Sloooooow r-e-s-p-o-n-s-e.
It should have been today yet members of Congress decided that they will instead convene tomorrow to tackle Proclamation 1959. Constitutionalist Christian Monsod said Congress should have convened last Sunday or even "as late" as Monday (yesterday), but they did not.
Is this the kind of response we will expect later when Mrs. Arroyo decides to finally push the envelope further and declare the entire country under martial law? It has been days and surely rights have been violated if at all dis-respected in Maguindanao.
The slow response shown by both Houses reflect how poorly these Honorable Gentlemen and Ladies regard human rights. Every second and minute lost equates one or two people's rights to freedom violated.
It also shows political reality at best---that an administration-dominated House can actually wield more power than an oppositionist Senate.
These kinds of scenario are emboldening Mrs. Arroyo. This "experiment" in Martial law is only fuelling her base desires for another crack at it.
Now, if the Arroyo-dominated Supreme Court rules in favor of Martial law, that completes the entire picture. Surely, that will give the ultimate signal to those who want to extend the term of Mrs. Arroyo that the opposition is still weak and they can practically do whatever they want.
Woe to democracy in this country.
Nakapanghilakbot ang maaaring maging epekto ng Proklamasyon 1959, hindi lamang sa pampulitikal na aspeto ng ating pamumuhay kundi na rin sa pangkalahatang direksyong tatahakin ng bansa sa mga susunod na panahon.
Hindi man aminin o kilalanin ni Ginang Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, sampu ng kanyang mga alipores sa Malakanyang, liban kay Defense secretary Norberto Gonzales, may malaking epekto ito sa propesyunalismo ng Sandatahang Lakas ng Pilipinas. Direktang hamon ito kay Ibrado, lalo na sa kanyang kakayahang kontrolin ang sitwasyon nang hindi kinakailangan pang magdeklara ng batas militar.
Kung tutuusin, malaking sampal ang Proclamation 1959 sa liderato ng Sandatahang Lakas ng Pilipinas. Bakit kamo? Dahilan sa bago pa ito ipinatupad, isinailalim na sa State of Emergency ang Maguindanao. Bunsod nito, nagpadala na ng libo-libong tropang militar ang AFP sa pamumuno ni General Victor Ibrado. Bakit kinailangan pang isailalim ito sa batas militar gayong sang-ayon kay Ibrado, kalmado na at kontrolado ang sitwasyon? Malinaw na sinadya ang proklamasyon upang pahiyain si Ibrado at magkaroon ng guwang ang relasyon sa pagitan ng PMA Class 1976 (Ibrado) at PMA Class 1977 (General Raymundo Ferrer, na siyang tumatayong Military General sa Maguindanao). Kung may paggalang ang Malakanyang kay Ibrado, nakabuti sanang ipinasailalim ang Maguindanao hindi sa isang mas mababang ranggong heneral kundi sa C-S o Chief of Staff.
Sa ganitong sitwasyon, binibigyang daan nito ang isang insidenteng kahawig ng Oplan August Moon---ang pagpapatalsik kay Ibrado bilang Chief of Staff na kakasangkapaning kadahilanan ang paglala ng sitwasyong pang-kapayapaan sa Maguindanao at sa buong Mindanao. Hinog na ang panahon upang maisakatuparan ng mga nag-uudyok kay Mrs. Arroyo na bigyang laya ang kanyang tutang si Lt. General Bangit na makupo ang kapangyarihan ng AFP.
Latag na ang mga bataan ni Bangit sa matataas na posisyon sa AFP at maging sa PNP. Sa totoo lang, nag "testing the waters" na ang PMA Class 1978 nang ideklara sa "blue alert" ni Major General Mapagu, chief ng NCR Command ang buong Kamaynilaan bago pa ang deklarasyon ng batas militar, isang pahiwatig na naghahanda sa isang nakapangyayaring sitwasyon ang mga ito.
Dahilan sa maling aplikasyon o pagpapatupad ng batas militar sa malalabo at gawa-gawang kadahilinan, binigyang loob nito ang mga nagpapanukala para sa isang hunta o pamahalaan sa ilalim ng militar.
