why senator miriam defensor loves cerge remonde so much

we take with keen interest senator miriam santiago’s point of view that cerge remonde should be “eliminated”. errr, we think senator santiago means remonde has to resign his day job of press secretary of the arroyo administration.

we have written about cerge remonde in this blog before, one was in reference to the OBOBS parade on the million peso dinner arroyo had in new york (read here: http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/category/cerge-remonde/) and the other on cerge remonde’s boob job booboo. not his boobs but president arroyo’s breast augmentation scandal. on the last one, one of the lesson learned is that cerge remonde makes it a point a point to look at the boobs of president arroyo. he has done it so often and might be on a regular basis because he was able to compare the size of president arroyo’s breasts to those of sexy showbiz stars. (read ans click here: the lessons arroyo’s breast implants taught us – cerge remonde looks at arroyo’s breasts)

we love to see where this love that santiago has on remonde will go. senator santiago is one of our favorites in the senate. we think she is one senator the country should never do without. but we can’t say the same thing on cerge remonde.

read in full here: Santiago calls Remonde ‘illiterate and ridiculous’

maguindanao martial law has no legal basis

we will be running a series of posts in this blog that will look into the governments action against the ampatuans in connection with the maguindanao massacre.

we will be picking up relevant quotations from news articles to collapse them into a whole.  

For her part, Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago said the martial law declaration had no legal basis. Santiago noted the absence of an actual rebellion and ideological motivation to rise up against the government. She also said that public safety was not endangered by the “crimes committed by the warlords.”

On the floor, Santiago explained that the framers of the 1987 Constitution envisioned actual, not imminent rebellion. Until yesterday, she said there was no media footage or pictures of two groups “shooting at each other.”

“The Constitution imposes two conditions for martial law; there should be a state of actual rebellion and public necessity requires it. These conditions do not exist today,” she said.

“Hence, I humbly submit this general test for constitutional martial law: Is martial law a necessity for the existence of the state? The answer is ‘No.’ I further submit this particular test: Is there an actual rebellion, and does public safety require martial law? Again, the answer is ‘No.’”

Santiago said the penal code defines the crime of rebellion as “rising publicly and taking arms against the government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said government or its laws.” In other words, she said rebellion was an open, organized and armed resistance to established government.

 

Santiago pointed out that PP 1959 did not even claim that there was a state of actual rebellion which, she said, was a “fatal flaw.”

She said the proclamation’s claim of “heavily armed groups in the province of Maguindanao have established positions to resist government troops” was not a condition contemplated by the Constitution.

Santiago also reminded the Cabinet officials that rebellion was a political offense, not a common crime and, thus, carried a lighter penalty than murder.

She said the essence of a rebellion was “ideological motivation,” and since it was absent there was no rebellion in the first place.

She later explained to reporters that the Ampatuans were neither “communists nor fascists” but mere warlords. “I say again, show me the rebellion,” she told her colleagues.

The second condition warranting martial law is that “public safety requires it,” she said.

“But crimes committed by warlords against each other are basically threats to the safety only of their respective camps,” Santiago said, suggesting that “what they constitute are not threats to public safety per se, but acts of terrorism.”

She said when two groups were quarreling, “they are not danger to public safety, but they are threat to each other.”

In a petition filed Thursday, Christian Monsod, a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission and a former chair of the Commission on Elections, and Ateneo de Manila University lawyer Carlos Medina Jr. said there was no factual basis for Presidential Proclamation No. 1959 because there was no actual rebellion or invasion—the only grounds for martial law that are allowed under the Constitution.

In their petition, Monsod and Medina said there was “absolutely no factual or legal basis to support the finding of existence of rebellion.”

They said there was no declaration by the Ampatuans or their supporters of an intent to overthrow the government, or of any public uprising by them that would endanger public safety.

Monsod and Medina also said there was “no showing that the alleged failure to function of the local judicial system and other government mechanisms in Maguindanao endangered public safety.”

“It is evident that the President and respondent (Ermita) are desperately grasping at straws and ascribing political motive where there is clearly none,” they said.

“The mere presence of armed groups without a clearer statement as to their actual identity or purpose cannot be taken to inevitably and automatically imply the face of rebellion or invasion,” they said, adding:

“All there is, is a vague assertion that local governments and courts in the area have ceased, refused or have otherwise been unable to perform their functions.”

sources: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20091211-241312/Murder-raps-may-be-buried

maguindanao massacre: martial law may give the ampatuans free instead of gravest punishment

we will be running a series of posts in this blog that will look into the governments action against the ampatuans in connection with the maguindanao massacre.

we will be picking up relevant quotations from news articles to collapse them into a whole.  

