Mr.
Speaker,
Mr.


Senate
President,


This
is
how
I
sum
up
the
government’s
case.


It
is
not
without
irony
that
I
stand
here
defending
martial
law.
But
I
do
defend
it.

Nowhere

and
at
no
other
time
has
it
been
better
justified
nor
based
more
sufficiently
on

incontrovertible
facts.


Facts
that
call,
indeed,
cry
out
for
the
most
extreme
exercise
of
the
police
power,
which
is

nothing
less
than
martial
law.



Facts,
not
legal
quibbles.



Facts,
not
semantic
distinctions
of
debatable
validity.
Look
at
the
bodies,
look
at
the
arms

stockpiles.


Is
rebellion
as
defined
by
the
Penal
Code
a
necessary
condition
for
the
validity
of
a

proclamation
of
martial
law?
Then
where
is
the
definition
of
invasion
in
the
Penal
Code
for

the
validity
of
martial
law
in
that
case?



Since
the
repeal
of
the
AntiSubversion
Act,
ideology
is
not
a
component
of
rebellion.


I
submit
that
rebellion
here
is
not
an
exclusive
reference
to
a
particular
provision
of
a

particular
law;
but
to
a
wide
yet
unmistakable,
general
but
not
indiscriminate
allusion



to
a
state
of
affairs
that
has
deteriorated
beyond
lawless
violence,
beyond
a
state
of

emergency,
to
an
obstinate
refusal
to
discharge
properly
the
functions
of
civil
government

in
the
area,
by,
of
all
people,
the
duly
constituted
but
now
obstructive
authorities
therein.



It
may
be
easier
to
repeat
what
Justice
Potter
Stewart
said
about
pornography
than
to
fix

once
and
for
all
the
meaning
of
the
words
rebellion
and
invasion,
in
a
swiftly
changing

world,
where
both
words
can
take
on
myriad
realities.
He
said
he
couldn’t
exactly
define

pornography
but
“I
know
it
when
I
see
it.”



We
are
seeing
Maguindanao
and
what
we
see,
unless
we
are
morally
blind,
cries
out
for

martial
law—at
least
for
now.


Here
was
an
obstinate
refusal
to
obey
the
law
and
the
lawful
commands
of
the
national

government,
so
as
to
constitute,
on
the
part
of
the
once
duly
constituted
authorities,
an

illegal
usurpation
of
the
government
offices
they
once
legally
held;



exercising
them
now,
not
for
the
purposes
of
law,
nor
with
the
aim
of
doing
justice,



but
to
use
the
powers
and
functions
of
that
same
government
to
frustrate
the
law,
to

perpetuate
injustice,
to
protect
the
perpetrators
of
the
most
horrible
crime
in
Philippine

history,



and
to
preserve
the
political
influence
that
inspired
the
perpetrators
with
the
idea
that
they

could
commit
such
a
crime
with
total
impunity.



This
state
of
affairs
calls
for
nothing
less
than
martial
law;
however
you
quibble
with
words.


It
calls
for
martial
law
because
just
calling
out
the
armed
forces
was
tried
and
proved

wanting
to
quell
lawless
violence
and
restore
civil
government.
The
proclamation
of
martial



 1

law,
which
was
addressed
as
much
at
the
armed
forces
as
at
Maguindanao,
send
the
signal

to
all
and
sundry:
henceforth
soldiers
are
no
longer
to
obey
nor
to
fear
the
politicians
they

were
once
made
to
serve
and
pander
to,



in
derogation
of
their
professional
integrity,



in
the
name
of
a
misguided
strategy
of
mutual
deterrence
in
the
ongoing
secessionist

conflict.



No,
now
the
soldiers
are
beholden
only
to
the
law
and
the
lawful
institutions
like
the

Executive
and
Congress
in
Joint
Session
Assembled.


Martial
Law
sends
the
needed
signal
to
our
soldiers
and
police
that
now
they
need
no
longer

be
respecters
of
special
persons
but
only
of
the
Constitution,
the
Bill
of
Rights,
of
the
civil

and
criminal
laws,
of
the
State
and
not
the
temporary
occupants
of
its
public
offices.



