Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREME COURT
Manila
Petitioners,
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------------x
1
PETITIONERS, through the undersigned counsel, unto the Honorable Supreme Court,
most respectfully states that:
1. Petitioners have never thought that once again, after almost four decades, an infamous event
unparalleled in history after two EDSA popular uprisings would take place in the country –
the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
2. This very urgent petition is invoked for the first time in thirty-seven (37) years since
September 21, 1972 when the late dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Proclamation No.
1081 placing the entire Philippines under a state of martial law. This time, it is the sitting
1959 proclaiming a state of martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas
3. Petitioners seek the nullification of Proclamation No. 1959 dated December 4, 2009
proclaiming a state of martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
in the province of Maguindanao, except for certain areas, as it is patently illegal and
4. The prayer for the declaration of Proclamation No. 1959 as null and void is anchored on the
(a) First, Proclamation No. 1959 has been issued sans the existence of actual ‘invasion or
rebellion, when the public safety requires it’ which are the only grounds clearly and
categorically spelled under the 1987 Philippine Constitution for the valid proclamation of
martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; and
2
(b) Second, Proclamation No. 1959 adversely affects and places in great peril and serious
jeopardy the Filipino people’s cry for justice for the fifty-seven (57) innocent civilians,
women, journalists and lawyers slaughtered in the Ampatuan town massacre allegedly
1959 and causing the implementation of the same by the other respondents.
6. This petition is a special civil action for Certiorari and Prohibition brought under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court. Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, herein petitioners have no
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law which will promptly and
immediately relieve herein petitioners from the injurious effects of the unconstitutional acts
of the respondents in the issuance and implementation of the assailed Proclamation No. 1959.
This petition is anchored on the following provision of the 1987 Philippine Constitution as to
the nature thereof and reason for the immediate resort to the Honorable Court’s jurisdiction
“Article VII
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
7. Petitioners are all suing in their capacity as citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, in
accordance with aforesaid Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
8. Petitioners thus humbly pray that the Honorable Court issue a judgment:
void; and
3
b. Enjoining respondents from the continued implementation of Proclamation No. 1959
9. Petitioners are likewise praying for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or a
preliminary injunction due to the seriousness and extreme urgency of the matters involved, as
well as the grave and irreparable constitutional infirmities of Proclamation No. 1959, thus:
b. That grave and irreparable injuries result to the entire Filipino nation by virtue of the
proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
requirements of public safety clearly and categorically required under the 1987
Philippine Constitution;
c. That grave and irreparable injuries result to the entire Filipino nation as there is a
d. That grave and irreparable injuries result to the entire Filipino nation through the
1959;
e. That the issuance and continued implementation of Proclamation No. 1959 smack of
f. That petitioners, as citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, are entitled to the relief
demanded in the instant petition, and part of such relief consists in restraining
any further derogation and disregard of the 1987 Philippine Constitution; and
4
g. That the continued implementation of Proclamation No. 1959 would work injustice to
the citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, as the assailed Proclamation itself and
THE PARTIES
THE PETITIONERS
accordance with Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. His office
address is at Third Floor, Erythrina Building, No. 1 Matatag cor. Maaralin Sts., Central
District, Quezon City, Philippines where he may be served notices, orders, resolutions,
11. Petitioner ATTY. JULIUS GARCIA MATIBAG is suing in his capacity as a citizen, in
accordance with Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. His office
address is at Third Floor, Erythrina Building, No. 1 Matatag cor. Maaralin Sts., Central
District, Quezon City, Philippines where he may be served notices, orders, resolutions,
accordance with Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. His office
address is at Third Floor, Erythrina Building, No. 1 Matatag cor. Maaralin Sts., Central
District, Quezon City, Philippines where he may be served notices, orders, resolutions,
5
13. Petitioner ATTY. JOBERT ILARDE PAHILGA is suing in his capacity as a citizen, in
accordance with Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. His office
address is at Third Floor, Erythrina Building, No. 1 Matatag cor. Maaralin Sts., Central
District, Quezon City, Philippines where he may be served notices, orders, resolutions,
accordance with Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. His office
address is at Third Floor, Erythrina Building, No. 1 Matatag cor. Maaralin Sts., Central
District, Quezon City, Philippines where he may be served notices, orders, resolutions,
capacity as a citizen, in accordance with Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Philippine
Batasan Hills, Quezon City, Philippines where he may be served notices, orders, resolutions,
suing in her capacity as a citizen, in accordance with Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987
Representatives, Batasan Hills, Quezon City, Philippines where she may be served notices,
Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. His office address is at Fourth
Floor, Erythrina Building, No. 1 Matatag cor. Maaralin Sts., Central District, Quezon City,
Philippines where he may be served notices, orders, resolutions, judgment and other court
processes.
