REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
MANILA

NORKAYA S. MOHAMAD,
SITTIE NUR DYHANNA S.
MOHAMAD, NORAISAH S.
SANI, ZAHRIA P. MUTI-
MAPANDI,
Petitioners,

SC G.R. No.
For: Petition for Review of the
Sufficiency of Factual Basis of
Declaration of Martial Law and
Suspension of the Privilege of
the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

-aersus-

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
SALVADOR C.
MEDIALDE&
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL
DEFENSE (DND) SECRETARY
DELFIN N. LORENZANA,
DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT (DrLG)
SECRETARY (OFFICER.IN-
CHARGE) CATALINO S. CUY,
ARMED FORCES OF THE
PHILIPPINES (AFP) CHIEF OF
STAFF GEN. EDUARDO M.
ANIO, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
POLICE (PNP) CHIEF
DIRECTOR GENERAL
RONALD M. DELA ROSA,
NATIONAL SECURITY
ADVISER HERMOGENES C.
ESPERON,IR.,
Respondents.
 PETITION
Petitioners, by counsel, respectfully file this petition, a citizens'
challenge against the sufficiency of the factual basis for the
proclamation of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of
the writ of hnbeas corpus and ask the Honorable Supreme Court to
exercise its sacred mandate under the Constitution to review the
President's exercise of his Commander-in-Chief powers in issuing
Proclamation No. 216 on May 23,2017.

I.
PREFATORY STATEMENT

The 1987 Philippine Constitution is a product of the long struggle

against the Marcos dictatorship and martial law. As it laid down the
blueprint for rebuilding the country after the ouster of President
Marcos, the 1987 Constitution likewise provided the necessary
safeguards against the resurgence of martial law and its bundle of
atrocities. Indeed, the 1987 Constitution is an anti-martial law
document.

The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission clearly

show the intent of the framers to disassemble the constitutional
framework that gave birth to the Marcos martial law and allowed it
to victimize the country for so long. The reformulation of the
provision on the grant of extraordinary powers to the President, as
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, was
deliberately focused on installing fortifications against the abuse of
such powers and the repeat of the nation's experience under Marcos.
The grounds and scope were delimited. The process was clearly
outlined. Review mechanisms were put in place.

Unmistakably, the 1987 Constitution manifests an aversion to

the use of the martial law powers and the power to suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. An integral component of this
constitutional reluctance to allow these extraordinary powers is a
similar repugnance to the indecision and inaction of the Marcos
Supreme Court. Thus, the 1.987 Constitution addresses not only the
Executive and the Legislative, but specifically exhorts the Judiciary to
avoid complacency that amounts to complicity.

The petitioners, all womery are residents of Marawi City, the

place that is now the site of an armed conflict that prompted the
2
declaration of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao. The petitioners are exhausted.
They are weary. Th"y face the uncertainty of being able to return to
the place they considered home. Yet they are not hopeless. They
come to this Court as ordinary cittzens, emboldened by the 1987
Constitution's direct recognition of their capacity to come forward and
challenge the extraordinary powers of the most powerful official of
the land. Thuy humbly ask the Supreme Court to perform its
mandate and inquire into the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
declaration of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus.

The transcendental question that begs to be asked of the

government is this: At any time from the declaration of martial law
on 23 May 2OL7to the present, was Marawi, much more any part of
Mindanao, occupied in a permanent manner by the "rebels" and
removed from allegiance to the Philippine State? Only then can the
"rebellion" be something that calls for using the instrument of last
resort.

We must be strict about the Constitutional limits and powers

imposed and bestowed upon all the powers of Government. The
President could be righg but due process requires that not only the
reason but the process must be strictly construed. Whether we are
talking about the facts at the time of the Proclamation, or at present,
or in 30 or 120 days more of fighting, the standard we hold to the
President must be the same. Every time the President or any branch
expands their prerogatives and chips away at our rights as citizens, it
weakens our democracy. If we do not assert no matter how
seemingly small - our substantive and procedural rights against any
aggressive exercise of government power, because of "trust" or "he
may have information not available to others i' we will find out too
late that we have lost our democracy.
 il.
NATURE OF THE PETITION
'1,. This Petition is a special proceeding specifically
authorized under Section L8, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, asking
the Honorable Court to review the sufficiency of the factual basis for
the declaration of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habens corpus, under Proclamation No. 216, entitled
Declnring a State of Mnrtial Law and Suspending the Priailege of the Writ
of Habeas Corpus in the IMole of Mindanao.

2. Petitioners hereby certify, as shown by the attached

Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, that they
have not commenced any action involving the same issues before the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof,
or before any other tribunal or agency, and that to the best of their
knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme
Courf the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any
other tribunal or agency. Petitioners have been informed, through
news reports, that, as of today, two petitions related to the issuance of
Proclnmntion No. 216 have been filed before the Supreme Court but
they do not have sufficient information to state the details (including
the case numbers) of such petitions. Petitioners also certify that
should they hereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has
been filed or is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals
or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, they
undertake to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal
or agency, within five (5) days therefrom.

3. Proof of service of copies of this petition on the

respondents and on the Solicitor General is submitted together with
this Petition.

III.
THE PARTIES

4. The following petitioners are individual Filipino citizens,

all womery all of legal ages, and residents of Marawi City:

NORKAYA S. MOHAMAD
SITTIE NUR DYHANNA S. MOHAMAD
NORAISAH S. SANI
ZAHRIA P. MUTI. MAPANDI
 Th"y may be served summons through undersigned counsel at
the address indicated below.

