Martial law in Maguindanao to be lifted 9 p.m., Saturday

The martial law imposed in Maguindanao province since December 4 will be lifted at 9 p.m., Saturday, Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita announced Saturday afternoon during a press briefing in Malacañang.

AFTER 28 YEARS, MARTIAL LAW IS HERE AGAIN

PRES. ARROYO DEFENDS MILITARY RULE

EXEC. SEC. DUREZA MEETS WITH AMPATUANS

HISTORIC SESSION STARTS WITH BARBS

'BURY ARROYO ADVISERS WITH BACKHOE'

'ON TUESDAY, WE'LL DECIDE'

BIGGEST ARMS STOCKPILE IN ANDAL SR. HOME

MORE DISCOVERY: COPS SEIZE 1,001 FIREARMS

'THE GUN'S NOT MINE'

The province will however remain under a state of emergency. The announcement came a day after Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago warned of a "conspiracy" that would bring about martial rule beyond Maguindanao and preempt next year's elections.

"The rebellion has been addressed...Law and order have been restored but the state of emergency continues under Proclamation 1946," Ermita told reporters after the National Security Council meeting at the Palace.

During the press briefing, Ermita summarized the administration's accomplishments in crushing rebellion in Maguindanao, three weeks after members of the Ampatuan clan allegedly massacred 57 people, including 30 journalists in Ampatuan town.

He said three charges for multiple murder had been filed before the courts while 247 other charges were referred to the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Twenty-four people were slapped with rebellion charges, while 638 other rebellion cases had been referred to the DOJ.

Sixty two people had been arrested for rebellion; 128 members of the Civilian Volunteer Organizations had surrendered, while 339 others had been placed under the custody of authorities.

Rebel or "offensive" positions in the towns of Ampatuan, Rajah Buayan, Sultan Sa Barongis, Datu Unsay, Mamasapano, and Shariff Aguak had also been "cleared" by the police and the military, according to Ermita.

He said the criminal justice system in the province "is now in place and working," as well as the operations of the local government, which "have been restored to normalcy," after the appointment of Ansaruddin Alonto-Adiong as governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.

“In view of these accomplishments under martial law, Proclamation 1959 declaring Martial Law suspending the privilege of habeas corpus... will be lifted effective 9 p.m. today," said Ermita.


For the latest Philippine news stories and videos, visit GMANews.TV
Last December 4, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo signed Proclamation 1959 placing Maguindanao under martial rule.

Earlier, Press Secretary Cerge Remonde said Malacañang would lift martial law once its police and military commanders on the ground meet the following objectives:

• The “rebellion" in Maguindanao has stopped;
  
  
• The suspects in the Nov. 23 massacre have been arrested;
  
  
• Charges have been filed against the suspects in the massacre;
  
  
• Witnesses of the massacre have been secured;
  
  
• Maguidanao has been restored partially or fully to civilian government; and
  
  
• Illegal armed groups have been disarmed.
  

Ermita said all six conditions had been met, prompting the administration to lift martial law imposition in Maguindanao. - ARCS, JHU, TJD, GMANews.TV

MADRIGAL jamby says:

PGMA's report to Congress is nothing but an account of the massacre without any direct or indirect evidence of rebellion. What is strange is that there has long been lawless violence in Maguindanao and the Ampatuans have been allowed to rule with impunity by this very same administration.

Ngayon ay nag-iba na ang tugtugin ng Malacanang. Ang nangyari rito ay bunsod ng lumalang gulo ng dalawang warlord clans kung saan ang isang angkan ay mas malapit sa kusina. Bakit kailangang parusahan ang ibang mga mamamayan na walang kinalaman?

This is a sham. Ito ay isang malaking sarsuwela na nagpapatunay lamang na 'di seryoso si Ginang Arroyo na parusahan ang kanyang minamanok na pamilya Ampatuan.

It is a sad day indeed for the Filipino people when a human rights violation is perpetrated by the government to cover up the massacre of innocent victims. By declaring martial law in Maguindanao, PGMA can now effectively curtail the human rights of many people who have nothing to do with these unspeakable murders.

By restricting the human rights of all Maguindanaoans, PGMA may be covering up the unsavoury truth that continues to emerge. Is this another evil scheme to hide telling evidence of electoral fraud?

The imposition of martial law is but a demented diversionary tactic adopted by the Arroyo administration to show that the President is in control but which may eventually lead to the exoneration of her political allies as the heinous crimes of multiple murder and rebellion are difficult to prove under our criminal statutes. Only an evil mind covering up the sins of a political lackey can come up with this. Clearly, she is pushing the envelope too far.

I now ask: Why declare martial law after the fact? Is this merely a subterfuge to eventually free the Ampatuans? Abangan!

