Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT
Manila
EUFEMIA CAMPOS CULLAMAT,VIRGILIO T. LINCUNA,ATELIANA U. HIJOS, ROLAND A.COBRADO, CARL ANTHONY D.OLALO, ROY JIM BALANGHIG,RENATO REYES, JR., CRISTINAE. PALABAY, AMARYLLIS H.ENRIQUEZ, ACT TEACHERS’REPRESENTATIVE ANTONIO L.TINIO, GABRIELA WOMEN’SPARTY REPRESENTATIVEARLENE D. BROSAS,KABATAAN PARTY-LISTREPRESENTATIVE SARAHJANE I. ELAGO, MAE PANER,GABRIELA KRISTA DALENA,ANNA ISABELLE ESTEIN, MARKVINCENT D. LIM, VENCER MARICRISOSTOMO, JOVITA MONTES,
Petitioners
- versus - G.R. No.
PRESIDENT RODRIGO DUTERTE,EXECUTIVE SECRETARYSALVADOR MEDIALDEA, DEFENSESECRETARY DELFIN LORENZANA,ARMED FORCES OF THEPHILIPPINES CHIEF-OF-STAFF LT.GENERAL EDUARDO ANO,PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICEDIRECTOR-GENERAL RONALDODELA ROSA,
Respondents.x-------------------------------------------------------------x
2
PETITION
PETITIONERS, through the undersigned Counsel, unto theHonorable Supreme Court, most respectfully state that:
PREFATORY
Ten thousand people, maybe more.People talking without speaking,People hearing without listening,
People writing songs that voices never shareAnd no one dare
Disturb the sound of silence.
Fools said I, you do not knowSilence like a cancer grows.1
The hurdles that this Petition faces are not the legalconundrums that make peoples sit down, dialogue, ruminate andthereafter resolve issues. Rather, it is the indifference and apathy toevery bad thing that surrounds each one and the overwhelmingacceptance of the justifications for what has always been from timeimmemorial the evil and the wicked. What is worse, there is nowevery virtue in the condescension and outright refusal to speak tomuch less confront the bad things that ought to be addressed.
These are dangerous times indeed when we live in thedeafening silence and choose not to be otherwise. This can no longerbe the case. Only when we speak do we find liberation.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. This Petitionis anchored on Section 18, Article VII ofthe 1987 Philippine Constitution, which permits the direct andimmediate resort to the Supreme Court in the first instance, thus:
“Article VII EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 18. xxx.
xxx.
Paul Simon, “The Sound of Silence,” Wednesday Morning 3 AM (1966).
3
The Supreme Court may review, in anappropriate proceeding filed by any citizen,the sufficiency of the factual basis of theproclamation of martial law or thesuspension of the privilege of the writ ofhabeas corpus or the extension thereof,and must promulgate its decision thereonwithin thirty days from its filing.”(Emphasis supplied)
2. Petitioners are all suing in their capacity as citizensof the Republic of the Philippines, in accordance with aforesaidprovision.
3. Petitioners thus humbly pray that the HonorableCourt issue a judgment:
a. Declaring Proclamation No. 216 dated May 23,2017 as unconstitutional and therefore void and withouteffect; and
b. Prohibiting and enjoining respondents from thecontinued implementation of Proclamation No. 216 whileconducting operations to destroy the kidnap for ransomand terrorist gangs composed of the Abu Sayyaf Group(ASG) and the Maute group.
4. Petitioners seek the nullification of Proclamation No.216 dated May 23, 2017 proclaiming a state of martial law andsuspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entireMindanao as it is patently unconstitutional for failing to provide (i)sufficient factual basis on the existence of rebellion in the entireMindanao and (ii) sufficient factual basis of its assertion that publicsafety requires the imposition of martial law and suspension of theprivilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao.
a. The imposition of Proclamation No. 216 in theentire Mindanao is unwarranted, unjustifiable,and wholly out of proportion to the threat posedby the Maute and Abu Sayaff groups becauseaside from the violence in Marawi, Respondentsfailed to prove sufficient factual basis thatrebellion or at the very least incidents similar tothat in Marawi are simultaneously occurring in
4
the rest of the twenty seven (27) cities and fourhundred twenty two (422) municipalities ofMindanao, to justify its imposition in the entireisland;
b. The insertion of the words “other rebel groups” isdangerously vague and unsubstantiated.Respondents failed to cite who these other rebelgroups are and the activities being conducted bythese amorphous “other rebel groups” thatconstitute rebellion;
c. Presuming without conceding that there existsactual rebellion in the entire Mindanao,Respondents failed to provide sufficient factualbasis that such rebellion has reached an extentthat public safety requires the imposition ofmartial law and the suspension of the privilege ofthe writ of habeas corpus. In fact the reverse istrue—human rights, civil liberties and publicsafety are threatened by the imposition of martiallaw and the suspension of the privilege of thewrit of habeas corpus. Imposing martial law andsuspending the privilege of the writ of habeascorpus in the entire Mindanao will evenendanger the peace process being undertakenby the government with the National DemocraticFront of the Philippines and the Moro IslamicLiberation Front. Imposing martial law andcurtailing civil and political rights of people inMindanao is a “cure” that is worse than thealleged disease.
5. Based on these premises, Petitioners pray thatProclamation No. 216 which imposed martial law and suspended thewrit of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao be strucked down forwant of a sufficient factual basis.
6. Furthermore, the Petitioners pray that this Petitionbe consolidated with the petitions previously filed by other groups andthat they be allowed to participate in the oral arguments set on 13June 2017.
5
PARTIES
THE PETITIONERS
7. Petitioners herein are suing in their capacities ascitizens of the Republic of the Philippines in accordance with Section18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
8. The following Petitioners are all residents from theMindanao region:
a. EUFEMIA CAMPOS CULLAMAT, isaFilipino, of legal age, and a Lumadresiding in Han-Ayan Diatagon, Surigaodel Sur. She is a council member ofMaluhutayong Pakigbisog AlangSumusunod (MAPASU) or ContinuingStruggle for the Next Generation.;
b. VIRGILIO T. LINCUNA, is a Filipino, oflegal age and a resident of P3 Osmena,Brgy. Banza, Butuan City. He is theSecretary-General of KilusangMagbubukid ng Pilipinas-CARAGA Region.
c. ATELIANA U. HIJOS, is a Filipino, of legalage, residing at 4th St., GuingonaSubdivision, Brgy. JP Rizal, Butuan City.She is the Chairperson of GABRIELA-CARAGA Region.
d. ROLAND A. COBRADO, is a Filipino, oflegal age and a resident of Prk. 8 Brgy.San Miguel, Compostela, CompostelaValley.
e. CARL ANTHONY D. OLALO, is a Filipino,of legal age, and a resident of 99 JPCabaguio Avenue, Agdao, Davao City. Heis the Secretary-General of NAFLU-KMUSouthern Mindanao Region based inDavao City;
6
f. ROY JIM M. BALANGHIG, is a Filipino, oflegal age, and a resident of Prk. 11, BrgySan Miguel Compostela, CompostelaValley Province. He is one of those whotook part in the workers’ strike at Shin SunTropical Fruits Inc. whose picket line wasbroken by the PNP last June 2, 2017
9. RENATO REYES, JR., is a Filipino, of legal age, isthe Secretary-General of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN).
