S:U~H..t1'U~ COURD IJ~Q_fil~EJ,V.!NG/ ·--~"' .. - ,.

:litcurr.n /jy; • I --: ·-~.. 'I •

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT

Manila

EUFEMIA CAMPOS CULLAMAT,

2011 JUN - 9 PH· i,:: 0:6

VIRGILIO T. LINC UNA, 231771 ATELIANA U. HIJOS, ROLAND A . COBRADO, CARL ANTHONY D. OLALO, ROY JIM BALANGHIG, RENATO REYES 5 JR., CR,STINA suPREMRco1.1rn

E. PALABAY, AMARYLLIS H. omcEOFl'r~~~~~OFCOURT ENRIQUEZ, ACT TEACH~RS' RE<..\·::tVED

REPRESENTATIVE ANTONIO L~ JU~ 09 2017 1Atl Tl NI 0, GAB R! ELA WOMEN~ Ssv:_--..J.'-r--:7;,ul.J.---

PARTY REPRESENTATIVETIME: ,;nf ARLENE D. BROSAS, KABATAAN PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE SARAH JAN E I. ELAGO, MAE PANER, GABRIELA KRISTA DA LENA, ANNA ISABELLE ESTE!N, MA.RK VINCENT D. LIM, VENCER MARI CR!SOSTOMO, JOVITA MONTES,

Petitioners

- versus - G.R. No.

PRESIDENT RODRIGO DUTERTE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR MEDIALDEA, DEFENSE SE;CRETARY DELFIN LORENZANA~ ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES CHIEF-OF-STAFF LT. GENERAL EDUARDO ANO, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE DIRECTOR-GENERAL RONALDO DELA ROSA,

Respondents. x ------------------------------------------------· ·------------x

1

;... ,,!

PETITION

PETITIONERS, through the undersigned Counsel, unto the Honorable 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 share And no one dare

Disturb the sound of silence.

Fools said I, you do not know Silence like a cancer grows.~

The hurdles that this Petition faces are not the legal conundrums that make peoples sit down, dialogue, ruminate and thereafter resolve issues. Rather, it is the indifference and apathy to every bad thing that surrounds each one and the overwhelming acceptance of the justifications for what has always been from time immemorial the evil and the wicked. What is worse , there is now avery virtue in the condescension and outright refusal to speak to much less confront the bad things that ought to be addressed.

These are dangerous times indeed when we live in the deafaning silence and choose not to be otherwise. This can 110 longer be the case. Only when we speak do we find liberation.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. This Petitionis anchored on Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which permits the direct and immediate resort to the Supreme Court in the first instance, thus:

"Article VH EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Section 18. xxx.

xxx.

Paul Simon, "The Sound of Silence," Wednesday Mor11ing 3 AM (1966).

2

The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen~ the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial ~aw or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing .' 9

(Emphasis supplied)

2. Petitioners are all suing in their capacity as citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, in accordance with aforesaid provision.

3. Petitioners thus humbly pray that the Honoi-able Court issue a judgment:

a. Declaring Proclamation No. 216 dated May 23, 2017 as unconstitutional and therefore void and without effect; and

b. Prohibiting and en101ning respondents from the continued implementation of Proclamation No. 216 while conducting operations to destroy the kidnap for ransom and 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 rr.artia l law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao as it is patently unconstitutional for failing to provide (i) sufficient factual basis on the existence of rebellion in the entire Mindanao and (ii) sufficient factual basis of its assertion that public safety requires the imposition of martial law and suspensjon of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao.

a. The imposition of Proclamation No. 216 in the entire Mindanao is unwarranted, unjustifiable, and wholly out of proportion to the threat posed by the Maute and Abu Sayaff groups because aside ·from the violence in Marawi, Respondents failed to prove sufficient factua l basis that rebellion or at the very least incidents similar to that in Marawi are simultaneously occurring in

3

the rest of the twenty seven (27) cities and four hundred twenty two (422) municipalities of Mindanao, to justify its imposition in the entire island;

b. The insertion of the words "other rebel groups" is dangerously './ague and unsubstantiated. Respondents failed to cite who these other rebel groups are and the activities being conducted by these amorphous "other rebel groups" that constitute rebellion;

c. Presuming without conceding tl1at there exists actual rebellion in the entire Mindanao, Respondents failed to provide sufficient factual basis that such rebellion has reached an extent that public safety requires the imposition of ma1iial law and the suspension of the privi!ege of the writ of habeas corpus. In fact the reverse is true-human rights, civil liberties and public safety are threatened by the imposition of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Imposing martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao will even endanger the peace process being undertaken by the government with the National Democratic Front of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Imposing martial law and curtailing civil and political rights of people in Mindanao is a "cure" that is worse than the alleged disease.

5. Based on these premises, Petitioners pray that Proclamation No. 216 which imposed martial law and suspended the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao be strucked down for want of a sufficient factual basis.

6. Furthermore, the Petitioners pray that this Petition be consolidated with the petitions previously filed by other groups and that they be allowed to participate in the oral arguments set on 13 June 2017.

4

T

PARTIES

THE PETITIONERS

7. Petitioners herein are suing in their capacities as citizens of the Repub'lic of the Philippines in accordance with Section 18, Article VI I of the 1987 Constitution.

8. The following Petitioners are all residents from the Mindanao region:

a. EUFEMIA CAMPOS CULLAMAT, is aFilipino, of legal age, and a Lumad residing in Han-Ayan Diatagon, Surigao del Sur. She is a council member of Ma/uhutayong Pakigbisog Alang Sumusunod (MAPASU) or Continuing Struggle for the Next Generation .;

b. V~RGILIO T. LI NCUNA. is a Filipino, of !egal age and a resident of P3 Osmena, Brgy. Banza, Butuan City. He is the Secretary-General of Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas-CARAGA Region.

c. ATELIANA U. HIJOS, is a Filipino, of lega~ age, residing at 4tti St., Guingona Subdivision, Brgy. JP Rizal, Butuan City. She is the Chairperson of GABRIELA­CARAGA Region.

d. ROLAND A. COBRADO, is a Filipino, of legal age and a res!dent of Prk. 8 Brgy. San Miguei , Compostela, Compostela Valley.

e. CARL ANTHONY D. OLALO, is a Filipino, of !egal age, and a resident of 99 JP Cabaguio Avenue, Agdao, Davao City. He is the Secretary-General of NAFLU-KMU Southern Mindanao Region based in Davao City;

5

f. ROY JIM M. BALANGHIG, is a Filipino, of legal age, and a resident of Prk. 11, Brgy San Miguel Compostela, Compostela Valley Province. He is one of those who took part in the workers' strike at Shin Sun Tropical Fruits Inc. whose picket line was broken by the PNP iast June 2, 2.017

9. RENATO REYES, JR., is a Filipino 1 of legal age, is the Secretary-General of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAY AN).

