious decision,” he said, “calculated to avoid violence.” They knew of the threat but they went on anyway, and the supreme irony was that the trip intended to prevent bloodshed ended in one of the worst acts of violence the world had ever seen.

“They were martyrs for peace and democracy,” he said. “All 58 of them. They were doing something that was ordinary in a democracy, the filing of a certificate of candidacy.” But they paid the ultimate price for it.

This is how Fr. Alejo wants all of us to remember the event of November 23. It wasn’t just a massacre but the creation of 58 martyrs, people who made a decision for peace and democracy and paid for it with their lives. May we all be worthy of their sacrifice.Random Posts:

• No worries?
• Dream come true
• Full disclosure
• Bloggers vs reporters?
• Comment!

                          

Interestingly, the poem Fr. Alejo had recited on the night that Toy Mangudadatu had come to see him was “Sanayan Lang Ang Pagpatay.”  Here’s the full text:

Sanayan Lang Ang Pagpatay
(Para sa sektor nating pumapatay ng tao)
ni Paring Bert Alejo, SJ

Pagpatay ng tao? Sanayan lang ‘yan pare.
Parang sa butiki. Sa una siyempre
Ikaw’y nangingimi. Hindi mo masikmurang
Tiradurin o hampasing tulad ng ipis o lamok
Pagkat para bang lagi ‘yang nakadapo
Sa noo ng santo sa altar
At tila may tinig na nagsasabing
Bawal bawal bawal ‘yang pumatay.
Subalit tulad lang ng maraming bagay
Ang pagpatay ay natututuhan din kung magtitiyaga
Kang makinig sa may higit na karanasan.
Nakuha ko sa tiyuhin ko kung paanong balibagin ng tsinelas
O pilantikin ng lampin ang nakatitig na butiki sa aming kisame
At kapag nalaglag na’t nagkikikisay sa sahig
Ay agad ipitin nang hindi makapuslit
Habang dahan-dahang tinitipon ang buong bigat
Sa isang paang nakatingkayad: sabay bagsak.

Magandang pagsasanay ito sapagkat
Hindi mo nakikita, naririnig lamang na lumalangutngot
Ang buo’t bungo ng lintik na butiking hindi na makahalutiktik.
(kung sa bagay, kilabot din ‘yan sa mga gamu-gamo.)
Nang magtagal-tagal ay naging malikhain na rin
Ang aking mga kamay sa pagdukit ng mata,
Pagbleyd ng paa, pagpisa ng itlog sa loob ng tiyan
Hanggang mamilipit ‘yang parang nasa ibabaw ng baga.
O kung panahon ng Pasko’t maraming paputok
Maingat kong sinusubuan ‘yan ng rebentador
Upang sa pagsabog ay magpaalaman ang nguso at buntot.
(Ang hindi ko lamang maintindihan ay kung bakit
Patuloy pa rin ‘yang nadaragdagan.)

Kaya’t ang pagpatay ay nakasasawa rin kung minsan.
Mabuti na lamang at nakaluluwag ng loob
Ang pinto at bintanang kahit hindi mo sinasadya
At may paraan ng pagpuksa ng buhay.
Ganyang lang talaga ang pagpatay:
Kung hindi ako ay iba naman ang babanat;
Kung hindi ngayon ay sa iba namang oras.
Subalit ang higit na nagbibigay sa akin ng lakas ng loob
Ay ang malalim nating pagsasamahan:
Habang ako’y pumapatay, kayo nama’y nanonood.

Random Posts:

• Art in search of peace
• Perspective
• The other side of boxing
• The next American Idol (well, maybe in ten years!)
• Unbelievable

                          

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:

• Coffee, seriously
• Hofner progress
• Hit the trails with these ‘gloves’
• The source code: A matter of trust?
• Carbon neutral