Ano po sa tingin nyo?

Ano po sa tingin nyo?

 

COULD MARTIAL LAW IN MAGUINDANAO BE A COVER TO HUNT FOR EVIDENCE OF CHEATING IN 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS?

 posted 12/06/2009 11:50 AM SUNDAY 

Makati Mayor and United Opposition (UNO) president Jejomar C. Binay expressed fears that thedeclaration of martial law in Maguindanao could be a ruse to allow authorities to hunt for evidence of election fraud during the 2004 presidential election reportedly still in the possession of the Ampatuans.

“There have reports that the Ampatuans have threatened to make the Arroyo administration pay by telling all they know about the massive cheating in the province during the 2004 presidential elections,” he said.  

“If such reports are true, then this reduces the martial law proclamation into a hunt for evidence of election fraud,” he added.

Binay, a human rights lawyer who had been detained when martial law was imposed in 1972, also called for vigilance in the face of government’s efforts to downplay the restrictions on human rights.

“The next few days will be crucial. This is the time to be vigilant, and to be prepared to respond to a looming threat to our democracy and our way of life,” he said.

The Makati mayor said great care is being taken to present martial law in Maguindanao as different from martial law in 1972. “It is a supposedly a smiling martial law, without the restrictions that are associated with martial law,” he said.

“Those of us who lived through, suffered, and fought during the martial law years can attest that there is no such thing as smiling martial law,” he added.

Mrs. Arroyo signed Proclamation 1959 placing the entire province of Maguindanao under martial law, citing the threat of rebellion in the province following the arrest of a scion of the powerful Ampatuan clan identified as the mastermind of the gruesome massacre of civilians –including women and journalists - in November.

But Binay said the various conditions cited by Palace officials for justifying the declaration of martial law in the province have been disputed by the Supreme Court and known legal luminaries.

“The claim that there is a state of rebellion is factually doubtful since the mere sighting of armed men does not constitute rebellion. And the Supreme Court itself had denied government’s claim that the courts in Maguindanao are not functioning,” Binay said.

With the factual basis and legal basis for the declaration of martial law in doubt, Binay said the question arises as to the real motive behind the declaration of martial law in Maguindanao.

If the Ampatuans’ threat to expose the extensive cheating in the province during the 2004 presidential elections is proven true, Binay said the Arroyo administration is “committing another injustice to the victims of the Maguindanao massacre.”

“They are exploiting the nation’s outrage to cover up another serious crime, that of stealing the 2004 elections,” he said.

“It would now appear that the Arroyo administration is using the full might of the state – theArmed Forces, the police and all agencies of government - to recover original election returns or certificates of canvass reportedly in the possession of the Ampatuans,” he said.  

“A state of martial law will allow the administration to conduct raids and searches without going through the courts,” he added.

Maguindanao has long been considered an administration bailiwick, delivering the votes for Mrs. Arroyo in the 2004 presidential elections over opposition bet Fernando Poe Jr.

In the “Hello Garci” recordings, former election commissioner Virgilio Garcillano mentioned that “there would be no problem” for Mrs. Arroyo in Maguindanao.