REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES

PADRE FAURA, MANILA

REPRESENTATIVES EDCEL C.
LAGMAN, TOMASITO S.
VILLARIN, GARY C. ALEJANO,
EMMANUEL A. BILLONES,
TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT,
JR. AND EDGAR R. ERICE,
G.R. NO. ___________
PETITIONERS (PETITION UNDER
THE THIRD
VS. PARAGRAPH OF
SECTION 18 OF
HON. SALVADOR C.
MEDIALDEA, EXECUTIVE
ARTICLE VII OF THE
SECRETARY; HON. DELFIN N. 1987 CONSTITUTION)
LORENZANA, SECRETARY OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF
NATIONAL DEFENSE AND
MARTIAL LAW
ADMINISTRATOR; AND GEN.
EDUARDO AO, CHIEF OF
STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES
OF THE PHILIPPINES AND
MARTIAL LAW IMPLEMENTOR,

RESPONDENTS.

PETITION

PETITIONERS, through counsel, respectfully manifest:

I. NATURE OF THE PETITION

1. This Petition is filed under the third paragraph of Section 18 of

Article VII of the Constitution which reads in full:

The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate

proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
1
 suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension
thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within
thirty days from its filing.

II. PARTIES

2. Petitioner Rep. Edcel C. Lagman is the duly elected

Representative of the First District of Albay to the current 17 th
Congress. He may be served with the processes of the Honorable
Court at N-411 House of Representatives, Batasan Complex,
Quezon City.

3. Petitioner Rep. Tomasito S. Villarin is the duly elected

Representative of Partylist Akbayan Citizens Action Party to the
17th Congress. He may be served with the processes of the
Honorable Supreme Court at S-513 House of Representatives,
Batasan Complex, Quezon City.

4. Petitioner Rep. Gary C. Alejano is the duly elected

Representative of Partylist Magdalo to the 17 th Congress. He may
be served with the processes of the Honorable Supreme Court at S-
114 House of Representatives, Batasan Complex, Quezon City.

5. Petitioner Rep. Emmanuel A. Billones is the duly elected

Representative of the First District of Capiz to the 17 th Congress. He
may be served with the processes of the Honorable Supreme Court
at N-215 House of Representatives, Batasan Complex, Quezon City.

6. Petitioner Rep. Teddy Brawner Baguilat, Jr. is the duly elected

Representative of the Lone District of Ifugao to the 17 th Congress.
He may be served with the processes of the Honorable Supreme

2
 Court at N-315 House of Representatives, Batasan Complex,
Quezon City.

7. Petitioner Rep. Edgar R. Erice is the duly elected Representative

of the Second District of Caloocan to the 17 th Congress. He may be
served with the processes of the Honorable Supreme Court at N-
107 House of Representatives, Batasan Complex, Quezon City.

8. Respondent Hon. Salvador C. Medialdea is the Executive

Secretary and may be served with summons and other processes
of the Honorable Supreme Court at Malacaang, Manila.

9. Respondent Hon. Delfin N. Lorenzana is the Secretary of the

Department of National Defense and Martial Law Administrator
under General Order No. 1 dated 30 May 2017. He may be served
with summons and other processes of the Honorable Supreme
Court at Camp General Aguinaldo, Quezon City.

10. Respondent Gen. Eduardo Ao is the Chief of Staff of the

Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Martial Law
Implementor pursuant to General Order No. 1 dated 30 May 2017.
He may be served with summons and other processes of the
Honorable Supreme Court at Camp General Aguinaldo, Quezon
City.

III. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

11. Thirty one (31) years after the ouster by People Power of the
late dictator Ferdinand Marcos and the effective end of martial law,
the grim specter of repression, atrocities, injustice and corruption
again bedevils the Filipino people with the unwarranted, precipitate

3
 and unconstitutional declaration of martial law and the suspension
of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of
Mindanao under Proclamation No. 216 datelined The Russian
Federation, this 23rd of May, in the year of our Lord 2017. A clear
copy of Proclamation No. 216 is attached as ANNEX A and a clear
copy of President Rodrigo Dutertes Report to the Congress on his
declaration of Martial Law is attached as ANNEX B.

12. The 1987 Constitution, which is acknowledged as an anti-

martial law Charter preventing the recurrence of martial law
excesses, provides for sufficient safeguards delimiting the
Presidents power to impose martial law and suspend the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus.

13. The following exacting safeguards are unequivocally

enshrined in Section 18 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution:

(a) The requisite factual basis for declaration of martial law

and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus is only in case of invasion or rebellion, when public
safety requires it. The alternative ground of imminent
danger of rebellion or invasion as found in the 1935 and
1973 Constitution has been obliterated in the 1987
Constitution.

(b) The effectivity of martial law is limited to a period not

exceeding sixty days, unless extended by initiative of the
President with the concurrence of the majority of all the
Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate
voting jointly.