5.The respondents are impleaded in their respective official

capacities. Respondent Executive Secretary is primarily charged with
the duty of issuing and implementing the questioned Proclamation
No. 216. The other public respondents are heads of government
agencies that are primarily tasked to handle issues related to security
and peace and order, and are likewise directly involved in the
implementation of martial law. The respondents may be served
summons through their respective addresses, indicated below.

IV.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS

6. On 2'1. Muy 2017, or two (2) days before the clashes in

Marawi City, President Rodrigo Duterte ("President Duterte") stated
that " I already warned you. Please don't force my hand to kill you." It is
claimed this statement was a prediction to the imposition of martial
law.1

7.On 23 Muy 2017, clashes between the government forces

and the Maute group, an Islamist militant organization based in
Mindanao, began in Marawi City. Presidential spokesperson Ernesto
Abella claimed that fighters had taken over several government
buildings in the city and torched other buildings (school, church, city
jail). But many of these claims have later on been debunked in a
report by The Philippine Star.2

8. At
7:28 p.ffi., National Security Adviser Hermogenes
Esperon said that the AFP was in full control of the situation. This
was affirmed by AFP Chief Aflo in an interview with ANC Live at
9:45 pm.3

1 Vincent Bevins and Emily Rauhala, Drtterte snys he may ruifutt nnrtial 1671t f'rom Mindanno to include
all of the Plilippines, WASHTNGToN Posr, Asn & PACruc, Muy 24, 2017, aoailable at
https:/ /r+-ww.washingtonpost.com/rvorld/casting-himself-as-national-savior-duterte-declares-
nartial-law-in-the-southern-philippines / 2A77 / 05 / 2a/ 268d7lfa-4075-11e7-9857-
b95c40075207 story.hbnl?utm_term:.eb252779ba55 (last accessed J:une 8,2077).
2 FACT CHECK: Inconsistencies in Duterte's martinl law report, PHIL. SrA& May 31, 2017, aaailable at

http: / / www.philstar.com/ headlines/ 2017 / 05 / 31 / 1705369 / fact-check-inconsistencies-dutertes-

martial-law-report (last accessed fune 8, 201n.
3 TIMELINE: Maute attack in Marawi City, ABICBN News, May 25, 2077, auailable at
http:/ /news.abs-cbn.com/news/05 /25/V /nmeHne-maute-attack-in-marawi-city (last accessed
June8,2017).
5
 9. By 10:30 p.ffi., 1't Infantry Division Spokesperson Lt. Col.
lo-ar Herrerra said in an interview with CNN Philippines that
although military troops clashed with more or less fifty (50) Maute
members, they were already on top of the situation. AFP Public
Affairs Office Chief Marine Col. Edgardo Arevalo said in a briefing
around 1,1:00pm that the situation in Marawi has stabilized and
security forces are in full control of the situation.a

10. At
11:20 p.m. of the same day, Proclamation No.276 was
issued by President Duterte while in the Russian Federation. The
declaration is purported to cover Mindanao because of the conJlicts
that are claimed throughout the region.s

11.
On 25 Muy 2017, President Duterte transmitted to both
Houses of Congress the " Report Relatiae to Proclamation No. 2'1,6,"
which contained the alleged factual and legal bases for the issuance
of Proclamation No. 2L6. The said report was received by both Houses
of Congress on the same duy.

12.The Petitioners respectfully request the Honorable Court,

pursuant to Section 1., Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, to take judicial
notice of Proclnmntion No. 216 and the President's report to the
Congress relative to such proclamation, as official acts of the
executive department. For the Honorable Court's easy reference, a
certified true copy each of the questioned Proclamation and Report
are attached to this Petition as Annexes A and B, respectively.

13.
This Petition is being filed promptly as an " appropriate
proceeding filed by any citrzen," pursuant to Section 78, Article VII of
the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

a Marawi Cisis Timeline cNN Philippines, Muy 25, 2017, auailable at

http:/ / crnphilippines.con/ news/ 2017 /05/24/marawi-crisis-timeline.html (last accessed June 8,
207n.
s Id.
5
 V.
REOUISITES OF IUDICIAL REVIEW

Petitioners' Locus Standi is

Unquestionable.

1,4. The case of Dquid u. Arroyo6 has defined locus standi as " a
right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question. In
private suits, standing is governed by the 'real-parties-in interest"
rule as contained in Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Ciail Procedure,
as amended. It provides that " every action must be prosecuted or
defended in the name of the real pafty in interest." Accordingly,
the 'real-party-in interest' is 'the patry who stands to be benefited or
injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the
avails of the suit.'Succinctly put, the plaintiff's standing is based on
his own right to the relief sought."

15.
However, in questioning the sufficiency of the factual
basis of the proclamation of martial law or suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, Section 18, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution provide that "[t]he 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 of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and
must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its
filing."

1,6. Verily, by express provision of the Constitutioru any

citizen can file a petition questioning the declaration of martial law or
the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.In the case
at bar, the petitioners are not only citizens of the Republic but are
presently displaced residents of Marawi City.

6 G.R. No. 771396,3 May 2006.

 VI.
GROUNDS TO GRANT THE PETITION

A.
NO. 216 AND
PROCLAMATION THE
REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
PRESIDENT TO THE CONGRESS FAILED
TO ESTABLISH THE SUFFICIENCY OF
THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE
DECLARATION OF MARTIAL LAW AND
THE SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF
THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.

B.
THE HONORABLE COURT IS
MANDATED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO
REVIEW THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE
FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE
DECLARATION OF MARTIAL tAW AND
THE SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVITEGE OF
THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
MUST DIRECT THE RESPONDENT
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO PROVIDE
INFORMATION RELEVANT TO SUCH
REVIEW.