10. CRISTINA E. PALABAY, is a Filipino, of legal age,is the Secretary-General of KARAPATAN.
11. AMARYLLIS H. ENRIQUEZ is a Filipino, of legalage, is a victim of human rights violations during the Marcos martiallaw regime, She is the Chairperson of SELDA and convenor ofCARMMA (Campaign Against the Return of the Marcoses toMalacanang).
12. REPRESENTATIVE ANTONIO L. TINIO, is aFilipino, of legal age, with office address at Room 511 South Building,House of Representatives, Batasan Hills Quezon City. He is theRepresentative of ACT TEACHERS PARTYLIST in the 17thCongress. .
13. REPRESENTATIVE ARLENE D. BROSAS, isFilipino, of legal age, with address at Room 604 South Building,House of Representatives, Batasan Hills Quezon City She is theRepresentative of GABRIELA WOMEN’S PARTY in the 17thCongress.
14. RERPRESENTATIVE SARAH JANE I. ELAGO, isa Filipino, of legal age, with office address at Room 616 NorthBuilding, House of Representatives, Batasan Hills Quezon City. Sheis the Representative of KABATAAN PARTYLIST in the 17thCongress.
15. MAE PANER, is Filipino, of legal age, is aperforming artist.
16. GABRIELA KRISTA DALENA, is a Filipino, of legalage, is a film-maker and visual artist. She is a member of Respondand Break The Silence Against The Killings (RESBAK) and theNetwork of Artists and Cultural Organizations.
7
17. ANNA ISABELLE ESTEIN, is a Filipino, of legalage, is a member of the Steering Committee of Respond and BreakThe Silence Against The Killings (RESBAK).
18. MARK VINCENT D. LIM, is a Filipino, of legal age,is the Spokesperson of the NATIONAL UNION OF STUDENTS OFTHE PHILIPPINES.
19. VENCER MARI CRISOSTOMO, is a Filipino, oflegal age, is the National Chairperson of ANAKBAYAN.
20. JOVITA MONTES, is a Filipino, of legal age, withaddress at #34 Sct. Delgado, Brgy. Laging Handa, Quezon City. Sheis the Deputy Secretary-General of GABRIELA National Alliance ofWomen.
21. Petitioner may be served with this HonorableCourt’s processes at the address of the undersigned Counsel.
THE RESPONDENTS
22. PRESIDENT RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE is thePresident of the Philippines. He issued Proclamation No. 216 onMay 23, 2017. His office address is at the Office of the President,Malacañang Palace, Mendiola, Manila.
23. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C.MEDIALDEA is tasked with overseeing the issuance of ProclamationNo. 216 under the authority of President Rodrigo Duterte. His officeaddress is at Malacañang Palace, Mendiola, Manila.
24. GENERAL EDUARDO ANO is the Chief of Staff ofthe Armed Forces of the Philippines tasked to implementProclamation No. 216. His office address is at the Armed Forces ofthe Philippines, Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo, EDSA, Quezon City.
25. Chief Superintendent RONALDO “BATO” DELAROSA is the Director General of the Philippine National Policetasked to implement Proclamation No. 216. His office address is atthe Philippine National Police, Camp Crame, EDSA corner BoniSerrano Avenue, Quezon City.
26. DND Secretary DELFIN LORENZANA is theSecretary of National Defense also tasked to implement ProclamationNo. 216. His office address is at the Office of the Secretary,Department of National Defense, Segundo Ave., Camp GeneralEmilio Aguinaldo, Quezon City, 1110.
8
STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
27. On May 23, 2017, Palace spokesman ErnestoAbella conducted a press conference in Moscow announcing thedeclaration of martial law in Mindanao claiming that the fighting haserupted in Marawi City when, the state security forces attempted “toserve a warrant of arrest on Isnilon Hapilon” in Barangay Basak,Marawi City.
28. According to the Philippine News Agency, Hapilonis one of the top leaders of the Abu Sayyaf and is charged with“kidnapping for ransom and serious illegal detention”.2
29. Hapilon was also charged in the United States forthe 2000 Abu Sayyaf raid in Dos Palmas Resort for the kidnapping ofseventeen (17) Filipinos and three (3) Americans. One of theAmericans who reportedly did not pay ransom to the Abu Sayyaf,Guillermo Sobero, was later beheaded.
30. During that same press conference Lorenzanaadmitted further that government forces were surprised that Hapilonhad armed followers who resisted the serving of the warrant onHapilon, stating that “x x x Medyo nabigla lang sila doon becausethey were expecting to arrest Mr. Isnilon. They didn’t know that hewas backed up by more or less about 100 armed fighters. x x x.”
31. Lorenzana, while refusing to admit lapse inintelligence, admitted that there was a mistake in the ‘appreciationof the intelligence’ saying “x x x Baka hindi nila… Akala nila ehkayang-kaya but you know, it’s just… There’s intelligence there. It’sjust the appreciation of what intelligence means that medyonagkamali sila.”
32. When asked by the media why Martial Law wasdeclared for the entire Mindanao, Lorenzana replied that it wasrequired to “solve all the problems” of Mindanao including the alleged“extortion by the NPA in Region XI”. Such pronouncement showsthat the declaration of Martial law covers not only Marawi but theentire Mindanao and concomitantly, could be used against any othergroup that would fall under the vague phrase “other rebel groups.”
2 PHP20-M bounty offered for Hapilon, Maute brothers — AFP By Priam F.Nepomuceno June 5, 2017
http://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/993542.
9
33. Pres. Rodrigo Duterte announced on May 24, 2017the issuance of Proclamation No. 216 declaring martial law andsuspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entireMindanao on the ground of rebellion alleging the following factualbasis:
a. that the government issuedProclamation No. 55 as a result ofthe attack of a military outpost by theMaute Group in February 2016 inLanao del Sur and another attack ona Marawi prison in August 2016 tofree their comrades.
b. That on May 23, 2017, the Mautegroup:
i. attacked a hospital in MarawiCity;ii. established checkpoints;iii. burned down government andprivate facilities inflictingcasualties on government; andiv. started flying the ISIS flag “inseveral areas.”