Thus
are
soldiers
and
police
emboldened
to
do
their
proper
duty,
to
use
their
lawful
force
to

the
utmost
lawful
extent,
as
to
achieve
the
specific
aim
of
the
proclamation;
which,
in
this

case,
is
to
arrest
with
proper
warrants
anyone
and
everyone
remotely
connected
to
the

massacre.
There
is
no
constitutional
immunity
from
arrest,
only
from
arrest
without

warrant
and
detention
without
charge.



And
then
proceed,
as
I
hope
they
are
doing,
to
destroy
the
political
infrastructure
of
one

warlord
family—though
I
hope
not
to
favor
the
other
one—and
permanently
dismantle

their
political
influence
in
the
province—though
I
hope
not
to
establish
the
political

influence
of
the
other
warlord
clan.
But
that
is
only
my
hope.
It
is
martial
law
that
shocked

and
awed
the
elements
of
the
Ampatuan
army
to
surrender
without
a
fight.


This
is
the
smallest
atonement
that
the
national
government
and
the
Ampatuans
can
make

for
the
worst
crime
in
Philippine
history—the
national
government
for
arming
them
and

the
Ampatuans
for
using
those
arms
so
hideously.



It
is
asked:
If
there
is
martial
law
to
round
up
the
Ampatuans,
why
not
extend
the
martial

law
to
contain
the
MILF
and
even
go
after
the
drug
trade?
Willoughby
suggests
that
a

proclamation
of
martial
law
should
have
a
specific
aim
and
should
not
wander
from
that

aim,
that
that
aim
being
achieved,
the
mission
should
be
declared
accomplished,
and
martial

law
lifted
in
the
area.
Anyway,
it
can
be
re‐imposed
again,
and
again,
and
again,
and
again—
as
it
can
be
reviewed
by
the
Congress
in
Joint
Session
as
frequently.


To
this
day,
martial
law
in
Maguindanao
has
not,
despite
the
martial
energy
it
has
imparted

to
the
military
and
police,
occasioned
a
single
abuse.
True,
soldiers
kicked
down
the
door
to

Governor
Ampatuan’s
hospital
room.



That
is
not
an
offense
in
law.
Lese
majeste
is
not
a
crime
in
a
democracy.
That
is
not
even
an

offense
against
the
door,
because
a
door
has
no
legal
standing
to
complain
of
being
kicked

even
before
the
Supreme
Court.
Remember,
soldiers
kicked
the
door
and
not
the
governor.


And
it
was
a
hospital
door.
The
hospital
can
seek
damages,
if
it
dares,
after
harboring
a

fugitive.


Our
soldiers
have
not
violated
a
single
fundamental
right,
not
even
of
the
perpetrators
of

this
hideous
crime.
Far
from
it,
our
soldiers
have
secured
the
fundamental
rights
of
the



 2

ordinary
people
of
Maguindanao
from
the
depredations
of
the
Ampatuan
family
and
its

goons,
whether
in
their
lingering
terror
of
this
family
they
admit
it
or
not.
This
is
known
as

the
Stockholm
Syndrome.


So
here,
by
whatever
name
you
choose
to
call
it,
is
a
situation
comprising
an
obstinate,

querulous,
snarling,
vicious,
refusal
to
obey
the
laws
and
the
lawful
orders
of
the

government,
on
the
part
of
a
now
renegade
government
and
escalating
from
stubborn

resistance
to
threatening
posture,
so
as
to
constitute
in
the
mind
of
the
Executive
a
threat
so

certain
that
its
actuality
could
only
be
established
beyond
cavil
by
the
senseless
sacrifice
of

soldiers
to
prove
the
threat
real
and
not
just
looming
or
imminent.



This
state
of
affairs
includes
what
the
Penal
Code
calls
sedition
and
a
host
of
other
felonies

and
offenses;
but
which,
regardless
of
which
definition
you
prefer,
constitutes
for
any

reasonable
person
a
state
of
conflict.



What
Willoughby
said,
referring
to
martial
law
enforcers,
ironically
applies
not
to
our

soldiers
but
to
their
targets,
the
Ampatuans
and
their
henchmen.
“No
man
in
this
country
is

so
high
that
he
is
above
the
law”
as
the
Ampatuans
believed.
“No
officer
of
the
law
may
set

that
law
at
defiance
with
impunity.”