4
(c) Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of
martial law or the suspension of privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person
or in writing to the Congress.

(d) 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. (Emphasis
supplied).

(e) The congressional revocation shall not be set aside by

the President.

(f) The Congress, if not in Session, shall, within twenty-four

hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in
accordance with its rules without need for a call.
(Emphasis supplied).

(g) The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate

proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension
thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within
thirty days from its filing. (Emphasis supplied).

(h) A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of

the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil
courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment
of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians
where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

5
 (i) The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged for
rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with,
invasion.

(j) During the suspension of the privilege of the writ

of habeas corpus, any person thus arrested or detained shall
be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be
released.

14. Six (6) days after President Duterte imposed martial law in
Mindanao, or on 29 May 2017, he arbitrarily and menacingly
announced that he will ignore the Supreme Court and the Congress
in his enforcement of martial law, despite (a) the constitutional
grant of authority to the Congress to jointly vote whether or not to
revoke the martial law declaration and whether or not to extend
the period of its effectivity; and (b) the specific grant of power and
jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to review the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the declaration of martial law or the suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and if found wanting, to
nullify such proclamation or extension.

15. President Duterte also added that the Supreme Court Justices
do not know what is happening on the ground because they are
not soldiers. He also said that he is the one who knows.

16. Until now, President Duterte has not personally retracted his
aforesaid gravely alarming statements, which are offensive to the
Constitution and disrespectful to the co-equal departments of the
government.

6
17. The leaderships of the House of Representatives and the
Senate, supported by their respective supermajorities, refused and
failed to comply with the constitutional mandate for both
Chambers to vote jointly in joint session whether or not to revoke
the Presidents declaration of martial law, a dereliction of a
constitutional duty which the petitioners individually and
collectively condemned.

18. In patent violation of the Constitution, the Senate separately

conducted an Executive Session on 29 May 2017 to hear the
briefing of the representatives of the Executive Department and
the police and military authorities relative to the declaration of
martial law. Subsequently, 17 senators adopted Senate P.S.
Resolution No. 388, entitled RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SENSE
OF THE SENATE, SUPPORTING THE PROCLAMATION NO. 216 DATED
MAY 23, 2017, ENTITLED DECLARING A STATE OF MARTIAL LAW
AND SUSPENDING THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS IN THE WHOLE OF MINDANAO AND FINDING NO CAUSE TO
REVOKE THE SAME.

19. Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III and Senators Vicente

Sotto III, Ralph Recto, Juan Edgardo Angara, Nancy Binay, Joseph
Victor Ejercito, Sherwin Gatchalian, Richard Gordon, Gregorio
Honasan, Panfilo Lacson, Loren Legarda, Emmanuel Pacquiao, Joel
Villanueva, Cynthia Villar and Juan Miguel Zubiri signed the
resolution. While Senators Francis Escudero and Grace Poe did not
sign the resolution, they joined in the approval of the same.
Attached as ANNEX C is a clear copy of Senate P.S. Resolution No.
388.

20. The House of Representatives on May 31, 2017 converted

itself into a Committee of the Whole and heard the briefings in

7
 Executive Session of the officials of the Executive Department as
well as of the military and police authorities relative to the
proclamation of martial law. Subsequently, on the same day, the
House of Representatives adopted by viva voce vote House
Resolution No. 1050, entitled RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE FULL
SUPPORT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO PRESIDENT
RODRIGO DUTERTE AS IT FINDS NO REASON TO REVOKE
PROCLAMATION NO. 216, ENTITLED DECLARING AS STATE OF
MARTIAL LAW AND SUSPENDING THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS IN THE WHOLE OF MINDANAO. Attached as
ANNEX D is a clear copy of House Resolution No. 1050.

21. The only signatures appearing in Resolution No. 1050 are

those of its three authors, namely, Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez,
Majority Leader Rodolfo C. Farias and Minority Leader Danilo E.
Suarez. Despite Majority Leader Farias undertaking that there
would be nominal voting when House Resolution No. 1050 would be
presented to the plenary for approval, no such nominal voting was
held. Hence, there is no record who and how many voted for the
Resolution and concerned Representatives were not afforded the
opportunity to explain their respective votes.

22. The purpose of the Constitution in mandating a joint session

of the Congress is to afford the people to know the factual basis of
martial law as deliberated and debated in the joint session. The
right of the people to know was foreclosed by the separate
Executive Sessions of the House of Representatives and the
Senate. Meeting behind closed doors is anathema to the peoples
right to know and be informed of the governments actions.
Transparency, not secrecy, is paramount in a democratic
representative government.

8
23. Verily, both the political departments of the government the
Executive and the Legislative have patently violated the
provisions of the Constitution on the requisites and limitations
pertaining to the imposition of martial law.