34. Based on these premises, the governmentconcluded that this is “rebellion” because it is an open attempt to“remove from the allegiance to the Philippine government this part ofMindanao.” (underscoring of “this part” supplied) The governmentfurther claimed that the aforementioned acts deprived the “ChiefExecutive of his powers and prerogatives to enforce the law of theland” and to “maintain public order and safety in Mindanao”.
35. The basis for the declaration of martial law in theentire Mindanao was strangely explained in only one paragraphunder Proclamation No. 216, which states that “this recent attacksshows the capability of the Maute group and other rebel groupsto sow terror and cause death and damage to property not only inLanao del Sur but in other parts of Mindanao”.
36. Attached hereto as Annex “A” is MemorandumCircular No. 030 dated 26 May 2017 issued by DOJ SecretaryVitaliano N. Aguirre II containing the certified true copy ofProclamation 216.
37. Petitioners herein have already requested from theOffice of the House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez for certified true
10
copies of Proclamation 216, the President’s Report on Proclamation216 submitted on May 25, 2017 through Hon. France L. Castro. Thesaid request which was made through a formal letter, attached heretoas Annex “B,” has yet to be acted upon. Petitioners manifest thatthey will furnish the Honorable Court of the said certified true copiesonce they have procured the same.
38. Petitioners Representatives Tinio, Brosas and Elago,with the other Makabayan Representatives, filed on May 30, 2017 theHouse Joint Resolution No. 13, Joint Resolution To Convene BothHouses of Congress in Joint Session For the Revocation ofProclamation No. 216, Series of 2017 (Declaring a state of martiallaw and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus inthe whole of Mindanao) in Accordance with Art. VII, Sec. 18 ofthe 1987 Constitution.
39. Both Houses of Congress subsequently passedtheir separate respective resolutions expressing support for theimposition of Martial Law in Mindanao. The leaders of both Housesargued that there is no need to convene a joint session since theaction of both Houses supported the imposition. They claimed thatboth Houses will hold a joint session only in instances where they willrevoke the imposition of martial law.
40. Meanwhile the military operations in Marawi Citycontinued with the AFP resulting in the following casualties:
a. 20,049 families or 100,530 persons are affected by thearmed conflict in Marawi.b. 25 evacuation centers are open with 3,026 families or14,229 persons.c. 17,023 families or 86,301 persons are staying outsideevacuation centers with relatives or friends in Region X (4,759or 24,981 persons) and ARMM (12,264 families or 61,320persons). 3
41. Based on the report released by human rightsorganization KARAPATAN, attached hereto as Annex “C,” thedeclaration of martial law under Proclamation No. 216 aggravated thehuman rights situation in Mindanao.
3 DSWD DROMIC Report #19 Armed Conflict in Marawi City as of 2 June 2017, 6AM.
11
THE CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATION OF THISPETITION:
A Preliminary Discussion
42. The 1987 Constitution, both in spirit and its expressprovisions substantially regulated the presidential exercise of martiallaw powers and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeascorpus to avoid a recurrence of the legislative and judicial inaction tocheck the imposition of martial law and defend the people from theabuses of the martial law government under then PresidentFerdinand Marcos.
43. Among the novel provisions provided in the 1987Constitution to regulate the powers of the President to declaremartial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpusrelate to the (i) Restriction on the powers of the president to declaremartial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, (ii)the power of the Supreme Court to review the factual basis of theimposition of martial law or suspension of the writ, and (iii) grantingboth House of Congress the power and duty to support, revoke orextend the exercise of these great presidential powers.
a. Restriction on the powers of the Presidentto declare martial law or to suspend theprivilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
44. Firstly, the 1987 Constitution deleted “imminentdanger” of rebellion and invasion as a ground for the impositionof martial law and the suspension of the writ.
45. The power of the President to call out the armedforces under the same Section 18 Article VII was found by theframers sufficient to respond to a mere imminent danger of rebellionand invasion, but the heavy hand of martial law cannot be employedabsent an actual rebellion or invasion as gleaned from the exchangesof Fr. Joaquin Bernas with his colleagues when the ConstitutionalCommission voted to delete the phrase imminent danger in theConstitution:4
FR. BERNAS. Let me just say that when theCommittee decided to remove that, it was for thereason that the phrase “OR IMMINENT DANGERTHEREOF” could cover a multitude of sins and
4 I, Records, 773-775. July 18, 1986.
12
could be a tremendous amount of irresistibletemptation. And so, to better protect the liberties ofthe people, we preferred to eliminate that. So wesubmit it to the body for a vote.
x x x
MR. CONCEPCION. The elimination of the phrase“IN CASE OF IMMINENT DANGER THEREOF” isdue to the fact that the President may call theArmed Forces to prevent or suppress invasion,rebellion or insurrection. That dispenses with theneed of suspending the privilege of the writ ofhabeas corpus. References have been made to the1935 and 1973 Constitutions. The 1935 Constitutionwas based on the provisions of the Jones Law of1916 and the Philippine Bill of 1902 which grantedthe American Governor General, as representativeof the government of the United States, the right toavail of the suspension of the privilege of the writ ofhabeas corpus or the proclamation of martial law inthe event of imminent danger. And PresidentQuezon, when the 1935 Constitution was in theprocess of being drafted, claimed that he should notbe denied a right given to the American GovernorGeneral…. But he overlooked the fact that underthe Jones Law and the Philippine ill of 1902, wewere colonies of the United States, so the GovernorGeneral was given an authority, on behalf of thesovereign, over the territory under the sovereigntyof the United States… As a matter of fact, the veryconstitution of the United States does not mention“imminent danger.” In lieu of that, there is aprovision on the authority of the President asCommander-in-Chief to call the Armed Forces toprevent or suppress rebellion or invasion andtherefore, “imminent danger” is already includedthere.”
46. By deleting ‘imminent danger’ the 1987Constitution declared that martial law can only be imposed orthe privilege of the writ of habeas corpus suspended if there isan actual rebellion or invasion.
47. The reason for the requirement of existence ofactual rebellion or invasion as a ground to obviate the possibility of
13
the President declaring martial law, and perpetuate himself in power,on the pretext of a danger that may not exist, or may not requiremartial law powers. Under the 1987 Constitution, a President canno longer use imminent danger of rebellion or invasion as a ground todeclare martial law, on the mere claim that communist rebelsambushed the Defense Minister, or on supposed intelligence reportsthat thousands of communists are armed and ready to overthrow thegovernment.
