Comments on: Proclamation 1959: Martial Law in Maguindanao

By: arab_prince

arab_prince — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:04:16 +0000

I am just curious as what will happen to the petitions questioning the validity of Proclamation No. 1959? Will the administration answer these charges? And will the President invoke the Doctrine of State Immunity regarding this?

Another thing is, what happened to Resolution 1522? I think the President didn’t withdrew Martial Law because of that.

By: Balili Swim

Balili Swim — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 02:49:29 +0000

The ambush may be another stage play to justify martial law. What’s the point of travelling at night? To hide the fact that the ambush is fake? Remember the so called rescue attempt for Andal Ampatuan, Jr. at NBI Manila? It is inexplicable why the would be rescuers had to leave their vehicle and weapons near the Ampatuan cell where the police and media will surely find. The government may have staged it to justify martial law.

By: david

david — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:55:12 +0000

The rule of MARTIAL LAW had no chioce but to be established due to the such goverment involvement in such a issue.And the power struggle of a area by using weapons as the main source of power and income.

Until all weapons and private arimies and groups that are armed with goverment issue weapons are removed from power though weaponry then there will always be a issue in this area of the country.

Based on the facts it is known to beleive that the said groups are or where gaining not only income but power though the sell of weapons to private groups or armies and maintain in the proper power positions though having contacts with in the goverment system.

This further shows to the international goverments how strong the corruptions are within the goverment system in the country.

By: xcyne

xcyne — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:31:02 +0000

Just a matter of curiousity, is it possible that the proclamation is just staged in order to open the possibility of dismissal of cases which may be filed against the perpetrators of the involved crime based on technicalities on the warrantless arrest? This question comes to mind given the “close” relationship between the president and the perpetrators and the several transactions that both are/were involved in. Thanks