2009 for the Philippines will forever be memorable for the grisly massacre of 57 civilians in Maguindanao on purported orders of the Ampatuans, a political clan close to President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, and the latter’s proclamation of a state of martial law – the first under the 1987 Constitution – to supposedly aid government in taking down the perpetrators and masterminds of the carnage.

The massacre put the Philippines front and center yet again in the map of journalist killings, with the country rivaling war-torn Iraq and Afghanistan among countries most dangerous to journalists and media professionals. International and national journalist organizations expressed shock that it happened and are determined to keep an eye on all supposed moves to prosecute those behind the dastardly crime.

It was also the worst and most violent single attack during an election period. The caravan of vehicles was on its way to file certificates of candidacy at the local Commission on Elections office when goons said to be belonging to the Ampatuans stopped them, redirected them elsewhere, told those riding the vehicles to later step out and each of them shot in close range – all in broad daylight and said to be personally directed and led by Andal Ampatuan Jr. himself and with the blessings of his father, Governor Andal Ampatuan Sr. The new symbol of their impunity was the backhoe used to bury the vehicles and the victims: It was emblazoned with the name of the elder Ampatuan.

Whether the martial law declared by Arroyo was constitutional is for the Supreme Court to decide. It has not, as of press time, but a huge number of legal eagles and jurists, human rights advocates and scores of legislators think otherwise and have expressed their opposition before the tribunal.

What is clear now is that martial law may provide more complications to the multiple cases that ought to be filed against the Ampatuans and their henchmen. Because many of hem were arrested by virtue of Arroyo’s martial law, Philippine jurisprudence dictates that they be charged only with rebellion. Never mind the insult to the nation’s intelligence as the Arroyo regime now would like us to believe the Ampatuans have all of a sudden become rebels.

The unkindest cut is that martial law may have cut down the possibility that the Ampatuans would be made to pay for their crimes. Rebellion is harder to prove and win in court, the multiple murder charges would have to be subsumed under the rebellion case, and the Ampatuans may apply for bail – a first step towards political rehabilitation and to a permanent escape from retribution.

No wonder, Arroyo’s spokesperson callously assured the nation days after the carnage that the Arroyos and Ampatuans remain friends. She may have never been interested in holding her friends liable. Martial law, said to be country’s last political taboo, had been misused to pretend to look tough but may ultimately spring the Ampatuans out of the jail where they rightfully belong.