48. The Constitution requires sufficient factual basis ofthe existence of an actual rebellion or invasion before the Presidentcan exercise his or her imposition or suspension powers. 5 Hence:
MR. PADILLA. In my interpellations on Section 15, Inoticed that the phrase “or imminent danger thereof”was deleted or eliminated and the explanation of theCommittee through Commissioner Bernas was thatit contemplates only actual invasion and rebellion.Considering that the power or authority of thePresident as Commander-in-Chief in suspendingthe privilege of the writ of habeas corpus will belimited under the Executive Department to not morethan 60 days with the concurrence of Congress andthen subject to review by the Supreme Court…Commissioner Bernas has said that it can beintroduced and considered either by the Committeeor by the body, so that it will read: “The privilege ofthe writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspendedexcept in cases of invasion or rebellion ORIMMINENT DANGER THEREOF when public safetyrequires it.”
xxx
FR. BERNAS. Let me just say that when theCommittee decided to remove that, it was for thereason that the phrase “OR IMMINENT DANGERTHEREOF” could cover a multitude of sins andcould be a tremendous amount of irresistibletemptation. And so, to better protect the liberties ofthe people, we preferred to eliminate that. So wesubmit it to the body for a vote.
xxx
5 I, Records, 773-775. July 18, 1986.
14
MR. BROCKA: This is in disagreement with whathas been said, particularly to what Commissionerde Castro said; not so much a disagreement, but onthe other hand, the abuse of the phrase “ORIMMINENT DANGER THEREOF” can be done soalso like in the past administration. It would be easyfor a President who wants to remain in power tostage rebellions and bombings and make it appearthat there is an imminent danger.
49. Secondly, the 1987 Constitution also providesthat the mere existence of actual rebellion or invasion does notautomatically justify the imposition of martial law. The Presidentmust also provide sufficient factual basis that public safetyrequires the imposition of martial law or the suspension of theprivilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
50. The 1987 Constitution not only requires thePresident to prove sufficient factual basis for the existence ofrebellion or invasion, but also, that the nature and extent of saidrebellion or invasion is so, that public safety is endangered if martiallaw is not imposed. Government cannot therefore impose martiallaw any time on the mere claim that rebellion by the NationalDemocratic Front and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front exists. Itmust satisfy the public safety element required by the Constitution.
51. In fact, while the Article VII, Sec. 18 of 1987Constitution allows the President to call out the armed forces tosuppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion, the exercise ofmartial law powers and suspension of the privilege of the writ ofhabeas corpus did not include lawless violence as a ground. A mereclaim of lawless violence, therefore, cannot justify martial law. Thepublic safety element must be proved and is only satisfied ifgovernment presents sufficient factual basis to claim the threat topublic safety has escalated to a level or degree that only theimposition of martial law could secure the same.
52. In the gradation of the executive’s powers underArticle VII, Section 18, lawless violence is deemed sufficientlyaddressed by the President’s lesser power to call out the armedforces but not the heavy hand of the President’s martial law andsuspension powers.
53. The Honorable Court recognized the gradation ofpowers and the lesser nature of the calling out powers in the case of
15
Jamar Kulayan vs. Abdulsakur Tan6 when it quoted theConstitutional Commission deliberation in this wise:
“That the power to call upon the armed forces isdiscretionary on the president is clear from thedeliberation of the Constitutional Commission:
FR. BERNAS. It will not make any difference. I mayadd that there is a graduated power of the Presidentas Commander-in-Chief. First, he can call out suchArmed Forces as may be necessary to suppresslawless violence; then he can suspend the privilegeof the writ of habeas corpus, then he can imposemartial law. This is a graduated sequence.
When he judges that it is necessary to imposemartial law or suspend the privilege of the writ ofhabeas corpus, his judgment is subject to review.We are making it subject to review by the SupremeCourt and subject to concurrence by the NationalAssembly. But when he exercises this lesser powerof calling on the Armed Forces, when he says it isnecessary, it is my opinion that his judgment cannotbe reviewed by anybody.
x x x x x x x x x “
54. If claims to lawless violence can be met by thelesser calling out power, the more reason that mere claims of thesame cannot be used in the imposition of that greater power ofmartial law or suspension of the writ, absent a sufficient factual basisthat public safety requires it. Martial law will extinguish certainguaranteed rights and, civil liberties and render the people vulnerableto abuse. It is but proper for the Constitution to stringently regulate itsexercise.
b. The 1987 Constitution also ensured that theSupreme Court can no longer refuse tointervene on the ground that the imposition ofmartial law or the suspension of the privilege ofthe writ is a political question.
6 G.R. No.187298, July 3, 2012.
16
55. The constitutional mandate on the Supreme Courtto determine the factual basis of a martial law declaration is informedby the Philippine experience when the Supreme Court shirked fromits responsibility of determining the validity of the martial law regimeof former President Ferdinand Marcos in 1972. That the SupremeCourt is granted this new power can also be gleaned from theConstitutional Commission deliberation:7
MR. NATIVIDAD.
x x x
And third, the matter of declaring martial law isalready a justiciable question and no longer apolitical one in that it is subject to judicial review atany point in time. So on that basis, I agree thatthere is no need for concurrence as a prerequisiteto declare martial law or to suspend the privilege ofthe writ of habeas corpus…
x x x
MR. PADILLA: It is for the President ascommander-in-chief of the Armed Forces toappraise these reports and be satisfied that thepublic safety demands the suspension of the writ.After all, this can also be raised before the SupremeCourt as in the declaration of martial law because itwill no longer be, as the former Solicitor Generalalways contended, a political issue. It becomes nowa justiciable issue. The Supreme Court may eveninvestigate the factual background in support of thesuspension of the writ or the declaration of martiallaw.
c. The Constitution granted Congress thepower to review in a joint session and, votingjointly, extend, revoke or approve the impositionof martial law or suspension of the privilege ofthe writ of habeas corpus.
56. The Constitution gave Congress this new powerprecisely to ensure that, unlike the lethargic congressional responseto martial law in 1972, the current Congress exercise active oversight
7 II, Records, 470-471, July 30, 1986.
17
to these very powerful presidential weapons. It is, therefore, anabstention on the part of current Congress to refuse to convene andexercise the power, and duty, to review the imposition of martial law.
57. To elucidate on this novel congressional power,we use as an example the recent refusal of Congress to convene andreview the declaration of martial law in Mindanao on the ground thatCongress is not required to convene in a joint session and vote jointlyon the proclamation of martial law, unless they plan to revoke it.
58. This congressional abstention is contrary to theabove provision and the separate resolutions passed by both Housesseparately are a violation not only of the constitutional requirement fora joint session, but also of its provision requiring that the vote beconducted jointly and not separately. This deviation from theconstitutional mandate could in fact lead to a constitutional crisis ifone House votes to approve a presidential declaration of martial law,while the other House votes to revoke it.