24. The Presidents proclamation of martial law in Mindanao has

no sufficient factual basis as it is feebly based on mostly contrived
and/or inaccurate facts, self-serving speculations, enumeration of
distant occurrences and mere conclusions of fact and law on the
purported existence of rebellion or invasion.

25. On the other hand, both leaderships of the House of

Representatives and the Senate, supported by their respective
supermajorities, have utterly and unconscionably reneged on their
constitutional duty to vote jointly in joint session to determine by a
majority of all the Members whether or not to revoke the
declaration of martial law under Proclamation No. 216.

26. The leaders of the Congress and the members of the

supermajority have abandoned and forfeited the first line of review
to assess, on behalf of the sovereign people whom they represent,
the adequacy of the factual and legal anchorage of the Presidents
imposition of martial law.

27. Consequently, there is no other recourse but to petition the

Honorable Supreme Court to review the sufficiency of the
declaration of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao and nullify said
proclamation as flawed, illegal and unconstitutional for want of
sufficient factual basis as required by the Constitution.

28. In the case of Fortun and Angeles vs. Gloria Macapagal-

Arroyo, G.R. No. 190293, March 30, 2012 (consolidated with six

9
 other petitions) is relevant as the Supreme Court opined therein
that:

It is evident that under the 1987 Constitution

the President and the Congress act in tandem in
exercising the power to proclaim martial law or
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
They exercise the power, not only sequentially, but in a
sense jointly since, after the President has initiated the
proclamation or the suspension, only the Congress can
maintain the same based on its own evaluation of the
situation on the ground, a power that the President does
not have.

Consequently, although the Constitution reserves

to the Supreme Court the power to review the sufficiency
of the factual basis of the proclamation or suspension in
a proper suit, it is implicit that the Court must allow
Congress to exercise its own review powers, which
is automatic rather than initiated. Only when
Congress defaults in its express duty to defend
the Constitution through such review should the
Supreme Court step in as its final rampart. The
constitutional validity of the Presidents proclamation of
martial law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is
first a political question in the hands of Congress before
it becomes a justiciable one in the hands of the Court.
(Emphasis supplied).

29. Verily, the Congress has defaulted. The Honorable Supreme

Courts exercise of jurisdiction is seasonable and imperative.

VI. GROUNDS RELIED UPON FOR THE PETITION

A.
THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR THE
IMPOSITION OF MARTIAL LAW AND THE
SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS UNDER PROCLAMATION NO. 216
DATED 23 MAY 2017.

10
1. There is no revolution or invasion where the
public safety requires the declaration of
martial law and the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in
Marawi City or elsewhere in Mindanao.

2. Mere conclusions of fact and law on the

pretended existence of rebellion and/or
invasion will not serve as sufficient basis.

3. No less than the military establishment has

admitted that the current armed conflict in
Marawi City was government-initiated and
the armed confrontation was precipitated by
the military operation to neutralize or
capture Isnilon Hapilon, a high profile
terrorist commander, which was resisted by
the Maute Group of terrorists.

4. Consequently, the alleged siege of Marawi

City was actually an armed resistance by the
Maute Group to shield Hapilon from capture,
not to overrun Marawi and remove its
allegiance from the Republic.

5. The proffered rebellion and/or invasion is at

most a threat akin to imminent danger
which has been obliterated from the 1987
Constitution as an alternative ground for the
declaration of martial law and the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus.

6. The alleged facts contained in Proclamation

No. 216 and the Presidents Report
justifying the imposition of martial law and
the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus turned out to be mostly
inaccurate, simulated, false and/or
hyperbolic and the list of terrorist acts or
incidence of violence are either distant or
have been earlier solved with the
apprehension and prosecution of the
suspected culprits.

11
 B.
THE IMPOSITION OF MARTIAL LAW IS FLAWED
BECAUSE PRESIDENT RODRIGO DUTERTE ACTED
ALONE WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A
RECOMMENDATION FROM DEFENSE SECRETARY
DELFIN LORENZANA OR FROM ANY RANKING
OFFICER OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE
PHILIPPINES AS IN FACT NO RECOMMENDATION
WAS MENTIONED IN PROCLAMATION NO. 216,
NEITHER WAS THERE ANY PRIOR CONSULTATION
WITH HIS OFFICIAL ENTOURAGE IN MOSCOW
WHICH INCLUDED, AMONG OTHERS, DEFENSE
SECRETARY LORENZANA AND NATIONAL SECURITY
ADVISER HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., AS NO SUCH
CONSULTATION WAS REFERRED TO IN THE
PROCLAMATION, EVEN AS THE LACK OF
RECOMMENDATION AND CONSULTATION HAS BEEN
ADMITTED BY SEC. LORENZA DURING THE
CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFINGS.