VII.
DISCUSSION

The Constitution has narrowed

the available grounds that can
justify the declaration of martial
law and the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus.

17. Unlike the 1935 and the 7973 Constitutions, the 1987
Constitution deliberately restricted the grounds for the declaration of
martial law to actual invasion or actual rebellion. The relevant
portion of Article VlI, Section'18, reads:

Section 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 rr.ay, 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.

18. The term " or imminent danger thereof," which was

contained in the previous constitutions, was removed from the L987
Constitution. This modification of the grounds for the declaration of
martial law or the suspension of the privilege was deliberately aimed
at limiting the factual situations that can be cited by the President as
justification for the declaration or the suspension. One of the
members of the Constitutional Commission even conunented that
such phrase "is fraught with possibilities of abtrse."7

19. Furthermore, the mere existence of actual rebellion or

actual invasion would not be sufficient. The 1987 Constitution
contains the phrase, "when the public safety requires it." Thus, the
Constitution does not only require the existence of actual rebellion or
actual invasion. It also requires that martial law or the suspension of
the privilege is necessitated by the requirements of public safety.
The mere invocation, therefore, of rebellion or invasion, will not be
the sufficient factual basis for the declaration of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege.

20. Under the 1987 Constitution, martial law must be an

instrument of last resort. If there is a remedy less severe than martial
law, such less severe remedy must be resorted to. O.ly when there is
a showing that the situation cannot be contained unless martial law is
declared, can the use of such extraordinary power of the President be
justifiable. This is clear from the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission.

21. Fr. Joaquin Bernas explained the graduated sequence of

the extraordinary powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief.
First, the power to call out the armed forces. Second, the power to
suspend the privilege of the writ of hsbeas corpus. Third, the
imposition of martial law. He stated that even if there is a rebellion

7IIRECORD OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION: PROCEEDINGS AD DEBATES, at

411413 (1987).
9
but the rebellion can be handled and public safety can be protected
without the imposition of martial law or the suspension of the
privilege, the rebellion, even if actual, will not, by itself, justify the
imposition or the suspension.8

22.
When Commissioner Padilla proposed the deletion of the
phrase "invasion or rebellion" as grounds for the power to call out
the armed forces, it was opposed and Commissioner Sumulong
explained that such deletion would then compel the President to
impose martial law, even it the President did not wish to.
Commissioner Regalado also pointed out that the removal of the
grounds of invasion and rebellion for the calling out powers could be
interpreted as a signal that, in case of an invasion or rebelliory the
only recourse would be martial law.e

23.
From the deliberations, it is very clear that the grounds of
invasion and rebellion are common grounds for the exercise of the
three extraordinary powers under Article VlI, Section 1.8. The choice of
which power to use is not discretionary in the hands of the President,
but must be dictated by the exigencies of the situation. The power
exercised must be commensurate to the sifuation sought to be
addressed. Martial law can only be justified if the rebellion or
invasion has reached such gravity that the imposition of martial law
is compelled by the needs of public safety.

24.
The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines is
based on the framework of the American Constitution. The history of
the definition of martial law is thus "traceable to the American
origins."ro A major difference is that the Constitution of the
Philippines vests the President with " tuLto .,, extraordinary pouters: the
power to suspend the priuilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the power
to impose martial laTD."11

25.
In contrast, the Constitution of the United States does not
explicitly include the Presidential power to impose martial law.tz In
I Id.
e ld., at459,473.
10
JOAQUIN G. BuRNRs, S.J. Tru 1987 CoNSTITUTIoN oF TFIE REpuBLrc oF THE PmlpprNns: A
CoMMENTARY 898 (2009 ed.).
11 Id.

12However, in the Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 9, enables the suspension
of the writ of habeas corpus and the activation of military in Article 1, Section 8. The express
prohibition of the "suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, that prohibition is subject to express
exception as reflected in the statement "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public
safety may require it". US Corusr. art. I, S 9. US CoNsr. art. I, g 8.
10
the United States, "rnartial law is the law of public necessity, and
where courts have been dispossessed or are not able to function,
there may be a reason for invoking martial law, but martial law does
not require the closing of civil courts."13

26.
Martial law has "no precise meaning" in the United States
and has historically "been employed in various ways by different
people and at different times."14 It is considered the "law of public
necessity or military necessity ... wherein the agencies of the civil
law are patalyzed overthrown, or overpowered, and are unable, for
the time being fully to operate and function".1s Importantly,
martial law "does not arise from threatened invasion, as the necessity
must be actual and present and the invasion real."16

27. In Ex parte Milligantz the United States Supreme Court

addressed the "parameters of the declaration of martial law."18 In the
case, Chief Justice Chase states that:

There are three kinds of military jurisdiction:

one to be exercised in both peace and waq
another to be exercised in time of foreign war
without the boundaries of the United States, or in
time of rebellion and civil war within the States or
districts occupied by rebels treated as
belligerents; and a third to be exercised in time of
invasion or insurrection within the limits of the
United States, or during rebellion within the
limits of States maintaining adhesion to the
National Government, when the public danger
requires its exercise. First is iurisdiction under