Rebellion can be a defense against murder charges.

Other senators warned that the imposition of martial law could exonerate the Ampatuans from their involvement in the massacre of 57 people in the province on Nov. 23 because of warrantless arrests and seizures.

Gordon said Congress’ endorsement of Presidential Proclamation No. 1959 would provide the perpetrators of the massacre with a way to escape the heavier penalty for murder by embracing the rebellion charges.

Rebellion charges carry lighter penalties, he noted.

Gordon said the government might be letting others get away with the worst crimes and the worst penalty by claiming that the Ampatuans were engaged in rebellion.

“The scope of martial law is sweeping, and if this issue gets buried over time, they can be pardoned for their rebellion,” Gordon said.

“Aren’t we making a mistake? … (A)s a lawyer, I know that if we declare martial law is valid, and the suspension of habeas corpus is valid, and even if we charge them with multiple murders, Mayor Ampatuan and his lawyer will say Congress has declared martial law as valid, therefore, we are rebels,” Gordon said.

“And because we are rebels, you can only charge us with rebellion,” the senator said.

“The government is bungling the case. The evidence seized illegally cannot be used against the Ampatuans. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the right against illegal searches and seizure is suspended,” he said.

Martial law does not suspend the Bill of Rights, Pangilinan said.

In a statement, the FSGO aired concerns that the steps being taken by the government under martial law might be “successfully challenged” in the Supreme Court and eventually “allow the murderers to go scot-free” on technicalities.

“While seemingly answering the public clamor for justice for the victims, the Arroyo administration may be laying the foundation for justice to be denied,” the FSGO said. “It was murder in Mindanao, not rebellion. Being staunch allies of the Arroyo administration, it is incredible for the Maguindanao leaders to go against that administration,” it said.

read in full here: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20091211-241312/Murder-raps-may-be-buried

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20091211-241314/Petitions-to-high-court-stopping-1959-now-total-7

what is the real reason for declaring martial law in maguindanao?

we are publishing here this news article in full. we think this is a very important topic. this is next in wawam! after hours.

 

Bernas warns of amnesty for Ampatuans

By Cathy C. Yamsuan
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 03:47:00 12/09/2009

MANILA, Philippines—A member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission Tuesday warned that the Ampatuans might be granted amnesty by the government should they be found guilty only of rebellion.

“Murder committed in pursuance of rebellion is not considered a separate crime and is therefore absorbed by the charge of rebellion. The government must take care to prove two separate offenses, that murder preceded the charge of rebellion and was not committed as part of it,” said Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ, a former dean of the Ateneo College of Law and a columnist of the Inquirer.

In an interview, Bernas noted that testimony gathered by investigators already included the confession of “a perpetrator who said the order given to them was to kill [the Mangudadatus]. There was no connection to rebellion [at that time].”

The government has arrested members of the Ampatuan clan of Maguindanao for the Nov. 23 massacre of 57 people.

Witnesses have tagged Datu Unsay Mayor Andal Ampatuan Jr. as the one who ordered the killings.

Mind testimonies

Bernas urged government prosecutors to pay attention to testimonies that the mayor had ordered the murders.

He noted that acting Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, in her 20-page report to Congress, had alleged that rebellion was committed by the Ampatuans to justify the declaration of martial law in Maguindanao.

“Rebellion runs the risk of being granted amnesty, which can be pardoned by the President following final conviction,” said Bernas, who has been teaching criminal law since 1962.

Earlier, administration critics voiced fears that the rebellion charge against the Ampatuans might override the multiple murder charges stemming from the Maguindanao massacre.

“Murder done in pursuance of rebellion can then be absorbed in the rebellion charge. But if the murders were done separately, then these should be treated as a separate crime. If murder is committed before a rebellion, if it precedes the rebellion, it must be treated independently,” Bernas said.

Congress’ power

In the same interview, Bernas said Ms Arroyo was not allowed to extend the 60-day martial law declaration in Maguindanao without Congress’ consent.

He said Congress had the power to revoke martial law through a majority vote of the Senate and the House of Representatives voting jointly.

“Congress can also extend martial law if requested by the President, because [she] cannot do it on her own. If Congress wants to stop martial law, it can vote to do so. However, the Constitution is silent on how long Congress can extend martial law,” he said.

petitions filed at supreme court to nullify martial law in maguindanao

No factual basis

The petitioners all insisted that there was no factual basis for the martial law proclamation since there was no actual rebellion or invasion.

In their petition, Salonga et al. said Article VII Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution “limits the ground (to declare martial law) to rebellion and invasion” and “none of these grounds are existent.”