10. CRISTINA E. PALABAY, is a Filipino, of legal age, is the Secretary-General of KARAPATAN.

11. AMARYLUS H. ENRIQUEZ is a Filipino, of legal age, is a victim of human rights violations during the Marcos martia! law reg ime, She is the Chairperson of SELDA and convenor of CARMMA (Campaign Against the Return of the Marcoses to Malacanang).

12. REPRESENTATIVE ANTONIO L. TINIO, is a Filipino, of legal age, wlth office address at Room 511 South Building , House of Representatives, Batasan Hills Quezon City. He is the Representative of ACT TEACHERS PARTYLIST in the 17th Congress ..

13. REPRESENTATIVE ARLENE. D. BROSAS, is Filipino, of legal age, with address at Room 604 South Building, House of Representatives, Batasan Hills Quezon City She is the Representative of GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY in the 17th Congress.

14. RERPRESENTATIVE SARAH JANE L ELAGO, is a Filipino, of legal age, with office address at Room 616 North Building , House of Representatives, Batasan Hills Quezon City. She is the Representative of KABATAAN PARTYLIST i;i the 17th Congress.

15. MA~ PANER, is Filipino, of legal age, is a performing artist.

·16. GABRIELA KRISTA DALENA> is a Filipino, of legal age, is a film-maker and visual artist. She is a member of Respond and Break The Silence Aga~nst The Killings (RESBAK) and the Network of Artists and Cultural Organizations.

6

17. ANNA ISABELLE ESTEIN, is a Filipino, of legal age, is a member of the Steering Committee of Respond and Break The 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 OF THE PHILIPPINES.

19. VENCER MARI CRISOSTOMO, is a Filipino, of legal age, is the National Chairperson of ANAKBAYAN.

20. JOVITA MONTES, is a Filipino , of lega l age, with address at #34 Set. Delgado, Brgy. Laging Handa, Quezon City. She is the Deputy Secretary-General of GABRI ELA National Alliance of Women .

21. Peti'tioner may be served with this Honorable Court's processes at the address of the undersigned Counsel.

THE RESPONDENTS

22. PRESIDENT RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE is the President of the Philippines. He issued Proclamation No. 216 on May 23, 2017. His office address is at the Office of t.he President, Malacanang Palace, Mendiola, Manila.

23. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA is tasked with overseeing the issuance cf Proclamation No. 216 under the authority of P1·esident Rodrigo Duterte. His office address is at Malacanang Palace, Mendiola, Manila.

24. GENERAL EDUARDO ANO is the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines tasked to implement Proclamation No. 216. His office address is at the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo , EDSA, Quezon City.

25. Chief Superintendent RONALDO "SATO" DELA ROSA is the Director General of the Philippine National Police tasked to implement Proclamation No. 216. His office address is at the Philippine National Police, Camp Crame, EDSA corner Boni Serrano Avenue, Quezon City.

26. ONO Secretary DELFIN LORENZANA is the Secretary of National Defense also tasked to implement Proclamation No. 216. His office address is at the Office of the Secretary, Department of National Defense, Segundo Ave ., Camp Genera! Emilio Aguinaldo , Quezon City, 1110.

7

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

27. On May 23, 20'17, Palace spokesman Ernesto Abella conducted a press conference in Moscow announcing the declaration of martial law in Mindanao claiming that the fighting has erupted in Marawi City when, the state security forces attempted "to serve a warrant of arrest on lsnilon Hapilon" in Barangay Basak, Marawi City.

28. According to the Philippine News Agency, Hapilon is one of the top leaders of the Abu Sayyaf and is charged with "kidnapping for ransom and serious illegal detention". 2

29. Hapllon was also charged in the United States for the 2000 Abu Sayyaf raid in Dos Palmas Resort for the kidnapping of seventeen (17) Filipinos and three (3) Americans. One of the Americans who reportedly did not pay ransorn to the Abu Sayyaf, Guillermo Sobero, was later beheaded.

30. During that same press conference Lorenzana admitted further that government forces were surprised that Hapilon had armed followers who resisted the serving of the warrant on Hapilon, stating that "x x x Medyo nabigla lang s:la doon because they were expecting to arrest Mr. lsn ilon. They didn't know that he was backed up by more or less about 100 armed fighters. x x x."

31. Lorenzana, while refusing to admit lapse in intelligence, admitted that there was a mistake in the 'appreciation of the intelligence' saying "x x x Baka hind/ nila ... Aka/a nila eh kayang-kaya but you know, it's just ... There's intelligence there. It's just the appreciation of what intelligence means that medyo nagkamali sila."

32. When asked by the media why Martial Law was declared for the entire Mindanao, Lorenzana replied that it was required to "solve all the problems" of Mindanao including the alleged "extortion by the NPA in Region XI". Such pronouncement shows that the declaration of Martial law covers not only Marawi but the entire .Mindanao and concomitantly, could be used against any other group 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

8

33. Pres. Rodrigo Duterte announced on May 24, 2017 the issuance of Proclamation No. 2~ 6 declaring martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao on the ground of rebellion alleging the followin·g factual basis:

a. that the government issued Proclamation No. 55 as a result of the attack of a military outpost by the Maute Group in February 2016 in Lanao del Sur and another attack on a Marawi prison in August 2016 to free their comrades.

b. That on May 23, 2017, the Maute group:

i. attacked a hospital in Marawi City; ii. established checkpoints; iii. burned down government and private 'facilities inflicting casualties on government; and iv. started flying the ISIS flag "in several areas."

34. Based on these premises, the government concluded that this is "rebellion" because it is an open attempt to "remove from the allegiance to the Philippine government this part of Mindanao." (underscoring of "this part" supplied) The government further claimed that the aforementioned acts deprived the "Chief Executive of his powers and prerogatives to enforce the law of the land' and to "maintain public order and safety in Mindanao".

