Update: Senate: No; House of Representatives, Yes.
Supreme Court: No basis for martial law in Maguindanao
There’s a collective cry opposing the imposition of martial law in Maguindanao for lack of factual and legal basis.
All statements opposing it cite the provisions of the Constitution that limits the basis of the declaration of martial law to rebellion and invasion.
Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera cites “brewing rebellion”.
Even the Commision on Human Rights is not convinced that the situation in Maguindanao merits a declaration of martial law.
Leila de Lima, chair of the Commission on Human Rights, in a press statement,said, “I am not fully convinced that circumstances truly merit a declaration of martial law. Calls for swift justice on the Maguindanao massacre and the presence or massing of armed groups may not be enough basis for such declaration. Full force of the law, not martial law, is the form of decisive governmental intervention that the public expects.”
“As events unfold quickly, it is an imperative that the people exercise extra vigilance and scrutiny against the possibility of abuses against human rights. The situation is already volatile as it is without martial law, and now we have to be able to carefully monitor how exactly the declaration changes the atmosphere in Maguindanao.”
.“While the declaration is subject to revocation by Congress or review by the Supreme Court on the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation and the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, in the meantime, the President has at her disposal a vast intelligence network and the prerogative to initially determine if indeed a rebellion exists.If her intelligence network is stupendously off the mark, then there are remedies immediately available to correct a misplaced proclamation.
“For now, it must be reiterated that everyone must be extremely vigilant of the safety of the inhabitants of Maguindanao. This not only includes their safety against abusive applications of a suspended privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, but also against a very real possibility of an outbreak of armed violence, by rebellion or otherwise, by known or unknown protagonists.Even before the declaration of martial law, the CHR has repeatedly called for securing the safety of inhabitants, investigators and journalists in Maguindanao. We do not know what kind of violence may detonate in such an unstable situation.”
November 23 Movement, a coalition of media organizations and groups calling for accountability and swift justice to the slain journalists and other victims of the Ampatuan Massacre, “ is vehemently opposing the declaration of martial law in Maguindanao.
The statement:
“ No to Martial Law
“We absolutely oppose the imposition of martial law in Maguindanao and, prospectively, anywhere else in the country.
“We believe that, with the severe restrictions on freedoms it imposes, on the one hand, and the wide latitude of police, military, and official powers it allows, on the other, martial law will only compound the troubles it has been precisely intended to deal with.
“Indeed, we believe that normal powers exercised by a decisive, strong-willed, and well-intentioned leadership are enough to bring the perpetrators of the November 23 massacre in Ampatuan town, Maguindanao, to justice.
“History offers clear, powerful, and painful enough lessons in the deceptive promises of martial law: It has been used for repression, instead of justice.”
The Center for International law said the declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Maguindanao is” without clear basis.”
CenterLaw’s Harry Roque said, “The writ is the strongest means to secure the right of liberty. Suspend that and the people are sitting ducks to autocratic governments.
“ Roque added that the Constitution specifies the grounds for declaration of martial law, to wit: insurrection, rebellion and invasion. “None of these grounds are present in Mindanao. Instead, Maguindanao is a purely police issue. Martial law cannot solve a police matter.
“The declaration of martial law is an extraordinary power of the President as Commander in Chief. It should be resorted to only as a last resort, Roque added.
Former President Joseph Estrada said, “”A Martial Law declaration is not necessary to bring peace and order and achieve justice for the victims of the Maguindanao massacre. My administration was able to overrun the 46 camps of the MILF in Mindanao without declaring Martial Law. They should be able to arrest those behind the Magindanao massacre and bring justice to the victims without declaring Martial Law.”
“What is going on in Mindanao is not even rebellion but lawless violence. Rebellion means there is a threat to national security because there is a motive by the perpetrators to remove allegiance from the government. In the Maguindanao case there is no desire to overthrow the government but there is a complete disregard of the laws of the land and extreme violence. That is why although lawless violence is a basis for Martial Law under the Constitution, President Estrada believes that swift military action is all that is necessary, without having to resort to authoritarian rule in the area.”
Sen. Benigno Aquino, III, appealed for “sobriety and vigilance.”
In a statement, he said, :”The people must demand an explanation of the circumstances that led the administration to resort to this action, how the President intends to use its vast powers, and for how long.
