Even if martial law declared in southern Philippines was lifted by President Gloria Arroyo, the Supreme Court still would have to render a decision on the legality or illegality of the declaration.

The High Tribunal has the last say on whether President Arroyo did right by imposing martial rule on Maguindanao province in Mindanao, former Rep. Gilbert Remulla of Cavite told the weekly press forum Balitaan sa Tinapayan on Sunday.

“The Supreme Court is duty-bound to resolve the seven petitions filed before it [asking that the declaration of martial law be nullified],” said Remulla, now spokesman for the Nacionalista Party.

Martial law in Maguindanao, according to Felix Cabrera Cantal, the presidential candidate of the Philippine Green Republican Party in the 2010 elections, was wrong from the beginning.

Its lifting, Cantal said, could lead to release from jail of members of the powerful Ampatuan clan who are suspected as the brains behind the November 23 massacre of 57 civilians, including 30 journalists.

Supposedly, the family led a rebellion in the province shortly after it was implicated in the massacre, prompting the government to impose military rule there in accordance with provisions of the 1987 Constitution.

Also despite the lifting, House Speaker Prospero Nograles said on Sunday that he and Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile still will convene at 4 p.m. today to adjourn a joint session of Congress that had been called to vote on keeping or rejecting martial law in Maguindanao.

Nograles added that they still would allow those wishing to speak for or against the declaration before ending the joint session.

He said that the President, in lifting martial law, proved wrong claims, particularly that made by Sen. Miriam
Defensor-Santiago, about an alleged attempt to broaden the coverage of martial law beyond Maguindanao.

Still, senatorial candidates in the 2010 elections of the Nacionalista Party and the Liberal Party also on
Sunday said that the supposedly unexpected lifting of martial law in Maguindanao was what they termed as an “experiment” designed to gauge the response of other lawmakers and the public.

Rep. Teofista Guingona Jr., a Liberal, cited “strong rumors that martial law would be lifted before the joint session convened.”

The President, through Proclamation 1959, declared martial law in Maguindanao on December 4 and lifted it on Decmber 12.

What will now happen to the Ampatuans?

Presidential candidate raised the question, warning that the lifting of martial law in Maguindanao could mean, too, the release of the Ampatuans from jail.

Cantal, a former member of the United Nations International Court of Justice, said that removing military rule also could lead to the release of militiamen and other suspects linked to the carnage.

He noted that under martial law, defendants in a murder case can never be given bail. In contrast, without martial law, they can file for bail.

Cantal said that the government, instead of imposing military rule, should have cordoned off Maguindanao to prevent people from entering and leaving the place.

Under martial law, according to him, those charged with rebellion or murder should be charged before a military court, not before civilian courts.
IMMANUEL PASTOLERO, FRANCIS EARL A. CUETO AND JOMAR CANLAS