C.
THE BRIEFINGS MADE BY THE OFFICIALS OF THE
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS THE
MILITARY AND POLICE AUTHORITIES WERE
JUSTIFICATIONS AFTER THE FACT OF THE
IMPOSITION OF MARTIAL LAW AND THE
SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS, NOT AS FACTUAL BASES PRIOR
TO THE ISSUANCE OF PROCLAMATION NO. 216.

D.
THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION DURING THE
BRIEFING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CONTAINED
DATA NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THE DECLARATION OF
MARTIAL LAW, BUT DID NOT CONTAIN
INFORMATION INVOLVING NATIONAL SECURITY TO
JUSTIFY AN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

E.
A CONSTITUTIONAL INFRACTION OF THE
PRESIDENT IN HIS DECLARATION OF MARTIAL LAW
AND THE SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS JUSTICIABLE AND
TRANSCENDS THE NARROW AMBIT OF A POLITICAL
QUESTION.

12
 VII. DISCUSSION

A. THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT
BASIS FOR THE IMPOSITION
OF MARTIAL LAW AND THE
SUSPENSION OF THE
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS UNDER
PROCLAMATION NO. 216
DATED 23 MAY 2017.

1. There is no revolution or
invasion where the
public safety requires
the declaration of
martial law and the
suspension of the
privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus in Marawi
City or elsewhere in
Mindanao.

2. Mere conclusions of fact

and law on the
pretended existence of
rebellion and/or invasion
will not serve as
sufficient basis.

30. Numbers 1 and 2 under Ground A will be discussed

together because they are interrelated.

31. There is in fact no rebellion or invasion in Marawi City nor in

any other part of Mindanao.

32. While Proclamation No. 216 and the Presidents Report

concentrated on rebellion, there was no emphasis on invasion,
which is obviously inexistent.

13
33. Both the Proclamation and Report highlighted acts of
terrorism which did not or do not constitute rebellion. As admitted
by Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre during the briefing before the
House Committee of the Whole, acts of terrorism do not
automatically constitute rebellion.

34. Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by

Republic Act No. 6968, defines the crime of rebellion as follows:

"Article 134. Rebellion or insurrection How committed.

The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by
rising and taking arms against the Government for the
purpose of removing from the allegiance to said
Government or its laws, the territory of the Republic of
the Philippines or any part thereof, of any body of land,
naval or other armed forces, or depriving the Chief
Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of
their powers or prerogatives."

35. Accordingly, the elements of rebellion are: (a) rising and

taking arms against the Government; and (b) for the purpose of [i]
removing from the allegiance to the Government or its laws, the
territory of the Philippines or any part thereof, of any body of land,
naval or other armed forces, or [ii] depriving the Chief Executive or
the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or
prerogatives.

36. While the first element of rising and taking arms against the
Government may be present in Marawi City, there is absolutely no
credible and sufficient factual basis for the second element of
culpable purpose.

37. In justifying the element of culpable purpose for rebellion,

Proclamation No. 216 asserted that the Maute terrorist group
started flying the flag of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
in several areas thereby openly attempting to remove from the

14
 allegiance to the Philippine Government this part of Mindanao and
deprive the Chief Executive of his powers and prerogatives to
enforce the laws of the land and to maintain public order and
safety in Mindanao constituting the crime of rebellion.

38. Likewise, the Presidents Report to the Congress on his

declaration of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao reiterated that the brazen
display of DAESH flags constitute(s) a clear, pronounced, and
unmistakable intent to remove Marawi City and eventually the rest
of Mindanao from its allegiance to the Government.

39. The mere fact that the Maute group flied the ISIS or Daesh
flag is not indicative of removing Marawi City from its allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines or depriving the President of his
powers and prerogatives. At most, it was cheap propaganda.

40. Joseph Franco, an analyst specializing on violent extremism, in

an interview with Vera Files published in the Philippine Star official
website on 31 May 2017 said that the Maute group is more of the
clans private militia latching into the IS brand theatrically to inflate
perceived capability. It was also only after the declaration of
martial law that Secretary Lorenzana labeled the group as Maute
ISIS.

41. No less than the representatives of the defense and military

authorities when confronted during the briefing before the House
Committee of the Whole if there is an ISIS threat in the country or
Marawi City, refused to answer categorically that such threat
exists. The evasive answer is that there is ISIS in the Philippines,
referring most probably to the handful of foreign fighters who
were identified by the military as ISIS provocateurs.

15
42. After quoting Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, on rebellion, Proclamation No. 216 concluded without
appropriate factual basis that rebellion is being committed in
Marawi City for the purpose of removing it from its allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines and depriving the President of his
powers and prerogatives.

43. Verily, the assertions both in the Proclamation and Report of

the President are mere conclusions of fact and law bereft of
sufficient and credible factual basis.

