Martial law critics: Gov’t at fault if massacre evidence gets voided
12/15/2009 | 03:01 AM
Critics say there is a “big possibility" that the evidence gathered during the week-long imposition of martial law in Maguindanao may be invalidated should the Supreme Court (SC) declare it unconstitutional.
That, however, is the price the government has to pay.
The critics were reacting to statements by deputy presidential spokesperson Gary Olivar expressing fears that petitioning the high court to rule on the edict’s legality may only delay the prosecution of the suspects in the November 23 massacre in Ampatuan town, Maguindanao, which left at least 57 people, including 31 journalists, dead. [See: Palace to critics: What is your alternative to martial law?]
“Will we then be required to release the suspects, throw away the evidence, even drop the charges?" Olivar said in a press briefing on Monday, asking critics if they have any “contingency plan" to ensure justice for the massacre victims.
Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares, a lawyer and one of the petitioners, described Olivar’s statements as “fascist, unfair and unjust," saying they have amply warned the government that the imposition of martial rule may weaken the case against the Ampatuan clan, the primary suspects in the massacre.
“They thought warrantless arrests and seizures are allowed under martial law. But martial law does not supplant the constitution, so the bill of rights still exists," Colmenares said, saying that whatever arrests or seizures that the government made could have been achieved without declaring martial law.
“Are they going to blame us for the hole they had dug themselves into?" Colmenares asked.
Another lawyer-petitioner, Harry Roque of the Center for International Law, also insisted that martial rule through Presidential Proclamation 1959 should not have been declared in Maguindanao in the first place for lack of legal basis.
“[President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo] must be held accountable for culpable violation of the constitution; that’s the alternative," Roque explained.
Should the SC rule against the constitutionality of the martial law imposition, Colmenares said the government can charge the suspects with such crimes as murder, illegal possession of firearms, plunder, and other applicable suits, and follow proper legal procedures.
Rep. Satur Ocampo, also of Bayan Muna, added that political will, and not martial law, is needed to resolve the Maguindanao crisis.
Maguindanao was placed under martial law from December 4 to 12, which set a legal chain of events including a congressional joint session and seven petitions that await the SC’s ruling.
Cotabato Archbishop Orlando Quevedo, however, believes the imposition should have been extended until at least the 2010 elections, saying the lifting will only prolong the agony of people in Maguindanao as political dysfunction will remain in the area. [See: Archbishop: Shortened martial law to prolong Maguindanao agony]
Quevedo said in his web log piece, “Maguindanao: After Martial Law, State of Emergency," that with the imposition of martial law, people felt a “greater sense of relief and freedom" in the province. – Jerrie M. Abella/JV, GMANews.TV
That, however, is the price the government has to pay.
The critics were reacting to statements by deputy presidential spokesperson Gary Olivar expressing fears that petitioning the high court to rule on the edict’s legality may only delay the prosecution of the suspects in the November 23 massacre in Ampatuan town, Maguindanao, which left at least 57 people, including 31 journalists, dead. [See: Palace to critics: What is your alternative to martial law?]
“Will we then be required to release the suspects, throw away the evidence, even drop the charges?" Olivar said in a press briefing on Monday, asking critics if they have any “contingency plan" to ensure justice for the massacre victims.
Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares, a lawyer and one of the petitioners, described Olivar’s statements as “fascist, unfair and unjust," saying they have amply warned the government that the imposition of martial rule may weaken the case against the Ampatuan clan, the primary suspects in the massacre.
“They thought warrantless arrests and seizures are allowed under martial law. But martial law does not supplant the constitution, so the bill of rights still exists," Colmenares said, saying that whatever arrests or seizures that the government made could have been achieved without declaring martial law.
“Are they going to blame us for the hole they had dug themselves into?" Colmenares asked.
Another lawyer-petitioner, Harry Roque of the Center for International Law, also insisted that martial rule through Presidential Proclamation 1959 should not have been declared in Maguindanao in the first place for lack of legal basis.
“[President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo] must be held accountable for culpable violation of the constitution; that’s the alternative," Roque explained.
Should the SC rule against the constitutionality of the martial law imposition, Colmenares said the government can charge the suspects with such crimes as murder, illegal possession of firearms, plunder, and other applicable suits, and follow proper legal procedures.
Rep. Satur Ocampo, also of Bayan Muna, added that political will, and not martial law, is needed to resolve the Maguindanao crisis.
Maguindanao was placed under martial law from December 4 to 12, which set a legal chain of events including a congressional joint session and seven petitions that await the SC’s ruling.
Cotabato Archbishop Orlando Quevedo, however, believes the imposition should have been extended until at least the 2010 elections, saying the lifting will only prolong the agony of people in Maguindanao as political dysfunction will remain in the area. [See: Archbishop: Shortened martial law to prolong Maguindanao agony]
Quevedo said in his web log piece, “Maguindanao: After Martial Law, State of Emergency," that with the imposition of martial law, people felt a “greater sense of relief and freedom" in the province. – Jerrie M. Abella/JV, GMANews.TV
