REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES

PADRE FAURA, MANILA

REPRESENTATIVES EDCEL C.
LAGMAN, TOMASITO S.
VILLARIN, TEDDY BRAWNER
BAGUILAT, JR., EDGAR R.
ERICE, GARY C. ALEJANO,
JOSE CHRISTOPHER Y.
BELMONTE AND ARLENE
“KAKA” J. BAG-AO, G.R. NO. __________
PETITIONERS (PETITION PURSUANT TO
THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF
VS. SECTION 18 OF ARTICLE
VII OF THE CONSTITUTION
HON. SALVADOR C. OF 1987 WITH PRAYER FOR
MEDIALDEA, EXECUTIVE THE ISSUANCE OF A
SECRETARY; HON. DELFIN N. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
LORENZANA, SECRETARY OF ORDER (TRO) OR A WRIT
THE DEPARTMENT OF OF PRELIMINARY INJUNC-
NATIONAL DEFENSE AND TION).
MARTIAL LAW
ADMINISTRATOR; GEN.
BENJAMIN MADRIGAL, JR.,
CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE
ARMED FORCES OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND MARTIAL
LAW IMPLEMENTOR; AND
HON. BENJAMIN E. DIOKNO,
SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET
AND MANAGEMENT,
RESPONDENTS.

PETITION
Petitioners, through counsel, respectfully manifest:

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. This is a petition under the third paragraph of Section 18
of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution which provides in full:
 The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate
proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the proclamation of Martial Law or
the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the
extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision
thereon within thirty days from its filing. (Emphasis
supplied).

2. It must be underscored that the special jurisdiction of the

Supreme Court under the foregoing provision is not only to review or
determine the factual basis of the proclamation of Martial Law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, but
more importantly, the sufficiency of such factual basis.

3. The Supreme Court in the exercise of this extraordinary

jurisdiction, if necessary, can summon witnesses and hear their
testimonies on the sufficiency of the factual basis which occurred
prior to the declaration or extension. This is an exception to the rule
that the High Court is not a trier of facts.

4. This extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is

among the safeguards against the abuse by the President and the
Congress of their martial law powers.

5. The stringent safeguards include, among others, the

following:

a. The limitation of the grounds for the proclamation of

Martial Law or the suspension of the writ to “invasion or rebellion,
when the public safety requires it”.

b. The existence of invasion or rebellion does not

automatically trigger the imposition of Martial Law or the extension
thereof because the President as the “Commander-in-Chief of all the
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”, without necessarily imposing Martial
Law or suspending the writ, or extension thereof.

c. The declaration of Martial Law or suspension of the writ

shall be for a “period not exceeding sixty days”, and by parity of
reasoning, a similarly limited period shall also apply to any extension.

2
 d. The imminent danger of rebellion or invasion has been
removed as a basis for the declaration of Martial Law or suspension
of the writ or an extension thereof.

6. Although a Martial Law regime does not grant any

additional powers to the military and police establishments, these
uniformed forces are emboldened to make inordinate assaults against
the perceived “enemies of the State”, with disastrous collateral
damage to civilian communities just like what happened in Marawi
City.

7. It must be recalled that consequent to the declaration of

Martial Law and suspension of the writ under Proclamation No. 216
on 23 May 2017 and its first extension, particularly in Marawi City,
the emboldened and enraged military conducted unmitigated land
and aerial attacks which virtually reduced the once beautiful,
picturesque and historic Marawi City to rubble and desolation, even
as the projected multi-billion rehabilitation has barely started more
than a year after the devastation and a vast multitude of displaced
civilians are still hopelessly homeless.

8. Even political and civil rights as well as human rights are

violated with impunity in the wake of a Martial Law declaration,
including the extension thereof.

9. It is against the foregoing constitutional and factual

backdrops that the constitutionality of the third extension of
Proclamation No. 216 is being challenged and sought to be declared
void for brazen constitutional infirmity.

10. The third extension of another year was initiated and

requested by President Rodrigo Duterte in a letter dated 06
December 2018 to both Chambers of the Congress. A certified true
copy of said letter is attached as ANNEX “A”.

11. The congressional grant of the controverted third

extension is formally contained in the Joint Resolution of Both Houses
No. 6 dated 12 December 2018, entitled “DECLARING A STATE OF
MARTIAL LAW AND SUSPENDING THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS IN THE WHOLE OF MINDANAO FOR ANOTHER
PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR FROM JANUARY 1, 2019 TO DECEMBER
31, 2019”. A certified true copy of the Resolution of Both Houses No.
6 is attached as ANNEX “B”.