6
18. Petitioner ANTHONY IAN CRUZ is suing in his capacity as a citizen, in accordance with
Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. His office address is at 2633
Sandejas St., Malate, Manila, Philippines where he may be served notices, orders,
THE RESPONDENTS
Manila, Philippines where she may be served notices, orders, resolutions, judgment and other
court processes.
No. 1959 under the authority of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Respondent’s office
21. Respondent GENERAL VICTOR S. IBRADO is the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines tasked to implement and continued to implement Proclamation No. 1959.
Respondent’s office address is at the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Camp General Emilio
Aguinaldo, EDSA, Quezon City, Philippines where he may be served notices, orders,
Proclamation No. 1959. Respondent’s office address is at the Philippine National Police,
Camp Crame, EDSA corner Boni Serrano Avenue, Quezon City, Philippines where he may
7
23. Respondent DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SECRETARY AGNES VST
prosecute the accused in the Ampatuan town massacre, and is justifying the issuance of
Proclamation No. 1959. Respondent’s office address is at the Department of Justice, Padre
Faura, Manila, Philippines where she may be served notices, orders, resolutions, judgment
Officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines Eastern Mindanao Command, the highest
military official in Central Mindanao who has carried out the implementation of
Proclamation No. 1959 and has taken over the provincial capitol of Maguindanao as the
STATEMENT OF FACTS
25. At about 9:00 AM on November 23, 2009, a convoy of seven vehicles carrying the wife and
relatives of Buluan town, Maguindanao vice mayor Esmael Mangudadatu, journalists and
media workers, and lawyers left Buluan town to file Mangudadatu’s certificate of candidacy
26. At about 10:00 AM, the convoy was accosted by a group of about one hundred (100) heavily
27. The leader of the heavily armed group was identified by witnesses as Datu Unsay town,
Maguindanao mayor Andal Ampatuan Jr., a son of Maguindanao governor Andal Ampatuan
Sr. and a brother of Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao governor Zaldy Ampatuan.
28. Several hours later, search and rescue operations have been conducted by authorities to locate
the whereabouts of said innocent civilians. It was later on reported that all had seemed to
8
have been slaughtered by the heavily armed men in what is dubbed as the “Maguindanao
29. For several days, the bodies of the massacre victims had been retrieved in a mass grave
located in a hill in Ampatuan town around 2.5 kilometers from the checkpoint where the
30. As of the filing of this petition, fifty-seven bodies had already been retrieved including the
wife, sister and relatives of vice mayor Mangudadatu, at least thirty (30) journalists and
media workers, two (2) female lawyers, and scores of women and innocent civilians who
The two (2) female lawyers included in the massacre, Atty. Concepcion Brizuela and Atty.
Cynthia Oquendo, were active members of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL)
and Union of Peoples’ Lawyers in Mindanao (UPLM), both human rights law groups. Atty.
Brizuela was the UPLM treasurer at the time of her untimely demise.
31. The manner by which the innocent victims were slaughtered could hardly be imagined, as it
32. International media organizations have called the massacre as having the most number of
33. The entire Filipino nation and international community have condemned the massacre in the
strongest possible terms and a demand for justice for the victims has become the daily
34. On November 24, 2009, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 1946
9
35. Proclamation No. 1946 stated that the purpose of which is that “there is an urgent need to
prevent and suppress the occurrence of similar other incidents of lawless violence in Central
Mindanao.”