“Nowhere in Proclamation No. 1959 were the constitutive elements of rebellion proven or even alleged. For one, the alleged establishment of positions to resist government troops by heavily armed groups does not automatically amount to a public uprising—an essential element of the crime of rebellion,” they said.

Police matter

The petitioners insisted that the massacre was a “police matter” that has been addressed by the President’s declaration of a state of emergency.

They claimed that Ms Arroyo did not follow the “sequence of graduated powers” under the Constitution when she declared martial law and simultaneously suspended the writ of habeas corpus.

“Declaration of martial law through Proclamation No. 1959 is a classic example of recklessly resorting to a ‘strong medicine,”’ said Salonga and his fellow petitioners.

They pointed out that Ms Arroyo did not declare martial law to suppress the MILF, which reaches a far greater scope of influence than the Ampatuans.

They also said that not even former President Joseph Estrada declared martial law when his administration went on an all-out war against the MILF in 2000.

Dilangalen said mere “threats of rebellion” could not be a valid ground for the declaration of martial law and suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.

“There is absolutely no public uprising and taking up of arms against the government in the area covered by the assailed proclamation. It is, in fact, in the excluded area, said to be controlled by the MILF, that the elements of rebellion may be attendant,” he said.

read in full here: 5 petitions filed in SC to nullify martial law

many groups oppose martial law in maguindanao – martial law has no basis

we are printing here the voices of many groups who are opposed to the declaration of martial law im maguindanao. many of these groups are saying martial law was an over-kill, unnecessary with the country having enough laws to achieve the stated goals and it has no legal basis.

“The official, unanimous position is we see no legal and factual basis for martial law,” De Lima told the Philippine Daily Inquirer in a text message, following an emergency meeting by the CHR commissioners en banc Sunday morning.

De Lima said the CHR’s opposition to President Macapagal-Arroyo’s martial rule in the province was “because of its serious repercussions on the human rights situation in the area.”

read in full here: CHR chief sees no legal basis for martial law

The outspoken rector of the Bacolod Diocese’s San Sebastian Cathedral called on the Filipino people to stand up and oppose President Macapagal-Arroyo’s declaration of martial law in Maguindanao because it would set a dangerous precedent for the entire nation.

“President Gloria Arroyo is person obsessed and addicted to power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, so martial law in her hands is very dangerous,” Fr. Felix Pasquin said.

There is no legal basis for the President to declare martial law, and it is also immoral,” Pasquin said, adding that it was an overreaction to the situation in Maguindanao.

read in full here: Priest slams Arroyo’s martial law

 

The Supreme Court disputed the government’s contention that the court system in Maguindanao was no longer functioning, one of the stated reasons for declaring martial law in the Central Mindanao province.

Lawyers, lawyers’ groups, Church prelates and the Commission on Human Rights also disputed whether the constitutional basis for declaring martial law—invasion or rebellion—was present in the Maguindanao situation.

Midas Marquez, the high court’s deputy administrator and spokesperson, said the cases involving the Maguindanao massacre that were filed before the Cotabato courts were moving forward.

He said it was the search warrants issued by the Kidapawan Regional Trial Court that made possible the police raids on the residences of Ampatuan family members, the suspected perpetrators of the massacre.

“This is far from a picture of a non-performing judicial system,” said Marquez.

read in full here: Supreme Court: No basis for martial law

Senators Benigno Aquino III, Alan Peter Cayetano, Francis Escudero, Panfilo Lacson, Loren Legarda, Jamby Madrigal and Francis Pangilinan separately questioned the President’s action which, Malacañang had said, was needed to quell a “rebellion in the offing” by forces loyal to the powerful Arroyo ally, the Ampatuan clan.

In a press conference late Saturday afternoon, Senators Aquino and Mar Roxas, the Liberal Party’s presidential and vice presidential candidates in 2010, said they were prepared to challenge the declaration of martial law before the Supreme Court.

read in full here: Senators oppose Arroyo’s martial law proclamation

martial law declared in maguindanao – maguindanao massacre aftermath

click here to read article: Martial law declared in Maguindanao

with martial law declared in maguindanao the speed of justice will perhaps move faster and more will be arrested. there are 100+ killers that particiaped in the maguindanao massacre, so far only 3 suspects, all ampatuans have been arrested.

we think martial law is an over-kill and unnecessary – we have enough laws and government agencies working on the case to get everyone arrested but they are just moving too slow. we don’t know why but the results are just not coming in as fast i think the victims deserve. 

let us hope that with martial law, things will move much faster.