3
 II. PARTIES

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

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

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

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

14. Petitioner Rep. Teddy Brawner Baguilat, Jr. is the

duly elected Representative of the Lone District of Ifugao to the 17th
Congress. He may be served with the processes of the Honorable
Supreme Court at N-315 House of Representatives, Batasan
Complex, Quezon City.

15. Petitioner Rep. Edgar R. Erice is the duly elected

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

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

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

17. Petitioner Rep. Jose Christopher Y. Belmonte is the

duly elected Representative of the 6th District of Quezon City to the
17th Congress. He may be served with the processes of the
Honorable Supreme Court at S-313 House of Representatives,
Batasan Complex, Quezon City.

18. Petitioner Rep. Arlene “Kaka” J. Bag-ao is the duly

elected Representative of the Lone District of Dinagat Islands to the
17th Congress. She may be served with the processes of the
Honorable Supreme Court at S-214 House of Representatives,
Batasan Complex, Quezon City.

19. Petitioners are among the 23 Members of the House of

Representatives who voted against the third extension of

4
Proclamation No. 216 dated 23 May 2019 which imposed Martial Law
and suspended the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao.

20. Respondent Executive Secretary Salvador C.

Medialdea may be served with summons and other processes of the
Honorable Supreme Court at Malacañang, Manila. He is impleaded as
respondent being the principal alter ego of President Rodrigo
Duterte.

21. Respondent Secretary of National Defense Delfin N.

Lorenzana may be served with summons and other processes of the
Honorable Supreme Court at Camp General Aguinaldo, Quezon City.
He is impleaded as respondent being the Martial Law Administrator.

22. Respondent Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of

the Philippines Gen. Benjamin Madrigal, Jr. may be served
with summons and other processes of the Honorable Supreme Court
at Camp General Aguinaldo, Quezon City. He is impleaded as
respondent being the incumbent Martial Law Implementor.

23. Respondent Budget Secretary Benjamin E. Diokno

may be served with summons and other processes of the Honorable
Supreme Court at the Office of the Secretary, Gen. Solano Street,
San Miguel, Manila. He is impleaded as respondent being the
principal national official in charge of releasing funds for the
extended operation of Martial Law in Mindanao.

24. The following are the relevant issues raised in the instant
petition:

III. ISSUES
A. Whether or not rebellion exists and persists in
Mindanao.

B. Whether or not public safety is imperiled and

requires the third extension of Proclamation No. 216 which
imposed Martial Law and suspended the writ of habeas
corpus in the whole of Mindanao.

C. Whether or not a third extension violates the

constitutional proscription of a long duration of Martial Law
or the suspension of the writ or extension thereof.

5
 D. Whether or not the supermajority allies of the
President in the Congress stampeded the grant of the
controverted third extension without fully and judiciously
ascertaining the sufficiency of its factual basis.

E. Whether or not the declaration of Martial Law or

the suspension of the writ or the extension thereof
emboldens the military and police establishments to violate
with impunity the citizens’ political and civil rights as well as
human rights even as the people are cowed by fear from
exercising their right of expression and dissent.

25. The following are the grounds relied upon for the grant of
the instant petition:

IV. GROUNDS FOR THE GRANT OF

THE PETITION
A.
REBELLION DOES NOT EXIST AND
PERSIST IN MINDANAO.

a. The letter dated 06 December 2018

of President Rodrigo Duterte to the
Congress of the Philippines requesting
for a third extension of Proclamation No.
216 does not sufficiently evince the
existence in Mindanao of rebellion which
is an armed uprising against the
Government to remove the Philippines
or a portion thereof from allegiance to
the Republic.

b. No less than the military

establishment in its report admitted that
rebellion in fact does not exist in
Mindanao because no one has been
captured, arrested or charged with
rebellion during the entire second
extension from January to December
2018.

c. What were alleged in the subject

letter were mere acts of lawlessness and

6
terrorism by so-called remnants of
terrorist groups and by the communist
insurgents which can all be subdued and
suppressed under the calling out power
of the President.

d. The military and police by their

own reports have overwhelming
superiority over-the so-called “enemies
of the State”, and consequently the
extension of Martial Law and the further
suspension of the writ is not necessary.