35. The basis for the declaration of martial law in the entire Mindanao was strangely explained in only o:ie paragraph under Proclamation No. 216, which states that "this recent attacks shows the capability of the Maute group and other rebel groups to sow terror and cause death and damage to property not only in Lanao def Sur but in other parts of Mindanao".

36. Attached hereto · as Annex "A" is Memorandum Circular No. 030 dated 26 May 2017 i$sued by DOJ Secreta1-y Vitaliano N. Aguirre II containing the certified true copy of Proclamation 216.

37. Petitioners herein have already requested from the Office of the House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez for certified true

9

copies of Proclamation 216, the President's Report on Proclamation 216 submitted on May 25, 2017 through Hon . France L. Castro. The said request which was made through a formal letter, attached hereto as Annex "B," has yet to be acted upon. Petitioners manifest that they will furni sh the Honorable Court of the said certified true copies once they have procured the same.

38. Petitioners Representatives Tinio, Brosas and Elago, with the other Makabayan Representatives, filed on May 30, 2017 the House Joint Resolution No. 13, Joint Resolution To Convene Both Houses of Congress in Joint Session For the Revocation of Proclamation No. 216, Series of 2017 (Declaring a state of martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao} in Accordance with Art. VII, Sec. 18 of the 1987 Constitution.

39. Both Houses of Congress subsequently passed their separate respective resolutions expressing support for the imposition of Martial Law in Mindanao. The leaders of both Houses argued that there is no need to convene a joint session since the act-ion of both Houses supported the imposition. They claimed that both Houses will hold a joint session only in instances where they will revoke the imposition of martial law.

40. Meanwhile the military operations in Marawi City continued with the AF.P resulting in the following casualties:

a. 20,049 families or 100,530 persons are affected by the armed confHct in Marawi. b. 25 evacuation centers are open with 3,026 families or 14,229 persons. c. 17,023 families or 86,301 persons are staying outside evacuation centers with relatives or friends in Region X (4, 759 or 24,981 persons) and ARMM (12,264 fa.mines or 61,320 persons). 3

41. Based on the report released by human rights organization KARAP'ATAN, attached hereto as Annex "C," the declaration of martial law under Proclamation No. 216 aggravated the human rights situation in Mindanao.

3 DSWD DROMIC Report #19 Armed Conflict in Marawi City cis of '.2 June 2017, 6AM.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATION OF THIS PETITION :

A Prei!minary Discussion

42. The 1987 Constitution, both in spi1it and its express provisions substantially regulated the presidential exercise of martial law powers and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas cor"pus to avoid a recurrence of the legislative and judicial ir.action to check the imposition of martial lc:iw and defend the people from tha abuses of the martial law government under then President Ferdinand Marcos.

43. Among the nave! prov1s1ons provided in the 1987 Constitution to regulate the powers of the President to declare martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus relate to the (i) Restriction on the powers of the president to declare martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, (ii) the power of the Supreme Court to review the factual basis of the imposition of martial law or suspension of the writ , and (iii) granting both House of Congress the power and duty to support, revoke or extend the exercise of these great presidential powers.

a. Restriction on the powers of the President to declare martial Jaw or to suspend i"he privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

44. Firstly, the 1987 Const itution deleted "imminent danger" of rebellion and invasion as a ground for the imposition of martial law and the suspension of the writ.

45. The power of the President to call out the armed forces under the same Section 18 Article VI I was found by the framers sufficient to respond to a mere imminent danger of rebellion and invasion , but the heavy hand of martial law cannot be employed absent an actual rebellion or invasion as gleaned from the exchanges of Fr. Joaquin Bernas with his colleagues when the Constitutional Commission voted to delete the phrase imminent danger in the Constitution :4

FR. BERNAS. Let me just say that when the Committee decided to remove that, it was for the reason that the phrase "OR IMMINENT DANGER THEREOF" could cover a multitude of sins and

I, Records, 773-775. July 18, 1986.

11

could be a tremendous amount of irresistible temptation. And so, to better protect the liberties of the people, we preferred to eliminate that. So we submit it to the body for a vote.

xxx

MR. CONCEPCION. The elimination of the phrase "IN CASE OF IMMINENT DANGER THEREOF" is due to the fact that the President may call the Armed Forces to prevent or suppress invasion, rebellion or insurrection. That dispenses with ihe need of suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas cotpus. References have been made to the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. The 1935 Constitution was based en the provisions of the Jones Law of 1916 and the Philippine Bill of 1902 which granted the American Governor General, as representative of the government of the United States, the right to avail of the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the proclamation of martial law in the event of imminent danger. And President Quezon, when the 1935 Constitution was jn the process of being drafted, claimed that he should not be denied a right given to the American Governor General.... But he overlooked the fact [hat under the Jones Law and the Philippine ill of 1902, we were colonies of the United States, so the Governor General was given an authority, on behalf of the sovereign, over the territory under the sovereignty of the United States . .. As a matter of fact, the very constitution of the United States does not mention "imminent danger." In lieu of that, there is a provision on the authority of the President as Commander-in-Chief to call the Armed Forces to prevent or suppress rebellion or invasion and therefore, "imminent danger' is already included there."

46. By deleting 'imminent dangef the 1987 Constitution declared that martial law can on!y be imposed or the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus suspended if there is an actual rebellion or invasion.

47. The reason for the requirement of existence of actual rebeHion or invasion as a ground to obviate the possibility of

12

the President declaring m::lrtial law, and perpetuate himself In power, on the pretext of a danger that may not exist, or may not require martial law powers. · Under the 1987 Constitution, a President can no longer use imminent danger of rebellion or invasion as a ground to declare martial law, on the mere claim that communist rebels ambushed the Defense Minister, or on supposed intelligence reports that thousands of communists are armed and ready to overthrow the government.

48. The Constitution requires sufficient factual basis of the existence of an actual rebellion or invasion before the President can exercise his or her imposition or suspension powers. 5 Hence:

MR. PADILLA. Jn my interpellations on Section 15, I noticed that the phrase "or imminent danger thereof" was deleted or eliminated and the explanation of the Committee through Commissioner Bernas was that it contemplates only actual invasion and rebellion. Considering that the power or authority of the President as Commander-in-Chief in suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus will be limited under the Executive Department to not more than 60 days with the concurrence of Congress and then subject to review by the Supreme Court .. . Commissioner Bernas has said that it can be introduced and considered either by the Committee or by the body, so that it will read: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion OR IMMINENT DANGER THEREOF when public safety requires lt."

xxx

FR. BERNAS. Let me just say that when the Committee decided to remove that, it was for the reason that the phrase "OR IMMINENT DANGER THEREOF" could cover a multitude of sins and could be a tremendous amount of irresistible temptation. And so, to better protect the liberties of the people, we preferred to eliminate that. So we submit it to the body for a vote.

xxx

I. Records, 773-775. July 18, 1986.

13

MR. BROCKA: This is in disagreement with what has been said, particularly to what Commissioner de Castro said; not so much a disagreement, but on the other hand, the abuse of the phrase "OR IM~./l/NENT DANGER T/-1EREOF" can be done so a/so like in the past administration. It would be easy for a President who wants to remain f n power to stage rebellions and bombings and make it appear that there is an imminent danger.

