The Two Faces of Martial Law (Part 3)

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Whether or not there was a rebellion to justify Proclamation 1959 became moot when the President rescinded martial law after eight days.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.