Sen. Nene Pimentel says:

Today, we celebrate the 61st anniversary of the UN declaration of human rights.

Today, we mourn not only the massacre of the roughly 57 citizens of this country last November 23 in Maguindanao and ghastly snuffing out of their human rights.

We also bewail the inappropriate response of the government that proclaimed martial law in Maguindanao.

The Constitution clearly requires the existence of an invasion or rebellion that demands the protection of public safety before martial law may be declared.

There was no invasion in Maguindanao.

There was no rebellion in Maguindanao that could even remotely be connected with the massacre of the innocent individuals in Maguindanao on November 23.

The victims were not doing anything contrary to law. One victim was the wife of Toto Mangundadatu. The others were women lawyers and journalists. They were travelling along the highway on the way to the office of the Commission on Elections of the province to do a perfectly legal act: the wife to file the certificate of candidacy of her husband, Toto Mangundadatu, for governor of Maguindanao. The others, to witness, record and report the event as media practitioners.

They were unable to do what they had set out to do. They were fired upon and killed. They could not even fire back because I understand they were unarmed.

The ambushers were later identified as led by Andal Ampantuan Jr., mayor of the municipality of Unsay, a son of Governor Andal Ampatuan of Maguindanao.

The killers were in military or police uniform. They were reportedly members of the Civilian Volunteers Organization, a paramilitary unit, that is supposed to help in the maintenance of law and order in the areas of their assignment.

In the Maguindanao incident we speak of, they did not maintain law and order. They broke the law and created disorder.

Hence, the reaction of the government in proclaiming martial law while appealing to those who want blood for blood is not exactly in conformity with the intent of the Constitution that has wisely calibrated its lawful response to the challenges against the governmental authority of the Republic.

If Governor Andal Ampatuan and his son, Andal Jr., were responsible for the gruesome deed, he and his son and those that acted on their orders may be brought before the bar of justice even without martial law being proclaimed.

They can be suspended, disarmed, arrested, investigated prosecuted and convicted according to law.

And if the suspension, disarming, arresting, investigating, prosecuting and convicting of the Ampatuans could not be done simply a sheriff serving the pertinent orders on them, then, a battalion of law enforces could be mobilized to effect the proper warrants.

However, the government has done what it did: proclaimed martial law over Maguindanao.

It has accomplished through methods of martial law what could have been done without it.

The Ampatuans - Governor Andal, Mayor Andal Jr., and even Zaldy, the governor of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao are now under the custody of the military or police authorities.

Their palatial mansions were raided. Guns, ammunitions, election paraphernalia including ballot boxes, and for all I know cash in the millions was also confiscated.

Will we know the truth of what happened to the Ampatuans and their weapons and wealth after the law enforcers were through with them pursuant to the mandate of martial law that they were following?

I am not too sure that we will ever do.

For one thing, the unstated main target of martial law is to silence the truth.

The truth about the collusion between the Ampatuans and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in frustrating the will of the people in the elections of 2004.

The truth about the symbiotic relationship between the Ampatuans and the Gloria Macapagal administration to suppress the electoral will of the people of Maguindanao in the 2007 elections.

The truth about the scratch-my-back-I-scratch yours kind of liaison between some highly placed officers of the armed forces and the police that made the Ampatuans, the most feared warlords of the area. In the process, thousands of highpowered guns and ammunition and reportedly even armoured vehicles found their way into the hands of the Ampatuans.

And with so much power, so much wealth followed as a matter of course. This is evidenced by widely circulated mass media reports that the Ampatuans have 27 mansions in many places in the country.

So much power and wealth combined backed up unwittingly perhaps by the imposition of martial law, what chance does the ordinary man on the street have to contest his arrest and detention on the mere say so of a law enforcer?

Go to court, one can say. So easily said. So difficult to do if one is poor, powerless and ill-connected.

Will we ever know the truth about the way martial law has been implemented in Maguindanao?

Most likely we will never know the whole truth especially about the violations of human rights that follow from the use of such enormous power by a President who from all indications do not care about the niceties of the law.

And I speak from experience. Having been arrested and detained four times during the martial law of the Marcos regime, I can say with some degree of authority: the sooner we end the martial law state of affairs in Maguindanao, the better for our people.

It is for that purpose that I move that we revoke the martial law proclamation. After all, from all indications, it seems to have achieved its purpose.

Let us not make the lives of our people in Maguindanao more complicated than it already is.

Let us not allow the sins of one Moro family adversely affect the rights and liberties of the rest of the Moro peoples of Mindanao.

Let us uphold the Constitution and respect the law. Restore civilian rule in Maguindanao. Revoke the martial law proclamation.