59. House Resolution No. 1050, attached hereto asAnnex “D,” and Senate Resolution No. 338 are therefore void anddo not provide legislative imprimatur to Proclamation No. 216 on theground that it violated the constitutional requirement for (i) a jointsession, (2) for an automatic review of the martial law proclamation,(iii) voting jointly, and (iv) to approve or to revoke (and not merely torevoke).
60. This assertion has clear statutory and constitutionalbases.
61. Firstly, the 1987 Constitution requires a jointsession to automatically review the martial law proclamation,and for Congress to vote jointly whether to revoke or approvethe same. This is a checks and balance provision installed toregulate the unilateral power of the President to impose martiallaw or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, to wit:
Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation ofmartial law or the suspension of the privilege of thewrit of habeas corpus, the President shall submit areport in person or in writing to the Congress. TheCongress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least amajority of all its Members in regular or specialsession, may revoke such proclamation orsuspension, which revocation shall not be set asideby the President. Upon the initiative of the President,the Congress may, in the same manner, extendsuch proclamation or suspension for a period to be
18
determined by the Congress, if the invasion orrebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation orsuspension, convene in accordance with its ruleswithout need of a call.8
62. Clearly, the Constitution expressly requires theCongress to convene in a joint session within twenty four hoursfollowing the exercise of the President’s proclamation and suspensionpowers, and for the President to submit his report within forty eighthours of the proclamation and suspension in order for Congress tovote on the same.
63. The invalidity of a each House passing a separateresolution instead of a joint voting are very clear in the deliberationsof the Constitutional Commission to wit: 9
MR. MONSOD. In other words, voting jointly.
FR. BERNAS. Jointly, yes.
xxx
MR. MONSOD. I would prefer to have the vote ofboth Houses because this is a very serious questionthat must be fully discussed. By limiting it alone tothe House of Representatives, then we lose thebenefit of the advice and opinion of the members ofthe Senate. I would prefer that they would be injoint session, but I would agree with FatherBernas that they should not be votingseparately as part of the option. I think theyshould be voting jointly, so that, in effect, theSenators will have only one vote. But at least wehave the benefit of their advice.
xxx
MR.BROCKA: Before we vote on this amendment, Iwant to express my observation. I listened toCommissioner Rodrigo and I could not believe myears when he spoke of his reasons for objecting to
8 Article VII, Section 18 paragraph ___.9 Volume II, Record of the Constitutional Commission Proceedings, 493, 496-501.
19
the proposed amendment of CommissionerMonsod –the humiliation and insult to the Senate.We are talking about a possible situation, adeclaration of martial law, wherein the very basicand fundamental rights of the citizens are involved,and yet he talks about the humiliation of 24 people! Ijust cannot believe it! We do not talk abouthumiliation. Whether martial law is declared for oneday or 60 days, the fact is, when martial law isdeclared the very basic and fundamental humanrights of the citizenry are taken away from them. Itdoes not matter whether it is one day, one hour or60 days. So, I would like to express my agreementto Commissioner Monsod’s amendment becauseyesterday we already took away the condition ofprior concurrence of Congress; and now,Commissioner Monsod agrees that we have toprovide a better safeguard by inserting thisparticular amendment of a joint decision ofCongress.
xxx
64. Secondly, no less than this Honorable Courtdeclared the same in various decisions.
65. In the case of NUPL vs. Gloria Arroyo10 thisHonorable Court declared that the review of the proclamation ofmartial law is “automatic” and said review is not merely to invalidatebut even to validate the proclamation of martial law:
“President Arroyo withdrew her proclamation ofmartial law and suspension of the privilege of thewrit of habeas corpus before the joint houses ofCongress could fulfill their automatic duty toreview and validate or invalidate the same. x xx Clearly, the Constitution calls for quick actionon the part of the Congress.”
66. In the case of Chavez vs JBC,11 this HonorableCourt reiterated that congressional action in joint session has twofunctions—to revoke or to continue, to wit: “Section 18, theproclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the10 G.R. No. 190301 March 20, 2012.11 G.R. No. 202242 July 17, 2012.
20
writ of habeas corpus may be revoked or continued by theCongress x x x.”
67. Thirdly, legislative practice of both Houses ofCongress also showed that the joint session is automatic andnot premised on whether Congress intends to revoke or supportthe declaration.
68. When former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyoissued Proclamation 1959 on December 4, 2009 imposing martial lawin Maguindanao, both Houses of Congress immediately convened injoint session without even first securing any agreement whether torevoke or approve the same. These means that the Joint Sessionwas not premised on the fact that Congress intends to revoke Proc.1959, since many of the House members were supportive of it. Infact, the Joint Resolution to convene the joint session did not statethat the purpose for such joint session is to revoke the proclamation.
69. Additionally, the House refused to tackle JointResolution 52 filed by Bayan Muna and other progressive party listgroups calling for the revocation of the Proclamation 1959.
70. This legislative practice belies the claim of thecurrent Congress that a joint session is only convened if there is anintention to revoke.
71. Clearly, therefore, the argument that both Housesare not constitutionally required to convene a joint session unless itwill revoke the martial proclamation is without basis in theConstitution, jurisprudence and even legislative practice.
ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION
PETITIONERS SEEK THE NULLIFICATION OF PROCLAMATIONNO. 216 DATED MAY 23, 2017 PROCLAIMING A STATE OFMARTIAL LAW AND SUSPENDING THE PRIVILEGE OF THEWRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE ENTIRE MINDANAO, AS ITIS PATENTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR FAILING TO PROVIDESUFFICIENT FACTUAL BASIS ON THE EXISTENCE OFREBELLION IN THE ENTIRE MINDANAO AND THAT PUBLICSAFETY REQUIRES THE IMPOSITION OF MARTIAL LAW ANDSUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEASCORPUS.
21
a. The imposition of Proclamation No. 216 inthe entire Mindanao is unwarranted,unjustifiable, and wholly out of proportion tothe threat posed by the Maute and Abu Sayaffgroups because aside from the violence inMarawi, Respondents failed to prove sufficientfactual basis that rebellion or at the very leastincidents similar to that in Marawi aresimultaneously occurring in the rest of thetwenty seven (27) cities and four hundredtwenty two (422) municipalities of Mindanao, tojustify its imposition in the entire island.
72. To reiterate, Pres. Rodrigo Duterte issuedProclamation No. 216 declaring martial law and suspending theprivilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao on theground of rebellion on the following factual basis:
a. The government promulgated Proclamation No. 55 asa result of the attack by the Maute group in February2016 on a military outpost in Lanao del Sur andanother attack in August 2016 of a Marawi prison tofree their comrades;
b. On May 23, 2017 the Maute Group (i) attacked ahospital in Marawi City; (ii) established checkpoints inthe city; (iii) burned down government and privatefacilities in Marawi inflicting casualties on government;and (iv) started flying the ISIS flag “in several areas.”