e. The “justifications” proffered by

President Duterte in his aforementioned
letter, by his own admission, “merely
illustrates in general terms the
continuing rebellion in Mindanao”, and
consequently, he undertook to submit to
the Congress “a more detailed report on
the subsisting rebellion in Mindanao”,
which he never did.

f. If the President had confidential or

sensitive information affecting national
security which he had accessed or is in
his possession, he never shared or
disclosed the same to the Members of
the Congress in an appropriate
executive session.

g. The written reports and documents

on which the military-police briefings
were anchored were not submitted to
the Congress despite the undertaking of
the concerned officials during the Joint
Session.

h. The “justifications” for a third

extension of Martial Law and the
suspension of the writ in the whole of
Mindanao are mere cut and paste
repetitions of the “reasons” for the
second extension requested by the

7
President, even as they are self-serving
conclusions of fact and law.

i. The recommendations for Martial

Law extension by the Regional and
Provincial Peace and Order Councils do
not claim that rebellion exists in
Mindanao.

j. The alleged public clamor is neither

a ground for another prolongation of
Martial Law nor a constitutional basis
for such extension.

k. The extension of Martial Law is not

a developmental instrument to sustain
the alleged economic growth in
Mindanao.

B.
PUBLIC SAFETY IS NOT IMPERILED AND
DOES NOT NECESSITATE A THIRD
EXTENSION.

C.
PROCLAMATION NO. 216 HAS BECOME
FUNCTUS OFFICIO AND CANNOT
ANYMORE BE EXTENDED.

D.
A THIRD EXTENSION OF MARTIAL LAW
AND SUSPENSION OF THE WRIT
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY PROLONGS THE
REGIME OF MARTIAL LAW IN
MINDANAO DESPITE THE LIMITED
PERIOD ENVISIONED IN THE 1987
CONSTITUTION.

E.
THE GRANT BY THE JOINT SESSION OF
THE REQUEST BY THE PRESIDENT FOR A
THIRD EXTENSION WAS CONSUMMATED
IN INORDINATE HASTE BY THE
SUPERMAJORITY ALLIES OF THE
PRESIDENT EVEN AS THE PERIOD FOR

8
 INTERPELLATION, DEBATE, AND
EXPLANATION OF VOTES WAS UNDULY
RESTRICTED.

F.
THE IMPOSITION OF MARTIAL LAW AND
THE SUSPENSION OF THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS OR THE EXTENSION
THEREOF EMBOLDENS THE MILITARY
AND POLICE AUTHORITIES TO VIOLATE
WITH IMPUNITY THE CIVIL AND
POLITICAL RIGHTS, AS WELL AS HUMAN
RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS IN
MINDANAO, EVEN AS THE PEOPLE ARE
COWED BY FEAR FROM EXERCISING
THEIR FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND
DISSENT.

V. DISCUSSION
A. REBELLION DOES NOT
EXIST AND PERSIST IN
MINDANAO.

26. In order for rebellion to be the valid basis for the

declaration of Martial Law or the suspension of the writ of habeas
corpus or extension thereof, it must be real or actual, not merely
threatened or perceived.

27. The presence of an armed uprising in Mindanao with the

objective of removing the Philippines or a portion of the national
territory from allegiance to the Republic must be a harsh and perilous
reality, not a contrived assessment.

a. The letter dated 06 December 2018 of

President Rodrigo Duterte to the
Philippine Congress requesting for a
third extension of Proclamation No. 216
does not sufficiently evince the
existence in Mindanao of rebellion which
is an armed uprising against the
Government to remove the Philippines
or a portion thereof from the allegiance
to the Republic.

9
 28. No such actual armed uprising against the Government
with the inculpatory objective of removing Mindanao or a portion
thereof from Philippine allegiance was specifically and convincingly
demonstrated in the President’s abovementioned letter dated 06
December 2018 to both Chambers of the Congress.

29. This gross absence was underscored by Senate Minority

Leader Franklin M. Drilon in his interpellation of respondent Executive
Secretary Medialdea during the Joint Session of the Congress on 12
December 2018.

30. Following are the pertinent portions of the transcript of

stenographic notes:

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Minority Leader, Senator

Franklin Drilon, is recognized on the part of the Senate.

SEN. DRILON. Thank you very much, Mr. President,

Madam speaker. Good Morning.