Thank you.

Senator Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan says;

Senator Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan assails the government's mishandling of the Maguindanao massacre, particularly the imposition of Martial Law and the violation of the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

"They are clearly violating the 1987 Constitution. The government says that search warrants are not necessary under Martial Law. The Constitution only suspends the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, not the bill of rights. Our justice department is not knowledgeable of our laws and constitution, and that is alarming."

Pangilinan fears that under the current circumstances, the cases filed against the suspects may be nullified due to technicalities.

"This government is taking legal shortcuts, and this can be fatal to the proper prosecution of the cases against the Ampatuans. Evidence seized by way of an illegal search cannot be used as evidence against the accused. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the right against illegal searches and seizure is suspended. Martial Law does not suspend the bill of rights. Is this a case of incompetence, or is it deliberate bungling of the case to favor the accused?"

"The AFP admits no clash with armed groups. PNP confirms only one clash, but no casualties. No homes burned and no attacks on government installations. Where's the rebellion? The executive does not hold sole privilege in interpreting the law. That is dangerous. That is why Martial Law is unconstitutional. We want to enforce the law. But in enforcing it, we must not break the law."

Senator Rodolfo G Biazon says:

Senator Rodolfo G Biazon questioned the statement of Acting Secretary of Justice Agnes Devanadera that the declaration of Martial Law was to remove the "IMPEDIMENTS" of the usual requirements of law in pursuit of the prosecution of those responsible for the gruesome massacre of November 23 which resulted to the gruesome death of 57 people which included not only political personalities, 31 media practitioners but also several bystanders.

"When asked by a member of Congress what the necessity of the declaration of Martial Law was, Acting Secretary of Justice Agnes Devanadera pointed to what she called 'OBJECTIVES" although there was no definition of what these objectives were. It can only be assumed that this is to bring to the bar of justice the perpetrators of this gruesome massacre and dismantling of private armies."

Biazon said this "OBJECTIVE" can be attained under existing laws and through the capabilities of the law enforcement and security agencies which are the AFP and the PNP and the functioning of regular courts.

Biazon raised that the Executive Department continues to fail to provide clear answers to the following questions:

1. What was the Constitutional basis of Presidential Proclamation 1959 declaring Martial Law and suspending the writ of habeas corpus in the province of Maguindanao?

2. Was there actual rebellion in Maguindanao?

3. Was Martial Law necessary?

"Because of the compelling restrictions and limitations in the declaration and the implementation of Martial rule, the only additional power granted by the Constitution to the Executive is to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. And, even this is further limited to the application of the suspension of the writ only on persons arrested and accused of committing rebellion ."

Biazon clarified, "The Constitution further requires that a case be filed in court against these people within 72 hours and if there is no case filed, the arrested person should be automatically released."

"When I asked Secretary Devanadera the question of the purpose of the declaration of Martial Law, her answer was " TO REMOVE THE IMPEDIMENTS USUALLY REQUIRED BY THE LAW IN PURSUING THE OBJECTIVES OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT."

Biazon concluded, "The Secretary was very evasive and did not identify any "IMPEDIMENTS" in her answers so it can only be surmised that the declaration of Martial Law was meant to circumvent some laws of the land. "

Senator Richard Gordon says:

Today we make history. This is the first time in our country where a joint session of Congress has been called to review the factual basis of the declaration of Martial Law. This is not a surprise upon any public official in this country. The Constitution is clear that within 48 hours, Congress must be convened to be able to review that action.

I feel very, very disappointed and feel diminished as a senator of this country that the Secretary of National Defense, whom I saw last night, and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces could not be here to be able to answer questions on the joint session of Congress.

To my mind, if I may be so bold, we are a co-equal branch of government and the Constitution provides that we must review. And therefore, it behooves the Executive that she sends the highest officials involved in the declaration of Martial Law, the administrators of Martial Law, to appear before the congressmen and the senators, the representatives of the people, para sumagot at magpaliwanag.

Lumalabas na sa hindi nila pagdalo dito na tila, una, binabalewala ang kahalagahan ng Kongreso, ng House of Representatives at ng Senate, sa isang napakaselan na bagay. Walang mas mataas pa na lalabas na issue sa ating panahon kundi itong pagtawag ng Martial Law, kaya dapat nandito sila.

Pangalawa, lumalabas na mahina ang kaso ng gobyerno. Sapagkat kung nakakaalis ang Secretary of National Defense, kung nakakaalis ang Armed Forces Chief of Staff, ibig sabihin hindi napakaselan ng deklarasyon ng Martial Law at lumalabas na mukhang everything is under control.

