Saturday, December 12, 2009

PGMA declared Martial law to save her own skin; the Constitution can go to hell for all she cares

The Martial Law declaration can be likened to the washing of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's hands of the guilt of having coddled the Ampatuans all these years, of having armed them to the teeth and of having provided government salaries for their armed men who have been implicated in the massacre.

The declaration is meant to free her of any responsibility whatsoever. It is meant to build her defenses in the event that she is charged before the international criminal court for crimes against humanity. Thus, even without a rebellion she issued the declaration. It is for her self-preservation and our laws and the Constitution can all go to hell for all she cares.

The accused masterminds were her loyal party men, the other accused were armed by and employed by her government. She is worried that liability will be pinned on her and so to save her own skin, she needs to sacrifice the Ampatuans and all others implicated in the heinous offense.

Martial Law was meant to save her own skin from possible liability under both Philippine law and international criminal law.
She cares little about local public opinion. It is the opinion of the international community that matters dearly to her. She dreads being hailed to the international criminal court for crimes against humanity. The Martial Law declaration is meant to appease international indignation and does not look to a nationwide Martial Law declaration in the future.

She isn't out to save the Ampatuans. She is out to save herself. For the cause of her own survival, no one in indispensable.


Partagas said...

Mr. Senator,
If the Supreme Court later decides that the declaration of Martial Law in Maguindanao was indeed unconstitutional, would not all the evidence gathered and all the arrest made during this period will also be voided and therefore most of the accused will walk?

Just a question.

Kiko Pangilinan said...

There were arrests made and searches incidental to a valid arrest likewise made before the ML declaration. The evidence seized here can be admissible as evidence.

Under the martial law declaration, searches made incidental to a valid warrantless arrest are also admissible.

What is inadmissible are those items seized as evidence in searches conducted without a valid arrest and a valid search warrant issued.