Mr. President, Madam Speaker, may the record at

the start of today’s session is the letter of His Excellency
President Duterte, requesting Congress to authorize the
further extension of Martial Law and the suspension of
privilege of habeas corpus in Mindanao which took effect
pursuant to Proclamation No. 216.

My first question, Mr. President, the

justification for the extension of Proclamation No.
216 are all contained in this letter of December 6,
2016.

The question is addressed to resource person,

Secretary Medialdea, Mr. President.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Executive Secretary, you

may respond.

E.S. MEDIALDEA. Those are the basic

information that we gave in the letter, Mr. President.

XXX XXX XXX

SEN. DRILON. But---all right.

10
 Mr. President, we can only rely on the letter
that is sent to this Chamber on the justification for
the extension and let me summarize, for the record, for
the easy understanding of the public, the grounds.

The Speaker relinquished the Chair to Deputy

Speaker Sharon S. Garin.

First, it is cited that the Abu Sayyaf Group, the

Bangsamoro Islamic Federation Fighters, the
Daulah Islamiyah, and other terrorist groups seek
to promote global rebellion and continue to defy
government by perpetrating hostile activities. That’s the
first ground.

The second ground is that the Daulah, I hope I

pronounced it correctly, the Daulah Islamiyah forces
(to) continue to pursue rebellion against the government
by furthering the conduct of their radicalized activities
and continuing to recruit new members in the Muslim
communities.

The third ground is, the communist terrorist

group has publicly declared its intention to seize political
power and Communists rule, took advantage, and
likewise pose serious security concerns. (Apparently, the
fourth ground which Sen. Drilon failed to articulate
because of time constraints was that the “major Abu
Sayyaf group factions in Sulu continue to pursue kidnap
for ransom activities to finance their operations.”)

Mr. President, the Executive Secretary is fully aware

of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Lagman vs. Medialdea.

E.S. MEDILADEA. Yes, Sir.

SEN. DRILON. And, would the good Secretary

agree with me that the Supreme Court in that case
declared that in upholding Proclamation No. 216,
ruled that the Constitution requires actual
rebellion or actual public uprising and taking arms
against the government for the purpose of

11
removing from the Philippine sovereignty over this
territory?

Would Secretary agree that that was the

basic rationale for upholding Proclamation No.
216?

E.S. MEDILADEA. Yes, Sir.

SEN. DRILON. We have enumerated the four

grounds cited in December 6, 2018 letter of the
President and there is nothing in these four
grounds cited that shows actual uprising, actual
rebellion, actual armed uprising.

The Revised Penal Code imposes as elements

for the declaration of the--- for punishing the act
of rebellion. The element that there must be an
armed actual uprising for the purpose of removing
sovereignty over certain territories of the
Philippines, there is nothing in these four grounds
that shows that there is an actual uprising for the
purpose of removing from the allegiance of the
Philippine government the territory of the
Philippines or any part thereof. And I highlight the
fact that what the Constitution requires, as ruled
by the Supreme Court, is actual armed uprising for
the purpose of removing from the allegiance of the
government the territory of the Philippines or any
part thereof.

E.S. MEDILADEA. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the actual

commission of acts are stated in pages three and
four of the President’s letter to the Secretary--- to
the Senate President and to the Secretary---
Speaker of the House.

SEN. DRILON. Well, we have enumerated

those four grounds and in fact in the letter itself, it
states that the said program (grounds) are, in
general terms, describe the so-called continuing
rebellion. With this, our respectful submission that
there is no ground, there is no actual armed
uprising that is taking place in Mindanao to justify
the extension of Martial Law.

12
 We must recall that Proclamation No. 216 was
premised on the siege of Marawi, on the siege of Marawi
and in the briefing of the Department of National
Defense.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. Your Honor, Your Honor,

the Minority Leader, will you please wind up.

SEN. DRILON. Yes.

THE SENATE PRESIDENT. The limit is three. We

have extended the Minority Leader.

SEN. DRILON. Thank you very much. Just this last

question. I forgot already my question because of the
interruption. I’m sorry, Mr. President.

XXX XXX XXX

SEN. DRILON. In the briefing yesterday, Mr.

President, the Secretary of National Defense said,
the continued extension of Martial Law is a
psywar, psychological war. It is not--- there was
nothing there that stated that the continued
implementation of Martial Law is to quell an armed
uprising.

