EDITORIAL - Guidelines

As the Supreme Court refused yesterday to dismiss outright petitions on the declaration of martial law, President Arroyo defended her Proclamation 1959, saying she did what she had to do and her move served the ends of justice.

In fact the President had another option to employ superior force against the Ampatuans and their private army without having to declare martial law, which can be imposed only during times of invasion or rebellion. The Constitution allows the president and commander-in-chief to call out the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, and there is no need to quibble over whether the threat is imminent or not, as in the case of rebellion.

Having declared a state of emergency in Maguindanao, President Arroyo had sufficient powers to employ superior military force to restore order in the province. Even during martial law, the Constitution remains in effect, which means all searches and seizures still need court-issued warrants. The absence of such warrants could render the items seized from the Ampatuans during martial law inadmissible as evidence in court. Where is the justice for the victims in that?

Critics of the martial law proclamation point out that neither invasion nor rebellion, a crime that needs ideological motivation, was present in Maguindanao. The clan and the foot soldiers responsible for the massacre of 57 people were trying to evade arrest for an atrocious, non-political crime. Those charged with rebellion cannot be tried separately for multiple murder or rape or illegal possession of firearms; those common crimes are absorbed by the offense of rebellion.

If the rebellion case the government has filed against clan patriarch Andal Ampatuan Sr. and several of his relatives is dismissed because there was no rebellion, where is the justice for the victims in that, as trumpeted by the President and her apologists?

A “looming” rebellion was used by the government as justification for placing one province under martial law. Critics of Proclamation 1959 point out that under the post-Marcos Constitution, “imminent danger” can no longer be invoked as a pretext for military rule. A Supreme Court ruling on the martial law proclamation will define the parameters of this potent executive power, which is open to abuse. The SC must not shirk its duty. A clear ruling is needed for the guidance not just of President Arroyo but those who will succeed her.