13 Ex Parte Spurlock,66 F. Supp. 997 (D.Haw.'I9M).

1a Duncan v. Kahanamoku,32T U.S. 304 (1946).
1s American Jurisprudence 2'd (online), Military and Cioil Defense, "Nature and basis of martial
law; distinctions" at $ 388.
16 American
Jurisprudence 2"d (online), Military and Cioil Defense, "Conditions for existence of
martial law" at $ 389.
17Ex Parte Milligan" 71 U.S. 4 Wall. 2 2 (1866). See the American Bar, " Ex. parte Milligan" aaailable
,
at https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public-education/initiatives_awards/students_in_
action/milligan.html. The issue in the Ex Parte Milligan case was whether an armed con-flict
within the United States justified the imposition of military law (whether Lincoln had followed
the law and Constifution when martial law was authorized). Five men were arrested by the
Union Army in Indiana during the Civil War and the military court sentenced them to death.
They appealed on the grounds of their Constitutional right to habeas corpus. The decision was
issued a year after the war was over. The Supreme Court unanimously held in defence of the rule
of law that the President had exceeding his power because Indiana was not under attack and the
courts in Indiana were functioning.
18 Treatise on Constitutional Law-Substance & Procedure (online), "Chapter 5. International
Affairs," at S 6.13(bXi).
1,r
 military law. and is found in acts of Congress
prescribing rules and articles of war, or otherwise
providing for the goverrunent of national forces.
The second may be distinguished as military
government, superseding, as f.ar as may be
deemed expedient, the local law, and exercised
by the military commander, under the direction
of the President, with the express or irnplied
sanction of Congress. The third may be
denominated martial law proper, and is called
into action by Congress, or temporarTly, when
the action of Congress cannot be invited, in the
case of justifying or excusing peril, by the
President, in times of insurrection or invasion, or
of civil or foreign war, within districts or localities
whose ordinary law no longer adequately secures
public safety and private rights.ro

28.
Subsequent to the regime of President Ferdinand E.
Marcos,2o the 1986 Constitutional Commission created safeguards in
the text of the Constitution with regard to martial law.21 In the
Philippine context martial law can only be "operaflve" in instances
of "invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it"z2 and it
is the prerogative of the President to authorize rnartial law within the
limits established by the Constitution.

29.
The "object of the exercise of martial law is public safety"
and "authorizes the military to act vigorously for the maintenance of
an orderly civil governmettt."23 Martial law is a flexible concept and
is imposed in response to a "degree of necessity" founded on two
factual basis. The first basis is "the existence of invasion or rebellion"
and the second basis is "the requirements of public safety."z+
Necessity is determined on a case-by-case basis which will be
measured through analogy (common denominator).2s

1e BERNAS, supra note 70, at 898-899.

2o entire territory of the Philippines was placed under
See BERNAS, supra note 10, at904-905. The
martial law by President Ferdinand Marcos on September 21., 7972, by way of Proclamation No.
1081. Subsequent proclamations removed the jurisdiction of the courts over significant cases such
as those involving constitutional validity of Presidential Proclamations, rules, orders or acts
issued, promulgated or performed by his government.
21 Id. at903.

D Id. at899.
n ld. at902.
2a Id. at903.

25 Id.
72
 30. Martial Law is, by its name, military rule. It must be
more than just the power of the President over the military, which is
something that can already be invoked during lawless violence, so
grave that it is beyond lawlessness handled by an armed civilian
police. Whether from the time of McArthur against Aguinaldo, or in
any other call of martial law, i.e. US Civil War, or Mexico, or Jamaica,
or Poland, military law is imposed when there is a failure of
government.

31. As a conquering force, martial law is imposed when

existing civilian government and services cannot function without
the force of arms. The military holds order in place until a civilian
government is established. It is in this context that the 1986
Constitutional Commission talks about the theater of war, where the
law in war is not law at all. It is an extraordinary measure that fills a
potential governance vacuum with military might.

32. This is the standard that a President must abide before

Martial Law. Had governance collapsed in Marawi at the time of the
Proclamation of Martial Law? Was the violence so widespread and
overwhelming that government had broken down to the extent that
only the military could establish a semblance of governance? If no!
then Martial Law is not warranted.

33. This does not diminish the violence and terror that exists
in Marawi. It just means that military might can be exercised without
abrogating civilian rule. That is the lesson of martial rule. The fact
that our Constitution is in place or civilian courts continue are not
safeguards that should make Martial Law easier to proclaim. It just
means that once it is proclaimed, it is a reminder that as much as
possible, as in war, the President cannot take over Congress, courts
must continue, and civilian life must proceed as far as safely possible.

34. As can be seen from both Proclamation and the Report to

the Congress, the factual situation in Marawi City does not amount to
such grave situation that other powers and resources in the hands of
the government cannot address. The following items are notable:

a. The repeated references in the Proclamation to the

armed groups as the "Maute terrorist grovp" antd, in the
Report, as "lawless armed grotps";

13
 b. The enumeration of the various acts committed by
the "Maute terrorist group" injust one day, i.e., on the day of
the Proclamation;

c. The admission that the conflict started as a result of

a government operation to capture Isnilon Hapilon and Maute
group leaders, Abdullah and Omarkhayam Maute, which was
confronted with armed resistance that escalated into open
hostility against the government; and

d. The capability of the Maute group and other rebel

groups (which the Proclamation did not identify) to sow terror,
and cause death and damage to property not only in Lanao del
Sur but also in other parts of Mindanao.

35. The following questions must necessarily be raised:

a. The government operation against Hapilon and the

Maute leaders was identified as the event that eventually
escalated into open hostility against the government. Does that
constitute an actual rebellion?

b. Even assuming that the clashes that occurred on 23

Muy 2017 can be considered as rebellion, could the official
statements made by different AFP personnel in media outlets as
early as 7:28 p.m. of 23 Muy 2017 declaring that the military
was in full control of the Marawi situation be considered as
s admission that the rebellion had ceased and there was no more
need to declare martial law?

l c. Even assuming the events on 23 Muy 2017 can be

considered rebelliory is that combination of incidents, which all
happened in just one day, a sufficient justification to compel the
imposition of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus?

d. Is the power to call out the armed forces not enough

to quell the violence in Marawi, even assuming can be it
considered actual rebellion?

e. Even assuming the Marawi incidents constitute

actual rebellion, is there actual rebellion as well throughout
Mindanao that will justify the imposition of martial law and the
74
 suspension of the privilege for the entire Mindanao? Or is the
situation outside Marawi a mere threat or imminence of
rebellion?

