MANILA – Two former Philippine presidents on Saturday led critics and legal experts in assailing the decision of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to impose martial law in Maguindanao province in Mindanao due to the massacre of 57 people in what is considered as the worst politically-related violence in the country’s history.
Former president Fidel Ramos, in a long distance telephone interview from Australia by a Metro Manila-based radio and TV network, called the declaration an “overkill†and “overreaction†to the carnage that has been blamed on the Ampatuan clan, who are identified with President Arroyo.
Ramos insisted there was no need for President Arroyo to impose martial rule, saying that in doing so, she was admitting her failure to stop the activities of the Ampatuans, led by their patriarch former Maguindanao governor Andal Ampatuan.
Ramos also noted that the military, police as well as the Department of Justice have already taken the necessary steps to bring the massacre perpetrators to justice.
For his part, ousted president Joseph Estrada pointed out the government has enough resources under its command, particularly in the police and the military, to impose the “rule of law†in Maguindanao which has been under the political stranglehold of the Ampatuans for the past 10 years.
Estrada, who is running in the May 2010 elections to “recapture†Malacanang, likewise agreed with Ramos that President Arroyo is to blame largely for allowing the Ampatuans to have a run of Maguindanao, thus enabling them to form their own private army and arm its members with high-powered weapons and ammunition intended for the police and the military.
But for legal experts and other critics, they have questioned the legality and constitutionality on which the President based her proclamation imposing martial law on Maguindanao, a component province of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), along with Lanao del Sur, Sultan Kudarat, Sulu, Basilan and Tawi-Tawi as well as Marawi City.
The legal dispute revolves mainly around a provision in the 1987 Constitution, which mandates that the President of the Philippines, as the military commander-in-chief, could declare martial law only in two instances – rebellion and invasion on the whole or part of the country for a maximum of 60 days.
Another reason – lawlessness – was deleted by the framers of the 1987 Constitution as they agreed that this was abused by the late president to impose martial law in September 1972 and which allowed him to run the country under his strongman rule for 20 years.
Under the Constitution, President Arroyo is also mandated to submit an official report to the House of Representatives and the Senate within 48 hours after which the two chambers are to convene in a joint session to either ratify or revoke the declaration.
In this light, opposition Senator Francis Pangllinan of the Liberal Party, pointed out that rebellion and invasion were not present in the case of Maguindanao, which put into question the legality and constitutionality of the Arroyo declaration.
Joining Pangilinan in pursuing this line of argument are lawyer Marvic Leonin, the dean of the College of Law of the state-owned University of the Philippines, and Dante Ramos, also a lawyer and professor of constitutional law in one of the universities of Cebu City in the Visayas.
The two agreed with Pangilinan that the two main elements for the declaration, rebellion and invasion, are not present in the Arroyo declaration of martial rule in Maguindanao.
Other sectors, like the Black and White Movement, composed mostly of former Arroyo Cabinet officials, announced they would elevate the case to the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of the presidential proclamation.
However, government lawyers, headed by Secretary Agnes Devanadera f the Department of Justice, told a Malacanang press conference on Saturday that martial was needed to hasten the solution of the massacre and bring the perpetrators to justice.
Devanadera disputed the claim of Pangilinan, Leonin and Ramos that rebellion was not present to justify the declaration of martial law.
The justice secretary cited reports from the military and the police in Maguindanao that heavily-armed supporters of the Ampatuans have been massing in several areas and have the potential to launch a rebellion against the government.
Administration lawmakers, headed by House Speaker Prospero Nograles, said they welcomed the declaration to enable the government to restore peace and order in Maguindanao and bring to justice the massacre perpetrators.
Nograles, also a lawyer, disclosed that majority of the 268-member House are in favor of the imposition of martial law in Maguindanao and will remain united to frustrate efforts of other lawmakers to have it revoked.
Nograles explained it needs a simple majority plus one vote for the joint session of the House and the Senate to ratify the Arroyo declaration. He pointed out that the House is dominated by pro-Arroyo lawmakers as against the 21 members of the Senate.
Loading ...
Reader’s Views