MANILA, Philippines -- They lost the chance to vote against the imposition of martial law in Maguindanao, but a number of lawmakers still refused to be silent about the issue before the expected adjournment of the joint session of Congress on Proclamation 1959.

Lawmakers were allowed to air their positions on the proclamation, which placed Maguindanao under martial law, despite it being lifted on Dec. 12, or eight days after it was imposed.

The lawmakers apparently wanted to tie all loose ends of President Macapagal-Arroyo?s declaration of martial law and its lifting even before Congress could vote on it.

Only a handful of senators were present ? Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, Francis Pangilinan, Benigno Aquino III, Miguel Zubiri, Rodolfo Biazon and Aqulino Pimentel Jr.

At the joint session, Cagayan de Oro Rep. Rufus Rodriguez filed a motion to approve a resolution indicating the sense of Congress that Proclamation 1959 was unconstitutional, unwarranted and unnecessary after it had been established that there was no actual rebellion to trigger its declaration.

Rodriguez stated that the presence of armed groups, without a clear statement of identity nor intentions, did not constitute actual rebellion.

``The proclamation itself and four other reports and situationers have not shown an iota of actual rebellion by public uprising and taking arms against the government to remove allegiance therefrom,?? said Rodriguez.

Biazon proposed that Congress form an enabling law that would clearly outline the parameters of martial law because the ``legislative response of Congress has not been terminated with the lifting of martial law.??

Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. said on Monday Malacañang should also lift Proclamation 1946, which declared a state of emergency in Maguindanao and Sultan Kudarat province and Cotabato City, which he claimed was equally invalid as Proclamation 1959.

Pimentel said that while he welcomed the lifting of martial law in Maguindanao, he reckoned that it was just a ``ploy to assuage?? residents about their concerns over the return of peace and order in the province. ``What kind of legerdemain is the President engaging now? Was the placing of those two provinces and one city under a state of emergency proclamation valid??? asked Pimentel.

He called the state of emergency an ``undue exercise of presidential power?? considering that there was no war nor a national emergency (specifically the takeover of public utilities or business) in the province as mandated in the Constitution which made the declaration invalid.

``When there is no national emergency upon which the delegated authority was predicated, not even an act of Congress can validate the exercise of the emergency powers of the President,?? said Pimentel.

``It is in the national interest that since martial rule has been lifted, it should follow that even the state of emergency proclamation should likewise be revoked. If it is not, the human rights of the people in the areas shrouded by the proclamation of state of emergency are covered by the haze of the supposed state of emergency that is not even sustained by the circumstances on the ground,?? said Pimentel.

Akbayan Rep. Walden Bello refused to concede that the issue over martial law was moot and academic, saying Congress was not given a chance to revoke the ?dangerous proclamation? that was baseless since there was no rebellion to speak of.

Bello warned that the President might proclaim martial law again under the same set of dubious circumstances, especially in light of the issues that might arise from the country's first stab at an automated election system for the 2010 polls.

Bello also disagreed with Senator Biazon that the military deserved any commendation for the martial law declaration.

?I think with their arming of private armies which has been the policy over the last two decades, they have contributed to the erosion of the authority of the security agencies of the state. I submit that the AFP leadership is part of the problem, not part of the solution,? he said.

He said that the lifting of martial law was not a principled act, but ?a tactical retreat from the very real possibility that the revocation of martial law would be sustained by the two houses of congress.?

He noted that Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, under the piercing questioning of Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, had said that there was no actual rebellion taking place in Maguindanao, contrary to the assertions of Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera.

Akbayan Rep. Risa Hontiveros urged her colleagues to either vote to revoke martial law or to speak against it as a joint session.

Hontiveros said Congress should do this to make up for its failure to convene within 48 hours following the proclamation of martial law.

?Let's not fail again,? she said.

Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares warned that the government risked jeopardizing its cases against the suspects in the mass killings in Maguindanao by searching houses and seizing evidence without warrants during martial law.

Colmenares pointed out that the declaration of martial law did not allow the government to conduct warrantless searches.

?What would happen if the Supreme Court says that even under martial law, you need search warrants. What would happen to the evidence, what would happen to the arms that were confiscated without warrants in Maguindanao? Under the fruit of the poisonous tree [doctrine], the evidence would be inadmissible in court,? he said.

He also wondered where the rest of the more than 2,000 members of the Ampatuans' supposed private army were. He said that in the martial law report, the President had noted that there were 2,413 civilian volunteer organization members under the Ampatuans? control. But, he added, those arrested have not even come close to this number.

?What they did was disarm them and send them home. If they disarm them, they should file charges of obstruction of justice or at the very least, if the government theory was proven, rebellion... This means that, as many believe, they were not rebels and there was no rebellion,? he said.

Maguindanao Rep. Simeon Datumanong, an Ampatuan relative who has been opposed to martial law, appealed to the President to restore the functioning of the civilian government in the province. He also said the rule of succession should be followed in his province if and when the highest officials were unavailable.

Datumanong also condoled with the families and relatives of those killed in the gruesome massacre, in which his own kin had been implicated. He said Maguindanao has been yearning for peace and normalcy so that it could rise from its status of being one of the poorest provinces in the country.

Cebu Rep. Antonio Cuenco said he was choosing to look not at the constitutionality of the martial law proclamation, but at its practicality and the benefits it brought to the people of Maguindanao.

?I concede that a purely legalistic point of view would point to the fact that its constitutionality is assailable. But rather than dwell on its constitutionality which is the subject of a case...I choose to dwell on its practical application in the island of Mindanao. Is it good or bad for our brothers living there?? Cuenco said.

He went on to point out that Mindanao officials have supported martial law.

He also said that of he were to go with his emotions, he would disagree with martial law. But, he noted, the martial law of today has become a ?toothless tiger,? and besides, the Constitution has provided many safeguards.