A Preemptive Measure: The Ampatuan's Case

This is addressed to those militant groups who staged and are staging demonstrations denouncing the action of the President in putting Maguindanao under martial law.

Do you know what a "first aid" is? My reference says: "first aid is the provision of initial care for an illness or injury. Or, better yet let me ask you this: Do you know how to apply a first aid?

Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's decision of military rule in the entire province of Maguidanao following the gruesome massacre of 57 innocent people masterminded by the Ampatuans must be treated as a crucial but a proper move a president had done to prevent more possible escalations that may put other lives in danger. This is an executive prerogative and constitutional, and I quote:

"The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it." (Section 18, Article VII, 1987 Constitution).

Now, let us examine and interpret each phrase so we can understand further what this provision expresses.

1) "...whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion." Is there a rebellion or an invasion? None. Is there a lawless violence? Yes, there was. (Should we wait for another "is"?)

2) "In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it..." Is there an invasion or rebellion? None. Must the safety of the people be protected? Yes.

3) "...he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law." Does it already exceeds 60 days from the date of the proclamation? Not yet. (Still reasonable and Constitutional).

4) "Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress." I think the President did this. (She is the President and she knows what she is doing).

5) "The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President." This is scheduled on Tuesday, December 8, so let's just wait and see.

I knew some militant groups who are good only in riding with issues and triggering noise barrage but left nothing in their track records other than thick logbooks of memberships and fees collected for their "fattened" legal counsels. Why not devote their times for public services such as reforestation activities, medical-dental services, and the like, rather than pretending to be "heroes" or the "only people" with critical thinking.

We knew how our politicians and leaders' calibers and we knew their good track records although sometimes we are left frustrated with many problems and issues our country is facing but "let the wheels move on to the right track" and "let the players do the playings".

Separation of Church and State

Just recently as I watched Al-Jazeera news, an issue catched my attention - "Philippines has the poorest family planning program in Southeast Asia." Few weeks ago, another "not-too-hot" issue also made my ears hot: this is about the issue on "same sex marriage" if it will be allowed in the Philippines or not.

What is happening in the Philippines today? The issue on family planning method is not a matter between the church and the state, but a matter between the state and the citizens. The state is, by mandate of the constitution, has to provide a comprehensive and accessible program to every citizen. The separation of church and state is another mandate, as well. Hence, the church (Catholic Church, to be specific) need not to intervene with the policies of the state only because of religious beliefs or biblical interpretations of the issue. Our legislatures, I believe, are not innocent people who will enact laws that are "unconstitutional" or "inhumane" aiming to propagate principles against the good will of the people.

What's wrong with "contraceptives" if the main purpose is to have a well-planned family? Perhaps, one thing that made the Filipino mentality prone to church's influence is the colonial effect that had rooted since our time immemorial. But the Age of Enlightenment is over. We are already at the "cyber age", hundreds of years away from the "earth-centered universe belief" propagated by the church.

Same sex marriage is another thing. For me, it is not an issue to be debated for if the only ground for its justification is the personal interpretations of the "rights" of an individual. Homosexuality is "absolutely immoral in all angles". If Machiavelli believed that "the end justifies the means", it is only when all the rights an individual are enjoying are taken away from him. Not legalizing same sex marriage is not an oppression of individual's right but a prevention or a watchdog against immorality.