The local terrorist group was classified by the

Armed Forces as merely and I quote this, ‘MERELY
A PEACE AND ORDER PROBLEM TODAY’. That was
the briefing we got yesterday. We must remember
that Martial Law is the highest form of self-
preservation. It cannot be used---it cannot be the
norm. It cannot be the norm. It is the highest form
of self-preservation.

The statements were made yesterday that

Martial Law makes governance more effective. Mr.
President, these are disturbing thoughts, these are
very disturbing conclusions. We cannot make
Martial Law as an instrument to make governance
more effective. That was never the intention of our
framers.

13
 There is therefore, Mr. President, in the letter
of the President, dated December 6, 2018, and in
any of the briefings was there ever a citation that
there is an actual armed uprising for the purpose
of removing the sovereignty of the government
over any part of our territory.

It is for this reason, Mr. President, and that

we believe that there is no factual basis as defined
by the Supreme Court in the case involving no less
that our resource speaker here, Secretary
Medialdea, when the Supreme Court very clearly
outlines what the justification of Martial Law
should be.

For rebellion to exist, there must be a public

uprising and taking up of arms against the
government for the purpose of removing
allegiance to the government and its laws, none
exist at this point to justify the extension of
Martial Law.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. (Emphasis

supplied).

The certified true copies of the corresponding transcript

of stenographic notes dated 12 December 2018 are collectively
attached as ANNEX “C”.

31. As culled from the aforementioned letter dated 06

December 2018 of the President to the Congress, the grounds
summarized by Sen. Drilon are restated in the very language of said
letter:

(1) “The Abu Sayyaf Group, Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom

Fighters, Daulah Islamiyah (DI), and other terrorist groups
(collectively labeled as LTG) which seek to promote global rebellion
continue to defy the government by perpetrating hostile activities
during the extended period of Martial Law.”;

(2) “The DI forces continue to pursue their rebellion against

the government by furthering the conduct of their radicalization
activities, and continuing to recruit new members, especially in
vulnerable Muslim communities.”;

14
 (3) “While the government was preoccupied in addressing
the challenges posed by the said groups, the CTG (Communist
Terrorist Group), which has publicly declared its intention to seize
political power through violent means and supplant the country’s
democratic form of government with communist rule, took advantage
and likewise posed serious security concerns.”; and

(4) “Apart from these, major Abu Sayyaf Group factions in

Sulu continue to pursue kidnap for ransom activities to finance their
operations.”

32. As articulated by Sen. Drilon, nowhere in the alleged four

grounds was there any specific demonstration that armed uprising in
Mindanao against the Government is existing and being perpetrated
to remove Mindanao or a portion thereof from allegiance to the
Philippine Republic. The mere mention of “rebellion” is a
conclusion of fact and law which has no probative pedigree.

33. The nebulous and tenuous “justifications” by the

President for a third extension of Martial Law was cavalierly crafted
because the President was sure and assured that his request will be
granted “without thinking” by his supermajority allies in both
Chambers of the Congress. This contemptuous attitude aggravates
the fact that rebellion does not exist and persist in Mindanao in the
first place.

b. No less than the military

establishment in its report admitted that
rebellion in fact does not exist in
Mindanao because no one has been
captured, arrested or charged with
rebellion during the entire second
extension from January to December
2018.

34. The utter absence of rebellion in Mindanao is

highlighted by the submission of the military establishment
admitting that for the second extended period of Martial Law
from January to December 2018, no person has been
captured, arrested or charged with the crime of rebellion in
the proper court.

35. The aforesaid submission is completely contrary to the

assertion of respondent Chief of Staff Lt. General Madrigal that a

15
total of 143 persons were arrested and they were all charged with
rebellion during the said second extension.

36. The following is the relevant interchange between

petitioner Rep. Lagman and respondent Gen. Madrigal during the
Joint Session of Congress on 12 December 2018:

REP. LAGMAN. From January 1, 2018 up to

today, December 12, 2018, how many arrests have
been made in Mindanao related to the extension of
Martial Law?

LT. GEN. MADRIGAL. Hundred forty, Your Honor.

REP. LAGMAN. Hundred forty.

LT. GEN. MADRIGAL. One forty-three, correction,

Your Honor.

REP. LAGMAN. One forty-three. And for what

crimes or offenses were the arrests made?

LT. GEN. MADRIGAL. Rebellion and other

crimes, Your Honor.

REP. LAGMAN. May we know how many of

those arrested are charged in court with rebellion?
I hope…

LT. GEN. MADRIGAL. Everyone, all 143, your

honor, charged with rebellion.