“The rule of law must prevail; constitutional processes must prevail. The courts cannot be abolished there or elsewhere. The President of the Philippines remains accountable not only to the Congress of the Philippines, but to the People of the Philippines for taking this course –extraordinary in implementation.
“We must also demand that both houses of Congress meet, as required by the Constitution, within 24 hours of a martial law declaration, without need of the President making a call for Congress to convene.
“While the Constitution expects both houses to merge for the purpose of voting on this specific imposition of martial law, it also expects our lawmakers never to surrender their identity as representatives of the people.
“Congress must muster a quorum. Congress must not be a rubber stamp. Congress must ask the right questions, and it must act now.This is a time for all our people to be sober, discerning, vigilant and unafraid.”
Rep. Teofisto Guingona, Jr.”The wolf has already been defanged. No need for Martial Law.
“Martial law poses a grave threat to our democracy and should not be taken lightly and should not be declared at the whim and paranoia of the present administration.
“I would like to warn the public on the possibility that the administration of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo will exploit the situation in Maguindanao. Unlike the Martial Law imposition of President Marcos, which was done swiftly, in one blow, all over the country, there is a possibility of a “creeping” Martial Law by Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. We all know that Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has proven her lust for remaining in power. What is to stop the administration from recreating disorder, violence, and chaos in other places, exploiting the sense of helplessness of civilians in dismantling warlords, thereby orchestrating widespread acceptance. Thereafter, they can put up a front of running after “kun” drug lords, jueteng lords, smugglers, oligarchs, etc., again as a strategy of gaining acceptance amongst the people and expanding the area of coverage of Martial Law.
“I was around during the early days when Martial Law was declared by President Marcos. I vividly remember the initial feeling of stability and peace and order during those early days. The pattern seems to be repeating itself. One, create violence and chaos. Two, exploit the citizens’ helplessness in dealing with the violence and chaos. Three, declare Martial Law. History is repeating itself. “
Akbayan Rep. Risa Hontiveros: “There is no basis for the martial law proclamation. If thousands of government troops cannot secure Maguindanao and get the perpetrators of the massacre, then what we have is not rebellion or invasion but a failure of government not just in Maguindanao but also at the national level.”
“The declaration is an unconstitutional act. It would only further the climate of lawlessness and impunity in Maguindanao. GMA is not solving impunity. She is in fact deepening the same environment that gave birth to the Ampatuans in our country.
“This is too much, and for once Congress should stand up for the constitution and our people. Our failure of Congress to revoke the declaration would be a dangerous precedent. What would prevent the GMA administration from using the situation in Mindanao to put the entire nation under martial law?
“This is no longer a question of who is pro-admin or who is not. The line would be drawn not according to parties but according to the respect for the constitution and for that dark moment in our history. We cannot allow the dictatorship to happen again.”
Bayan Muna Rep. Satur Ocampo said tomorrow,they will l question the proclamation when Congress resumes session and file a resolution calling for a joint session to revoke Proclamation 1959.
In a statement, Ocampo said, “Bayan Muna condemns as unconstitutional overkill Malacanang’s declaration of martial law in Maguindanao via its Proclamation 1959.” He urged his colleagues in Congress and the Senate to exercise their legislative authority to revoke Proclamation 1959.
“Pres. Arroyo is once again abusing her authority and going beyond the limits of her powers. The Philippine Constitution states that the President can declare martial law or suspend the writ of habeas corpus in case of an invasion or rebellion. Neither of these conditions exist in Maguindanao, ergo Proclamation 1959 is unconstitutional. The reported massing of armed groups does not yet constitute rebellion and can be dealt with under a state of emergency. Pres. Macapagal-Arroyo must within 48 hours report her action to Congress. The latter must review the grounds for the declaration and revoke it for not complying with the Constitution.”
“Congress must act now. “
The Black and White Movement said, “We demand that Congress heed the Constitution and convene to revoke this proclamation. The declaration of a state of emergency should have been enough.
“We cannot help but suspect that this government has more in mind than just imposing justice on one family, albeit a powerful one, in Maguindanao. The end does not justify the means. The danger is in the perceived comfort level that the public may at first experience from the strength of such an action.
“We caution, and remind, that this was the initial reaction to the imposition of martial law when the dictator, Ferdinand Marcos, announced it in 1972. We urge vigilance. Let us not be lulled into complacency, beguiled by seemingly good intentions.”