36. The petitioners assert that the Marawi incidents, ds

narrated in the Proclamation and in the Report, do not equate to the
existence of a public necessity brought about by an actual rebellion,
which would compel the imposition of marfial law or the suspension
of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Succinctl/, there is no
sufficient factual basis for the imposition of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege. Or is the May 23, 2017 declaration an
attempt to test the waters by chipping away at the strict safeguards
against martial law, (including the Court's power of judicial review
of "sufficiency" if the public statements of the President and the
Speaker of the House in that regard are to be believed), towards
ultimately revising Section 18, Article VII to allow constitutional
authoritarianism reminiscent of the Marcos years? Marcos
suspended the writ of habeas corpus to test public reaction before
finally declaring martial law.

37. The term "rebellion" in Section 78, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution has the same meaning as the term "rebellion" as defined
in Article 134 of the Reaised Penal Code. A review of the deliberations of
the 1986 Constitutional Commission shows that in setting forth the
factual bases that would justify the imposition of martial law and
limiting the scope of the term "rebellion," reference was explicitly
made to Article 134 of the Reuised Penal Code as the basis for defining
the term "rebellion." This is readily apparent from the exchange
between Commissioners De los Reyes and Regalado, thus:

MR. DE LOS REYES. As I see it now, the

Committee envisions acfual rebellion and no
longer imminent rebellion. Does the Committee
mean that there should be actual shooting or
actual attack on the legislature or Malacaflang, for
example? Let us take for example a
contemporary event - this Manila Hotel inciden!
everybody knows what happened. Would the
committee consider that an actual act of
rebellion?

MR. REGALADO. If we consider the definition

of rebellion under Articles 134 and 135 of the
15
 Revised Penal Code, that presupposes an acfual
assemblage of men in an armed public uprising
for the purposes mentioned in Article 134 and
by the means employed in Article 135. x x x26
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

33. The reference to the Reaised Penal Code as the basis for the
definition of "rebellion" is further confirmed by the fact that it is
likewise the Reaised Penal Code that was used by the Constitutional
Commission when they defined the acts in cases of "invasion," to wit:

MR. REGALADO: Actually, the offenses

involved in case of an invasion are those found in
Title I, Book II of the Revised Penal Code; that is,
crimes against national security and the law of
nations. Among them are treason, espionage,
communication in wartime with the hostile
country, and giving information to the hostile
country. They are all enumerated there.zz

39. Under the foregoing circumstances, the intent of the

framers of the Constitution should prevail, because it is well-settled
that "the fundamental principle of constitutional construction is to
give effect to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the
people adopting 1t."28 Indeed, this Honorable Court has affirmed
that:

xxx where there is ambiguity, ratio legis est anima.

The words of the Constitution should be
interpreted in accordance with the Intent of its
f-ramers. And so did this Court apply this
principle in Ciail Liberties Union r,. Executiae
Secretary in this wise:

A foolproof yardstick in constitutional

construction is the intention underlying the
provision under consideration. Thus, it has been
held that the Court in construing a Constitution
should bear in mind the object sought to be
accomplished by its adoption, and the evils, if
any, sought to be prevented or remedied. A
doubtful provision will be examined in the light

26 II RECORD oF THE CoNsrrrurroNel CorraussroN/ at 472 (7987).

zz II RscoRo, at398.
28 Gold Creek Mining Corp. v. Rodriguez,66 Phil. 259 (1938\.

16
 of the history of the times, and the condition and
circumstances under which the Constitution was
framed. The object is to ascertain the reason which
induced the framers of the Constitution to enact the
particular prouision and the purpose sought to be
accomplished thereby, in order to construe the
whole as to make the words consonant to that
reason and calculated to effect that purpose. x x x

As it did in Nitafan a. Commissioner on Internal

Reaenuewhere, speaking through Madame Justice
Amuerfina A. Melencio-Herrera, it declared:

x x x The ascertainment of that intent is but in

keeping with the fundamental principle of
constitutional construction that the intent of the
framers of the organic law and of the people
adopting it should be given effect. The primary
task in constitutional construction is to ascertain
and thereafter assure the realization of the
purpose of the framers and of the people in
adoption of the Constitution. It may also be
safely assumed that the people in ratifying the
Constitution rL,ere guided mainly by the explanation
offere d by the framer s.2e

40. As defined in Article 1.34 of the Reaised Penal Code, as

amended by Republic Act No. 6968, the crime of rebellion is
,committed by "risingpublicly and taking arms against the
Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said
Government or its laws, the territory of the Philippine Islands or any
part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces,
depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or parttally,
of any of their powers or prerogatives."

41.. To adopt this limited definition of "rebellion" is

consistent with the elimination of the phrase "or imminent danger
thereof" which was previously a sufficient ground for the declaration
of martial law under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. The elimination
of said phrase was explained by Fr. Bernas himself, thus: "the phrase
could cover a multitude of sins and could be a source of a
tremendous amount of irresistible temptation. And, so, to better

2eFrancisco, lr. u. Nagmamalasakit ng mga Mananananggol ng mga Manggagazaang Pilipino, Inc.,

415 SCRA M(2003\.
L7
protect the liberties of the people, we preferred to eliminate that."3o
In this connection, Commissioner Regalado adds that:

There is a fear that the President could base the

suspension of the writ on alleged intelligence
reports which cannot be looked into and the
veracity of which is dependent on the
classification by the military. This could lead to a
sifuation where these reports could easily be
manufactured and attributed to anybody, without
even the judiciary being in a position to refuse or
look into the truth of the same.31

The 1987 Constitution mandates

the Supreme Court to inquire
into the factual basis of the
imposition of martial law and the
suspension of the privilege, an
determine the sufficiency of suc
to justify the extraordina
POwers.