49. Secondly, the 1987 Constitution aJso provides that the mere existence of actual rebellion or anvasion does not automatically justify the imposition of martial law. The President must also provide sufficient factual basis that public safety requires the imposition o·f martial law or the suspension of the priv ilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

50. The 1987 Constitution not only requires the President to prove sufficient factual basis for the existence of rebellion or invasion, but also, that the nature and extent of said rebellion or invasion is so, that public safety is endangered jf martial law is not imposed. Government cannot therefore impose martial law any time on the mere claim that rebellion by the National Democratic Front and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front exists. It must satisfy the public safety element required by the Constitution ..

51. In fact, while the Article VII, Sec. 18 of 1987 Constitution allows t.he President to call out the armed forces to suppress lawless violence, invas~on or rebellion, the exercise of martial law powers and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus did not include lawless violence as a ground. A mere claim of lawless violence, therefore, cannot justify martial law. The public safety element must be proved and is only satisfied if government presents sufficient factual basis to claim the threat to public safety has escalated to a level or degree that only the imposition of martial law could secure the same.

52. In the gradation of the executive's powers under Article VI I, Section 18, lawless violence is deemed sufficiently addressed by the President's lesser power to call out the armed forces but not the heavy hand of the President's martial law and suspension powers.

53. The Honorable Court recognized the gradation of powers and the lesser nature of the calling out powers in the case of

14

Jamar Ku~ayan vs. Abdulsakur Tan6 when it quoted the Constitut ional Commission deliberation in this wise:

"That the · power to call upon the armed forces is discretionary on the president is clear from the deliberation of the Constitutional Commission:

FR. BERNAS. It will not make any difference. I may add that there is a graduated power of the President as Comm·ander-in-Chief First, he can calf out such Armed Forces as may be necessary to suppress lawless violence; then he can suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, then he can impose martial law. This is a graduated sequence.

When he judges that it is necessary to impose martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, his judgment is subject to review. We are making it subject to review by the Supreme Court and subject to concurrence by the National Assembly. But when he exercises this lesser power of calling 'on the Armed Forces, when he says /t is necessary, it is my opinion that his judgment cannot be reviewed by anybody.

xxx xxx xx x ·'

54. If claims to lawless violence can be met by the lesser calling out power, the more reason that mere claims of the same cannot be used in the imposition of that greater power of martia! law or suspension of the writ, absent a sufficient factual basis that public safety requires it. Martial law will extinguish certain guaranteed rights and, civil liberties and render the people vulnerable to abuse. It is but proper for the Constitution to stringently regulate its exercise.

b. The 1987 Constitution also ensured that the Supreme Court can no longer refuse to intervene on the ground that the imposition of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ is a political question.

6 G.R. No.187298, July 3, 2012.

15

55. The constitutjonal mandate on the Supreme Court. to determine the factual basis of a martial law declaration is informed by the Philippine experience when the Supreme Court shirked from its responsibility of determining the validity of the martial law regime of former President F'erdinand Marcos in 1972. That the Supreme Court is granted this new power can also be gleaned from the Constitutional Commission deliberation:7

MR. NA TIVIOAO.

xxx

And third, the matter of declaring martial law is already a justiciable question and no lcnger a political one in that it is subject to judicial review at any point in time. So on that basis, I agree that there is no need for concurrence as a prerequisite to declare martial f aw or to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus ...

xxx

MR. PADILLA: It 1s for the President as commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces to appraise these reports and be satisfied that the public safety demands the suspension of the writ. After all, this can also be raised before the Supreme Court as in the declaration of martial Jaw because it will no longer be, as the former Solicitor General always contended, a political issue. It becomes now a justiciable issue. The Supreme Court may even investigate the factual background in support of the suspension of the writ or the declaration of martial law.

c. The Constitution granted Congress the power to review in · a joint session and, voting jointly, extend, revoke or approve the imposition of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

56. The: Constitution gave Congress this new power precisely to ensure that, unlike the lethargic congressional response to martial law in 1972, the current Congress exercise active oversight

I!, Records, 470-471, July 30, 1986.

16

to these very powerful presidential weapons. It is, therefore, an abstention on the part of current Congress to refuse to convene and exercise 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 refusa l of Congress to convene and review the declaration of martial law in Mindanao on the ground that Congress is not required to convene in a joint session and vote jointly on the proclamation of martial law, unless they plan to revoke it.

58. This congressional abstention is contrary to the above provision and the separate resolutions passed by both Houses separately are a violation not only of the constitutional requirement for a joint session, but also of its provision req uiring that the vote be conducted jointly and not separately. This deviation from the constitutional mandate could in fact lead to a constitutional crisis if one House votes to approve a presidential declarat ion of martial law, while the other House votes to revoke it.

59. House Resolution No. 1050, attached hereto as Annex "D," and Senate Resolution No. 338 are therefore void ana do not provide legislative imprimatur to Proclamation No. 216 on the ground that it violated the constitutional requirement for (i) a joint session, (2 ) for an automatic review of the martial law proclamation, (iii) voting jointly, and (iv) to approve or to revoke (and not merely to revoke) .

60. This assertion has clear statutory and constitutional bases.

61. Firstly, the 1987 Constitution requires a joint session to automatically review the martial law proclamation, and for Congress to vote jointly whether to revoke or approve the same. This is a checks and ba;ance provision installed to regulate the unilateral power of the President to impose martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, to wit:

Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, , may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be

17

determined by the Congress; if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.

The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty­four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call. 8

62. Clearly, the Constitution expressly requires the Congress to convene in a joint session within twenty four hours following the exercise of the President's proclamation and suspension powers, and for the President tc submit his report within forty eight hours of the proclam.ation and suspension in order for Congress to vote on the same.

