Representative Teodoro L. Locsin, JrArgument for Martial Law in Maguindanao10 December 2009Mr. Speaker, Mr. Senate President, This is how I sum up the government’s case.It is not without irony that I stand heredefending martial law. But I do defend it.Nowhere and at no other time has it beenbetter justified nor based more sufficiently onincontrovertible facts.Facts that call, indeed, cry out for the mostextreme exercise of the police power, which isnothing less than martial law.Facts, not legal quibbles.Facts, not semantic distinctions of debatablevalidity. Look at the bodies, look at the armsstockpiles.Is rebellion as defined by the Penal Code anecessary condition for the validity of aproclamation of martial law? Then where is thedefinition of invasion in the Penal Code for thevalidity of martial law in that case?Since the repeal of the Anti-Subversion Act,

ideology is not a component of rebellion.I submit that rebellion here is not an exclusivereference to a particular provision of aparticular law; but to a wide yet unmistakable,general but not indiscriminate allusion to astate of affairs that has deteriorated beyondlawless violence, beyond a state of emergency,to an obstinate refusal to discharge properlythe functions of civil government in the area,by, of all people, the duly constituted but nowobstructive authorities therein.It may be easier to repeat what Justice PotterStewart said about pornography than to fixonce and for all the meaning of the wordsrebellion and invasion, in a swiftly changingworld, where both words can take on myriadrealities. He said he couldn’t exactly definepornography but “I know it when I see it.”We are seeing Maguindanao and what we see,unless we are morally blind, cries out formartial law—at least for now.Here was an obstinate refusal to obey the lawand the lawful commands of the nationalgovernment, so as to constitute, on the part of the once duly constituted authorities, an illegalusurpation of the government offices they oncelegally held; exercising them now, not for thepurposes of law, nor with the aim of doing justice, but to use the powers and functions of

that same government to frustrate the law, toperpetuate injustice, to protect theperpetrators of the most horrible crime inPhilippine history, and to preserve the politicalinfluence that inspired the perpetrators withthe idea that they could commit such a crimewith total impunity. This state of affairs calls for nothing less thanmartial law; however you quibble with words.It calls for martial law because just calling outthe armed forces was tried and proved wantingto quell lawless violence and restore civilgovernment. The proclamation of martial law,which was addressed as much at the armedforces as at Maguindanao, send the signal toall and sundry: henceforth soldiers are nolonger to obey nor to fear the politicians theywere once made to serve and pander to, inderogation of their professional integrity, in thename of a misguided strategy of mutualdeterrence in the ongoing secessionist conflict.No, now the soldiers are beholden only to thelaw and the lawful institutions like theExecutive and Congress in Joint SessionAssembled.Martial Law sends the needed signal to oursoldiers and police that now they need nolonger be respecters of special persons butonly of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, of