Court takes ‘judicial notice’ of martial law declaration after Maguindanao massacre | Inquirer News
Close  

Court takes ‘judicial notice’ of martial law declaration after Maguindanao massacre

/ 05:38 PM March 08, 2012

MANILA, Philippines – Defense lawyers in the Maguindanao massacre trial blocked the testimony of a Malacañang official who was supposed to testify on the declaration of martial law in Maguindanao shortly after the Nov. 23, 2009 carnage there.

Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes of the Quezon City regional trial court’s Branch 221 decided to dispense with the testimony of Marianito Dimaandal but took “judicial notice” of the documents he had.

ADVERTISEMENT

“So we will not waste time, the court will take judicial notice of the documents once the prosecution submits authenticated and certified copies. No need to present the witness,” she said in court Thursday.

Dimaandal was the records chief of Malacañang who brought along with him copies of proclamations and orders issued by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the wake of the massacre, which has been blamed on members of the powerful Ampatuan clan closely allied with her.

FEATURED STORIES

These documents were: Proclamation 1946 on the declaration of the state of emergency; Proclamation 1959 on the declaration of martial law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus; Administrative Order 275 creating a commission to probe into private armies and other administrative and executive orders amending it; Executive Order 546 directing the Philippine National Police to support the Armed Forces of the Philippines in enforcing internal security.

Dimaandal was supposed to certify the orders on the witness stand on Thursday.

At least 57 people, including lawyers and mostly female members of the Mangudadatu clan, and over 30 journalists and media workers, were killed in the massacre.

The defense objected to having Dimaandal testify, questioning its relevance.

Private prosecutor Nena Santos pointed out that some of the evidence seized in operations during the declaration of martial law were evidence in the multiple murder case.

The court ruled, however,  that it would dispense with Dimaandal’s testimony and identification of the documents but required the prosecution to submit authenticated and certified copies of the orders “so that the defense cannot later on raise the issue that the documents were not identified and certified.”

Prosecutor Aristotle Reyes then formally manifested that they would be dispensing with Dimaandal’s testimony and enumerated the documents for the court to take note of.

ADVERTISEMENT

Another defense lawyer, Andres Manuel, said he hoped that this would not “open the floodgates to presenting evidence” on events which happened during the declaration of martial law in Maguindanao.

“Let’s cross the bridge when we get there,” Reyes said in reply.

Read Next
Don't miss out on the latest news and information.

Subscribe to INQUIRER PLUS to get access to The Philippine Daily Inquirer & other 70+ titles, share up to 5 gadgets, listen to the news, download as early as 4am & share articles on social media. Call 896 6000.

TAGS: Crime, Judiciary, Maguindanao massacre, Martial law, News
For feedback, complaints, or inquiries, contact us.

News that matters

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and
acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.



© Copyright 1997-2022 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.