Prosecution of Filipino citizens for rebellion an attempt to justify martial law Commentary
Prosecution of Filipino citizens for rebellion an attempt to justify martial law
Edited by:

Danilo Reyes [Staff member, Asian Human Rights Commission]: "The declaration of Proclamation 1959, placing a large part of Maguindanao province, in the southern Philippines, under a state of martial law was devoid of a constitutional basis. Thus, legal action taken against those accused of being involved in rebellion – those charged for the Maguindanao massacre, and evidence taken for its prosecution during the period of martial law, are legally and procedurally flawed, which calls the case itself into question.

First, there is legal ambiguity concerning the crime of rebellion. For example, in the case involving the "Tagaytay Five," the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Tagaytay City ruled, in August 2008, that the prosecutors failed to prove that the crime of rebellion they were accused with existed at all or had been committed, resulting in their case being dismissed and their release from jail.

The court held that: "by its nature, rebellion is a crime of the masses or multitudes involving crowd actions done in furtherance of a political end." In order for the crime to legally exist "both the purpose and overt acts are essential components of [the] one crime, without either of them the crime legally does not exist."

The act of taking up arms and the presence of "heavily armed groups" in order "to resist government troops" from affecting arrests or conducting searches – the arguments used as the justification by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in declaring martial law – did not meet the fundamental elements that constitute the crime of rebellion. So, legally, the crime never occurred and prosecution in court is inappropriate.

The Ampatuans, a political clan accused of involvement in the November 23, 2009 Maguindanao massacre, were not taking up arms to grab power from the government. They, and their hundreds of supporters, are the people in power. The crime of rebellion was concocted by the government to justify the constitutionality of martial rule.

Grabbing power from the government was not the Ampatuan's political end, nor was it the purpose of their heavily armed supporters. They are, as shown by their overt acts, either resisting arrest or obstructing the security forces from arresting and conducting searches as part of a police investigation. This is thus a purely criminal matter that should be dealt with accordingly by the a police.

Thus, the prosecution of the accused in the rebellion case was instead a political move by the Department of Justice, one of the agencies that openly defended martial law, to justify Proclamation 1959. This was never truly about prosecution of the crime of rebellion or for violations of the law of the land. For the Department of Justice, whose head is an appointee of the President and under her oversight, to take these actions, is not surprising."

Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.