36. Section 2 of said proclamation states that, “The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and
the Philippine National Police (PNP) are hereby ordered to undertake such measures as may
be allowed by the Constitution and by law to prevent and suppress all incidents of lawless
37. It likewise added that the state of emergency covering the aforesaid provinces and city “shall
remain in force and effect until lifted or withdrawn by the President.” As of the filing of this
petition, such state of emergency continues to exist and is remained in force therein and has
38. Since the issuance of Proclamation No. 1946 on November 24, 2009, countless military
troops and police personnel have already been deployed in Maguindanao to secure the safety
of its residents.
39. Three days after the carnage, Andal Ampatuan Jr. surrendered to Secretary Jesus Dureza,
presidential adviser on the peace process, after several negotiations with the Ampatuan
family.
40. A few days later, multiple murder charges had been filed against Andal Ampatuan Jr.
41. On December 3, 2009, military and police personnel acted on an information and discovered
‘high-powered weapons and ammunition cache’ from a vacant lot near the Ampatuan
mansion in Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao. Some of the firearms and ammunitions bore the
42. On December 4, 2009, military and police personnel searched the Ampatuan mansion and
they uncovered a hidden armory with ammunition cases likewise bearing the markings of
10
43. On December 5, 2009, Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita announced the issuance of
Proclamation No. 1959 dated December 4, 2009 proclaiming a state of martial law and
suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the province of Maguindanao,
“MALACAÑANG
Manila
WHEREAS, R.A. No. 6986 provides that the crime of rebellion or insurrection is
committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the
purpose of xxx depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or
partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.”
11
NOW, THEREFORE, I , GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, President of
the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the
Constitution and by law, do hereby proclaim as follows:
DONE in the City of Manila, this 4th day of December in the year of our Lord,
Two Thousand and Nine.
By the President:
(Emphasis supplied)
A signed copy of Proclamation No. 1959 dated December 4, 2009 is attached hereto as
Annex “A”.
45. Immediately after such announcement, several executive officials spoke in a nationally
televised conference justifying the issuance of Proclamation No. 1959. Justice Secretary
Agnes Devanadera was quoted by the media as saying the following in said nationally
televised conference as reasons for the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the
“We noticed and observed there was a rebellion in the offing. The local
governments in the whole of Maguindanao had been removed from the legitimate
authorities. Most of these local government units, even the municipal building
especially, had closed down. They cease to render government services and there
was massing massing in various parts of heavily armed men, government services
in the province were no longer functioning, such as the judiciary system, several
prosecutors in Maguindanao based in Cotabato City had gone on leave.
What we’re saying is that hindi na sinusunod ‘yung [they are no longer following
the] legitimate government authorities and dapat bukas ‘yung lahat ng tanggapan
ng pamahalaan pero dun sa nakita natin ngayon, hindi na sinusunod yan, sarado
na [that all government offices should be open but from what we’ve seen that is
no longer followed, these are closed], which is practically removing from the
legitimate constituted authority the allegiance of these units.
12
In effect, what’s happening there in Maguindanao is that there are groups of
people who are taking their leadership to remove the allegiance of the people
from the duly-constituted government. Dahil sa kanilang pananakot ay hindi na
talaga pumapasok ‘yung tao so hindi na talaga sinusunod ang batas [Because of
the fear being sowed, people no longer go to work, the law is no longer followed].
Hindi na sinusunod ang duly-constituted government, like the courts [The duly-
constituted government like the courts is no longer followed].” (Emphasis
supplied)
46. On same date, by virtue of Proclamation No. 1959, about 4,000 troops and a dozen military
tanks under the command of Lt. Gen. Raymundo B. Ferrer, commanding general of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines Eastern Mindanao Command, had been fielded in
Maguindanao. The provincial capitol of Maguindanao had formally been taken over by Lt.
General Ferrer.
47. Several members of the Ampatuan family had been taken into custody by the military
Akmad Ampatuan, Maguindanao vice governor; and Shariff Aguak mayor Anwar Ampatuan
along with ARMM Agriculture Secretary Keise Usman and Environment Secretary
Kabuntalan Emblawa, Shariff Aguak councilor Paizal Sulaik and supporter Teopilo Chio.