REP. LAGMAN. Now, can we get a submission

under oath…

LT. GEN. MADRIGAL. Yes, your honor.

REP. LAGMAN... Of all the 143 arrested

persons, who are now charged in court with
rebellion and in what courts are pending and the
status of said cases.

LT. GEN. MADRIGAL. Yes, Your Honor.

16
 REP. LAGMAN. It should be under oath, Mr.
President, Madam Speaker. And when do we get
that statement under oath?

LT. GEN. MADRIGAL. As soon as possible,

Your Honor.

REP. LAGMAN. What is soon as possible?

LT. GEN. MADRIGAL. Tomorrow, Your Honor.

(Emphasis supplied).

The certified true copies of the corresponding transcript of

stenographic notes dated 12 December 2018 are collectively marked
as ANNEX “D”.

37. Likewise, attached as ANNEX “E” and ANNEXES “E-1

to E-14”, are the covering letter dated 13 December 2018 addressed
to petitioner Lagman and signed by Major General Fernando Trinidad
and the submissions of the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for
Intelligence, J2 consisting of 13 pages and one (1) page on the
number of local terrorist groups and their firearms.

38. From the aforesaid submissions, the following are

indubitable:

(a) Despite the commitment of respondent Chief of Staff Lt.

Gen. Madrigal that a submission or report under oath would be
submitted, what was submitted was not verified.

(b) Contrary to the assertion of respondent Chief of Staff Lt.

Gen. Madrigal during the Joint Session that a total of 143 were
arrested and all were charged with rebellion from January to
December 2018, the aforesaid submission verily shows that only four
(4) persons were arrested during the second extension of Martial Law
from January to December 2018, and no one of said four (4) persons
were charged with rebellion.

(c) The four (4) persons arrested during the second extended
period, as submitted by the military establishment, were:

140 Abdelhakim 22 January Basilan CHARGED On 24

Labdi Adib 2018 January,
filed case for
illegal

17
 possession
of explosives
(c/o CPT
POPANES)
141 Najiya 23 January Cotobato RELEASED Released for
Dilangalen 2018 insufficiency
Karon Maute of evidence
142 Jamar Adbulla 22 January NAIA RELEASED Released for
Mansul 2018 lapse of
period
143 Fehmi 16 Malate, FOR Pending
Lassqued February Manila INQUEST Preliminary
2018
Investigation
for Illegal
Possession
of Firearms,
Illegal
Possession
of Explosives

(d) In contrast, during the original period of Proclamation No.

216 and in its first extended period ending 31 December 2017, a
total of 37 persons were allegedly charged with rebellion.

(e) It must be reiterated that what petitioner Lagman

requested from respondent Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Madrigal is for a
submission under oath of the number of persons arrested during the
second extension from January to December 2018, the number of
those arrested who were charged with rebellion in court, the proper
courts were the charges of rebellion are pending, and the status of
said cases. What respondent Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Madrigal
submitted, through Major Gen. Trinidad, was contained in ANNEXES
“E”, more particularly ANNEX “E-13” wherein only four (4) persons
were arrested during the covered period and no one of them was
charged with rebellion.

39. Verily, if rebellion persisted in Mindanao during the

second extended period from January to December 2018 justifying a
third extension, why was it that no person has been captured,
arrested, and charged with rebellion during the said second
extension?

40. The answer is obvious: No rebellion existed, for which

reason no rebel was captured, arrested, and charged with rebellion!

18
 c. What were alleged in the subject
letter were mere acts of lawlessness and
terrorism by so-called remnants of
terrorist groups and by the communist
insurgents which can all be subdued and
suppressed under the calling out power
of the President.

41. The following acts of lawlessness and terrorism

enumerated in the President’s letter “justifying” the third extension of
Proclamation No. 216 were not established to be related to the crime
of rebellion which consists of an armed uprising against the
Government to remove the Philippines or a part of its territory from
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines:

(a) The Abu Sayyaf Group, the Bangsamoro Islamic

Federation Fighters, the Daulah Islamiyah, and other terrorist groups
(collectively labeled as LTG) perpetrated “hostile activities during the
extended period of Martial Law.” These so-called “hostile activities”
are acts of lawlessness or terrorism which were not connected to
rebellion. Although it is alleged that the LTG “seek to promote global
rebellion”, it does not explain what the esoteric phrase “global
rebellion” means and it does not say whether “global rebellion” is
akin to the crime of rebellion defined and punishable under Articles
134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code.