63. The invalidity of a each House passing a separate resolution instead of a joint voting are very clear in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission to wit: 9

8

9

MR. MONSOD. In other words, voting jointly.

FR. BERNAS. Jointly, yes.

xxx

MR. MONSOO. I would prefer to have the vote of both Houses because this is a very serjous question that must be fully discussed. By limiting it alone to the House of Representatives, then we lose the benefit of,the advice and opinion of the members of the Senate. I would prefer that thev would be in joint session, but I would agree with Father Bernas that· thev should not b_e . voting separately as part of the option. I think thqy should be voting jointlv. so that. in effect, the Senators will have only one vote. But at least we have the benefit of their advice.

xxx

MR.BROCKA: Before we vote on this amendment, I want to express my obse1Vation. I listened to Commissioner Rodrigo and I could not believe my ears when he spoke of his reasons for objecting to

Article VII, Section ·1 a paragraph _. Volume II, Record of the Constitutional Commission Proceed!ngs, 493, 496-501 .

18

the proposed amendment of Commissioner Monsod -the humiliation and· insult to the Senate. We are · talking about a possible situation, a declaration of martial law, wherein the very basic and fundamental rights of the citizens are involved, and yet he talks about the humiliation of 24 people! I just cannot believe it! VVe do not talk about humiliation. Whether martial law is declared for one day or 60 days, the fact is, when martial law is declared the very basic and fundamental human rights of the citizenry are taken away from them. It does not matter whether it is one day, one hour or 60 days. So, I would like to express my agreement i~O Comm'issioner Monsoo''s amendment because yesterday we already took away the condition of prior concurrence of Congress; and now, Commissioner Monsod agrees that we have to provide a better safeguard by inserting this particular amendment of a joint decision of Congress ..

xxx

64. Secondly, no less than this Honorable Court declared the same in various decis ions.

65. In the case of NUPL vs. Gioria Arroyo10 this Honorable Court declared that the review of the proclamation of martial lavv is "automatic" and said review is not me1·ely to invalidate but even to validate the proclamation of martial law:

"President Arroyo withdrew her proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus before the joint houses of Congress could fu lfill their automatic duty to review and validate or invalidate the same. x x x Clearly, the Constitution calls for quick action on the part of the Congress."

66. In the case of Chavez vs JBC,11 this Honorable Court reiterated that congressional action in joint session has two functions-to revoke or to continue, to wit: "Section 18, the proclamation of mart!al law or the suspension of the privilege of the

10

11 G.R. No. 190301 March 20, 2012. G.R. No. 202242 .July 17, 2012.

19

writ of habeas corpus may be revoked or continued by the Congress x xx."

67. Thirdly, legislative practice of both Houses of Congress also showed that the joint session is automatic and not premised on whether Congress intends to revoke or support the declaration.

68. When former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Proclamation 1959 on December 4, 2009 imposing martial law in Maguindanao, both Houses of Congress immediately convened in joint session without even first securing any agreement whether to revoke or approve the same. These means that the Joint Session was not premised on the fact that Congress intends to revoke Proc. 1959, since many of the House members were supportive of it. In fact, the Joint Resolution to convene the joint session did not state that the purpose for such joint session is to revoke the proclamation.

69 . Additiona lly, the House refused to tackle Joint Resolution 52 filed by Bayan Muna and other progressive party list groups calling for the revocation of the Proclamation 1959.

70. This legislative practice belies the claim of the current Congress that a joint session is only convened if there is an intention to revoke.

71 . Clearly, therefore, the argument that both Houses are not constitutionally required to convene a joint session unless it will revoke the martial proclamation is without basis in the Constitution, jurisprudence and even legislative practice.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION

PETITIONERS SEEK THE NULLIFICATION OF PROCLAMATION NO. 216 DATED MAY 23, 2017 PROCLAIMING A STATE OF MARTIAL LAW AND SUSPENDING THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE ENTIRE MINDANAO, AS IT IS PATENTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR FAILING TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT FACTUAL BASIS ON THE EXISTENCE OF REBELLION IN TH.E ENTIRE MINDANAO AND THAT PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES THE IMPOSITION OF MARTIAL LAW AND SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.

20

a. The imposition of Proclamation No. 216 in the entire Mindanao is unwarranted, unjusti fiable, and wholly out of proporiion to the threat posed hy i'he Maute and Abu Sayaff groups because aside from the violence in Marawi, Respondents failed to prove sufficient factual basis that rebe/lion or at the very least incidents similar to that in Marawi are simultaneously occurring in the rest of the twenty seven (27) cities and four hundred twenty two (422) municipalities of Mjndanao, to justify its imposition in the entire island.

72. To reiterate, Pres. Rodrigo Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216 declaring martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao on the ground of rebellion on the following factual basis:

a. The government promulgated Proclamation No. 55 as a result of the attack by the Maute group in February 2016 on a military outpost in Lanao del Sur and another attack in August 2016 of a Marawi prison to free their comrades;

b. On May 23, 2017 the Maute Group (i) attacked a hospital in Marawi City; (ii) established checkpoints in the city; (iii) burned down government and private facilities in Marawi inflicting casualties on government; and (iv) started flying the ISIS flag "in several areas."

73. Based on these premises again, the government concluded that this is "rebellion" because it is an open attempt to " remove from the allegiance to the Philippine government this part of Mindanao" and deprive the "Chief Executive of his powers and prerogatives to enforce the law of the land' and to "maintain public order and safety in Mindanao".

74. Clearly, the supposed rebellion in "this part of Mindanao" referred to by Proclamation No. 216 relate to the enumerated events of May 23, 2017 in Marawi City.

15. Proclamation No. 216 therefore, by referring to Maute atrocities in Marawi City not only failed to show any factual basis for the imposition of martial law in the entire Mindanao, but even failed to allege any act of rebellion outside Marawi City, much

2 1

less even allege that public safety requires the imposition of martial law in the whole of Mindanao.

76. The basis for the declaration of martial law in the entire Mindanao !s explained in only one paragraph under Proc. 216: "this recent attacks shows the capability of the Maute group and other rebel groups to sow terror and cause death and damage to property not only in Lanao def Sur but in other parts of Mindanao".

77. Capability to sow terror and cause death does not make a rebellion.

78. Even if the recent attacks in Mara'Ni City indeed prove the capacity of the Maute and "other rebel groups" to sow terror and cause death in other parts of Mindanao, such capability does not provide the factual basis for the existence of rebellion and imposition of martial law in these. "other parts of Mindanao".