44. A classic example of this conclusion of fact and law appears in

the Presidents Report which self-servingly stated that Proclamation
No. 216 was issued after finding that lawless armed groups have
taken up arms and committed public uprising against the duly
constituted government and against the people of Mindanao for
the purpose of removing Mindanao starting with the City of
Marawi, Lanao del Sur from its allegiance to the Government and
its laws and depriving the Chief Executive of his powers and
prerogatives to enforce the laws of the land and to maintain public
order and safety in Mindanao, to the great damage, prejudice, and
detriment of the people therein and the nation as a whole.

45. It is truly unfortunate that after paraphrasing the penal

provision on rebellion and using its inculpatory phraseology the
aforesaid errant conclusion was made without any factual mooring.

46. An unwarranted and baseless conclusion of fact and law has

no legal pedigree.

A. THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT
BASIS FOR THE IMPOSITION
16
 OF MARTIAL LAW AND THE
SUSPENSION OF THE
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS UNDER
PROCLAMATION NO. 216
DATED 23 MAY 2017.

3. No less than the military

establishment has
admitted that the
current armed conflict in
Marawi City was
government-initiated
and the armed
confrontation was
precipitated by the
military operation to
neutralize or capture
Isnilon Hapilon, a high
profile terrorist
commander, which was
resisted by the Maute
Group of terrorists.

4. Consequently, the
alleged siege of
Marawi City was
actually an armed
resistance by the
Maute Group to shield
Hapilon from capture,
not to overrun Marawi
and remove its
allegiance from the
Republic.

47. When Lt. Gen. Salvador Mison, Jr., Deputy Chief of Staff, was
interpellated during the briefing before the House Committee of
the Whole, he unqualifiedly admitted that the current armed
conflict in Marawi City was government-initiated. This was
confirmatory of the admission by the military establishment during
the briefing that what precipitated the on-going armed
confrontation in Marawi City was the military operation to

17
 neutralize or capture Isnilon Hapilon, a high-profile terrorist
commander, which was resisted by the Maute group.

48. No less than the Presidents Report also stated that On 23

May 2017, a government operation to capture Isnilon Hapilon,
senior leader of the ASG, and Maute Group operational leaders
Abdullah and Omark Hayang Maute, was confronted with armed
resistance which escalated into open hostility against the
government.

49. Consequently, it is clear that the armed resistance by the

Maute group was not to lay siege on Marawi City but to shield
terrorist leaders Hapilon and the Maute brothers.

50. Verily, the armed uprising in Marawi City was not to remove
the latter from its allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines but
to protect Hapilon and the Maute brothers from capture.

A. THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT
BASIS FOR THE IMPOSITION
OF MARTIAL LAW AND THE
SUSPENSION OF THE
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS UNDER
PROCLAMATION NO. 216
DATED 23 MAY 2017.

5. The proffered rebellion

and/or invasion is at
most a threat akin to
imminent danger
which has been
obliterated from the
1987 Constitution as an
alternative ground for
the declaration of
martial law and the
suspension of the
privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus.
18
51. At most, there could be a threat of rebellion in Marawi City or
the capacity of the Maute Group to launch a rebellion, which
presumption does not manifest the actual existence of rebellion.

52. Such threat or capability of the Maute Group to stage a

rebellion is mentioned in Proclamation No. 216 which stated that
This recent attack shows the capacity of the Maute Group and
other rebel groups to sow terror and cause death and damage to
property not only in Lanao del Sur but also in other parts of
Mindanao.

53. The foregoing assertion was reiterated in the Presidents

Report which stated that this recent attack 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 del Sur but also in
other parts of Mindanao.

54. The alleged capacity or threat of rebellion is akin to imminent

danger of rebellion, which is not anymore a ground for declaring
martial law or suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus.

55. While the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions specifically made

imminent danger an alternative ground for the President to
declare martial law and suspend the privilege the of the writ of
habeas corpus, the 1987 Constitution deleted or obliterated such
additional ground, to wit:

Section 11 of Article VII of the 1935 Constitution provides:

SEC. 11. (2) The President shall be commander-

in-chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and,

19
 whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out
such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless
violence, invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, or
imminent danger thereof, when the public safety
requires it, he may suspend the privileges of the
writ of habeas corpus, or place the Philippines or
any part thereof under martial law.

Section 9 of Article VII of the 1973 Constitution provides:

SEC. 9. The President shall be commander-in-

chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and,
whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out
such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless
violence, invasion, insurrection, or rebellion. In case
of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, or imminent
danger thereof, when the public safety requires it,
he may suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus, or place the Philippines or any part thereof
under martial law.

Section 18 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Sec. 18. The President shall be the Commander-

in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and
whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out
such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless
violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or
rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he
may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place
the Philippines or any part thereof under martial
law.

56. The deletion of the alternative ground of imminent danger

thereof is a further safeguard delimiting the subject extraordinary
emergency power of the President.