73. Based on these premises again, the governmentconcluded that this is “rebellion” because it is an open attempt to“ remove from the allegiance to the Philippine government this part ofMindanao” and deprive the “Chief Executive of his powers andprerogatives to enforce the law of the land” and to “maintain publicorder and safety in Mindanao”.
74. Clearly, the supposed rebellion in “this part ofMindanao” referred to by Proclamation No. 216 relate to theenumerated events of May 23, 2017 in Marawi City.
75. Proclamation No. 216 therefore, by referring toMaute atrocities in Marawi City not only failed to show any factualbasis for the imposition of martial law in the entire Mindanao, buteven failed to allege any act of rebellion outside Marawi City, much
22
less even allege that public safety requires the imposition of martiallaw in the whole of Mindanao.
76. The basis for the declaration of martial law in theentire Mindanao is explained in only one paragraph under Proc. 216:“this recent attacks shows the capability of the Maute group andother rebel groups to sow terror and cause death and damage toproperty not only in Lanao del Sur but in other parts of Mindanao”.
77. Capability to sow terror and cause death does notmake a rebellion.
78. Even if the recent attacks in Marawi City indeedprove the capacity of the Maute and “other rebel groups” to sow terrorand cause death in other parts of Mindanao, such capability does notprovide the factual basis for the existence of rebellion and impositionof martial law in these “other parts of Mindanao”.
79. In fact, Proclamation 216 admission that the actsof of Maute in Marawi constitute rebellion because it seeks to“remove from the allegiance to the Philippine government this part ofMindanao” is fatal. Using the phrase “this part” belies Respondent’sclaim that the acts of rebellion by Maute is taking place in the entireMindanao.
80. This “capability’ of Maute and other rebel groupsdoes not even rise to the level of “imminent danger” which theConstitution has expressly deleted in the Constitution, for fear that itmay be abused as a ground to declare a factually baseless martiallaw. If this Honorable Court cannot allow the imposition of martiallaw on the ground that there is imminent danger of rebellion, the morereason that it cannot allow its imposition on the ground that the rebelsare merely “capable” of committing acts of rebellion.
b. The insertion of the words “other rebelgroups” is dangerously vague andunsubstantiated. Respondents failed to cite whothese other rebel groups are and the activitiesbeing conducted by these amorphous “otherrebel groups” that constitute rebellion.
81. The paragraph stating that “this recent attacksshows the capability of the Maute group and other rebel groups tosow terror and cause death x x x in other parts of Mindanao” is theonly phrase in the entire Proclamation No. 216 that referred toMindanao outside Marawi City. Respondents, finding it hard toexplain why it will impose martial law in other parts of Mindanao since
23
Respondents have publicly admitted that the presence of Maute islimited to Basilan, Sulu and a few other areas, inserted the phrase“other rebel groups”.
82. As to which “other rebel groups” involved in “thisrecent attacks” in Marawi City, and what acts of rebellion they havecommitted in Mindanao the Proclamation No. 216 failed to identify.This is fatal to its claim of sufficient factual basis.
83. Additionally, Respondents failed to even allege thatthese “other rebel groups” are waging a rebellion in the entireMindanao, and that the safety of the public in the entire Mindanaorequires the imposition of martial law in the entire island.
84. This opens the Proclamation to broad interpretation,misinterpretation, and confusion, with incalculable adverseconsequences to lives, limbs and civil liberties of people and has direimplications on the people such as:
i. It raises the level of a kidnap-for-ransom group anda terrorist group such as the Abu Sayyaf and the Maute tothe level of legitimate rebel groups, which are entitled torecognition under municipal and international law. On theother hand, Proclamation No. 216 denigrates legitimaterebel groups such as the National Democratic Front of thePhilippines (NDFP) and Moro Islamic Liberation Front(MILF) to the level of bandits and terrorist groups.
ii. Proclamation No. 216 also endangers the ongoingpeace process between the government and the NDF orthe MILF who may feel alluded to by the vague referenceto “other rebel groups”. The peace process, a veryimportant underetaking for the Filipino people who havelong yearned for a just and lasting peace in the country,cannot be sacrificed in exchange for a baseless, recklessand hot-headed imposition of martial law in the entireMindanao. The peace talks between the NDFP and theGRP has been a casualty of Martial Law when thescheduled Fifth Round of formal talks was canceled lastMay 29 in the Netherlands because of allegations thatMartial Law targeted the NPA.
iii. Proclamation No. 216 also opens up the people toatrocities and human rights violations from state securityforces who considers civilian activists as sympathizers orsupporters of these rebel groups. Violations of human
24
rights have already been reported in the few days that theDuterte martial law was in effect.12 13 14 15 16.
85. There is, therefore, the absence, not justinsufficiency of any factual basis, in Proclamation No. 216 to claimthat acts of rebellion are being waged by these alleged rebel groupsin the entire Mindanao, much less that public safety requires theimposition of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ ofhabeas corpus in the entire Mindanao.
c. Presuming without conceding that the Mauteand ‘other rebel groups’ are committingviolence constituting an actual rebellion in theentire Mindanao, Respondents failed to providesufficient factual basis for the public safetyelement required by the Constitution.Respondents failed to even alleged inProclamation 216 and their other reports thatsuch rebellion has reached an extent that publicsafety requires the imposition of martial law andthe suspension of the privilege of the writ ofhabeas corpus. In fact the reverse is true—human rights, civil liberties and public safetyare threatened with the imposition of martial lawand the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
12 "Abdullah Mamansag, a Moro resident of Brgy. Salat, President Roxas, North Cotabatowas killed due to military aerial bombings, and at least two farmers were illegally arrested inMaragusan, Compostela Valley, in the course of the Armed Forces of the Philippines’ continuingimplementation of counter-insurgency operations and in line with Pres. Duterte’s Proclamation216. This was confirmed by Barangay Salat captain Abdillah Makalang(http://www.karapatan.org/Rights+violations+intensify+in+Mindanao%2C+after+martial+law+declaration);
13 "On May 25, 2017, from 5:30am to 10pm, around 240 elements of the 39th InfantryBattalion-Philippine Army conducted aerial bombings and fired 50 claiber machine guns at theMoro communities in sitios Pedtobawan, Campo, Apulan, and Centro Salat of Brgy. Salat, and insitio Libpas, Brgy. Tuael in President Roxas, North Cotabato and in barangays Tangkulan andAnggaan, Damulog, Bukidnon. These areas are at least 100 kilometers away from Marawi City.105 Howitzer cannons were mounted at Brgy. Kisupaan, Pres. Roxas, North Cotabato. More than1,000 residents (252 families) have fleed their homes.(http://www.karapatan.org/Rights+violations+intensify+in+Mindanao%2C+after+martial+law+declaration)"
14 In Davao, around 260 individuals were illegally arrested when Davao City Policeconducted "Oplan Bulabog". These individuals were arrested just because they failed to showtheir identification cards.
