There is no need for President Arroyo to show up to personally explain to the historic joint session of Congress why she declared martial law and suspended the writ of habeas corpus in Maguindanao province, House Speaker Prospero Nograles said Thursday.

“She need not show up; it is not required and mandated as the Senate President and I think it is not necessary,” Nograles said in a text message to reporters.

Nograles is co-presiding with Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile in the joint session to review Mrs. Arroyo’s Proclamation 1959 which placed Maguindanao under martial rule Friday night.

The Speaker pointed out that appearing in the joint session was an option for Mrs. Arroyo, but she instead chose to explain the proclamation in writing.

Article VII, Section of the Constitution requires the President, within 48 hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, to submit a report in person or in writing to Congress.

The House of Representatives and the Senate received the written report from the President Sunday night.

According to the Speaker, the 20-page report submitted by the President was sufficient.

The President instead sent some of her Cabinet officials and police and military officers to answer questions from lawmakers.

Those who defended the proclamation were Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera, Interior and Local Government Secretary Ronaldo Puno, Philippine National Police Director General Jesus Verzosa, Armed Forces chief General Victor Ibrado, and Defense Undersecretary Antonio Santos.

Last Wednesday, Maguindanao Rep. Didagen Dilangalen questioned the absence of Mrs. Arroyo in the joint session, saying she herself should explain the martial law declaration before members of Congress.

“Does the President have any courtesy at all to inform us in person why she declared martial law?” Dilangalen asked. “I think the President considers this as not very important to her; why is she not here?”

Malacañang for its part said President Arroyo’s no show on Wednesday did not in any way diminish the “informative value” of her 20-page report.

Presidential economic spokesperson Gary Olivar defended Mrs. Arroyo’s absence, saying that Mrs. Arroyo has complied with the provisions of the Constitution and the information requirements “are fully satisfied.”

“I fail to see how her non-appearance diminishes the informative value she has already sent to Congress. Perhaps, it denies certain congressmen the more entertaining scenario the fact that she is not there, but unfortunately was not required by the Constitution either,” he said.

“We wish to accommodate them, but we're not required to accommodate them. So sorry na lang.”

Olivar said the President chose to attend to more pressing matters yesterday, including the inauguration of the $20 million Gapan-San Fernando-Olongapo (GSO) road project and the signing of Republic Act 9832 converting Pampanga’s Don Honorio Ventura College of Arts and Trade (CHVCAT) into the Don Honorio Ventura Technological State University (DAVTSU).

The President also led the distribution of checks to 10 microfinance beneficiaries in Pulilan, Bulacan, which is part of government’s P150-billion microfinance program.

Olivar expressed confidence that the majority members of Congress would support Mrs. Arroyo’s proclamation, and said there will even be opposition lawmakers who would support the President’s decision.

“I don’t know if the party lines would be strictly followed. There will be even be people coming from the other side to vote in favor of martial law because of the need to rise above politics and support the government in taking the measures necessary to resolve this issue properly,” Olivar said.

A prominent constitutionalist meanwhile said President Arroyo was merely exercising her executive powers in declaring a state of martial law and suspending the writ of habeas corpus in Maguindanao.

Fr. Joaquin Bernas, a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, pointed out that it was a judgment call on the President’s part, and could hardly be questioned on the basis of legality.

Bernas, who teaches constitutional law at the Ateneo de Manila University, said the President cannot be held accountable even if Congress or the Supreme Court eventually overturned her decision to impose martial law.

“If what the government says is true, then the President is justified,” Bernas said, referring to the grounds given by the government in placing Maguindanao under martial law.

He emphasized, however, that he was not familiar with the conditions in Maguindanao hence, could not comment on the veracity of the reasons given by Malacanang and the law enforcement authorities.

He clarified that under the Charter, rebellion is essentially characterized by “armed uprising for the purpose of removing allegiance to the government.”

“It is not easy to prove charges of rebellion,” he added.

Bernas also said the Constitution is silent on the extension of martial law beyond the stipulated 60-day period, but can cut it short anytime depending on the situation in the affected areas.

Bernas also said that under the law, charges of multiple murder and rebellion may be separately filed against the suspects in the November 23 massacre of 57 people including 32 journalists in Maguindanao, if the killings were not part of a larger picture of armed uprising against the government.

But only the lighter charge of rebellionccan prevail if the killings were done in the pursuit of sedition, Bernascsaid. (With reports from Charissa M. Luci and Anna Liza T. Villas)