42.
The Proclamation's invocation of rebellion and citation of
tlne Reaised Penal Code's definition of the crime are not adequate to
meet the Constitutional standards. As stated earlier, the Constitution
purposely imposed strict limitations on the use of the extraordinary
powers of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus. The window for the use of the extraordinary powers
have been intentionally constricted and unless the situation will
squarely fall within the strict parameters imposed, the powers should
not be available.

43. The statements in the Report pointing to "the group/s

clear intention to establish an Islamic State and their capability to
deprive the duly constituted authorities - the Presiden! foremost - of
their powers and prerogatives" is a conclusion bereft of substance.
The allegation that "lawless armed groups are attempting to deprive
the President of his power, authority, and prerogatives within
Marawi City as a precedent to spreading their control over the entire
Mindanao, in an attempt to undermine his control over executive

30 I RECoRD, at773.
st II Rrcono, at 474
18
departments, bureaus, and offices in said area; defeat his mandate to
ensure that all laws are faithfully executed; and remove his
supervisory powers over local goverrlments" is a very complex
supposition.

44. Again, even assuming that the Marawi incidents would

qualify as rebellion, there must be an indispensable demonstration
that "public safety requires " the imposition of martial law and the
suspension of the privilege. Here, there is just the concluding portion
of the Report:

Considering the network and alliance-building

activities among terrorist groups, local criminals,
and lawless armed men, the siege of Marawi City
is a vital cog in attaining their long-standitrg goal:
absolute control over the entirety of Mindanao.
These circumstances demand swift and decisive
action to ensure the safety and security of the
Filipino people and preserve our national
integrity.

While the government is presently conducting

legitimate operations to address the on-going
rebelliory if not the seeds of invasion, public
safety necessitates the continued implementation
of martial law and the suspension of the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of
Mindanao until such time that the rebellion is
completely quelled.32

Similar to the Report and the Proclamation's incantation of rebellion

and attempt to present the facts as falling within the elements of the
crime of rebellion, as defined, the said conclusion is another big leap
unsupported by evidence that the exercise of the powers are needed
as the government's last resort.

45. An essential component of the 1,987 Constitution's

reformulated provision on martial law is the mandate for judicial
review. The Constitution provides:

32A certified true copy of Report on Proclamation No. 216 is attached hereto as Annex "B" and its
contents are made an integral part of the Petition.
19
 Section 18.
xxx
The Supreme Court may review, in an
appropriate proceedi.g 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 of habeas corpus or the
extension thereof, and must promulgate its
decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
xxx

46.
The intent of the framers was clear. Aside from limiting
the discretion of the President, the exercise of the extraordinary
powers was placed under the review powers of both the Congress
and the Supreme Court. By placing within the authority of the
Supreme Court the review of the factual basis of the proclamation of
martial law or the suspension of the privilege, the Constitution
mandates the Supreme Court to inquire into the facts that the
President would use to justify the use of the powers.

47. In his commentary on the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Fr.

Bernas explains the role of this Honorable Court, as follows:

"Over and above the action which Congress

may take, the role of the Supreme Court has also
been clarified: 'The Supreme Court may review,
in an appropriate proceedirg 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 filing.' Any citizen is given
standing to bring appropriate action to
challenge the action taken by the President.
This can be done even before Congress acts, and
the decision of the Supreme Court would also
bind Congress. xxx"33 (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied.)

48.
Therefore, as soon as the proclamation has been made, an
action may already be brought before this Honorable Court to
question the existence of factual basis for making such proclamation
at the time of its declaration, even without congressional action" and

33 BERNAS, supranote 10, at 888.

20
regardless of whether the President has subsequently lifted the
declaration.

49. The provision requiring Congress to make a

determination as to the necessity of proclaiming martial law, as well
as the remedy to bring an action before the Court are innovations in
the 1987 Constitution meant to be safeguards in the form of
cumulative, and not merely alternative, checks and balances on the
President's power to place the Philippines or any of part thereof
under martial law. Therefore, there is even greater necessity for the
Court to rule upon the sufficiency of the factual basis for the
proclamation where there has been no congressional action.

50. The categorical authority given to the Supreme Court to

review the sufficiency of the factual basis is not just a requirement
which is part of the package of limitations on the President's powers.
Such grant of authority is likewise a clear mandate to the Court,
aimed at preventing the resurrection of the martial law
jurisprudence, which generally acceded to the actions of Marcos, and
limited the Court's review powers to the arbitrariness of the exercise
of the extraordinary powers.

51. With the 1987 Constitution's formulation, the Supreme

Court is not only authorized - it is, in fact, mandated - to review the
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law and the suspension of
the privilege, and look into the wisdom of the actions, not just the
presence of arbitrariness. In fact, the impetus for the exercise of the
Court's review powers has been relaxed as the Constitution merely
requires " an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizerr," not even a
taxpayer.