79. In fact, Proclamation 216 admission that the acts of of Maute in M21rawi constitute rebellion because it seeks to "remove from the allegiance to the Philippine government this part of Mindanao" is fatal. Using the phrase "this part" belies Respondent's claim that the acts of rebellion by Maute is taking place in the entire Mindanao.

80. This "capability' of Maute and other rebel groups does not even rise to the level of "imminent danger" which the Constitution has expressly deleted in the Constitution, for fear that it may be abused as a ground to declare a factually baseless martial law. If this Honorable Court cannot allow the imposition of martial law on the ground that there is imminent danger of rebellion, the more reason that it cannot allow its imposition on the ground that the rebels are merely "capable" of committing acts of rebellion .

b. The insertion of the words "other rebel groups" is dangerously vague and unsubstantiated. Respondents failed to cite who these other rebel groups are and the activities being conducted by these amorp hous "other rebel groups" that constitute rebellion.

81. The paragraph stating that "this recent attacks shows the capability of the Maute group and other rebel groups to sow terror and cause death x x x in other parts of Mindanao" is the only phrase in the entire Proclamation No. 216 that referred to Mindanao outside Marawi City. Respondents, finding it hard to explain why it will impose martial law in other parts of Mindanao since

22

Respondents have publicly admitted that the presence of Maute is limited to Basilan , Sulu and a few other areas, inserted the phrase "other rebel groups".

82. As to which "other rebel groups,, involved in "this recent attacks" in Marawi City, and what acts of rebellion they have committed 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 that these "other rebel groups" are waging a rebellion in the entire Mindanao, and that the safety of the public in the entire Mindanao requires the imposition of martial law in the entire island .

84. This opens the Proclamation to broad interpretation, misinterpretation , and confusion, with incalculable adverse consequences to iives, limbs and civil liberties of people and has dire implications on the people such as:

L It raises the level of a kidnap-for-ransom group and a terrorist group such as the Abu Sayyaf ar.d the Maute to the level of legitimate rebel groups, which are entitled to recognition under municipal and international law. On the other hand, Proclamation No. 216 denigrates legitimate rebel groups such as the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) to the level of bandits and terrorist groups.

ii. Proclamation No. 216 also endangers the ongoing peace process between the government and the NDF or the MILF who may feel alluded to by the vague reference to "other rebel groups". The peace process, a very important underetaking for the Filipino people who have long yearned for a just and lasting peace in the country, cannot be sacrificed in exchange for a baseless, reckless and hot-headed imposition of martial law in the entire Mindanao. The peace talks between the NDFP and the GRP has been a casualty of Martial Law when the scheduled Fifth Round of formal talks was canceled last May 29 in the Netherlands because of allegations that Martial Law targeted the NPA.

ui. Proclamation No. 216 also opens up the people to atrocities and human rights violations from state security forces who considers civilian activists as sympathizers or supporters of these rebel groups. Violations of human

23

rights have already been reported in the few days that the Duterte martial law was i:i effect.12 13 14 15 16.

85. There is, therefore, the absence, not just insufficiency of any factual basis, in Proclamation No. 216 to claim that acts of rebellion ·are being waged by these alleged rebel groups in the entire Mindanao, much less that public safety requires the imposition of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao.

c. Presuming without conceding that the Maute and 'other rebel groups' are committing violence constituting an actual rebellion in the entire Mindanao, Respondents failed to provide sufficient factual basis for the public safety element required by the Constitution. Respondents failed to even alleged in Proclamation 216 and their other reports that such rebellion has reached an extent that public safety requires the imposition of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. In fact the reverse is true-­human rights, civil liberties and public safety are threatened with the imposltion of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of

12 "Abdullah Mamansag, a Moro resident of Brgy. Salat, President Roxas, North Cotabato was killed due to military aerial bombings, and at least two farmers were illegally arrested in Maragusan, Compostola Valley, In the course of the Armed Forces of the Philli:>plnes' continuing implementation of counter-insurgency operations and In line with Pres. Duterte's Proclamation 216. This was confirmed by Barangay Salat captain Abdillah Makalang (http://wv11w.l~arapatan.orc/Riahts+vioiatio;11s+intensifv·1-ln+Mindanao :-.,2S-:t-<:1ttcr+martia·1+:aw+decJ 2.@~¥0~) ;

13 "On Mc;y 25, 2017, from 5:30am to 10pm, around 240 elements of the 39th Infantry Battalion-Philippine Army conducted aerial bombings and fired 50 claiber machine guns at the Moro communities in sitios Padtobawan, Campo, Apulan , and Centro Salat of Brgy. Salat, and in sitio Libpas, Brgy. Tuael in President Roxas, North Cotabato and in barangays Tangkulan and Anggaan, 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 than 1,000 residents (252 families) ·have fleed their homes. 0)tto ://w~·.tw . karat:atan.ora!Riahts+v1o!ations .... in!:enslfv+ii!.;.Mindana-o'ZC2C+after• martial+!a:....:;·+ de-.:l ~?.J.9.!!.(;~'J ) 11

14 In Davao, around 260 individuals were illegally arrested when Davao City Police conducted "Oplan Bulabog". These individuals were arrested just because they tailed to show their identification cards.

15

hour; In Sultan Kudarat, around 30 women were held and interrogated by the Marines for an

16 Relief operations are also being repressed . Even the Department of Social Welfare and Development would have to arduously secure authorization from the military before it could deliver the necessary relief packs to communities.

24

habeas corpus, and will even endanger the peace process being undertaken by government with the National Democratic Front and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Imposing martial law and curtailing civil and political rights of those in Mindanao is a "cure" that is worse than the alleged disease.

86. There is no factual basis that lawless violence similar 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 that based on the violence in Marawi City, actual rebellion indeed exists in Mindanao, Proclamation No. 216 should fall for the failure c-f respondents to prove sufficient factual basis that public safety requires the imposition of martial law and suspension of the writ.

87. Lawless violence may be a ground for the calling out powers of the President, but is not among the grounds for the imposition of martial law and suspension of the writ.

88. Despite similar or much worse incidents of violence that took place in various parts of the country, such cases of violence were not used to justify the imposition of martial law and the suspension of the writ.