48. Still on same date, Atty. Midas Marquez, Supreme Court deputy court administrator and
spokesperson, issued statements to the media and took exception to the statements of Justice
Secretary Devanadera that the court system was no longer functioning in Maguindanao, thus:
“This is far from a picture of a non-performing judicial system,” Atty. Marquez was quoted
as saying in the Philippine Daily Inquirer. Atty. Marquez added that Judge Melanio Guerrero
of the Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat, Regional Trial Court, has already issued a commitment
order and set a hearing for the bail petition of Mayor Andal Ampatuan, Jr. of Datu Unsay
who has been charged with murder, and that Judge Guerrero also already submitted his
comment to the Supreme Court in connection with the government’s request for a change of
venue that would transfer the proceedings from Cotabato. Kidapawan Regional Trial Court
Judge Francis Palmones, Jr. also issued the search warrants that made the raid on the
13
“The information I received from the field is that the trial court has issued a commitment
order, a hearing for the petition for bail has been set for Monday (December 7, 2009).” No
less than six search warrants have been issued with other applications still being studied by
Atty. Marquez confirmed the threats against judges and court personnel but denied they have
fled or shirked away from their duties, and said “That’s not true.” Marquez said that the
Cotabato Regional Trial Court Branch 15 that has jurisdiction over Shariff Aguak area was
vacant. Atty. Marquez added that the substitute judge for Branch 15 was a former father-in-
law of one of the Ampatuans and, thus, couldn’t handle the case. As such, Chief Justice
Reynato Puno ordered Tacurong Judge Guerrero to take over Branch 15 and the multiple
49. On December 6, 2009, Justice Secretary Devanadera informed the media that the members of
the Ampatuan clan taken into custody would be charged with rebellion in connection with
50. As of the filing of this petition, however, no arrest or even a single encounter has happened
between military troops and the so-called “heavily armed groups in the province of
Maguindanao that have established positions to resist government troops, thereby depriving
the Executive of its powers and prerogatives to enforce the laws and to maintain public order
and safety” claimed by Malacañang to be present in the province and used as a reason in the
51. The presence of the so-called “heavily armed groups in the province of Maguindanao that
have established positions to resist government troops” has not been confirmed by sources
other than by mere bare statements from military and executive officials. And yet despite
such pronouncements and with the immediate presence of thousands of military soldiers in
full-battle gears, no arrest or even a single encounter against these “heavily armed groups”
has happened since November 23, 2009, the day of the massacre, and up to this date.
14
This raises serious doubts as to the truth and veracity of Malacañang’s claim about the
presence of these “heavily armed groups that have established positions to resist
government troops.”
52. Proclamation No. 1959 has been issued absent the existence of actual ‘invasion or rebellion,
when the public safety requires it’ which are the only grounds clearly and categorically
spelled under the 1987 Philippine Constitution for the valid proclamation of martial law and
53. Proclamation No. 1959 adversely affects and places in great prejudice and serious jeopardy
the Filipino people’s cry for justice for the fifty-seven (57) innocent civilians, women,
journalists and lawyers slaughtered in the Ampatuan town massacre allegedly masterminded
GROUNDS
I.
II.
15
DISCUSSION
I.
54. The pertinent provision of the 1987 Philippine Constitution with respect to the commander-
in-chief powers of the President – the provision which, according to constitutionalist Fr.
Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., is the “fountainhead of martial rule” – is found under Article VII,
“ARTICLE VII
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
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 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. Within forty-eight
hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in
writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a
majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such
proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the
President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same
manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by
the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
16
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such
proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of
a call.
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 of habeas corpus or the extension thereof,
and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
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.
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.
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.” (Emphasis supplied)
55. The foregoing provision is clear and unequivocal – a proclamation of martial law and
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be made only ‘in case of
Thus, it depends on two factual bases: first, the existence of invasion or rebellion, and
second, the requirements of public safety. Thus, absent any of said factual bases, it is a
violation of the highest constitutional order to proclaim martial law and suspend the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus, as these are extraordinary powers of extraordinary nature
be sanctioned.