Forewarned is forearmed!
Tanga. You will play into their hands. They have the majority; they can extend martial law beyond sixty days. When convened jointly, the bootlickers will move for amendment of the Constitution.
Henry90, yugyugin mo nga ang frontrunner mo para magising.
Anak ka nga ni Cory.
corazon, si (pointing to the heart) aqui, no (pointing to the head).
tagumpay na naman si aling gloria. maaayos lang ang bansa natin kapag ang may pinakamababang ranggo sa pulis man o sundalo ay kaya ng sumagot ng “no sir, i will not obey unlawful order” kelan kaya mangyayari ito.
Saxnviolins, iyan kasi ang isang paraan para kwetyunin ang martial law. Ang ibang paraan ay dalhin ang usapin sa Supreme Court. Bukod dito sa dalawang ito, ano pa sa tingin mo ang pwedeng gawin na ayon sa batas?
Oblak:
Nabanggit ko sa ibang thread na madaliin ni Professor Roque ang pagdulog sa Korte. Sa gayon, hawak ng mga Hukom ang usapin, hindi ng mga tuta, na maaaring umayon, at pahabain pa ang mga araw ng batas militar.
Mayroon bang kasong brewing rebellion? Kapag nasa brewing stage pa hindi luto. Hindi mangyari ang rebellion dahil ang Maguindanao warlord ay kakampi ng pamahalang Arroyo.
Pinakatumpak ang sinabi mo Diego. Magkakampi nga naman sila, bakit mangyayari ang rebellion. Talaga naman oo, onli in the phil.
Brewing rebellion? Sino ang brewmaster? Norberto Gonzales?
Saan ang fabrica? Sa Malacañang, which is in the San Miguel district of Manila?
Di ba’t diyan din nagmula ang La Fabrica de Cerveza de San Miguel?
Snv, am I right that in the 1935 Constitution ,”imminent danger” was included as basis for the declaration of martial law but that was removed in the 1987 Constitution?
Correct Ellen:
The 87 version inserted a time limit, only for sixty days.
The 35 versionhad an additional basis for the declaration, “imminent danger”, which is absent in the 87 version. So “brewing rebellion” if it means imminent danger, cannot be the basis for a declaration.
I am not a fan of the Ampatuans. But viewing this merely as a legal chess game, Goyang was outflanked, so she had to use drastic measures.
The Ampatuans went to Court and got a writ of amparo. That is hardly persuasive as an act of rebellion.
To deny the Amapatuans bail would have been a difficult task, because you need one of their men to rat on them to prove that they were the masterminds. So bail could have been applied for (bail is denied if evidence of guilt is strong). But evidence in a rebellion is easier to manufacture (just ask Trillanes and Lim), so bail would be denied.
Also, it is easier to sell a a bugaboo to the public, to get it to accept government excess. Just ask the Americans and their acceptance of the Patriot Act in the “war on a noun (terror)”. Similarly, rebellion and warlordism are so distasteful to the public that they would easily accept govenment excess. Note how even the harlots in frocks (Bishops) are in agreement with martial law for a short time. Parang motel yan a. Illicit pleasure for a short time.
In the second paragraph above, I meant bail in a murder case. You will note, the Ampatuans will now be charged with rebellion (the better to fabricate evidence my dear).
The evidence, as pointed out by another poster here, are arms buried meters away from Ampatuan’s house. That may prove gun running, but not rebellion.
Stroke of evil genius na naman.
The government has a less than weak case for rebellion against the Ampatuans.
Is this a setup for an acquittal?
Meantime, nagkalimutan na sa murder. Isa lang ang sacrificial lamb.
Nagalit ang taumbayan sa martial law. Nagkalimutan na sa murder. This is the quintessential squid tactic.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20091206-240388/Supreme-Court-No-basis-for-martial-law
Thanks, SnV for #11. I’ll point it out in my column for tomorrow.