89. To name a few:

(i) lpil Massacre (April 3-6, 1995) - There were at least 53 people who died and 48 others were wounded. The attack resulted in the ki lling of the town's Chief of Police, the displacement of residents, looting of farms, seizure of civilians as "human shields" as they fled. Close to a billion pesos were !ooted from eight (8) commercial banks in lpil, Zamboanga Sibugay by about 200 Abu Sayyaf Group members.

(ii) Kauswagan Incident- The initial clash took place on March 15, 2000 (with prior MILF attacks). This resulted in the taking control of nine(9) Army detachments on March 15. Government operations lasted until June with 94 hostages. Several died in separate raids. The MILF attacked Army detachment in Tagoloan. The rebels occupied the Kauswagan Town Hall in Central Mindanao (Kauswagan and adjace,-it towns). Then, Pres.Estrada

25

issued the directive for the military to "go al l out" against the MILF. The government pushed through with the 4th round of peace talks with the MILF.

(iii) Sulu Siege (November 2001 )- The occupation of Cabatangan and attack of at least five (5) Army detachments on November 19, 2001 by an estimated 1,000 Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) forces and clashes took place from the morning until the afternoon of that day. Hostages were taken until November 27, 2001. The hostilities caused 104 fatalities, many of whom were children, many were wounded, including civilians.

(iv) North Cotabato (August 2008) The month-long siege displaced more than 700,000 people, who fled their villages to escape the violence.

(v) L.anao del Norte, North Cotabato and Sarangani MILF commander Umbra Kato attacked military outposts, triggered by the aborted signing of the Macapagal-Arroyo AFP clearing operations (ground and air) Government disbanded its peace panel , and war ensued.

(vi) Zarnboanga siege (September 9--28, 2013)- More than 200 people were killed, at least 10,000 homes were destroyed, and 117,000 dispiaced residents in Zamboanga City due to an attack by about 500 regular MNLF forces.

90. These incidents do not include the nine coup attempts against former President Cory Aquino who did not see it necessary to declare martial law even if the fighting raged near the Presidential Palace.

91. \/Vhile the atrocities committed by the Abu Sayaff and the Maute groups in Marawi City are condemnable, this has not risen to the lawless violence that requires the imposition of martial law. In fact, Respondents have failed to explain what the imposition of martial law did to ensure the safety of civilians trapped in the conflict.

92. Even the report of President Rodrigo Duterte to Congress does not add any sufficient factual basis to the necessity of · martial law to ensure public safety, but on the contrary only emphasized the lack of factual basis as revealed by the inaccuracy, exaggeration, or falsity of the alleged events, thus:

26

a. The attack by the Maute Group on the Amai Pakpak Hospital and hostage taking of its employees (page 3) -The hospital chief himself belied this allegation. 17

b. The ambush and burning of the Marawi Police Station (page 4) - The Marawi City Mayor Majul Gandamra belied this aliegation. 18

c. The killing of five faculty members of Dansalan College Foundation (page 3) - Available news reports only indicate rescue of 42 teachers who were trapped during the attack, without mentioning any deaths resulting in this incident. 19

d. The . attacks on various government facilities in the City of Marawi (page 4) - l\.1ayor Gandamra clarified that there was no takeover or occupation of government facilities or offices. 20

93. The failure of the military and the government to destroy bandit and terrorist groups like the ASG and Maute does not rest in the presence or absence of martial law.

94. More importantly, martial law can never solve but will only exacerbate the root-causes of armed conflict , tne system of foreign and feudal exploitation and oppression, including the historical marginalization of the Bangsamoro and Lumad, resulting in massive poverty and social injustice in Mindanao and the Philippines. Only thoroughgoing socio-economic and political reforms that uplift and empower t he poor and oppressed will solve the armed conflicts in Mindanao and the nation as a whole.

95. A proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be made only 'in case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.' Thus, i!

17 See http://vvv.w.sunstar.com.ph/cagaya n-de-orciiocai-ne-.vsi20·17 i05/29fncspitai-chief­denie_-arnsi-i:iako.ak-t<?\ken _ver-mauk.-'-4.Ji'CU- 5-'i'1•'i 18; Also at tllo:;:; :..'l:re• .. ;: s: ;-. f o. : rro u · r1:= r .: et .. 9002 99/hosoita:-~n-11arav;:i-nvt-take11-ov.e;-bv-mau\€:-medica·!-center­ch te f. Last accessed May 30, 2017. 18 See htlp:I/cnnphiiipoines.cornfnevvsi20"i7/G5!24irner-awi-:navor-p0iiGe-si.aiion-ciiy-fail-not-burnedJ1tm1; Also at hl:10:/lnevvs.abs-cbn.com/ne:v;1s/05/24/17 ibatc-mau!:e-did-ncl..,occuov­~o~7ce .. st.ctA.~cr. - ~;-l -mar.a~irn-.citv : Also at hitn:/lne~~1i-sirifc.inc·u~r.er.nc1f3S8533fno··!:a}~a~var ... of-oov!·· facmt:cs-h -marawi-s2vs-m2vor. Last accessed May 30, 2017.

19 See ntto.J/www.ohilstar.com/headlines/.2017 /05/25/1703418/marawi-fiahtina-Jeaves-21-dead-31-\•.toundet;i_, Also at ~1~ws:i/nev.rsjnfo. !n_qyir~u1~tfJ;OQ..~Q.Ol!:ns:i..r..~~'l.::9_g~J_-to.1!:-.!lP.Y..t=-at -"~z-~gmnr . Last accessed May 30, 2017.

20 See http:iinewsinfo.inguirer.net/698833/no-takecver-d-gcv t-faci!ities-in-marawi-says-~.fu'.9r#txzz4iR28!FoV. Last acce:ssed May 30, 2017.

27

depends on two factual bases: fi'rst, the existence of invasion or rebellion, and second, the requirements of public safety. Absent any of said factual bases, !t is a violation of the highest constitutional order to declare martial law and suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, as these are extraordinary powers of extraordinary nature applicable only in extraordinary situations where restrictions of fundamenta l freedoms may be sanctioned.

96. The fact that these extraordinRry powers must be exercised by the President with utmost caution and prudence cannot be overemphasized. During the period within which the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended, any person arrested may be detained within a period of three (3) days without even being judicially charged.21 Thus, the need for the factual bases not only of the existence of an actual invasion or rebeflion, but also the requirements of public safety, and not a mere speculation, belief, reports, or bare statements of alleged capability of a bandit or terrorist group is an imperative.