56. The fact that these extraordinary powers must be exercised by the president with utmost
caution and prudence cannot be overemphasized. During the period within which the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended, any person arrested may be detained
within a period of three (3) days without even being judicially charged. Thus, the need for the
factual bases of the existence of an actual invasion or rebellion and the requirements of
public safety, and not a mere speculation, belief, reports, or bare statements of alleged
17
57. As to Proclamation No. 1959, petitioners most humbly submit that the same is not founded
on any factual basis mandated by the 1987 Philippine Constitution, for the following reasons:
(a) The full text of Proclamation No. 1959 itself fails to state any sufficient factual basis for
the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus;
(b) There is no actual and existing invasion or rebellion in the area covered by Proclamation
No. 1959;
(c) The public safety in the area covered by Proclamation No. 1959 can be ensured even
without the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus. Thus, public safety does not require such proclamation of martial law and
58. It is noteworthy to highlight the “whereas clauses” of Proclamation No. 1959 to determine
whether on its text itself it presents sufficient factual basis for the proclamation of martial
law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, thus its fourth and fifth
18
59. That is all there is to it. Proclamation No. 1959 did not even bother to state the particulars
about the identity, extent and purpose or purposes, if any, of these alleged “heavily armed
groups’. How could the Filipino people ascertain whether the president is indeed telling the
truth? How could the Filipino people ascertain whether there is indeed “presence of heavily
60. The president has invoked the highest and extraordinary powers under the commander-in-
chief powers – the powers to proclaim martial law and suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus – in the issuance of Proclamation No. 1959. And mere bare allegations about
the alleged “presence of heavily armed groups in the province of Maguindanao” are utterly
insufficient and deficient as factual basis for the exercise of such powers.
61. Moreover, bare allegations about the alleged “presence of heavily armed groups in the
province of Maguindanao” do not necessarily mean that there is already an actual and
existing rebellion in the area covered by Proclamation No. 1959. Without specifying the
intent of these alleged “heavily armed groups”, granting arguendo that these groups indeed
exist, there is no way to determine whether there is indeed rebellion in the area covered by
It is elementary in criminal law that penal laws are strictly construed against the government
Thus, mere bare allegations about the alleged presence of “heavily armed groups” bereft of
any specificity do not constitute rebellion. Thus, mere bare allegations under Proclamation
No. 1959 about the alleged presence of “heavily armed groups in the province of
Maguindanao” are utterly insufficient and deficient as factual basis for the exercise of such
62. Besides, the presence of the so-called “heavily armed groups in the province of Maguindanao
that have established positions to resist government troops” has not been confirmed by
sources other than by mere bare statements from military and executive officials. And despite
19
such pronouncements and with the immediate presence of thousands of military soldiers in
full-battle gears since Proclamation No. 1946 was issued on November 24, 2009 and up to
this date, no arrest or even a single encounter between the military and these alleged
Thus, this fact raises serious doubts as to the truth and veracity of Malacañang’s claim
about the presence of these alleged “heavily armed groups that have established
63. Furthermore, mere bare allegations under Proclamation No. 1959 about the alleged
“deterioration of the condition of peace and order in Maguindanao to the extent that the local
judicial system and other government mechanisms in said province are not functioning” are
64. Curiously, Atty. Midas Marquez, spokesperson and Deputy Administrator of the Supreme
Court, has already refuted with clarity such allegations claimed by Proclamation No. 1959 by
immediately clarifying matters to the media after the proclamation’s issuance. “The courts
are well functioning in the province of Maguindanao,” this is the message of Atty. Marquez
Thus, glaringly unfounded, the allegations stated in Proclamation No. 1959 are absolutely
and utterly insufficient and deficient as factual basis, much less to be considered a factual
basis at all.
65. The third “whereas clause” of Proclamation No. 1959 has invoked the felony of rebellion by
20
“WHEREAS, R.A. No. 6986 provides that the crime of rebellion or insurrection
is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the
purpose of xxx depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or
partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.” (Emphasis supplied)
66. Petitioners wish to point out that respondent President Arroyo has invoked a wrong law –
“R.A. No. 6986” – in the third whereas clause of Proclamation No. 1959. Republic Act No.
THEREFORE.”