15 In Sultan Kudarat, around 30 women were held and interrogated by the Marines for anhour;
16 Relief operations are also being repressed. Even the Department of Social Welfare andDevelopment would have to arduously secure authorization from the military before it coulddeliver the necessary relief packs to communities.
25
habeas corpus, and will even endanger thepeace process being undertaken by governmentwith the National Democratic Front and the MoroIslamic Liberation Front. Imposing martial lawand curtailing civil and political rights of thosein Mindanao is a “cure” that is worse than thealleged disease.
86. There is no factual basis that lawless violencesimilar to that in Marawi City exists in the entire Mindanao and,furthermore, that public safety requires the imposition of martial law.Even if respondents managed to establish their absurd assertion thatbased on the violence in Marawi City, actual rebellion indeed exists inMindanao, Proclamation No. 216 should fall for the failure ofrespondents to prove sufficient factual basis that public safetyrequires the imposition of martial law and suspension of the writ.
87. Lawless violence may be a ground for the callingout powers of the President, but is not among the grounds for theimposition of martial law and suspension of the writ.
88. Despite similar or much worse incidents of violencethat took place in various parts of the country, such cases ofviolence were not used to justify the imposition of martial law and thesuspension of the writ.
89. To name a few:
(i) Ipil Massacre (April 3-6, 1995) – There were at least53 people who died and 48 others were wounded. Theattack resulted in the killing of the town’s Chief of Police,the displacement of residents, looting of farms, seizure ofcivilians as "human shields" as they fled. Close to abillion pesos were looted from eight (8) commercial banksin Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay by about 200 Abu SayyafGroup members.
(ii) Kauswagan Incident- The initial clash took place onMarch 15, 2000 (with prior MILF attacks). This resulted inthe taking control of nine(9) Army detachments onMarch 15. Government operations lasted until June with94 hostages. Several died in separate raids. The MILFattacked Army detachment in Tagoloan. The rebelsoccupied the Kauswagan Town Hall in Central Mindanao(Kauswagan and adjacent towns). Then, Pres.Estrada
26
issued the directive for the military to “go all out” againstthe MILF. The government pushed through with the 4thround of peace talks with the MILF.
(iii) Sulu Siege (November 2001)- The occupation ofCabatangan and attack of at least five (5) Armydetachments on November 19, 2001 by an estimated1,000 Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) forces andclashes took place from the morning until the afternoon ofthat day. Hostages were taken until November 27, 2001.The hostilities caused 104 fatalities, many of whom werechildren, many were wounded, including civilians.
(iv) North Cotabato (August 2008) The month-longsiege displaced more than 700,000 people, who fled theirvillages to escape the violence.
(v) Lanao del Norte, North Cotabato and SaranganiMILF commander Umbra Kato attacked military outposts,triggered by the aborted signing of the Macapagal-ArroyoAFP clearing operations (ground and air) Governmentdisbanded its peace panel, and war ensued.
(vi) Zamboanga siege (September 9–28, 2013)- Morethan 200 people were killed, at least 10,000 homes weredestroyed, and 117,000 displaced residents inZamboanga City due to an attack by about 500 regularMNLF forces.
90. These incidents do not include the nine coupattempts against former President Cory Aquino who did not see itnecessary to declare martial law even if the fighting raged near thePresidential Palace.
91. While the atrocities committed by the Abu Sayaffand the Maute groups in Marawi City are condemnable, this has notrisen to the lawless violence that requires the imposition of martiallaw. In fact, Respondents have failed to explain what the imposition ofmartial law did to ensure the safety of civilians trapped in the conflict.
92. Even the report of President Rodrigo Duterte toCongress does not add any sufficient factual basis to the necessity ofmartial law to ensure public safety, but on the contrary onlyemphasized the lack of factual basis as revealed by the inaccuracy,exaggeration, or falsity of the alleged events, thus:
27
a. The attack by the Maute Group on the Amai PakpakHospital and hostage taking of its employees (page 3) –The hospital chief himself belied this allegation.17
b. The ambush and burning of the Marawi PoliceStation (page 4) – The Marawi City Mayor MajulGandamra belied this allegation.18
c. The killing of five faculty members of DansalanCollege Foundation (page 3) – Available news reportsonly indicate rescue of 42 teachers who were trappedduring the attack, without mentioning any deaths resultingin this incident.19
d. The attacks on various government facilities in theCity of Marawi (page 4) – Mayor Gandamra clarified thatthere was no takeover or occupation of governmentfacilities or offices.20
93. The failure of the military and the government todestroy bandit and terrorist groups like the ASG and Maute does notrest in the presence or absence of martial law.
94. More importantly, martial law can never solve butwill only exacerbate the root-causes of armed conflict, the system offoreign and feudal exploitation and oppression, including the historicalmarginalization of the Bangsamoro and Lumad, resulting in massivepoverty and social injustice in Mindanao and the Philippines. Onlythoroughgoing socio-economic and political reforms that uplift andempower the poor and oppressed will solve the armed conflicts inMindanao and the nation as a whole.
95. A proclamation of martial law and suspension of theprivilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be made only ‘in case ofinvasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.’ Thus, it
17 See http://www.sunstar.com.ph/cagayan-de-oro/local-news/2017/05/29/hospital-chief-denies-amai-pakpak-taken-over-maute-group-544419; Also athttps://newsinfo.inquirer.net/900299/hospital-in-marawi-not-taken-over-by-maute-medical-center-chief. Last accessed May 30, 2017.18 See http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2017/05/24/marawi-mayor-police-station-city-jail-not-burned.html; Also at http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/05/24/17/bato-maute-did-not-occupy-police-station-in-marawi-city; Also at http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/898833/no-takeover-of-govt-facilities-in-marawi-says-mayor. Last accessed May 30, 2017.
19 See http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/05/25/1703418/marawi-fighting-leaves-21-dead-31-wounded; Also at https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/900380/marawi-death-toll-now-at-97-army.Last accessed May 30, 2017.
20 See http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/898833/no-takeover-of-govt-facilities-in-marawi-says-mayor#ixzz4iR2BlFqV. Last accessed May 30, 2017.