57. Imminent danger is inordinately subjective so much so that

it can be prone to abuse and it is difficult to unravel or untie.

20
58. Consequently, what the Constitution explicitly requires is the
objective actuality of rebellion or invasion, not the subjective
eventuality, threat or imminent danger thereof.

59. There is no actual rebellion in Marawi City or elsewhere in

Mindanao.

A. THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT
BASIS FOR THE IMPOSITION
OF MARTIAL LAW AND THE
SUSPENSION OF THE
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS UNDER
PROCLAMATION NO. 216
DATED 23 MAY 2017.

6. The alleged facts

contained in
Proclamation No. 216 and
the Presidents Report
justifying the imposition
of martial law and the
suspension of the
privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus turned out
to be mostly inaccurate,
simulated, false and/or
hyperbolic and the list of
terrorist acts or incidence
of violence are either
distant or have been
earlier solved with the
apprehension and
prosecution of the
suspected culprits.

60. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (making a falsehood in a

material matter makes the entire statement or declaration a
falsity).

21
61. The foregoing legal maxim applies to the Presidents Report to
the Congress on his declaration of martial law and the suspension
of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of
Mindanao as it contained false, inaccurate, contrived and
hyperbolic accounts.

62. The Presidents Report underscored that the Maute Group

also attacked Amai Pakpak Hospital and hoisted the DAESH flag
there, among other several locations. As 0600H of 24 May 2017,
members of the Maute Group were seen guarding the entry gates
of the Amai Pakpak Hospital. They held hostage the employees of
the hospital and took over the PhilHealth office located thereat.

63. Dr. Amer Saber, the Chief of the Amai Pakpak Medical Center
(APMC), categorically denied that the medical facility was overrun
by members of the Maute Group. Saber, however, confirmed that a
team of Maute fighters asked permission to bring in an injured
member at the start of the firefight on Tuesday afternoon, 23 May
2017. Saber added that "They were very courteous and even
greeted us with 'Assalam Alaikum'. Saber also said that during the
time the Maute members were at the medical center, personnel did
not feel they were harassed by the Maute fighters and the latter
even asked if they can pray [inside the hospital]. (Jigger J.
Jerusalem - @inquirerdotnet, Inquirer Mindanao 03:24 PM May 28,
2017. Republished on May 29, 2017 on www.sunstar.com.ph)

64. Sabers statement was consistent with that of Philippine

National Police Spokesman Senior Superintendent Dionardo Carlos
who said that the terrorists did not take over the hospital and
went there to seek medical assistance for a member. (Fact
Check: Inconsistencies in Dutertes Martial Law Report, Janvic
Mateo, philstar.com, May 31, 2017, 10:50am).

22
65. The Presidents Report also highlighted that Lawless armed
groups likewise ransacked the Landbank of the Philippines and
commandeered one of its armored vehicles. The bank clarified
that its Marawi City branch was not ransacked. The bank also
confirmed that the seized armored vehicle is owned by a third
party provider and was empty at that time. (Ibid).

66. The Presidents Report also stated that the Senator Ninoy
Aquino College Foundation and the Marawi Central Elementary Pilot
School were also burned. It appears that the Senator Ninoy
Aquino College Foundation remains intact as of 24 May 2017 and
Marawi City Schools Divisions Assistant Superintendent Ana Alonto
denied that the Marawi Central Elementary Pilot School was burned
by the terrorists. Department of Education Assistant Secretary
Tonisito Umali also said that they have not received any report of
damage caused by fire at the Marawi Central Elementary Pilot
School. (Ibid).

67. Other falsities: President Duterte, upon his arrival from Russia
on 24 May 2017, claimed that the police chief of Malabang town in
Lanao del Sur was beheaded by the terrorists. However, a few days
later, Malabang town police chief Senior Inspector Romeo Enriquez
surfaced and said he was alive. On the other hand, in a press
briefing on 23 May 2017 in Moscow, Defense Secretary Lorenzana
claimed that the Marawi City Hall and part of the Mindanao Sate
University (MSU) compound were among those occupied by the
Maute Group. However, earlier that day, the AFP already denied
that the City Hall was occupied and MSU Vice President for
Academic Affairs Alma Berowa assured that the University is safe
from the ongoing conflict, citing information from the military.

23
68. Indeed, these patent falsities render the Presidents report
entirely unreliable and sufficient factual basis untenable.

69. The reference in Proclamation No. 216 to the attack on the

military outpost in Butig, Lanao del Sur in February 2016 and the
mass jail break in Marawi City in August 2016 as well as the
reference in the Presidents Report to the Zamboanga siege, Davao
Market bombing, the Mamasapano carnage and other bombings in
Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat and Basilan are far distant from the
present conflict in Marawi City and/or these previous violent
incidents have been previously solved with the arrest and
prosecution of the suspected culprits. It is too late in the day to
make them as bases for the declaration of martial law and the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the
whole of Mindanao.