67. The gravamen of the felony of rebellion is the armed public uprising against the government,
68. It must emphasized that Proclamation No. 1959 does not cover territories in the province of
Maguindanao which are within the control and supervision of the Moro Islamic Liberation
Front (MILF). Such intent is clearly and categorically spelled in Proclamation No. 1959,
thus:
21
69. Thus, the rebellion being staged by the MILF is not covered by Proclamation No. 1959. And
what is the alleged rebellion being invoked by Malacañang in Proclamation No. 1959 and
which allegedly “deprives the Executive of its powers and prerogatives to enforce the laws of
70. The element of the felony of rebellion invoked by Proclamation No. 1959 in its third whereas
clause, that is, “depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of
any of their powers or prerogatives”, aside from the absence of an armed public uprising
71. Said element refers to either the “Chief Executive” or the “Legislature”. And the “Chief
Executive” refers to the “President”. There was no instance since the Ampatuan town
massacre happened that any of the powers or prerogatives of the President have been
72. In fact, respondent President Arroyo already even invoked and exercised her “calling out
Proclamation No. 1946 on November 24, 2009, a day after the Ampatuan town massacre.
73. Proclamation No. 1946 clearly and categorically states that, “There is an urgent need to
prevent and suppress the occurrence of similar other incidents of lawless violence in Central
Mindanao” and that, “The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine
National Police (PNP) are hereby ordered to undertake such measures as may be allowed by
the Constitution and by law to prevent and suppress all incidents of lawless violence in the
said jurisdiction.”
74. It likewise added that the state of emergency covering the aforesaid provinces and city “shall
remain in force and effect until lifted or withdrawn by the President.” And no such lifting or
withdrawal thereof has been made by respondent President Arroyo as of the present date,
22
75. So where is the deprivation of respondent President Arroyo’s powers or prerogatives? The
glaring truth is there is none; there has never been such deprivation of any of the powers or
76. How could respondent President Arroyo be deprived of any of her powers or prerogatives as
Chief Executive when she was able to successfully exercise her “calling out powers” by the
issuance and implementation of Proclamation No. 1946 on November 24, 2009, a day
77. Respondent President Arroyo had even time to file her certificate of candidacy to run as
member of the House of Representatives in next year’s elections after the Ampatuan town
78. The truth is in several pronouncements to the media by executive officials, particularly by
Justice Secretary Devanadera, they merely “noticed and observed that there was a rebellion
in the offing,” granting arguendo that the alleged mere presence of heavily armed groups,
which presence is supported only by mere bare allegations, can be considered an act
79. Thus, such executive officials, though their own admission, have stated that there is no
actual and existing rebellion in the area covered by Proclamation No. 1959 when the same
was issued and implemented. The word “offing” means “in the near or immediate future” or
“soon to come”. It means that no actual or existing rebellion has been happening yet,
granting arguendo that such things can lead to rebellion in the first place. Thus, there is no
way for respondent President Arroyo to be deprived of any of the powers or prerogatives by
mere incidents, if they do exist, that are simply in the offing and have not yet taken place.
80. Verily, no rebellion, actual and existing, is happening in the area covered by Proclamation
No. 1959. Aside from the absence of the gravamen of an armed public uprising against the
government, any of the purposes of the felony of rebellion is absent in the area covered by
23
The public safety in the area covered by
Proclamation No. 1959 can be ensured even
without the proclamation of martial law and
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus. Thus, public safety does not require such
proclamation of martial law and suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
81. The proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
are utterly not necessary to ensure public safety in the area covered by Proclamation No.
1959.
82. At this point, petitioners most humbly submit that the proclamation of martial law and
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus are not a substitute for any
incompetence of the police in the conduct of their work and investigation, or in the gathering,
More importantly, the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus are not a substitute for the incompetence of the authorities in the immediate
83. The proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
are intended only against an actual or existing invasion or rebellion, when the public safety
requires it.
The proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
84. Petitioners wish to reiterate, for fear of being redundant, that respondent President Arroyo
already exercised her “calling out powers” as commander-in-chief to prevent lawlessness and
violence in the province of Maguindanao by the issuance of Proclamation No. 1946 dated
November 24, 2009, immediately a day after the Ampatuan town massacre. And such
“calling out” of the Armed Forces of the Philippines continues to remain in force and effect
up to this date.
