Why are the members of the AFP not charged of rebellion?

Why are the members of the AFP not charged of rebellion if, for Executive Secretary Ed Ermita and sitting president Gloria in the Palace defines it as simply an ownership of guns and maintaining an armory?

The Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 6968 provides that:

Art. 134. Rebellion or insurrection; How committed. — The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of the Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.

It is clear. The elements include (1) rising publicly, (2) taking arms against the government, and (3) with a purpose of removing allegiance to said government or its laws, etc., etc.

In the case of the Ampatuans in the Maguindanao Massacre, nothing of the aforestated elements is present. Patago nga ginawa ang massacre. Inililibing pa nga ang mga biktima. Yun nga lang, nahuli. And those who are killed? Civilians... not government officers. And the arms -- those were not taken against the government. With the markings on the arsenals, puwede pa ngang ibinigay ng government ang mga yun. And third, the willingness to participate in elections is a clear indication of allegiance. Actually love na love pa nga nila ang magsilbi sa gobyerno kaya nga allegedly pinatay pa nila ang mga kalaban nila para sila lang ang magkaroon ng opportunity na magsilbi.

But of course, the government has its own way of redefining things. Basta me armas na dala-dala, rebellion yun. Simply put, isama na rin mga miyembro ng AFP at PNP. Me dala-dala rin silang armas.

Hmmmnn....