Pinapatikim ng mga alipores ni Ginang Arroyo sa matataas na opisyales ng militar kung gaano kasarap pamunuan ang pamahalaan---isang nakatatakot at nakapanghihilakbot na kalagayang maaaring maging daan sa isang diktaduryang militar. Inihahalintulad ko ito sa isang mansanas na may lason at pinatitikim sa mga opisyales de militar na walang pagsasa-alang-alang sa epekto nito sa demokrasya sa Pilipinas.
Sa kadahilanang nakalusot sa taumbayan ang Proklamasyon 1959, ipinapahiwatig nito na hinog na rin ang sitwasyon sa kahit anumang aksyon o pagkilos na maaaring gawin o kasangkapanin ng mga agila sa loob ng palasyo.
Komportable ang Palasyo na makipagtalik sa mga agila sa militar kapalit ng pagpapalawig ng termino ni Ginang Arroyo. Maaaring modified Thai model ang gawin ng mga ito sa sandaling magtagumpay sila sa kanilang maitim na balak, kumbaga'y panandaliang hindi pauupuin si Gng. Arroyo at sasabihing transitory president. Itutuloy ang charter change at ipahihintulot ang eleksyon sa Mayo, hindi upang mailuklok ang bagong pangulo kundi upang mailuklok ang Prime Minister.
Proclamation 1959 was the third time Martial law was availed of by government as an emergency measure.
The first time was when President Jose P. Laurel, the government caretaker, declared martial rule when foreign invaders entered Manila. The Laurel proclamation was deemed judicious because the country was then under invasion.
The second was the classic Proclamation 1081 on September 21, 1972 by former president Ferdinand Edralin Marcos. The country was not under invasion; rather there was an ensuing rebellion. Under the 1945 Constitution, there were only two instances when Martial law can be declared: invasion, rebellion or insurrection. “ Lawless violence“, this term in the Philippine Constitution describes the condition caused by either invasion or rebellion, but not as an independent condition by itself. There may be lawless violence but the answer is not Martial law but the application of the full force of the law.
In Proclamation 1081, Marcos was actually right in the application of Martial law. There was an existing rebellion. Jose Maria Sison already founded the Communist Party of the Philippines and has since created rebel camps and assassination squads as early as 1970. Student protests were all over. With this rebellion, lawless violence ensued and even affected the capital. Hence, the President had the right to call out the Armed Forces to quell the rebellion.
Remember that these two instances–the Laurel and Marcos proclamations—there were two existing conditions–the country was invaded by a foreign power (Laurel) while there was domestic instability caused by a Communist rebellion (Marcos).
Now, let’s see if this Proclamation 1959 of Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo satisfies the requisites as provided by the 1987 Constitution for the declaration of Martial law.
In the 1987 Constitution, there are actually three conditions stated: invasion, rebellion or coup d’etat. Clearly, the Constitution meant for these conditions to be existing prior to a declaration. Martial rule, as a concept, was never meant to be used as either a deterrent nor as a pre-emptive measure. The framers of the Constitution specifically used the word “suppress” to express the real intention of Section 18, Article 7 of the Constitution.
Now, what causes confusion in the interpretation of this provision in the 1987 Constitution?
It is the inclusion of the word “prevent” in the first sentence that gives every President the legal basis for calling out the Armed Forces even if the threat is just “imminent”. Look at how Section 18 was framed:
Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to PREVENT or SUPPRESS lawless violence, invasion or rebellion (include coup d’etat)
It is clear that the President has the power to call out the armed forces to address these four conditions. But, is this the paragraph that justifies martial law? No. The second sentence of the same provision is clearly what the Framers actually intended as a condition for the proclamation of martial law.
“…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.”
Clearly, there are only TWO conditions, which must exist, BEFORE the President can actually declare martial law—invasion or rebellion.
In the case of Maguindanao, Proclamation 1959 was issued at a time when the military has already neutralized members of the Ampatuan family, believed to be the masterminds behind the brutal massacre. Troops were already in the area and has surrounded the compound of the warlord. Arms were already seized.