The
Ampatuans
were
the
first
to
impose
martial
law
in
Maguindanao
without
any
basis
but

their
undying
thirst
for
power,
which
could
only
be
slaked
by
the
blood
of
anyone
they

disliked.



To
the
martial
law
of
the
Ampatuans,
the
only
adequate
response
was
martial
law
by
the

government,
which
is
the
exercise
of
the
inherent
police
power
to
secure
the
public
safety

through
the
armed
forces.


True,
the
courts
were
functioning
when
martial
law
was
proclaimed,



And
true
all
government
offices
were
open
for
business—but
it
was
only
for
monkey

business,
for
the
benefit
only
of
the
Ampatuans,
and
against
the
lawful
requirements
of
the

State.



The
civil
registrar
refused
to
issue
death
certificates
for
the
victims
of
the
Maguindanao

Massacre,
I
guess
because
he
could
not
put
mass
suicide
as
the
cause
of
death.
It
has
been

suggested
in
this
House
that,
while
the
Maguindanao
Massacre
allegedly
happened,
it
was

not
the
perpetrators
who
did
it.
I
guess
it
was
suicide.



In
military
doctrine,
Mr.
Senate
President
and
former
Defense
Minister
Enrile,
capability

amounts
to
intent.
That
this
fully
documented
capability
and
inclination
to
mount
armed

mayhem
came
from
the
legally
constituted
provincial
government
of
Maguindanao
only

compounded
the
gravity
of
the
situation
and
brought
it
within
the
ambit
of
the
historical

precedents
that
have
so
wisely
informed
the
jurisprudence
of
martial
law
as
I
vividly
recall

from
1972.
It
is,
as
Secretary
Puno
aptly
compared,
as
though
regular
battalions
of
the
AFP

had
gone
renegade.


Was
the
danger
so
substantial
as
to
warrant
martial
law?


How
many
really
are
the
loyalists
of
the
Ampatuans?
A
thousand,
two,
three?



 3

I
would
answer,
50
is
already
a
lot
because
from
newspaper
accounts
over
the
years,

encounters
between
AFP
units
and
MILF
forces
of
that
size
but
superior
weaponry
usually

result
in—what?—25
percent
casualties
among
our
troops?


Is
it
proposed
that
we
should
have
sacrificed
our
soldiers,
by
leaving
them
as
sitting
ducks,

until
the
Ampatuans
drew
first
blood,
just
to
banish
baseless
not
to
mention
insincere
fears

that
this
martial
law
is
legally
flawed?


I
have
heard
it
said
that
the
biggest
danger
of
this
martial
law
is
that,
if
it
succeeds,
will
have

a
demonstration
effect
convincing
the
general
public
that
perhaps
the
Army,
like
the
French

with
regard
to
sex,
just
do
it
better
when
it
comes
to
securing
the
public
safety.


Well,
what
of
it?


Is
it
proposed
that
we
let
the
public
suffer,
that
we
leave
a
community
terrorized
and

paralyzed
by
monsters,
just
so
we
can
stop
the
Army
from
proving
that
they
can
do
some

things
better?


Why
this
instinctive
suspicion
and
contempt
of
our
soldiers?
These
are
not
soldiers
of

Marcos’s
martial
law,
some
of
whom,
let
us
not
forget
where
critical
to
the
toppling
of
the

dictatorship.



Far
from
violating
any
fundamental
rights,
our
soldiers
are
securing
those
rights
for

everyone
in
Maguindanao
against
the
depredations
of
this
warlord
clan.



Why
this
instinctive
mistrust
of
the
armed
forces
without
whose
sacrifices
our
country

would
be
smaller
by
one
third?



And
for
their
sacrifices,
what
is
the
soldier’s
pay?
Piddling.
What
are
the
soldiers’
rations?
A

can
of
sardines
and
a
small
reused
plastic
bag
of
old
rice.
And
what
is
their
recompense?

Ingratitude
and
suspicion.
I
say
leave
this
martial
law
to
complete
its
mission.
It
shouldn’t

take
long.




 4