B. THE IMPOSITION OF
MARTIAL LAW IS FLAWED
BECAUSE PRESIDENT RODRIGO
DUTERTE ACTED ALONE
WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A
RECOMMENDATION FROM
DEFENSE SECRETARY
DELFIN LORENZANA OR
FROM ANY RANKING
OFFICER OF THE ARMED
FORCES OF THE
PHILIPPINES AS IN FACT NO
RECOMMENDATION WAS
MENTIONED IN PROCLAMATION
NO. 216, NEITHER WAS
THERE ANY PRIOR
CONSULTATION WITH HIS
OFFICIAL ENTOURAGE IN
MOSCOW WHICH INCLUDED,
AMONG OTHERS, DEFENSE
SECRETARY LORENZANA
AND NATIONAL SECURITY
ADVISER HERMOGENES
ESPERON, JR., AS NO SUCH

24
 CONSULTATION WAS
REFERRED TO IN THE
PROCLAMATION, EVEN AS
THE LACK OF
RECOMMENDATION AND
CONSULTATION HAS BEEN
ADMITTED BY SEC.
LORENZA DURING THE
CONGRESSIONAL
BRIEFINGS.

70. From all indications, President Duterte acted alone when he

issued Proclamation No. 216.

71. Defense Secretary Lorenzana in his briefings before the

Senate and the House of Representatives admitted and reiterated
that he did not recommend to the President the imposition of
martial law under Proclamation No. 216.

72. No official from the military establishment testified that there

was any recommendation from Chief of Staff Ao or other ranking
officials of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

73. Secretary Lorenzana also added that the President did not
consult with the members of his official entourage in Moscow that
included, among others, Secretary Lorenzana, Chief of Staff Ao,
Executive Secretary Medialdea and National Security Adviser
Esperon, Jr.

74. In fact, Proclamation No. 216 did not mention any

recommendation from or consultation with any concerned military,
police and executive officials.

75. In the absence of any recommendation from the defense and

military authorities and without prior consultation with them, the

25
 President acted on his own perception and consequently the
Proclamation lacks sufficient factual basis as it is bereft of official
advice, counsel and coordination.

C. THE BRIEFINGS MADE BY

THE OFFICIALS OF THE
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT AS
WELL AS THE MILITARY AND
POLICE AUTHORITIES WERE
JUSTIFICATIONS AFTER THE
FACT OF THE IMPOSITION
OF MARTIAL LAW AND THE
SUSPENSION OF THE
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS, NOT AS
FACTUAL BASES PRIOR TO
THE ISSUANCE OF
PROCLAMATION NO. 216.

D. THE POWERPOINT
PRESENTATION DURING THE
BRIEFING BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESEN-TATIVES
CONTAINED DATA NOT
SUPPORTIVE OF THE
DECLARATION OF MARTIAL
LAW, BUT DID NOT CONTAIN
INFORMATION INVOLVING
NATIONAL SECURITY TO
JUSTIFY AN EXECUTIVE
SESSION.

76. The officials of the Executive Department as well as the

military and police authorities made the Congressional briefings to
justify the Presidents declaration of martial law and the suspension
of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of
Mindanao, and not to provide adequate factual anchorage for such
declaration and suspension.

26
77. Despite the proffered justifications, the PowerPoint
presentation during the briefing before the House Committee of the
Whole contained data not supportive of the declaration and
suspension like the following:

a. The police/military had previously preempted the grand

plan of armed terrorists (Maute Group and Abu Sayyaf
Group) to take over Marawi City and other parts of
Mindanao.

b. There is no monitored hostile plan of the Moro Islamic

Liberation Front (MILF).

c. In the slide presented showing the number of foreign

fighters allied with ISIS, while other countries had definite
numbers of fighters, the entry for the Philippines read
undetermined, indicating uncertain or meager force to
assist in the launching of a rebellion.

E. A CONSTITUTIONAL
INFRACTION OF THE
PRESIDENT IN HIS DECLARA-
TION OF MARTIAL LAW AND
THE SUSPENSION OF THE
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS IS
JUSTICIABLE AND TRAN-
SCENDS THE NARROW
AMBIT OF A POLITICAL
QUESTION.

78. The specific and special jurisdiction of the Honorable Supreme

Court to review the factual basis for the declaration of martial law
and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
conferred by the Constitution under the third paragraph of Section
18 of Article VII as the ultimate safeguard against any presidential
abuse of extraordinary emergency power.

27
79. As held in Fortun vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, supra, the
appropriate proceedings filed by any citizen is justiciable.

80. Verily, the justiciability of the instant petition is outside the

narrow ambit of a political question.

