The reason martial law was widely accepted by the public, despite criticism that there was no rebellion to justify it, was that it required extraordinary powers to crush the warlords. The massacre was the catalyst of the conflict between central government authority and that of the Ampatuans. Besides, the scope of this martial law is limited to Maguindanao and there are constitutional constraints Congress can use in the exercise of its oversight powers of review under the 1987 Constitution to check abuses of martial law powers.
Whether or not there was a rebellion to justify Proclamation 1959 became moot when the President rescinded martial law after eight days.
That there were no reports of abuse by the army and the national police in their arrests without warrants, raids on the Ampatuan premises and the seizure of hidden arms caches helped moderate public objections and calm fears that martial law would be used to cancel the elections next year and to perpetuate Ms Arroyo in power.
If it had not been for the police actions under martial law, the evidence of abuse of power, the unexplained assets and killings since 2001 could not have been uncovered. If it had not been for these raids and arrests, the horrifying remains of the atrocities of the massacres could not have surfaced.
Although the legal grounds for Proclamation 1959 have remained unsettled, at least the “shock and awe” impact of martial law has set in motion the criminal prosecution of the Ampatuans for multiple murder.
At least, the state has stamped its presence and reasserted its authority over monsters it has created. One aspect of martial law 2009 that requires deeper examination is: How did the state abandon its power to regional warlords? What compromises and tradeoffs were involved that made the state a captive of provincial warlords?
Source: Ampatuan case takes ironic twist.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Saturday, December 19, 2009
The Two Faces of Martial Law (Part 2)
After the imposition and revocation of martial law in Maguindanao Province, the Filipino people have came to realize that an iron hand does not always have a brute image but also one that meant to restore the damages what the brute image had done.
In our memory lies both the good and bad moments of our existence. More often we prefer to reminish only the good times and put the bad times into oblivion for these only bring nothing but heartaches and nightmares. The Marcos era and martial law is one of them.
I was only a small lad when martial took effect during the 70's. Eventually, as I grew older I came accross with those books written by the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos justifying his actions as the president in placing the entire country under the rule of the military law. "An Ideology for the Filipinos" and "A Revolution from the Center" are the books he wrote, among others.
Most Filipinos see martial law on its brutal side only, especially those victims of its Machiavellian rule and its warrantless arrest or the suspension of the priviledge of the writ of habeas corpus, but they failed to see its other side. Perhaps the contention is based on experience. But there are more who treat martial law era as crime-free era, not because all the news were screened by the government but because only few criminals have the nerves to challenge the might of the law. Some victims might really be innocent and deserves justice but there are more of them who deserved their fate more than anybody else, as one author said, "sometimes we need to sacrifice some few for the greater good", that means sometimes "the end justifies the means".
What limits our contention is the very obvious reason that we are bound by laws made by man himself. We failed to realize that there are more better versions of the laws inscribed in our judicial journals, and there are more ways to circumvent them. Otherwise, these are perfect laws and must be observed without conditions and or hesitations. The Constitution is not an exemption.
When President Arroyo imposed martial in Maguindanao Province she believed nothing is violated, and in that crucial decision she made only time will tell she was right. So far, no violation of human rights was observed nor any complaint was served, and no expansion of its scope as pre-concluded by those who blatantly opposed it.
Perhaps we should treat martial law not on what it is but on who will impose it, in the right place at the right time.
In our memory lies both the good and bad moments of our existence. More often we prefer to reminish only the good times and put the bad times into oblivion for these only bring nothing but heartaches and nightmares. The Marcos era and martial law is one of them.
I was only a small lad when martial took effect during the 70's. Eventually, as I grew older I came accross with those books written by the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos justifying his actions as the president in placing the entire country under the rule of the military law. "An Ideology for the Filipinos" and "A Revolution from the Center" are the books he wrote, among others.
Most Filipinos see martial law on its brutal side only, especially those victims of its Machiavellian rule and its warrantless arrest or the suspension of the priviledge of the writ of habeas corpus, but they failed to see its other side. Perhaps the contention is based on experience. But there are more who treat martial law era as crime-free era, not because all the news were screened by the government but because only few criminals have the nerves to challenge the might of the law. Some victims might really be innocent and deserves justice but there are more of them who deserved their fate more than anybody else, as one author said, "sometimes we need to sacrifice some few for the greater good", that means sometimes "the end justifies the means".
What limits our contention is the very obvious reason that we are bound by laws made by man himself. We failed to realize that there are more better versions of the laws inscribed in our judicial journals, and there are more ways to circumvent them. Otherwise, these are perfect laws and must be observed without conditions and or hesitations. The Constitution is not an exemption.
When President Arroyo imposed martial in Maguindanao Province she believed nothing is violated, and in that crucial decision she made only time will tell she was right. So far, no violation of human rights was observed nor any complaint was served, and no expansion of its scope as pre-concluded by those who blatantly opposed it.