52. The Petitioners, in initiating this proceeding, ask the

Honorable Court to conduct the mandated review of the sufficiency
of the factual basis of the President's exercise of the extraordinary
powers. Th"y humbly submit that, in view of the ConstitutiorU the
Court must do a unique exercise, an exception to the general rule that
the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Indeed, the Constitution
has directed the exception to be made, the Court is required to
inquire into the facts, and to determine, within the parameters set by
the Constitution, whether the factual circumstances justify the
imposition of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus.

2t
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray that the Honorable Court

exercise its constitutional mandate to review the President's exercise
of his Commander-in-Chief powers, compel respondents to present
proof on the factual basis for declaration of martial law and the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao,
and after inquiring into the factual basis of such declaration and
suspension, declare Proclamation No. 276 null and void for being
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, for lack of sufficient factual basis.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Quezon City for Manila, 8 June 2017.

CHRISTIAN S. MONSOD
Roll No. ],6121
PTR No. 6279150; 6 / 8 / 17 ; Makati City
IBP Lifetime No. 648642
CLE Exemption und

Roll No. 46470

PTR No. 5965513; 1 / 31 / 17 ; Makati City
IBP Lifetime No. 02962
MCLE Exemption No. V-000493 ; 06 / 2a / $

IOM
Roll 74
IBP No.02247
PTR No. 2495015;1/ a/20\7; Pasig City
MCLE Compliance No. V-0021455; 05 /13 /1.6
AMPARTIA S. STA. MARIA
Roll No. 32235
PTR No. 32235;01/27 /17; Quezon City
IBP Lifetime No. 00442
MCLE Exemption No. V-000354 ; 5 / 28 / 15

E I\,IAUREEN g. MANIGBAS
Roll No. 63564
PTR No. 5965512; 1. / 31 / 17 ; Makati City
IBP Lifetime No. 012700
MCLE Compliance No. V -00'1.6128; 3 / 15 / 1.6

MARIA PA VANTES-POCO
Roll No. 58650
PTR No. 5916031; 01/ 6 / 17; Makati City
IBP Lifetime No. 09043
MCLE Compliance No. V-001575a; 2/ 29 / 16

Roll No. 62292

IBP O.R. No. 1061206;1/ 6/17; Quezon City
PTR No. 5916030;1,/6/2017; Makati City
MCLE Compliance No. V-0020090
 Na. CI45101 t-16-031Mis. Or.

MCLE Compliance No. V-000254ry5-2e14

Ns. ; 0I/05114 QC
IBP Lifetime No. 1023645; tfil81l6; Bulacan
MCLE Exernption Na. V-fiil2215; 06126136

Counsel for Fltitioners

ALTERNATIVE tAW GRO{JPS, INC. (AtG}
Room 215, I-rnsfitr-rte of Sacial Ordel
Social Developntent Comp[e;<, Ateneo de Manila University
Loycla HeighH, Quezon City
426 85 59; secretariaffialternativelawgroups,pl"r
Republic of the Philippinesi
nigan City ) ss.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

OF NON-FORUM SHOPPTNG

We, the undersigned. Filipinos, of legal age, all residents of Marawi

Ci$', state under oath that:

1. lVe are the petitioners in the instant caee.

2. We calrsed the preparation of the foregoing Petilion. We have read the
same, and the allegations contained therein are true and correct of sur own
personal kncwledge and based on authentic documents at hzurd,
3. We certify that we have not commenced afly acticrn involving the same
issues before the Supreme Cuurt, Court of Appeais, or any division thereof, or
bef<:re any kibunal or agency, and to the best of our }cnowledge, no sudl
action or proceedi*g is pending in the Suprenre Court, the Court of Appeals,
or different division-s thereot. or any other tribunal or agenry. tsase'd on news
reporLs, r,t'e have been informed that as cf today, two petitions related to the
issuance of Proclamation No. 216 have been filed bef<lre the $uprcme Cor:rt
but we d"o not have sufficient inJormation to s[ate the details (including the
case numbers) of such petitions. We ce*tify that shauld we hereafter learn
that a similar action or proceeding has been fiIed or pending in ttre Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, or di.fferent divisionc thereof, or an\r other
tribunal or ageney, we undertake to promptly inJorm the aforesaid court and
other tribunal or agency, withh five (5) days therefrsm. Based on news
reporh, we have been inforrred that as of today, two petitions retated to the
issuance of Proclamation No. 216 have been frled before the $upreme Court,
but we do not have sufficient inforrmtion to state the details (including the
case numlrers) of sudr petitions.
4. \{e execute this af{idavit io attest to the truth of the foregoing,
lN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have signed this Verificatran and Certification
this 8* june 201.7 in lligan City.

Nbrkaya S. Mohamad

sittie Nr. rry'ffm&{ohamad

 'this
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me 8rH lune 2077 at
affiants personally came and appeared with the
following competent evidence of identity.

NAME ID Date of lesuance/Valid

Until
Norkaya S. Mohamad passport June 25,201611wre24,
2U21
ZahiaP. Muti-Maptrrdi passport Ian. 4, 2A1,41 lan. 3, 201.9
NoraisahSavri Postal Id March 4,2015lMardr 4,
2018
Sittie Nur Dyhanna passport August LA,zATil Augrrst
Mohamad 13,2020

known to me as the same person who personally foregoing

documerrt before me and avowed uilSer penalty of tmth of
the corrtents of said instrument.
TNRA
Doc. No. 1!t 0E(31, e0h
Page No. al? : pTn N0,,72?-it-11 d6 ti 4 -,t, lgcft firr
Book frlo.fxf ffg, . r"rFfrtjtiia"-'-
R0il-
"
ffi,'0s346
Series of2O17-
lt$f do- v'onnmp
 EXPLANATION

Copies of the foregoing PETITION were served on the other

parties by means of registered mail due to the distance between the
parties' offices and the lack of material time and messengerial
personnel to effect personal service.

