Was it worth the waiting and watching?

Even to one inured in the circus antics of politicians, P.T. Barnum’s mega carnival showtime of yore, paled in comparison to the aborted Congress joint session dramatics.

Where else in the world that the fate of the nation had been toyed with in jesting attitude and comical atmosphere, despite the seriousness of the subject matter, as resolving President Arroyo’s controversial Proclamation 1959 placing Maguindanao under martial law?

The tv viewers nationwide had waited with bated breath for the start of the joint session, expecting no less a no-nonsense deliberation, with no waste of time, of the written report of the President. But what wryly transpired for the first two hours was the attention-hugging politicians, whose interruptions often premised on the abused excuse of parliamentary privilege inquiries.

Despite the constitutional option accorded the President to appear in person, or submit her report in writing – which she did – some still questioned GMA’s absence. There were also unnecessary perorations, like that of Rep. Didagen Dilangalen of Maguindanao who angrily reacted to Rep. “Teddyboy” Locsin calling his Supreme Court case as “forum shopping”. These were just inutile samples of congressional childishness.

The main issue – shorn of the frills and the lawmakers’ “pangugat” – was simple enough to have been resolved immediately. Article VII, Section 18, is without any ambiguity what constitutes “rebellion” as a ground tfor martial law declaration, that does not need “statutory construction”. Do away with “looming” or “brewing rebellion” discussion, or actual rebellion for that matter, since the constitutional provision is self-explanatory. Hence, the repetitive questions and comments of niggling lawmakers were superfluous and needless.

The angle pursued by Senator Pangilinan had been a bit refreshing, although it buckled down to the same inevitable conclusion even to non-lawyers. Thus, to paraphrase Shakespeare, “there’s no need to kill all lawyers” to break the uncalled for constitutional impasse.

Not surprisingly, as often hinted lately, PGMA preempted further repetitive arguments on Procl. 1959 by lifting it as of 9:00 p.m. Saturday. What remains unresolved would further evoke debates… For one, what happens to the rebellion cases filed after the martial law proclamation had taken effect, and many other rebellion cases now pending investigation? For another, are the mounds of physical evidence confiscated by virtue of Procl. 1959 “admissible”, or are they now ipso facto inadmissible as “fruits from the poisonous tree”? And what generally happens to the acts of GMA and her subalterns while Procl. 1959 was in effect, considering that Congressional “revocation” didn’t take place?

Obviously, the rebellion cases being filed, and others in the process of filing, may still proceed for judicial resolution. Thus, while the seven pending Supreme Court cases directly assailing the constitutionality of Procl. 1959 have now become moot and academic, in the various rebellion cases against several accused, they can invoke the defense of unconstitutionality of martial law. And how the SC would rule on the admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence, and what state of rebellion justifies martial law, are justiciable matters to clarify and/or enrich jurisprudence.

But the most amusing in the aborted congressional circus, as gleaned from the dissenting opinions of most senators and some congressmen is very clear: PGMA appeared the heel or villainess, the Ampatuans seemed to stand out as heroes, and the 57 massacre victims almost forgotten in the din of the joint session.

* * *

Email: [email protected]