Perhaps we should treat martial law not on what it is but on who will impose it, in the right place at the right time.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
The Two Faces of Martial Law (Part 1)
The imposition of martial law in the province of Maguindanao following the gruesome massacre of 57 civilians, including 30 mediamen and two members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, had raised two kinds of reactions from the Filipino people. Let's take a look how the Filipinos reacted:
The Anti-Matial Law:
1. Satur Ocampo, Bayan Muna: "should Congress and the Supreme Court conspire with the executive in supporting a 'patently’ unconstitutional order, we will have no choice but to appeal to the people to go to the streets not only to call for the revocation of martial law but to push for the immediate ouster of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.’’
2. Luzviminda Ilagan, Gabriela: "the President had two objectives in issuing the proclamation: to weaken the case against the Ampatuans in Mindanao from murder to rebellion, which would be eligible for bail and lay the groundwork for a declaration of martial law all over the country on a spurious basis."
3. Neri Colmenares, Bayan Muna: "the declaration of martial law was clearly a prelude to a no-election scenario in 2010. If the presence of armed men is the basis, then the government can claim that the presence of the NPA and MILF and MNLF in other areas would justify the declaration of martial law all over the country."
4. Tayo ang Pag-asa Youth Movement (TPYM): Described the martial law proclamation as “dangerous, needless and self-serving”.
5. Alvin Peters, TPYM Spokesperson: "the move exposed the government's misguided propensity to present a military solution when what is needed is to strengthen civilian institutions such as the courts and the media”; "Proclamation 1959 is an invitation for more violence and sets a dangerous precedent as it weakens civilian institutions. Instead, it provides special powers to the military and the police, both of which have poor records in upholding civil liberties.”
6. The League of Filipino Students warned the martial law declaration in Maguindanao “may be the prelude towards a failure of elections in the country.”
7. Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT): "We're one with the public in demanding justice for the victims of the Ampatuans. However, we cannot allow Malacanang to use our outrage at the massacre to justify this dangerous and unconstitutional declaration of martial law.”
8. Pacifico Agabin, Former Dean, University of the Philippines College of Law: "the martial law declaration was unwarranted and unnecessary."
9. Marvic Leonen, UP Law Professor called for vigilance against possible abuse of martial law power in Maguindanao. "Martial law does not automatically suspend the writ of habeas corpus or justify illegal arrests and detention".
10. Ramon Arguelles, Lipa Archbishop: “There is no rebellion there, there is a grievous criminal situation but which does not warrant martial law."
The Pro-Matial Law:
1. Eduardo Ermite, Executive Secretary: (Reading from Proclamation 1959), "The declaration was prompted by reports of 'armed groups in the province of Maguindanao' establishing positions 'to resist government troops, thereby depriving the Executive of its powers and prerogatives to enforce the laws of the land and to maintain public order and safety' and of the 'deteriorating condition of peace and order to the extent that the local judicial system and other government mechanisms in the province are not functioning, thus endangering public safety.”
2. Prospero Nograles, House Speaker, Philippine House of Representatives: "the issuance of Proclamation 1959 will help the executive department to effectively restore the functions of the local government units in the province of Maguindanao and to preserve and restore public order and safety.”
3. Cebu Rep. Antonio Cuenco said he chose not to look at the constitutionality of the martial law proclamation, but at the benefits it brought to the people of Maguindanao.
4. Mayor Osmeña said he was in favor of the proclamation “to avert a tribal war.” “The risk of major bloodshed in Mindanao is much higher,” he said, but stressed that he would fight any attempt to extend the condition nationwide.
5. Pablo Garcia (2nd Dist. Rep., Cebu), Pablo John Garcia (3rd Dist. Re., Cebu) and Ramon “Red” Durano VI (5th Dist. Re., Cebu) said it was an executive prerogative to place the hotly contested area under martial rule.
6. Pablo John Garcia (Cebu): “A lot of people might want to act like experts...(but) in a crisis, we should leave it to the president to decide in accordance with the constitution."
7. Randy David, Columnist, PDI: I am more inclined to think that the sudden imposition of martial law in Maguindanao is Ms Arroyo’s way of neutralizing the fallout from her well-publicized close relationship with the Ampatuan clan. It is her way of demonstrating not just a setting aside of personal and political ties, but a radical dissociation from everything the Ampatuans have done in Mindanao. She expects martial law to erase all the images of leniency and accommodation that attended the government’s initial handling of the Ampatuan suspects in the wake of this gruesome massacre. But more than this, I think that Ms Arroyo is fully aware that this event can quickly get out of hand and re-ignite interest in the re-opening of the highly-disputed 2004 Maguindanao election returns that, according to the “Garci tapes,” ultimately gave her the presidency. Martial law gives her the breathing space she needs to deal with this risk in a more methodical way.