In fact, previous press statements of Malacanang issued shortly after the massacre indicates that the situation has been placed under control. When Mrs. Arroyo placed three provinces believed to be under the control of the Ampatuans under the State of Emergency proclamation, the situation in the area normalized and there was no indication that a rebellion was existing nor was there a threat even, of rebellion.
Given that there was no factual basis for the declaration of martial law, what should Congress do at this point?
I do not agree with Speaker Prospero Nograles Jr. assertion that the sentence in Section 18 was just discretionary, not directory. Look at how this sentence was framed:
“…Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members, in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President.”
Two things: President is MANDATED by the Constitution to report to Congress and second, Congress has to CONVENE itself either in regular or SPECIAL SESSION. IN FACT, the Constitution DIRECTS CONGRESS TO IMMEDIATELY CONVENE WITHIN TWENTY FOUR HOURS FOLLOWING THE PROCLAMATION OR SUSPENSION..WITHOUT NEED OF A CALL.
These provisions are DIRECTORY or MANDATORY, not subject to the whims or caprices of the Speaker or of that of the Senate President.
The question really is—when is the proper time for Congress to convene?
If Congress is in session, they must convene within forty eight hours. In the case of Maguindanao, they have to do it as early as Tuesday morning, since the proclamation took effect 7 o’clock in the morning of December 4, which fell on a Saturday. If they are NOT in session, they should have called it by TODAY, Sunday, December 5.
* Note: In computing for a period, the first day is excluded and the last day included. In Article 13 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, it is said, and to wit:
Art. 13. When the law speaks of years, months, days or nights, it shall be understood that years are of three hundred sixty five days each; months, of thirty days; days, of twenty-foiur houses; and nights, from sunset to sunrise.
If months are designated by their name, they shall be computed by the number of days which they respectively have.
In computing a period, the first day shall be excluded and the last day included.
Now, was there legal basis for what Senator Juan Ponce-Enrile said that when it meant 48 hours, that means that it should be working hours, meaning, government offices must be OPEN before he, as Senate President, can CALL and CONVENE the Senate? By all means, NO.
Section 18 of Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution is a directory provision and we are talking here of a suspension of rights and privileges extended to citizens living in a democracy. Are we to wait for government offices to open BEFORE ENRILE calls for his fellow Senators to convene? The Constitution is clear—if not in session, convene even without a call. If they are in session, convene within forty eight hours. Forty eight hours mean that it starts at 7 o-clock in the morning and ends at 7AM in the morning of Tuesday.
There's a joke spreading around about this Martial law declaration of Mrs. Arroyo. The joke is that during the meeting called by Mrs. Arroyo, a debate broke out among members of her Cabinet. The Cabinet was split between the Hawks and the Black Doves. The Hawks, led by Defense secretary Norberto Gonzales want Mrs. Arroyo to declare martial rule, while the Black Doves want her just to apply the full force of the law.
Gonzales: " Let's use this occasion Madame to show our enemies that you're still powerful and that you mean business in Mindanao. Martial law now!" (grinning like the devil)
Mrs. Arroyo: "hummm....yan ka na naman Berto, tawang demonyo ka na naman. But, I like your suggestion.." (smiling)
Claudio: " Madame, this is not the time to declare martial rule. Walang factual basis eh. We already neutralized the Ampatuans. Our troops are there and they secured the place already. What we need is the application of the full force of the law."
Mrs. Arroyo: " Yes, yes, tama ka Gabby. Dami na tayong tropa dun...gusto ko yan, hahaha!"
Gonzales: " Madame, remember, they discovered a huge pile of firearms with DND markings...baka madiskubre nilang mga gifts mo yun sa mga Ampatuans..."
Claudio: " Madame, madaling itago yan...it is a PR problem, not a military one...Full force of the law lang.."
Gonzales: " Hindi, martial law!"
Claudio: " Full force of the Law!"
Gonzales : " Martial law!"
Claudio: " Full force of the Law!"
(with hands clutching his back due to scoliosis. Mrs. Arroyo saw Claudio grimacing in pain. She felt pity. She saw how honest Claudio was fighting for what he was shouting for and she wants to give him what he wanted.