24
85. And by virtue of such Proclamation No. 1946, thousands of military troops were deployed in
86. By virtue of such exercise of the “calling out powers”, the military and police have the
insisted rebellion, whether real or imaginary. In fact, even without exercising such “calling
out powers”, the military and police personnel have the duty to prevent or suppress any
lawlessness or violence.
87. Thus, there is no need for the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus to ensure public safety in the area covered by Proclamation No.
1959. Public safety does not require such proclamation and suspension as the exercise of
respondent President Arroyo’s “calling out powers” is more than enough to prevent or
suppress any lawlessness or violence in the area covered by Proclamation No. 1959.
The exercise of respondent President Arroyo’s “calling out powers” is more than enough for
the military and the police to bring back the rule of law in the area covered by Proclamation
88. Are the military and the police saying that they could not assert the rule of law in the area
covered by Proclamation No. 1959 under respondent President Arroyo’s “calling out powers”
and could do so only under respondent President Arroyo’s “martial law powers” and “power
89. In engaging heavily armed groups in combat, does it take “martial law powers” and “power
to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus” to carry a soldier’s rifle and fire a
trigger?
25
Indeed, the exercise of the “martial law powers” and “power to suspend the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus” in the area covered by Proclamation No. 1959 has more than meets
the eye.
Based on the circumstances of the state of things, it appears now that said highest and
extraordinary powers – “martial law powers” and “power to suspend the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus” – have been invoked and exercised by respondent President Arroyo not to
prevent or suppress any lawlessness or violence, much less to crash an imaginary rebellion,
but for reasons respondent President Arroyo is not amenable to disclose to the public.
90. Besides, the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus has become more suspect as the same were made after the military and the
police have already confiscated the “heavy arms and ammunition cache” bearing the
Since those “high-powered arms and ammunition cache” came from the military and the
police themselves, then it is reasonably fair to conclude that it is the military and the police
91. And we must emphasize, lest we inadvertently fail to notice it, not a single reference about
the Ampatuan town massacre has been made in the full text of Proclamation No. 1959. Not a
single reference.
This is very significant considering the fact that when Proclamation No. 1959 has been
implemented, the “heavily armed groups” cited as reason by Proclamation No. 1959 were not
the ones engaged in by the military and the police, but rather the alleged masterminds of the
92. Again, for fear of being redundant, the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus are not a substitute for any incompetence of the police
26
in the conduct of their work and investigation, or in the gathering, preservation and
evaluation of evidence.
The proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
are not a substitute for the incompetence of the authorities in the immediate arrest and
93. Verily, the exercise by respondent President Arroyo of “martial law powers” and “power to
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus” has created more questions than answers,
94. Indeed, respondent President Arroyo is testing the outer limits of the Constitution; the
president is playing fire with fundamental freedoms by placing the military above civilian
authorities.
95. This is a brazen violation of the 1987 Philippine Constitution as to the constitutionally
“ARTICLE VII
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
xxx.
96. Thus, absent any factual basis for the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the
rebellion and requirements of public safety are lacking, Proclamation No. 1059 is patently
27
II.
97. The slaughter of fifty-seven (57) innocent civilians, women, journalists and lawyers has
become the torch that fueled the Filipino people’s desire for the dismantlement of warlords
and private armies that have long been tolerated to exist by the ruling government officials. It
is of public knowledge that the Ampatuans are a close political ally of respondent President
Arroyo.
Maguindanao governor Ampatuan Sr. and ARMM governor Zaldy Ampatuan were even
inside the Malacañang Palace conversing with respondent President Arroyo at the time the
The president’s spokesperson has even stated in national television that even if the
Ampatuans are being investigated for the Ampatuan town massacre, it does not mean that the
98. It was in the province of Maguindanao where respondent President Arroyo obtained the more
than one million votes she needed to win the 2004 presidential elections over close rival
electoral fraud and cheating had happened during the 2004 and 2007 national elections.
99. The foregoing matters are necessary to state because those are the factual political milieu of
the state of things between respondent President Arroyo and the Ampatuans.