PRAYER

ACCORDINGLY, it is respectfully prayed of the Honorable

Supreme Court to:

1. Exercise its specific and special jurisdiction to review the

sufficiency of the factual basis of Proclamation No. 216 dated 23
May 2017 which imposed martial law and suspended the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao; and

2. After due proceedings, issue a Decision voiding and nullifying

Proclamation No. 216 dated 23 May 2017 for utter lack of sufficient
factual basis.

Petitioners pray for other just and equitable reliefs.

Quezon City, for Manila

03 June 2017

LAGMAN LAGMAN & MONES LAW FIRM

Counsel for the Petitioners
2/F Tempus Place Condominium
Makatarungan cor. Matalino Sts., Brgy. Central,
Diliman, Quezon City
Telefax: 433-5353
lagmanlaw@gmail.com
28
 EDCEL GRECO A. B. LAGMAN
Roll of Attorneys No. 45738 24 May 2001
PTR No. 3309045/Quezon City/16 August 2016
IBP Lifetime No. 012364
16 January 2014/Albay Chapter
MCLE Compliance No. V No. 000288
Mobile No. 09163324958

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION ON

NON-FORUM SHOPPING

We, Representatives Edcel C. Lagman, Tomasito S. Villarin,

Gary C. Alejano, Emmanuel A. Billones, Teddy Brawner Baguilat, Jr.
and Edgar R. Erice, all of legal age, Filipino citizens and with
respective addresses stated in the foregoing petition, after having
been duly sworn in accordance with law, depose and state that:

1. We are the Petitioners in the foregoing Petition under the

third paragraph of Section 18 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution;

2. We have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing

Petition; we have read the subject pleading and we understand the
import of the same; and the allegations therein are true and correct
of our personal knowledge as well as based on authentic records
and/or documents;

3. We hereby certify that (a) we have not heretofore

commenced any action or proceeding involving the same issues in

29
the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions
thereof or any other tribunal or agency, (b) to the best of our
knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof
or any other tribunal or agency; (c) if there is such other actions or
proceedings pending, we shall state the status of the same; and (d)
if we should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or different Divisions thereof or any other tribunal or
agency, we undertake to promptly inform the Honorable Supreme
Court of that fact within five (5) days therefrom.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our

signatures this 3rd day of June 2016 in Quezon City, Metro Manila.

EDCEL C. LAGMAN TOMASITO S. VILLARIN

Affiant-Petitioner Affiant-Petitioner
Senior Citizens ID No. 84506 Drivers License No. NO4-96-375883
Issued at Quezon City Issued at Quezon City
Issued on 09 July 2007 Issued on 18 February 2015

GARY C. ALEJANO EMMANUEL A. BILLONES

Affiant-Petitioner Affiant-Petitioner
Phil. Passport No. EB8312593 Senior Citizens ID No. 059623
Issued at DFA, Manila Issued at Roxas City
Issued on 05 June 2013 Issued on 11 June 2012

TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT, EDGAR R. ERICE

JR.
Affiant-Petitioner
Drivers License No. PO-02-
005827
Issued at Lamut, Ifugao
Issued on 13 February 2015
Affiant-Petitioner
Phil Passport No. EC3661981
Issued at DFA, Manila
Issued on 20 March 2015

30
 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3rd day of June
2017 in Quezon City, Philippines, affiant-petitioners exhibited their
government-issued IDs printed under their respective names.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL on the place and date above-

written.

Notary Public

Doc. No. ________;

Page No. ________;
Book No. ________;
Series of 2016

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE/MAILING

I, ROWENA ESTACIO, a member of the legal staff of Lagman Lagman and

Mones Law Office with office address at 2/F Tempus Place I, Condominium
Makatarungan and Matalino Sts. Diliman, Quezon City, after being duly sworn,
depose and state:

That on 05 June 2017, I caused the mailing of the pleading hereunder

described by registered mail with return card in accordance with Section 13, Rule
13 of the Rules of Court:

PETITION UNDER THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 18 OF ARTICLE VII

OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

by depositing a copy each in the post office in a sealed envelope, postage

prepaid, under respectively, Registry Nos. ______________________, plainly
addressed to:

Hon. Salvador C. Medialdea

Office of the Executive Secretary
Malacaang, Manila
31
 Hon. Delfin N. Lorenzana
Office of the Secretary
Department of National Defense
Camp General Aguinaldo, Quezon City

General Eduardo Ao
Office of the Chief of Staff
Armed Forces of the Philippines
Camp General Aguinaldo, Quezon City.

TO THE TRUTH OF THE FOREGOING, I have signed this Affidavit on 05 June

2017 at Quezon City, Philippines.

_______________
(Affiant)

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 5th day of June 2017 in

Quezon City, Philippines. The affiant, who is personally known to me being my
legal stall, personally appeared and signed the foregoing instrument in my
presence.

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL.

NOTARY PUBLIC
DOC. NO. ________
PAGE NO. ________
BOOK NO. ________
SERIES OF 2017

32