Gonzales was standing and shouting before the face of Claudio while Claudio was also standing and shouting a few inches close to Gonzales' face)
Mrs. Arroyo: " O sige na nga, martial law na Gabby!"
Gabby fell from his seat and never recovered. He immediately tendered his resignation.
What are the conditions existing that justifies the declaration of martial rule? Under Section 18 of Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution, it is clearly stated that:
"The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. 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 provision is very clear and under our jurisdiction, its construction should also be clear---martial law can only be declared if there is an existing condition of "lawless violence, invasion or rebellion." The Supreme Court in many instances, particularly those rulings when Mrs. Arroyo declared a "state of emergency" in Metro Manila at the height of anti-Arroyo rallies, says that such conditions should be "existing" rather than pre-emptory or "perceived".
In the case of Maguindanao, Mrs. Arroyo clearly exceeded her exercise of powers.
Proclamation 1959 is not a judicious exercise of emergency powers granted to her by the Constitution because at the time she so declared it, there was no existing condition of lawless violence, insurrection nor rebellion (or coup d'etat) in Maguindanao. The Armed Forces of the Philippines has already neutralized the Ampatuans. The principal masterminds of the brutal Maguindanao massacre have already been arrested, put under custody and their private armies disarmed and neutralized.
What is quite evident with this declaration is this--the discovery of a huge cache of arms and ammo bearing the markings of the DND-PNP inside the Ampatuan mansions. NPR already wrote about this in previous posts and is the first to report of this huge cache of arms in most of these mansions inside the Ampatuan compound.
Likewise, even government itself, in its numerous press statements, says that the situation has been placed under control, following the previous declaration of a state of emergency.
Clearly, Proclamation 1959 is NOT really meant to contain a condition or situation in Maguindanao. Rather, the purpose was simply to use it as a threat, to impress upon the political enemies of Mrs. Arroyo that she is still in control and that she still can use this power against those who will undermine her position as President.
Remember that a few days prior to this, Metro Manila was placed under "blue alert" by the Armed Forces despite the absence of a military intelligence report even indicating that the capital was under serious threat. "Blue alerts" are only availed of, when there is a basis, like an imminent attack from the enemies of the state.
That is the main goal. And what is the tactical objective?
The tactical objective is simply obfuscate the discovery of these huge cache of government assets. E.O. 1959 is meant to protect the Powers-That-Be that allowed such assets to be given to a warlord such as the Ampatuans.
It is meant to silence the Ampatuans and those who know why such a huge pile of government arms and ammos fell into the hands of a brutal warlord clan.
It is likewise a pre-emptive move aimed at confusing the situation and diverting attention from the seriousness of this issue.
Clearly, this discovery is more than enough proof that high government and military officials are involved in cuddling and taking care of the Ampatuans. This is prima facie evidence that DND, AFP and PNP officials colluded with the Ampatuans and supplied them with arms and ammos.
And this definitely happened right under the noses of former DND secretary Gilbert "Gibo" Teodoro who earlier claimed in his statements that his administration was "clean" and "devoid of corruption". How will Teodoro explain this now?
Three things:
1. Proclamation 1959 is more of a political act than a direct and judicious response to a condition of lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.
2. Proclamation 1959 is a clear abuse of powers granted to Mrs. Arroyo under the 1987 Constitution. The action was meant to suppress adverse public opinion arising from the discovery of a huge cache of arms and ammonition by the AFP inside the compound of a political ally.
3. Proclamation 1959 should be condemned because it is a diversionary tactic at the expense of a Power than should not be trifled with.
The message is clear---Proclamation 1959 is Mrs. Arroyo's way of declaring war against her political enemies; a threat meant to impress her enemies that this power still resides with her and will be used to perpetuate and protect her and her gang's interests whenever threatened.
To those who want change--be prepared for the long haul. This diminutive megalomaniac will not stop. Mrs. Arroyo will not fade away peacefully. She will not give up power that easily.
And the elections, clearly, is threatened by the very actions of this megalomaniac.
Democracy is threatened.
