Makes as much sense as declaring Martial Law in Maguindanao over what ought to have been a straightforward investigation. The Ampatuans just might be able to paint themselves as underdogs here.
Subscribe!
You're too lazy to check the site every day. We're too lazy to update it daily. Subscribe and make us both happy.
Subscribe via email!
We lost the
OM NOM
#1 by Lou at December 5th, 2009
| Quote
From Article VII, Section 18:
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.
********
It is a little past 9pm on Saturday, December 5. More than 24 hours have passed since Proc 1959 took effect Friday night.
Why isn\’t Congress in session?
Are they all following Philippine Time, where punctuality really isn\’t important? >:(
Come to think of it, I\’m not surprised since they haven\’t really been adhering to their constitutional duties lately.
#2 by Pipo at December 5th, 2009
| Quote
@ Lou
I think the statements before that sentence should not be neglected. I mean, we can’t just interpret a part of a constitution out of its context. Constitution is not the bible and we’re not the Catholic Church. Ooppss.
“The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.”
http://www.chanrobles.com/article7.htm
(see section 7)
#3 by Pipo at December 5th, 2009
| Quote
Bah. I forgot to highlight my point, no?
“The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, MAY revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President.”
There.
And make that section 18 not section 7.
#4 by onetamad at December 6th, 2009
| Quote
The general sentiment seems to be martial law in Maguindanao is pretty cool.
Expect arguments of “when gov’t reacts, it’s ‘OA’ but when bad things happen & govt fails to prevent it, the govt is accused of being passive” to go around soon.
But it shouldn’t just be about taking action, should it? It’s about taking the correct, or in this case legal, action. People have been saying that the elements to justify martial law aren’t present.
#5 by Lou at December 6th, 2009
| Quote
The elements to justify her as president aren\’t present either, but oh, well…
#6 by Maia at December 6th, 2009
| Quote
Seems there’s also the opinion forming that it should have been martial law in Maguindanao and surrounding areas. Baka kasi daw may mga suspect na tumakas.
And I really don’t understand how so many people also can’t make up their minds. We forever put either ourselves or the government leaders in a “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” situation. “Oh, you’re neglecting what happened to our countrymen. We hate you.” then if something is done “OMG you power-hungry fuckwads! We hate you.” Nakakahilo talaga. Whoever becomes the next President is going to have to deal with a country with a 3rd grade sandbox mentality.
#7 by onetamad at December 16th, 2009
| Quote
@Maia: But the government was damned for doing what the law didn’t allow it to do. It’s not just about taking action, but taking the proper action, innit?