97. The safeguards under the 1987 Constitution on the declaration of Martial Law are precisely meant to ensure that the martial law is declared only when there is actual rebellion or invasion and when public safety so requires. Unfortunately, the constitutional safeguards did NOT prevent the respondents from declaring martial law in the entire island of Mindanao based on mere speculations and/or contrived grounds. In his speech in May 24, 2017, the President also threatened to declare martial law in the Visayas on the ground that is a mere walking distance 'from Mindanao. This same standard may also be used as basis to impose martial in the entire country

98. With the obvious disregard by the respondents of the constitutional safeguards for the imposition of martial law, and the failure of both houses of congress to fulfill their constitutionally mandated oversight function to determine the factual bases for the imposition of martial law, the petitioners are now invoking this Honorable Court's jurisdiction to look into the validity of the declaration of martial law in the entire island of Mindanao.

99. In conclusion, Proclamation No. 216 imposing martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao must be declared VOID by this Honorable Court because it is patentiy unconstitutional for failing to provide sufficient factual basis on the existence of rebellion in the entire Mindanao and that public safety requires the imposWon of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

' 21 Article VII , Section 18, 1987 Constitution.

28

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioners most respectful ly pray of the Honorable Court the following:

1. That this Petition be given due course;

2. That this Petition be consolidated and allow participation in the 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 Cou1i find justification for declaring martial law in Marawi City, that it be declared unconstitutional and void in so far as it included in the declaration the other parts of Mindanao; and

(b) Enjoining .respondents from the continued implementation of Proclamation No. 216;

Petitioners likewise pray for such other reliefs as are just and equitable under the circumstances.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 09 June 2017, Quezon City for the City of Manila.

29

NATIONAL UN!ON OF PEOPLES' LAWYERS (NUPL) 3/F Erythrina Building

No. 1 Matatag car. Maaralin Sts. , Central District, Quezon City Telefax No. (632) 920 6660 Email: nupl2007@gmail.com

By

NERI J. COLMENARES IBP Life Time No. 010437

PTR No. 3951041 C- 1'ft8/17- Quezon City ,. Roll of Attorneys Ne. 43060

MCLE Compliance No. Under Process

EDRE U. OLALIA IBP No.1069067-1/19/17-RSM

PTR No. 3951037C- 1/18/17- Quezon City Roll of Attorneys No. 36971

MCLE Compliance No. V-0019457 - 04/22/2016

11/)' . I /1 { u Jl AAA. l/J-AN F. OLIVA, JR.

IBP No.1069069-1/19/17- RSM PTR No. 3951039C- 1/18/17- Quezon City

Roll of Attorneys No. 35870 IVICLE Compliance No. V-0019459 - 04/22/2016

dl ~ ~7 , E~HRAIM B. CORTEZ

IBP No. 1069068 - 1 /19/17 - lsabela PTR No. 3951038C - 1/18/17- Quezon City

Roll of Attorneys l\Jo. 41366 MCLE Compliance No. V-0019328 - 04/22/2016

MARIA C ISTIN~ . YA BOT PTR NO. 45399A/ -09-17/Rizal IBP No. 1069071-1/1~-17/Rizal

Roll No. 59700-MCLE Compliance No. V - 00'16653/04-04-16

30

/ ~/ .LA~/ ~AA~ST. LSARZA

Re-trNa. 57897 IBP LR No. 011274- 12/17/2012

PTR No. 4750577C- 6/8/17 MCLE Compliance Number V-0022570 (1 July 2016)

/ ~,,,..-

IBP LR No. /04/13- Pangasinan Roll . 60637

MCLE Compliance o. v -0016666/04-4-16

SA S. E~NLA

I BP No.1 69070 -1/19/"17- Quezon City PTR No. 239 1040C- 1 /18/17- Quezon City

Roll of Attorneys No. 64967 IVICLE Compliance No. V-0019343 - 04/22/2016

~£./f;;tt~lN IBP No. 1069528-1/25/17- RSM

PTR No. 4025835 - 1 /24/17 - Quezon City Roll 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 City Tel. No. (082)284-4461

Email : lawyersrnindanao@grnaH.corn

JOS~\~L, JR. IBP No. 966769, 12120116 (for 2017)

Roll No. 45560, 5/23/01 PTR No. 8420491, 6/8/17

MCLE Compliance l\lo. V 0025084, 4/7/17

Copy furnished:

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City

PRESIDENT RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE Malacanang Palace, Mendiola, Manila, Philippines

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA Malacanang Palace, Mendiola, Manila, Philippines

GENERAL EDUARDO ANO Armed Forces of the Philippines, Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo, EDSA, Quezon City, Philippines

CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT RONALDO uBATO~' DELA Philippine National Police Camp Crame, EDSA corner Boni Serrano Avenue, Quezon City, Ph ilippines

RET. MAJ. GEN. DELFIN LORENZANA Secretary, Department of National Defense Room 301 ONO Building, Camp Emilio Aguinaldo , E. de los Santos Avenue, Quezon City 11 ·10

32

I

I

I

\

I

I

I

I

I

I

EXPLANATION FOR SERVICE OF PETIT;QN THROUGH REGISTERED MAIL

The service of copies of the instant Petition is made through registered mail.. Pursuant to Rule 13, Section 11 of the Rules of Court, the service of copies of the instant Petition cannot be made personally due to distance and lack of available personnel.

33

''·· ... i --~ ·1/ ---,

~·

.- . f ...... _

j---\_./

EPHRAIM B. CORTEZ

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, the undersigned, of legal age, Filip ino, and with address at c/o NUPL , 3 rd Floor, Erythrina Building ,Maaralin corner Matatag Streets , Central District, Diliman, Quezon City, under oath he1eby depose and state that :

1. I am the Petitioners in the foregoing Petition;

2. I caused the preparation of the same;

3. I have read the same and the allegations therein are true and correct of my personal knowledge and/or based on authentic documents; and

4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding Involving tile same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency and, to the best of my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein . If I should hereafter learn that the se:tme or similar action or ,proceedings has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, Court of .Appeals, or different divisions thereof, any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days from notice to this Honorable Court.

o .. 9 ,;, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands this 'Z!11 ~of June 2017 in Quezon City, Philippines.

' ~

ATEL~µos VIN 0202-01 45A-L3043AUH20000

0.9 'iq1

.?t1~ SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this June 2017 at QUEZON CITY, affiant exhibiting to me the 'following competent proof of her identificatitJn:

Doc No 4-rt Page No C:W Book No r Series of 2017