(b) “At least four bombings/Improvised Explosive Device

(IED) explosions have been cited in the AFP report.” Likewise, these
isolated bombings were not connected to any act of rebellion.

(c) The DI forces continue to conduct their “radicalization

activities” and continue to “recruit new members”. Again, there is no
mention that these radicalization and recruitment activities
constituted an armed uprising against the Government to remove
part of Mindanao from allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines,
even as they are not elements of the crime of rebellion.

(d) The Communist Terrorist Group (CTG) “likewise pose

serious security concerns” like the commission of at least “three
hundred forty-two (342) violent incidents ranging from harassments
against government installations, liquidation of operation, and arson
attacks as part of extortion schemes.” Again, these alleged acts of
lawlessness and terrorism are not related to the commission of the
elements of rebellion. Moreover, no less than the Duterte
administration has belittled the “50-year revolution” of the

19
local Communists as A FAILED REVOLUTION. Consequently,
the acts of the CTG cannot be considered rebellion as a
ground for the third extension.

(e) Apart from these, major Abu Sayyaf Group factions in

Sulu continue to pursue kidnap for ransom activities to finance their
operations. Similarly, these kidnap for ransom activities are acts of
lawlessness which have not been related to the elements of rebellion.

42. All of the foregoing acts of lawlessness and terrorism,

granting that they constitute rebellion, can be suppressed under the
calling out power of the President under Section 18 of Article VII of
the Constitution, particularly after the President categorically
admitted in his letter that “we have achieved significant progress in
putting the rebellion under control.”

43. The President detailed the following achievements:

In a joint security assessment report, General

Carlito G. Galvez, Jr., the Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP) Chief of Staff and Martial Law Implementor, and
Director-General Oscar D. Albayalde, Chief of the
Philippine National Police (PNP), highlighted the following
accomplishments, among others, owing to the
implementation of Martial Law in Mindanao: reduction of
the capabilities of different terrorist groups, particularly
the neutralization of 685 members of the local terrorist
groups (LTG) and 1,073 members of the communist
terrorist group (CTG); dismantling of seven (7) guerilla
fronts and weakening of nineteen (19) others; surrender
of unprecedented number of loose firearms (more than
eight thousand from January to November 2018); 19%
reduction of atrocities committed by the CTG in 2018
compared to 2017; and substantial decrease in crime
incidence (Cotabato City – 51% reduction and
Maguindanao – 38% reduction).”

44. Indeed, no third extension of Martial Law and further

suspension of the writ are justified after the alleged rebellion in
Mindanao has been significantly put under control.

d. The military and police by their own

reports have overwhelming superiority over-
the so-called “enemies of the State”, and
consequently the extension of Martial Law

20
 and the further suspension of the writ is not
necessary.

45. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) has admitted

their overwhelming superiority in manpower and armaments,
together with the men of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and
CAFGU auxiliary groups under the military, over the Local Terrorist
Groups (LTGs) as well as the Communist Terrorist Groups (CTGs) in
Mindanao.

46. The relevant admissions of the military establishment are

recorded in the following interpellations of Rep. Arlene Brosas:

REP. BROSAS. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank

you Mr. President.

Diretso na po ako sa tanong ko. Gaano po

kadami ang puwersa ng AFP, PNP, military CAFGU
sa Mindanao bago mangyari ang Marawi siege?

LT. GEN. MADRIGAL. Puwede pong ulitin, Your

Honor, your question. We have not…

REP. BROSAS. Gaano po kadami ang puwersa ng

AFP-PNP, paramilitary CAFGU sa Mindanao bago
mangyari ang Marawi siege?

LT. GEN. MADRIGAL. FIFTY PERCENT of the

strength po ng Armed Forces ang nasa Mindanao,
Your Honor.

REP. BROSAS. May idinagdag po ba noong

dineclare ang martial law?

LT. GEN. MADRIGAL. Opo, Your Honor.

REP. BROSAS. Sa unang extension, may

idinagdag ba ulit? Ilan po yung idinagdag?

LT. GEN. MADRIGAL. Iyon pong idinagdag po

natin mula po noon na mag-start po iyong Marawi
siege umabot po, nasa mga sampung libong tropa
po, Your Honor.

REP. BROSAS. Paulit po ulit, ilan?

