N.B. – This was published in Asian Correspondent (December 7, 6:00 a.m.) where I write a weekly column (Philippine Fantasy).

Students know fully well the consequences of submitting a badly written paper. Too bad the same can’t be said for the powers-that-be in the Philippines.

Rushing to beat the 48-hour deadline arising from the imposition of martial law in Maguindanao last December 4, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo submitted to the Senate and the House of Representatives on the night of December 6 her report on Proclamation No. 1959. (Warning: This contains graphic images of violence.)

The 20-page report was submitted to the House of Representatives (HOR) at 8:58 p.m., or just two minutes before the 9:00 p.m. deadline. The Senate received its copy at 9:11 p.m.

You don’t have to be a professor to know if a paper is haphazardly done. The tell-tale signs are obvious – existence of logical fallacies, dearth of citation, preponderance of errors both grammatical and typographical.

Based on Proclamation No. 1959, there are two official reasons for the declaration of martial law in Maguindanao: (1) “[H]eavily armed groups in the province of Maguindanao have established positions to resist government troops thereby depriving the Executive of its powers and prerogatives to enforce the laws of the land to maintain public order and safety”; and (2) “[P]eace and order in the province of Maguindanao has deteriorated to the extent that local judicial system and other government mechanisms in the province are not functioning; thus, endangering public safety. If the objective of the report to Congress is to justify the declaration of martial law, the focus of the 20-page report should be on important information related to these points.

Instead of giving insight into these important points, what Macapagal-Arroyo presented is a mish-mash of adjectives (“lawless”), adverbs (“horrifyingly”) and superfluous phrases (“formidable group of armed followers” and “duly verified information”) that do not contribute to knowledge and instead highlight certain situations that are  ambiguous, exaggerated or imagined.

There is no denying that the Ampatuan massacre is the worst-ever election related violence in the country.The facts regarding the carnage speak for themselves: 57 deaths, of which 21 were women, and of which 30 were journalists and media workers. To be fair, the President’s report has important data, but these are already public knowledge due to the extensive media coverage worldwide.

A report does not need to repeat, rephrase and sugarcoat the obvious; more facts are expected to be supplied. A cursory reading of the President’s report yields no new facts or even a fresh insight into the massacre that happened and the events leading to the declaration of martial law in Maguindanao.

The justification for martial law is nothing but an appeal to the emotion, the subtext of which is that there will be murder and mayhem in Maguindanao unless the military and the police take over. For example, the report states that “the Ampatuan group has consolidated a group of rebels consisting of 2,413 heavily armed men, with 1,160 of them having been strategically deployed in Maguindanao.” However, there is no attribution as to the source of the information, not to mention exactly when this had been documented, if at all.

Throughout the report, it is noticeable that the Ampatuan group is also referred to as rebels, an apparent move to justify the charge of rebellion against selected members and supporters of the Ampatuan clan. The alleged existence of these “rebels” is the basis of the government’s verbose argument that there is “a public uprising against the duly constituted government and against the people of Maguindanao, for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to the Government or its laws, the province of Maguindanao, and likewise depriving the Chief Executive of her powers and prerogatives to enforce the laws of the land and to maintain public order and safety, to the great damage, prejudice and detriment of the people in Maguindanao and the nation as a whole.”

What the government sees as “rebellion” could also be assessed as “multiple murder” where the suspects are considered armed and dangerous. There is no public pronouncement from the Ampatuans, after all, that they are revolting against the system and that they are trying to secede from the government.

Vital facts are also ignored, particularly the initial statement of the military that there was no need to declare martial law. In the words of Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Spokesperson Lt. Col. Romeo Brawner last November 30, “We now have a level of normalcy in the province of Maguindanao primarily because of the occupation by our government forces and our law enforcement agencies of the seats of government.” Even if the government can argue that there has been a qualitative change in the situation in Maguindanao, it is still necessary to explain the context in which such change happened.

The President’s report proves to be silent on a senator’s claim that “during the raids conducted by the military and police forces, the raiders discovered and confiscated ballot boxes containing election documents.” There are arguments that the imposition of martial law has to do with the alleged threat of the Ampatuans to reveal what they know about the cheating that happened in the 2004 elections, and that the military is being used to ensure that the evidence the Ampatuans have would be secured by the government.

A general denial of accusations does not help the President any, especially now that her unpopularity prompts the general public to doubt her every word and her every move. In order to persuade the people that there is nothing irregular about the declaration of martial law, she should answer the allegations directly, providing the necessary evidence to debunk the opposition’s claims.

Then again, you may ask: Does the government have any factual basis for the declaration of martial law last December 4? Is the report a mere compliance with a legal requirement, given that the House Speaker has already given his full support for Proclamation 1959?

Just as the Ampatuan massacre highlights the state of human rights in the Philippines, the President’s report to Congress is a reflection of the administration’s disregard for the law and how it only goes through the process of giving legal justification, no matter how outrageous the arguments are. At this point, the impunity of the powers-that-be knows no boundaries as they do whatever they want even if the law is not on their side.

Indeed, the President’s report deserves an “F” as there is utter failure in justifying what is undeniably a questionable proclamation.

“F” obviously stands for “Fail” even if there are people who are wont to use another, albeit unprintable, four-letter word that begins with “F” to describe not just the President’s report, but the entire administration altogether.