8. Press Secretary Cerge Remonde said the President took the "bold step" in answer to the cries for justice of the victims’ kin. "We'll have to point out to you, especially the judicial system, no judges will take the case. No judges will issue the proper search warrant and the warrants of arrest in the area, an that's part of the reason why this has to be done.''
The Anti-Matial Law:
1. Satur Ocampo, Bayan Muna: "should Congress and the Supreme Court conspire with the executive in supporting a 'patently’ unconstitutional order, we will have no choice but to appeal to the people to go to the streets not only to call for the revocation of martial law but to push for the immediate ouster of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.’’
2. Luzviminda Ilagan, Gabriela: "the President had two objectives in issuing the proclamation: to weaken the case against the Ampatuans in Mindanao from murder to rebellion, which would be eligible for bail and lay the groundwork for a declaration of martial law all over the country on a spurious basis."
3. Neri Colmenares, Bayan Muna: "the declaration of martial law was clearly a prelude to a no-election scenario in 2010. If the presence of armed men is the basis, then the government can claim that the presence of the NPA and MILF and MNLF in other areas would justify the declaration of martial law all over the country."
4. Tayo ang Pag-asa Youth Movement (TPYM): Described the martial law proclamation as “dangerous, needless and self-serving”.
5. Alvin Peters, TPYM Spokesperson: "the move exposed the government's misguided propensity to present a military solution when what is needed is to strengthen civilian institutions such as the courts and the media”; "Proclamation 1959 is an invitation for more violence and sets a dangerous precedent as it weakens civilian institutions. Instead, it provides special powers to the military and the police, both of which have poor records in upholding civil liberties.”
6. The League of Filipino Students warned the martial law declaration in Maguindanao “may be the prelude towards a failure of elections in the country.”
7. Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT): "We're one with the public in demanding justice for the victims of the Ampatuans. However, we cannot allow Malacanang to use our outrage at the massacre to justify this dangerous and unconstitutional declaration of martial law.”
8. Pacifico Agabin, Former Dean, University of the Philippines College of Law: "the martial law declaration was unwarranted and unnecessary."
9. Marvic Leonen, UP Law Professor called for vigilance against possible abuse of martial law power in Maguindanao. "Martial law does not automatically suspend the writ of habeas corpus or justify illegal arrests and detention".
10. Ramon Arguelles, Lipa Archbishop: “There is no rebellion there, there is a grievous criminal situation but which does not warrant martial law."
The Pro-Matial Law:
1. Eduardo Ermite, Executive Secretary: (Reading from Proclamation 1959), "The declaration was prompted by reports of 'armed groups in the province of Maguindanao' establishing positions 'to resist government troops, thereby depriving the Executive of its powers and prerogatives to enforce the laws of the land and to maintain public order and safety' and of the 'deteriorating condition of peace and order to the extent that the local judicial system and other government mechanisms in the province are not functioning, thus endangering public safety.”
2. Prospero Nograles, House Speaker, Philippine House of Representatives: "the issuance of Proclamation 1959 will help the executive department to effectively restore the functions of the local government units in the province of Maguindanao and to preserve and restore public order and safety.”
3. Cebu Rep. Antonio Cuenco said he chose not to look at the constitutionality of the martial law proclamation, but at the benefits it brought to the people of Maguindanao.
4. Mayor Osmeña said he was in favor of the proclamation “to avert a tribal war.” “The risk of major bloodshed in Mindanao is much higher,” he said, but stressed that he would fight any attempt to extend the condition nationwide.
5. Pablo Garcia (2nd Dist. Rep., Cebu), Pablo John Garcia (3rd Dist. Re., Cebu) and Ramon “Red” Durano VI (5th Dist. Re., Cebu) said it was an executive prerogative to place the hotly contested area under martial rule.
6. Pablo John Garcia (Cebu): “A lot of people might want to act like experts...(but) in a crisis, we should leave it to the president to decide in accordance with the constitution."
7. Randy David, Columnist, PDI: I am more inclined to think that the sudden imposition of martial law in Maguindanao is Ms Arroyo’s way of neutralizing the fallout from her well-publicized close relationship with the Ampatuan clan. It is her way of demonstrating not just a setting aside of personal and political ties, but a radical dissociation from everything the Ampatuans have done in Mindanao. She expects martial law to erase all the images of leniency and accommodation that attended the government’s initial handling of the Ampatuan suspects in the wake of this gruesome massacre. But more than this, I think that Ms Arroyo is fully aware that this event can quickly get out of hand and re-ignite interest in the re-opening of the highly-disputed 2004 Maguindanao election returns that, according to the “Garci tapes,” ultimately gave her the presidency. Martial law gives her the breathing space she needs to deal with this risk in a more methodical way.
8. Press Secretary Cerge Remonde said the President took the "bold step" in answer to the cries for justice of the victims’ kin. "We'll have to point out to you, especially the judicial system, no judges will take the case. No judges will issue the proper search warrant and the warrants of arrest in the area, an that's part of the reason why this has to be done.''
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
