MANILA, Philippines—“Where is the President?”
Lawmakers Wednesday cited the glaring absence of the commander in chief, who declared martial law in Maguindanao province, during the first joint session of Congress.
The session was delayed by almost an hour due to debates on the absence of the President, her defense secretary and the chief of staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
“Why is she not here? This is history. Does she not have the courtesy at all to report in person? We thought that with the President declaring martial law, the President herself should be here to explain to us,” asked Maguindanao Rep. Didagen Dilangalen, his voice rising.
Together with fellow Maguindanao Rep. Simeon Datumanong, Dilangalen said that they were the only lawmakers who were personally affected by Presidential Proclamation No. 1959.
Ms Arroyo issued the proclamation on Friday night to suppress a “rebellion in the offing” of disparate armed groups loyal to the Ampatuan clan, accused of masterminding the Nov. 23 killing of 57 people in Maguindanao.
Since Friday’s proclamation read by Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Ms Arroyo has not spoken one word about exercising her extraordinary martial law powers. She also has yet to face the press.
Congress may revoke or support the martial law proclamation by a simple majority vote (set at 147) of the joint session.
The first joint session was suspended at 10:50 Wednesday night and would resume at 2 p.m. Thursday.
Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Satur Ocampo was the sixth and last to ask questions on the first day. He said rebellion is hard to prove, and it takes long to do so as well. He knows, since he has been charged with it twice.
Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr. concurred with Dilangalen’s stand that Ms Arroyo should have given Congress the “courtesy” to face lawmakers.
But Speaker Prospero Nograles and Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile said the President was not compelled to attend the joint session.
Enrile and Nograles said the President had complied with the constitutional requirement with the submission of her report to Congress 48 hours after her declaration on Dec. 4 at 9 p.m.
Pimentel, however, pointed out that the issue was not the submission of the report but the President’s personal explanation of why she implemented it.
It was also pointed out that the report was not signed by Ms Arroyo but by Ermita.
Remedios Poblador
The President was not at the joint session but her most trusted girl Friday was there. Remedios Poblador, an undersecretary of the presidential legislative office, was seen on the main stage along with Trade Secretary Peter Favila.
Poblador entered and exited through the right access way across from the seats of Nograles and Enrile.
Things got heated initially when Makati Rep. Teodoro Locsin Jr. rose to chastise Dilangalen for “forum shopping.”
“The gentleman who was so insistent on the physical and personal presence of the President has filed a petition I suppose for the revocation of martial law in the Supreme Court.”
Several petitions are pending before the Supreme Court insisting that Ms Arroyo violated the Constitution when she declared martial law because there was no actual rebellion or invasion, the only grounds allowed under the Constitution.
After a 30-minute break, Locsin withdrew his remarks.
An Arroyo ally, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, grilled administration officials as he pointed out that the martial law proclamation may be standing on essentially nonexistent ground.
“If you review the report given to us by (Police) Director (Andres) Caro, there is no mention whatsoever that prior to Dec. 4 there was public uprising and armed uprising against the government. So that could negate the factual basis of the declaration of martial law, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus,” Lagman said.
Lagman noted that the presence of armed groups could indicate lawless violence, but this was not equal to a rebellion.
Responding to Lagman, Ermita was forced to acknowledge that there was no actual rebellion, but maintained that all signs point to it.
“You may be correct there is no actual rebellion going on. However, all the indications that rebellion is being committed or happening in the ground is [in] the presence of armed groups that prevent authorities from carrying out [their] duty and effecting the arrest despite the testimonies of witnesses,” Ermita said.
Sedition, not rebellion
Lagman also pressed Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera to cite her factual basis for saying there was an actual rebellion instead of a looming one.
Devanadera said she arrived at the conclusion based on information she received that heavily armed groups had taken strategic positions within Maguindanao and various camps controlled by the Ampatuans.
These actions, she added, prevented the implementation and enforcement of laws and threatened public safety.
But Lagman appeared unconvinced and pointed out that even the nonfunctioning of civil authorities in Maguindanao only indicated sedition and not rebellion.
Each chamber was given 10 hours for questioning of resource persons from the executive branch, and it is up to its members how to budget their time.
Besides Ermita and Devanadera, other ranking officials present were Interior Secretary Ronaldo Puno, Defense Undersecretary Antonio Santos and Lt. Gen. Rodrigo Maclang, armed forces vice chief of staff.
Defense Secretary Norberto Gonzales and Gen. Victor Ibrado, armed forces chief of staff, were also invited but Gonzales was in Singapore. Ibrado arrived later in the evening.
At 6:31 p.m., the Senate and the House took turns asking questions.
Sen. Benigno Aquino III was the first one recognized to inquire. But his questioning was delayed for nearly 15 minutes because of various parliamentary inquiries.
Five reports
Cagayan de Oro Rep. Rufus Rodriguez said Congress had received five reports about martial law in Maguindanao, and wanted to know which of these would be the basis for the lawmakers’ interpellation.
Administration officials insisted that there was an “ongoing rebellion” in Maguindanao.
Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago urged Ms Arroyo to lift her proclamation “as soon as possible” because it was likely the Palace would lose its case before the Supreme Court.
Santiago said the high court was likely to decide on the legality of Proclamation No. 1959 even before the joint session of Congress could come up with a decision to either revoke or support it.
Santiago, designated to be the third senator who can ask questions, made the call through the media.
The senator, who is for the revocation of the proclamation, said Malacañang was likely to lose in the high court because the declaration had no legal basis.
She reiterated that there was no actual rebellion in Maguindanao to justify the imposition of martial law.
No comments:
Post a Comment