TRANSCRIPT OF SEN. MAR ROXAS' MANIFESTATION DURING THURSDAY'S JOINT SESSION ON THE DECLARATION
 OF MARTIAL LAW IN MAGUINDANAO

MAR: Mr. President, coincident with the request made by the distinguished Speaker of a report being submitted to the joint chambers, may I respectfully recommend that included in that report be a portion that explains why these materials, which were apparently the pieces of evidence gathered, were being transported at night. Is this normal practice? Was there a reason why these materials, these very sensitive materials, were being transported at night? What was the escort that was provided in order to safe keep these materials? Why was this not done in the broad light of day? I would request that that also be responded to in the report.

SPJPE: We request the chief of staff and the head of the Department of National Defense to give us an explanation why the materials, evidently discovered and are possible evidence to the commission of the crime, was transported at night, if they were indeed being transported at night, a full explanation to the joint session.

ANC interview with Ricky Carandang after the Joint Session on Thursday night

Q: Speaker Nograles mentioned about the ambush in Mindanao that Gen. Librado has confirmed. It will be written into the records of the joint hearing. What was the significance of your questioning? You wanted to know why the evidence was being brought somewhere else?

MAR: It's quite bothersome that this evidence, the equipment, the military material as it were, were being transported at night, from Maguindanao all the way to supposedly, all the way to General Santos through Sultan Kudarat and very very long and isolated highway. Why at night? Why not during the day? Was there a proper escort? These were evidences to the gruesome massacre that happened. If this is not handled carefully, these evidences could disappear or could be misplaced and suddenly, then the murder cases that would have been filed or otherwise successfully prosecuted may no longer be so. So the question is, why was it being transported at night?

Q: They're going to include an explanation into that in their report?

MAR: That's correct. We asked for it formally so the explanation will be made part of the report to the joint session.

Q: How do you think you're going so far? We've got more than 10 hours of the questions over it. We're just going back to the same point: was there a state of rebellion? Does it justify the declaration of martial law?

MAR: It's another long and frustrating day. There's really just a merry-go-round of questions and answers. Unfortunately, these questions were not being properly addressed or answered. What happened? Friday, there was no rebellion. Saturday, there was rebellion. That, until today, has not yet been answered. Who proposed it? Who backed it? Were there any questions asked? What were the concerns expressed? When did this discussion happened? How long was the discussion? What evidences were put in place so that during the discussion, there was a decision on Friday night that there was going to be now martial law. So, these are the same questions that everybody is trying to ask in all sorts of different ways and the government panel, unfortunately, is not being straightforward and forthcoming with their answers. We ask them, why did you declare martial law? They answer, because there was rebellion. Why was there a rebellion? Because we were being hampered. Why were you being hampered? Because there was a rebellion. It just goes round and round and round. If this was in elementary school, the teacher would say, you're begging the question. It just goes round and round and round. It's really very very sad. The people and the representatives of the people are not getting the due answers that we are entitled to because this is such a major step, this declaration of martial law is such a major step, and we ought to know what the facts are.

Q: Going into these hearings, analysts said majority of the Senate are expected to likely reject it while majority from the House will support it. Do you think what's happening in the past two days is changing anyone's mind?

MAR: You saw the near-empty session hall the whole day today, which means that the people are going to vote on Monday, or Tuesday, or whenever the vote is going to be, without having heard the discussion and the debate (Wednesday) and (Thursday). We in the Senate, much as we dislike to admit it, are resigned to the fact that we are only less than 10% of the total votes. Most of us in the Senate were inclined, even before the discussions, were inclined to seek the revocation of martial law because it's very straight forward: We don't like to go into these convoluted, complex discussions. Martial law is applicable only when there is invasion, which clearly there is none, or rebellion. From our point of view, there was no rebellion. Who are the rebels? Why was there no talk of any rebellion days, weeks, months, years prior to Saturday? Let us not lose sight of what we have: we have a gruesome, really despicable, abominable massacre. This is a crime. People ought to be caught, should be prosecuted and jailed for this. And that is very very clear. But that is very very different from a rebellion. We are prostituting our laws, our system, our Constitution if we just really interchange rebellion, massacre, murder and without being very very careful in how we apply it. We must respect the laws. These are all that protects us from anarchy. Our laws are all that protect us from disintegration of our society.

Q: Would you hazard a guess why then was martial law declared?

MAR: I think it's over-reaction, knee-jerk reaction. The president probably wanted to gain control of the public debate or the public space. There was this massacre. The most massive action that government could take would be martial law. I liken it to the typical reaction often times said when something heinous happens was, let's put back the death penalty, it's a strong statement. But it's meaningless. Why? Because the deterrent is not death penalty. The deterrent is the certainty of being caught, prosecuted and of being convicted. So what if the penalty is death if you're not going to catch the criminal? If you're not going to successfully prosecute them? If you're not going to convict him, it does not matter what the penalty is. Same thing here. So now they declare martial law because there's a rebellion. That's not what we really care about. What we really care about is: will the culprits, will the perpetrators of these heinous crime, will they be caught? Will they be successfully prosecuted? Will they be convicted? Will the full force of the law be applied on them? That is what we are looking for and that is what we need to do. We don't need martial law to do that.

Q: They're saying that they did martial law precisely to do what you're saying should be done....

MAR: But martial law is only for rebellion. This is a criminal case, this is a murder case. There are sufficient powers if there is political will to do this. Mind you, the mayor, Mayor Unsay, was arrested without the declaration of martial law. All of these guns, bullets, these mortars, and recoilless rifles were all unearthed, taken and confiscated without martial law. CVOs were disarmed without martial law. Government has sufficient force to do that. In fact, the military and the police who are the overseers of these civilian volunteer organizations, of the CAFGUS, in short, of all these armed non-government forces in Maguindanao, know exactly who these people are, where the arms are, because precisely, the have been the ally of the government in prosecuting the MILF. That's the reality of this. So the military and the police know exactly who these people are, where the arms are, and their capabilities. And that is exactly why they were able to accomplish all that they did before the declaration of martial law. So, what I am saying is, this martial law is like a sort of a political response to what really is a criminal offense.

Q: If this goes the way people think, we'll be setting some precedents here. Do you think this will end up inevitably to the Supreme Court?

MAR: Well, it already is in the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court will decide on the factual basis. I hope that the Supreme Court is not blinded by all the politics that is happening, is not blinded by all other considerations. What is important here is that, we respect the law. What is important here is that we not lose sight that this all started when this heinous, abominable crime happened, the massacre. And so, we need to go after the culprits. We need to go and prosecute them and convict them and put them to jail.