28
100. The cry for justice for the victims of the Ampatuan town massacre is deafening. The grief
and outrage of the Filipino people over such horrifying act of mass slaughter can hardly be
imagined.
And it is in this light that respondents may have thought that they themselves can do
anything they want – banking on the Filipino people’s grief and outrage – to carry out
hideous plans that merely serve their own selfish interests, the full scale of which is known
101. The manner by which respondents have implemented Proclamation No. 1959 against the
Ampatuans puts in serious jeopardy and great peril their prosecution as the alleged
masterminds of the Ampatuan town massacre. As such, the cry for justice of the Filipino
102. A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
and 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.
103. The Ampatuans are believed to be behind the Ampatuan town massacre, a gruesome act
which does not constitute rebellion but multiple murder. However, executive officials
particularly Justice Secretary Devanadra have issued pronouncements to the media that the
new members of the Ampatuan clan and several others that were taken into custody on
December 5, 2009 by virtue of Proclamation No. 1959 would be charged with the crime of
104. And since it is glaring that no such rebellion has been committed by the Ampatuans, a
charge for rebellion shall surely fail. And acts of multiple murder may be absorbed in the
crime of rebellion. This prosecutorial move after the issuance and implementation of
Proclamation No. 1959 shall certainly weaken the prosecution of the Ampatuans as the
29
105. What the petitioners could not understand is the wisdom behind the planned filing of
rebellion charges against the Ampatuans. Is Malacañang really serious in putting behind
106. Moreover, the Ampatuans that were taken into custody last December 5, 2009 by virtue of
Proclamation No. 1959 can easily question the manner by which they were arrested and
detained. Said Ampatuans can easily escape any prosecution against them from any
rebellion charges for the simple reason that they did not commit any rebellion and that no
This is not the way things should have been handled as regards the prosecution of the
107. Worse, a top military official, Maj. Gen. Guadencio Pangilinan, vice chief of staff for
operations, has even recommended that Proclamation No. 1959 be extended to cover the
This latest development paves the way for the Filipino people to seriously start thinking
that Proclamation No. 1959 is a mere first step towards placing the entire country under
martial law.
108. The Honorable Court is very much aware of our dreadful experience during the dictatorship
of the late strongman Ferdinand E. Marcos. And when the Filipino people have said ‘Never
again to martial law’, they really mean ‘Never’ and nothing less.
Once again, the Honorable Court is solemnly asked through the instant petition to perform
its sacred constitutional duty of protecting the fundamental freedoms of the Filipino people.
It is on this prayer that the instant petition is brought to the Honorable Supreme Court of
the Philippines.
30
PRAYER
(a) Declaring Proclamation No. 1959 dated December 4, 2009 as unconstitutional and
void; and
Petitioners likewise pray for such other reliefs as are just and equitable under the
circumstances.
31
JULIUS GARCIA MATIBAG
Counsel for Petitioners
Roll of Attorneys No. 55254
IBP 773865, 03-30-09, Oriental Mindoro
PTR 2598006, 01-13-09, Oriental Mindoro
Admitted to Bar, 2008
MCLE not yet required
EPHRAIM B. CORTEZ
Counsel of Petitioners
Roll of Attorneys No. 41366
IBP 786805, 03-26-09, Isabela
PTR 1698205, 04-08-09, Quezon City
MCLE Compliance No. II-0008441
VOLTAIRE B. AFRICA
Counsel for Petitioners
Roll of Attorneys No. 57095
IBP 788279, 04-14-09, Batangas
PTR 0811729, 05-20-09, Lipa City, Batangas
Admitted to Bar, 2009
MCLE not yet required
32
GENERAL VICTOR S. IBRADO
Chief of Staff
Armed Forces of the Philippines
Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo
EDSA, Quezon City, Philippines
SOLICITOR GENERAL
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
OSG Bldg., 134 Amorsolo St.,
Legaspi Village, Makati City
The service of copies of the instant Petition is made through registered mail. Pursuant to
Rule 13, Section 11 of the Rules of Court, the service of copies of the instant Petition cannot be
made personally due to distance and lack of available personnel.
33