For those reasons and others, this is the first time, this is the first exercise, first impression to the whole country where the Constitution is now being utilized, pinapakita kung paano babalansehin ng lehislatura ang executive at ito ay dadaan sa Korte Suprema.

Sa pagdeklara ng Martial Law tatlo ang kasama--the Executive who declares it; the Legislature that reviews it; and finally, the arbiter (Supreme Court) of whether there was a valid exercise of the declaration of Martial Law.

Kaya kailangan hindi dapat minamaliit ang okasyon na ito sapagkat lahat ng Congressman, lahat ng Senador ay nandito. Kaya wala akong nakikitang valid reason na sila ay aalis. Pwede silang magpadala ng representative sa MILF Conference, pwede silang magpadala ng representative sa China, pero sa bagay involving the rights of the people, kaya nilagay yan sa Saligang Batas, kaya sinabing kasama ang mga representatives, mga senador, kaya kasama ang Korte Suprema dahil ito ay napakaselan sapagkat maaabuso ang karapatang pantao.

Ang rason na yan ay sinasabi ko in order to say that I find it extremely disappointing, I am dismayed, and I am sure all of us here are dismayed, na parang binabalewala at lumalabas sa akin na mahina ang rason kung bakit dapat ipagpatuloy ang Martial Law sapagkat kaya pala nilang umalis at pwede na talagang i-lift ang Martial Law.

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago says

This will be an open ended joint session because it has been agreed that there will be six cabinet members who will appear as resource persons so that all the members of Congress, both the Senate and the House, can ask them questions of fact. If that is the case, then, it has also been agreed that every member of Congress will have thirty minutes each because when he asks his preliminary question, the answer of the cabinet member will also be taken into consideration. So, as the rules say, there will at least be 20 hours that will be consumed by the mere interpellations of the cabinet members alone. Therefore, we cannot possibly finish it even if we work all night. We will have to meet again tomorrow, and there is no assurance that we will finish our joint session. Our great fear is that if the members of Congress are struck by a fit of loquacity or a virus on to keep on talking or using the proceedings as a platform for campaigning for the coming elections. It is possible that the Supreme Court may even overtake the Congress in putting its input on the martial law question, to say the least. What will happen then is, first, people in the Congress would want to convince the cabinet members of their own particular position so they will not be able to convince the other members of the congress but the cabinet members who are already tied by their allegiance to the President to defend her position. We'll not be therefore trying to convince each other to change our minds. In effect, therefore, this would be an exercise in redundancy.

If you want to prove that a cabinet member is not telling the truth, then you will have to conduct a lengthy cross examination but that is what always what happens in trial court. The credibility of a witness can be determined only by contrary evidence that is to say by contrary witness, or, by contrary documentary or electronic evidence. But, if you only have 30 minutes including the answers to your questions, you cannot possibly overthrow the credibility of the witness. So I don't really know what's the point of interpellating these cabinet members because we cannot tear down their credibility by cross examination and they will stick to their version of the facts because there is no one set of facts that will be acceptable to everybody. There will always be some people in the audience who will disagree with the interpretation of the facts. In other words, the facts will be mediated by the cabinet members because we are not eyewitnesses to what actually occurs.

In my view, since I have always said that I am in favor of revocation, it is the burden of the cabinet members to show that there is an actual rebellion in Maguindanao. You've noticed--since I'm sure you have copies of the reports submitted by the Office of the President--that there are only pictures of people who are dead or of military vehicles that are being shown inside a garage. There is no picture of government forces fighting against rebel forces, which would naturally be a state of circumstances during a rebellion. The question here is, show me the rebellion!

Normally, a journalist or a group of journalist would be embedded on all sides of the conflict--on both the side of the government and of the rebels. Why is there no journalist showing us pictures or giving us narratives of the accounts of the battle between the government and the rebels that is a necessity for rebellion to exist. In my view, what Malacanang has done is to prove the view rebellion at best is imminent--it's about to happen. But unfortunately, the records of the Constitutional convention are rich, abundant with the statements of the various commissioners that what the Constitution requires is not imminent rebellion but actual rebellion.

Will you participate in the interpellations?

Fortunately, I will be number three since this was done bilaterally among the senators. So I can stay and interpellate. When the senators each interpellate for 30 minutes, he or she can choose any of the cabinet members to answer any of the questions. So I can stay and do that. But I'm afraid they will not even be fully prepared because as a lawyer and as a legislator, I am allowed to only interpellate on the legal aspect. I am not going to discuss the wisdom of the proclamation, if it is a good thing or a bad thing, I am only going to discuss whether the Constitution has been obeyed or it has not. It's too far a stretch for them to claim that there is an actual rebellion. A rebellion, maybe, but an actual rebellion--no! So, show me the rebellion.