Copy furnished:

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

L34 Amorsolo Street
Legaspi Village
Makati City

HON. SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Malacanang Palace
1000 Manila

HON. DELFIN N. LORENZAN

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE (DND),
Camp Aguinaldo,
1110 Quezon City

HON. CATALINO S. CUY

SECRETARY (OFFICER-rN-CHARGE)
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT (DILG)
DILG NAPOLCOM Center
EDSA comer Quezon Avenue,
1104 Quezon City

GEN. EDUARDO M. ANO

CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES (AFP)
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
Camp Aguinaldo,
1110 Quezon City

DIRECTOR GENERAL RONALD M. DELA ROSA

CHIEF
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE (PNP)
Camp Crame,
1111 Quezon City

HON. HERMOGENES C. ESPERON,IR.,

NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISE& NATIONAL SECURITY
COUNCIL
NICA Compound, V. Luna Road cor. East Ave., Diliman
1101 Quezon City
Republic of the Philippines )
Makati City ) S.S.

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, RODELIO M. ERNACIO, of legal age, married, with business address at

Ateneo Human Rights Center (AHRC), Ateneo Professional Schools, Rockwell
Center, Makati Clty,after being sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose
and state that:

'1-..
I am employed as messenger at the Ateneo Human Rights Center (AHRC).

2. On 9ft June 2077, I served copies of the Petitioru in the case entitled,
"Norkaya S. Mohamad, et aI. v. Executive Secretary, el al." by means of
registered mail to the following:

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

L34 Amorsolo Street
Legaspi Village
1.229 Makati City

HON. SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA

Executive Secretary
Malacanang Palace
1005 Manila

HON. DELFIN N. LORENZANA

Secretary Department of National Defense (DND)
Camp Aguinaldo,lLL} Quezon City

HON. CATALINO S.CUY

Secretary (Officer-In-Char ge)
Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG)
DILG NAPOLCOM Center
EDSA comer Quezon Avenue, 1104 Quezon City

GEN. EDUARDO M. AI\IO

Chief of Staff
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
Camp Aguinaldo,7770 Quezon City

DIRECTOR GENERAL RONALD M. DELA ROSA

Chief
Philippine National Police (PNP)
Camp Crame, 1111 Quezon City
 i

HON. HERMOGENES C. ESPERON IR.,

National Sectrrity Adviser
National Security Council
NICA Compound, V. Luna Road cor. East Ave., Diliman
1101 Quezon City

3. I execute this Affidavit to attest to the tmth of the foregoing.

IN WITNESS WHEREOR I have hereunto affixed my hand, this 9ft day of

Iune 2017 in Makati City.

RODE O M. ERNACIO

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on 9ft ]une 20T7 affiant exhibiting

to me his SSS ID No. 33-01,41U03 as competent proof of identity, and he is
known to me as the same person who personally signed the foregoing document
before me and avowed under penalty of law to the whole truth of the contents of
said instrument.

+t
r:'lir:-t.liiirs l:*r
,' l'-1!- 1td_J'!/
Doc. No. zYo ; 1 ::'" ,:"'--4:'.:"
"ii
t4-:'-

Page No. {{ ; i-, -'.: :,,,' i' l

:
: i-. : i i: !',.
._.,..),..!t,,.g.:i
i i:i,.ir.::,:1i C ;iy

Book No. V !j, *t:, , i lluililinl

"
: i-j:,li .-.,:t, E ilr;:l:,.,r.:lrii
1,11...,,,.;,l.'., -.. .' ,..,i ll,r;111, i',:,-:il;;t: Cii,
Series of20!7. ir. .l ,-:. ,,.1, I I ,.t
r;'.lr':i fil;;
i l'-.;l i-i-r::, :,.,:.. 1; ;:;1; .T; f
lli' , .,. . -: ,-,- .; l'.- i'.i'.iil ; il'.,:=iil rJ:';'
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
MAKATI CITY ) S.S.

VERIFIED DECLARATION

I, RAY PAOLO I. SANTIAGO, hereby declare that the

Petition fo, Reaiezn the Sulficiency Factual Basis
"f "f "f
Declaration of Martial Laut and Suspension of the Priailege of the
Writ of Habeas Corpus in the case of Nonrayn S. MoHAMAD, SITTIE
Nun DevnnNNn S. Monavr,Lo, NonArsA S. SeNr, ZanRrn PaNpao
Murr MapeNu vs. ExrcurIVE SEcnEraRv ServeDoR C. MToTALDEAy
DrpnnrnaExr oF NeuoNer DETENSE SEcnsraRv DErrn N.
LonENzaNan DEpenrvrnNr oF THE INrEnroR AND Locer
GovUnNMENT SEcnErnnv (OrncEn-rN-CuancE) CarnnNo S. Cuy,
Anvrnp FoRcEs oF THE PnnnprNrs CHIEr or Srnrr GEru. Euunnno M.
ANo, PnrrInprNE NetroNar PoucE CHmr Dnncron GENrRnr
RoreNn M. DEra Rosa, Nanroruer SEcunrry AnvrsEn HEnMocENES
C. EspEnoN, ]n. and its Annexes hereto submitted electronically in
accordance with the Efficient Use of Paper Rule are complete and
true copies of the Petition and its Annexes flled with the Supreme
Court.

SUBSCRIBED AND sWoRN To before me on this 9ft day of june,

2017, affiant exhibiting his IBP Lifetime Member Card with Number
02962.

tu

Doc. 11e. 2il t

Page No. Y9 ;
Book No. v' ;
Series of2077.