On the lifting of Martial Law

The President is lifting Martial Law, which should not have been declared in the first place but was ominously put in place under the questionable claim of a rebellion threat in Manguindanao. That Martial Law has no value-added in disarming and arresting the Ampatuans responsible for the dastardly massacre of 57 innocent people has been underscored by no less by Major General Anthony Alcantara, newly appointed commander of the 6th Infantry Division: He said that the Army can go after the killers and maintain peace and order and rule of law in ARMM 'with or without Martial Law.'

The sheer convenience of declaring and lifting Martial Law in Manguindanao for nine days could not disguise the fact that the apparently draconian measure was intended to mask GMA's own coddling of the Ampatuans in the face of massive public criticism following her own kid-glove handling of the crime.

The Martial Law declaration also rationalized the filing of a lighter charge of rebellion against the Ampatuan patriarch, instead of charging him with the more serious crime of multiple murder.

Malacanang is dangerously trivializing the fundamental implications of Martial Law and its threat to basic civil liberties and freedoms. It has instrumentalized this essential Constitutional provision for self-serving the narrow interests of lightening potential judicial penalty for its errant political warlord ally, and as damage control in the President's own image fallout after the massacre.

I therefore strongly support that the Supreme Court to render a judgment on the merits of martial law declaration to deter future similar instances of toying with a major Constitutional option for the regime's own political game.