Lawmakers to vote on martial law based on politics, Miriam says

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago has given up. No amount of explanation or education will convince her fellow lawmakers and Malacañang officials to lift the imposition of martial law in Maguindanao province. Santiago on Thursday said she was sure that the voting among Congress members on the martial law issue would be based not on the principles of the law, but on politics. "Kahit mahilo ako sa kakapaliwanag...maski himatayin ako, hindi ko makumbinsi iyan aminado ako dahil iba ang base nila, ang base ko ay prisipyo ng constitutional law," said Santiago during the second day of the House of Representatives and the Senate's joint session on Proclamation 1959. (Even if I get dizzy explaining, even if faint I admit that I will not be able to convince them because they have a different basis for voting, mine is constitutional law.) She added: "Boboto sila kung ano ang nakabubuti sa kanila sa pulitika (They will vote based on what is politically good for them)," she said. In her privilege speech during the joint session, the senator, a former regional trial court judge, said the imposition of martial law had failed to meet the test of constitutional law as there was no actual rebellion. She said rebellion is open, organized, and armed resistance to established government. "If there is such a rebellion, why have we never seen any such footage in the TV newscasts or on the internet? there should be two groups in the area shooting each other, show me the rebellion. Are we now adopting the new concept of a secret rebellion? That would be a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron, like a woman who is secretly pregnant," Santiago said. Proclamation No. 1959 does not even claim that there is a state of actual rebellion but “heavily armed groups in the province of Maguindanao have established positions to resist government troops," according to Santiago. She further said that rebellion is a political offense and not a common crime. "The essence of rebellion is ideological motivation, meaning the advocacy that the existing government should be destroyed, by removing citizen allegiance. I respectfully point out that where there is no ideological motivation, there is no rebellion," Santiago explained. She added that if no political motive had been established and proved, the accused should be convicted of common crime and not rebellion. "In cases of rebellion, motive relates to the act, and mere membership in an organization dedicated to the furtherance of rebellion would not, by itself, suffice," Santiago said. The senator also pointed out that the crime of rebellion carries a lighter penalty than murder. "Thus, it is imperative for our courts to ascertain whether or not the act was done in furtherance of a political end. It is not enough that the overt acts of rebellion are proven. Both purpose and overt acts are essential components of the crime," she said. - Amita O. Legaspi, GMANews.TV