Bsaiii Anc Interview 120509

ANC
INTERVIEW
TRANSCRIPT
OF
SENATOR
BENIGNO
“NOYNOY”
 AQUINO
III
 ON
MAGUINDANAO
MARTIAL
LAW
 
 Aquino:
 We
 feel
 that
 there
 is
 no
 basis
 for
 the
 imposition
 of
 Martial
 Law.
 There
 are
 so
 many
 powers
 vested
 in
 the
 President
 that
 could
 have
 been
 done
 and
 should
have
been
done
instead
of
imposing
Martial
Law.
 


Question:
Will
there
be
legal
action
taken
by
the
LP?

 Aquino:
We
have
been
discussing
this
since
last
night.
We
have
also
been
misled
 by
statements
from
the
Palace.
There
were
text
messages
circulating
that
Martial
 Law
 would
 be
 imposed.
 This
 was
 denied
 last
 night
 only
 to
 be
 imposed
 this
 morning.
 We
 read
 in
 the
 papers
 that
 the
 Cabinet
 doesn’t
 seem
 to
 be
 united.
 Secretary
 Puno
 is
 being
 quoted
 as
 Martial
 Law
 not
 being
 necessary.
 So
 we
 are
 actually
in
the
midst
of
a
meeting
to
discuss
the
appropriate
responses
and
also
 when
 the
 Palace
 reports
 to
 Congress
 by
 Monday
 in
 response
 to
 Constitutional
 provisions,
 we
 want
 to
 make
 sure
 that
 there
 are
 no
 “agendas”
 other
 than
 the
 review
of
the
Martial
Law
imposition.




 Question:
 Speaker
 Nograles
 was
 saying
 that
 they
 only
 need
 to
 disapprove
 or
 revoke
the
declaration
of
Martial
Law
but
they
don’t
need
to
approve.
What
are
 the
legislators
who
are
part
of
LP
saying
about
this?

 Aquino:
There
is
a
need.
The
Constitution
is
very
specific.
The
Executive
has
to
 report—the
 President
 or
 the
 duly
 designated
 representative
 has
 to
 report—to
 Congress,
 even
 if
 it
 is
 not
 in
 session.
 We
 are
 session
 now.
 We
 are
 supposed
 to
 review
and
we
can
either
concur
or
not
with
the
imposition
of
Martial
Law.
The
 President
 cannot
 set
 aside
 the
 decision
 of
 Congress
 with
 regard
 to
 the
 legality
 and
 factual
 basis
 for
 imposing
 Martial
 Law
 and
 for
 the
 period—this
 can
 be
 extended,
this
can
be
curtailed.
So
there
is
a
need
for
Congress
to
convene.




 Question:

What
can
you
say
(given)
that
this
is
being
declared
leading
up
to
the
 campaign
period
and
election
season?
 Aquino:
 There
 were
 a
 lot
 of
 text
 messages
 sowing
 a
 lot
 of
 fear
 among
 the
 populace
last
night.
Now,
there’s
been
a
bombing,
I
understand,
in
Jolo.
Will
the
 imposition
of
Martial
Law
in
Maguindanao
lead
to
an
imposition
in
other
areas?
 Is
this
just
their
opening
act
of
what
is
perceived
to
be
the
intention
to
assume
 more
powers
under
the
Constitution?
That
is
what
we
have
to
be
vigilant
about.
 And
 of
 course,
 there
 are
 those
 who’ve
 opined
 that
 there
 will
 be
 other
 matters
 that
will
be
carried
out
in
the
joint
session
such
as
Con‐Ass.
 


Question:
What
points
are
you
going
to
raise
in
case
there
is
going
to
be
a
joint
 session
of
Congress
on
Monday?
 Aquino:
I
don’t
think
the
question
of
whether
there’s
going
to
be
a
joint
session
is
 valid.
There
is
a
Constitutional
mandate
that
once
martial
law
is
proclaimed,
the
 President
will
have
to
report
Congress.
We
are
exactly
discussing
with
some
of
 our
 colleagues
 what
 we
 will
 do
 to
 keep
 that
 agenda
 only
 on
 that
 matter.
 When
 you
 have
 a
 joint
 session,
 the
 Senate,
 in
 effect,
 becomes
 “subsumed”
 by
 the
 majority
of
numbers
of
the
House
of
Representatives.



 Question:
 After
 the
 declaration
 this
 morning,
 several
 arrests
 were
 made
 in
 Maguindanao
 but
 you
 had
 Justice
 Secretary
 Devanadera
 careful
 not
 to
 say
 the
 word
“arrests,”
saying
they
were
just
invited
for
questioning.
What
do
you
make
 of
all
of
this?
 Aquino:
We
have
martial
law
and
with
the
proclamation
that
also
suspended
the
 writ
 of
 habeas
 corpus,
 you
 could
 have
 affected
 the
 arrests
 already.
 Under
 the
 Human
Security
Act
‐
that
could
have
also
been
used
as
a
means,
specifically
after
 the
 Maguindanao
 massacre.
 But
 again,
 our
 argument
 is,
 an
 invasion
 did
 not
 happen
 and
 the
 rebellion
 with
 the
 public
 uprising
 also
 did
 not
 happen.
 Hence
 there
is
no
reason
for
the
imposition
of
martial
law.
This
seems
to
buttress
our
 argument
 that
 there
 is
 no
 public
 uprising
 –
 plus
 the
 fact
 that
 they
 are
 merely
 being
invited
for
questioning.



 Question:
 The
 generals
 at
 press
 conference
 this
 morning
 said
 there
 were
 small
 groups
of
individual
who
were
armed
that
is
why
there
was
a
threat,
a
looming
 rebellion
 or
 an
 imminent
 rebellion.
 But
 you
 also
 have
 some
 groups
 saying
 this
 could
 have
 been
 done
 under
 the
 state
 of
 emergency
 because
 these
 are
 private
 armies
and
private
groups.
What
can
you
say
to
that?
 Aquino:
 Let
 me
 tell
 you
 this.
 Under
 the
 Revised
 Penal
 Code
 Article
 143
 on
 “Rebellion
 or
 insurrection
 –
 How
 committed.
 The
 crime
 of
 rebellion
 or
 insurrection
 is
 committed
 by
 rising
 publicly
 and
 taking
 arms
 against
 the
 Government
for
the
purpose
of
removing
from
the
allegiance
to
said
Government
 or
its
laws,
the
territory
of
the
Philippine
Islands
or
any
part
thereof,
of
any
body
 of
 land,
 naval
 or
 other
 armed
 forces,
 depriving
 the
 Chief
 Executive
 or
 the
 Legislature,
 wholly
 or
 partially,
 of
 any
 of
 their
 powers
 or
 prerogative.”
 Now,
 again
 –
 if
 these
 armed
 groups
 were
 formed
 after
 the
 massacre,
 then
 perhaps,
 there
 would
 have
 been
 a
 basis
 for
 rebellion.
 But
 the
 thing
 is,
 most
 of
 these
 groups
were
and
those
implicated
in
the
massacre
were
established
even
before
 the
 massacre.
 They
 didn’t
 push
 us
 to
 a
 public
 uprising
 and
 are
 supposed
 to
 be
 elements
under
the
control
of
government
and
state
agents.
 
 ‐
END
‐