28
depends on two factual bases: first, the existence of invasion orrebellion, and second, the requirements of public safety. Absent anyof said factual bases, it is a violation of the highest constitutionalorder to declare martial law and suspend the privilege of the writ ofhabeas corpus, as these are extraordinary powers of extraordinarynature applicable only in extraordinary situations where restrictions offundamental freedoms may be sanctioned.
96. The fact that these extraordinary powers must beexercised by the President with utmost caution and prudence cannotbe overemphasized. During the period within which the privilege ofthe writ of habeas corpus is suspended, any person arrested may bedetained within a period of three (3) days without even being judiciallycharged.21 Thus, the need for the factual bases not only of theexistence of an actual invasion or rebellion, but also the requirementsof public safety, and not a mere speculation, belief, reports, or barestatements of alleged capability of a bandit or terrorist group is animperative.
97. The safeguards under the 1987 Constitution on thedeclaration of Martial Law are precisely meant to ensure that themartial law is declared only when there is actual rebellion or invasionand when public safety so requires. Unfortunately, the constitutionalsafeguards did NOT prevent the respondents from declaring martiallaw in the entire island of Mindanao based on mere speculationsand/or contrived grounds. In his speech in May 24, 2017, thePresident also threatened to declare martial law in the Visayas on theground that is a mere walking distance from Mindanao. This samestandard may also be used as basis to impose martial in the entirecountry
98. With the obvious disregard by the respondents ofthe constitutional safeguards for the imposition of martial law, and thefailure of both houses of congress to fulfill their constitutionallymandated oversight function to determine the factual bases for theimposition of martial law, the petitioners are now invoking thisHonorable Court's jurisdiction to look into the validity of thedeclaration of martial law in the entire island of Mindanao.
99. In conclusion, Proclamation No. 216 imposingmartial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpusin the entire Mindanao must be declared VOID by this HonorableCourt because it is patently unconstitutional for failing to providesufficient factual basis on the existence of rebellion in the entireMindanao and that public safety requires the imposition of martial lawand suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
21 Article VII, Section 18, 1987 Constitution.
29
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioners mostrespectfully pray of the Honorable Court the following:
1. That this Petition be given due course;
2. That this Petition be consolidated and allow participation inthe oral arguments scheduled on 13 June 2017;
3. That after notice and hearing, a final order is issued:
(a)Declaring Proclamation No. 216 dated May 23, 2017(Moscow) as unconstitutional and void or alternatively,should this Honorable Court find justification for declaringmartial law in Marawi City, that it be declaredunconstitutional and void in so far as it included in thedeclaration the other parts of Mindanao; and
(b)Enjoining respondents from the continued implementationof Proclamation No. 216;
Petitioners likewise pray for such other reliefs as are just andequitable under the circumstances.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 09 June 2017, Quezon Cityfor the City of Manila.
30
NATIONAL UNION OF PEOPLES’ LAWYERS (NUPL)3/F Erythrina Building
No. 1 Matatag cor. Maaralin Sts., Central District, Quezon CityTelefax No. (632) 920 6660Email: [email protected]
By
NERI J. COLMENARESIBP Life Time No. 010437
PTR No. 3951041C- 1/18/17- Quezon CityRoll of Attorneys No. 43060
MCLE Compliance No. Under Process
EDRE U. OLALIAIBP No.1069067-1/19/17-RSM
PTR No. 3951037C- 1/18/17- Quezon CityRoll of Attorneys No. 36971
MCLE Compliance No. V-0019457 - 04/22/2016
JULIAN F. OLIVA, JR.IBP No.1069069-1/19/17- RSM
PTR No. 3951039C- 1/18/17- Quezon CityRoll of Attorneys No. 35870
MCLE Compliance No. V-0019459 – 04/22/2016
EPHRAIM B. CORTEZIBP No. 1069068 - 1/19/17 – Isabela
PTR No. 3951038C - 1/18/17- Quezon CityRoll of Attorneys No. 41366
MCLE Compliance No. V-0019328 - 04/22/2016
MARIA CRISTINA P. YAMBOTPTR NO. 69453999A/ 1-09-17/RizalIBP NO. 106907 -1/1-19-17/ Rizal
Roll of Attorneys No. 59700MCLE Compliance No. V-0016653/04-04-16
31
MANEEKA ASISTOL SARZARoll No. 57897
IBP LR No. 011274-12/17/2012PTR No. 4750577C- 6/8/17
MCLE Compliance No. V-0022570 (1 July 2016)
MINERVA F. LOPEZPTR NO. 3802584/01-03-17/QC
IBP LR NOo. 0011325-01/04/13- PangasinanRoll No. 60637
MCLE Compliance No. V-006666/04-04-16
JOSALEE S. DEINLAIBP No.1069070 -1/19/17- Quezon City
PTR No. 23951040C- 1/18/17- Quezon CityRoll of Attorneys No. 64967
MCLE Compliance No. V-0019343 - 04/22/2016
KATHERINE A. PANGUBANIBP No.1069528 -1/25/17- RSM
PTR No. 4205835- 1/24/17- Quezon CityRoll of Attorneys No. 65486
Admitted to the Bar June 2016
UNION OF PEOPLES’ LAWYERS IN MINDANAO (UPLM)2/F IBP Legal Resource Center, Hall of Justice Compound,
Candelaria St., Ecoland, Davao CityTel. No. (082)284-4461
Email : [email protected]
JOSE V. BEGIL, JR.IBP No. 966769, 12/20/16 (for 2017)
Roll No. 45560, 5/23/01PTR No. 8420491, 6/8/17
MCLE Compliance No. V 0025084, 4/7/17
32
Copy furnished:
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL134 Amorsolo St.,Legaspi Village,Makati City
PRESIDENT RODRIGO ROA DUTERTEMalacañang Palace,Mendiola, Manila, Philippines
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEAMalacañang Palace,Mendiola, Manila, Philippines
GENERAL EDUARDO ANOArmed Forces of the Philippines,Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo,EDSA, Quezon City, Philippines
CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT RONALDO “BATO” DELAPhilippine National PoliceCamp Crame, EDSA corner Boni Serrano Avenue,Quezon City, Philippines
RET. MAJ. GEN. DELFIN LORENZANASecretary, Department of National DefenseRoom 301 DND Building, Camp Emilio Aguinaldo,E. de los Santos Avenue, Quezon City 1110
33
EXPLANATION FOR SERVICE OF PETITIONTHROUGH REGISTERED MAIL
The service of copies of the instant Petition is made throughregistered mail. Pursuant to Rule 13, Section 11 of the Rules of Court,the service of copies of the instant Petition cannot be madepersonally due to distance and lack of available personnel.
EPHRAIM B. CORTEZ