Update: Majority of the senators have expressed opposition to martial law in Maguindanao while House Speaker Prospero Nograles said most of the congressmen approve of it.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20091206-240387/Senators-oppose-Arroyos-martial-law-proclamation
SnV:
Aquino did what was expected of him and the LP. Ditto with the other Senators and like-minded lawyers who opposed it. Si Bigo ang natameme. His brilliant mind can’t comprehend what’s happening. Parang damned if he does-damned if he doesn’t give any statement about Glue’s ML. . .matatabunan na naman ang pasikat na ginawa nya kamakailan. . .hehehe
Talaga si nograles ay isang utak biya,isang isdang lumalangoy sa maruming ilog puro dumi ng tao,pilit paring isusulong ang kagustuhan ng sugo ni taning na si BONSAI.At pati DoJ chief ay isa rin utak lamok.Why rap rebellion on Ampatuan?’cause thier bearing arms noh?it show how you covering your being imcompetent.brewing rebellion,neck neck mo,illegal possesion with intent to commit crime,pwe saan ba nag-aral na butas na batas ang hinayupak ang ito.Ang daming Sundalo at pulis ang ipinadala para isaayos ang kagulahan sa lugar at bakit batas militar ipatupag?Pati ang mag-lundagan buwaya ng tongresso sa ibang partido ay mukhang aayon sa batas militar dahil sa KISS OF DEATH of being galing sa crocodile alley ni BONSAI.And to extend thier greed in position ay Yes,Mam’sige ituloy at No election scenario ang labas sa 2010.
Saxnviolins, kung dadalhin sa Supreme Court ang usapin, hindi rin kaya applicable ang sinabi mo na “You will play into their hands. They have the majority” This time refer the pronoun “they” from the congressmen to the GMA justices in the Supreme Court.
This declaration of martial law is well planned. GMA knows she has the numbers both in the congress and the Supreme Court. I echo Henry’s post #19.
Oblak:
The Supreme Court can only affirm, it cannot extend, like the Congress.
You cannot do cha-cha in the Supreme Court.
Still the Supreme Court can stamp legality on the declaration of martial law. The reason for the declaration will be upheld by the Supreme Court whether it is only for the initial period.
The score will be 7-7.
Parang Javellan v. Executive Secretary yan. There are not enough votes to declare it unconstitutional; but there is no declaration that it is constitutional. The practical effect is the same, tuloy ang martial law. But there will be no doctrine stating that “brewing rebellion” is a basis for martial law.
atty sax,
So what is then the use of the 7-7, tuloy din pala ang ML even with no doctrine…?
Saxnviolins, i would just like to make clear that my response is in relation to your comment on the actions/pronouncement made by Noynoy Aquino. It was not totally a stupid statement to call on convening the congress and I echoed the comment coming from Henry.
As to the 7 – 7 stand in the Supreme Court, I will not rely on this. The stakes are higher this time and the pressure to the justices will be greater, more specially those 6 justices in the minority in the Tolentino case. Without justice Nazario, it is now 7-6. Justice Peralta appears to be the weakest link in the 6 group and if he could be swayed by Malacanang, 8-5 vote is possible.
There is already a news item in inquirer.net about the transmission of the Report of the President to the Congress re: Martial law in Maguindanao around 9 pm. The pertinent portion of the news item I find interesting:
“The report contains the basis for Proclamation 1959, signed by Ms Arroyo on Friday to protect and restore civil authority in Maguindanao, in the face of alleged attempts by the Ampatuan political clan to defy police and military authorities in investigating the Nov. 23 massacre in Maguindanao.”
chi:
Ayaw ko lang sa Congress dahil they can extend the sixty days. Sa Supreme Court, walang extension.
As an incurable optimist, I am hoping that one of the Glue’s will flip (maybe Villarama); anyway, bayad na ang appointment with the decision in the Comelec case.
Or, see if one of the Glue justices can be disqualified. In fact, as pointed out by ace in another thread, Presbitero Velasco should have been disqualified, because his son, an appointive official is running. Tingnan ko lang ang moral authority ni CJ Puno, considering that he is not the Boss, but primus inter pares (first among equals).
hello ellen. your website is a discovery for me.
i am not a journalist but i have been following the Maguindanao massacre since day one. now, a martial law has been declared in Maguindanao.
in this regard, i would like to invite you and your readers to participate in our poll http://www.coolbuster.net/2009/12/poll-martial-law-in-maguindanao.html
Saxnviolins, narinig ka na ng mga taga LP. Pupunta rin daw sila sa Supreme Court.
O, klaro na sa akin ang posisyon mo, atty sax. Thanks, as always you’re a great help to my non-legal mind.