21
 LT. GEN. MADRIGAL. Around 10,000 troops,
Your Honor.

REP. BROSAS. Ten thousand troops. Ano po iyong

nagawa ng martial law sa recruitment ng CAFGU and
other paramilitary groups sa Mindanao? Gaano kadami
and paramilitary groups natin ngayon?

LT. GEN. MADRIGAL. Iyon pong CAFGU,

nagkaron po tayo, itong taon na ito, ng additional
50 companies, Your Honor. Around 5,000 CAFGUs
po, Your Honor. (Emphasis supplied).

The pertinent portions of the certified transcript of stenographic

notes dated 12 December 2018 are collectively attached as ANNEX
“F”.

47. Of similar import is the interchange between Rep. Emmi

De Jesus and respondent Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Madrigal:

REP. DE JESUS. Ilan po talaga ang batalyon na

naka-assign ngayon sa Mindanao at saan po ang
deployment ng mga ito? Maaari po bang malaman,
Mr. Speaker. At ito ay isang pagkakataon, pagkakataon
ito para marinig din ng publiko at tungkulin ninyo na
ipaabot ito sa publiko dahil tayo po ay binibigyan ng
karapatan na pag-usapan ito.

LT. GEN. MADRIGAL. Katulad po ng nabanggit

kanina, nasa mga around 60 PERCENT nga po ng
puwersa ng ating kasundaluhan ang nasa
Mindanao. Sila po ay strategically deployed doon
po sa mga areas kung saan sila kinakailangan.
IYON PONG DETAILS KUNG SAAN MISMO SILA
NAKA-ISTASYON AT IYONG NUMBER NG MGA
BATTALION NA IYAN, PWEDE PO NAMING IBIGAY
SA INYO, YOUR HONOR.

REP. DE JESUS. So, hihintayin pa naming

yung ulat, at ‘pag sinabi pong 60 percent, ang ibig
sabihin ang laki talaga ng inilobo ng bilang ng
military o state forces na ideneploy doon ano,
kasama na nga CAFGU, katulad noong binaggit ni

22
 Secretary Lorenzana na bahagi na sila ng
istrukturang militar.

Ilan naman ang tinutugis ninyo? Ilan na

iyong sinasabi ninyo na kailangan tugisin itong
mga rebelde para dito sa lumobong bilang na ito
ng militar at ginagawa ninyong batayan para sa
pagpapatuloy ng martial law?

LT. GEN. MADRIGAL. Tulad po ng aking

nabanggit kanina, nasa bilang po ng mga 2,435 po
iyon pong communist-terrorist groups at local
terrorist group na ating hinahabol, plus ito pong
ibang mga private armed groups na existing, na
atin ding ina-address, Your Honor.

REP. DE JESUS. So, parang nakakakilabot lang

ano. May lumolobong bilang ng state forces
deployment, ang tinutugis ay bilang na bilang
ninyo, 2,435. Siguro kung iri-ratio and proportion
ito doon sa inilalaang pondo, inilalaang resources
ng ating pamahalaan dito sa tinutugis ninyo,
siguro sandali lang sana at hindi kailangan. Hindi
kailangan ang extension ng batas militar kung sa
ganiyang bilang na inilalagay ninyo. x x x

Attached collectively as ANNEX “G” are the portions of the

certified true copies of the transcript of stenographic notes dated 12
December 2018.

48. It is regrettable that despite the undertaking of the

military establishment, it still failed to submit the actual number of
battalions presently deployed in Mindanao.

49. It appears that the disclosure on the military strength of

10,000 troops is utterly understated. This only translates to 20
battalions at 500 men per battalion. The AFP has to disclose the total
number of battalions now in Mindanao consisting of combat
battalions (infantry, cadre, scout rangers, special forces, etc.),
combat support and combat service support, military intelligence
battalions, service and forward support units and allied components.

50. Ranged against the superior military might of the

combined AFP, CAFGU and PNP forces are the admitted numbers of
LTGs (Local Terrorist Groups) consisting only of 878.

23
 51. Attached as ANNEX “E-14” is the submission of the
Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence which listed the
number of LTGs as follows:

LTGs Manpower Firearms

Abu Sayyaf Group 424 473
Daulah Islamiyah 190 91
Bangsomoro Islamic 264 254
Freedom Fighters
Total: 878 818

52. It did not even list the number of documented CTGs or

the communist insurgents whose “50-year rebellion” the Duterte
administration labeled as a “failed rebellion”. Moreover, the reported
number of firearms of 818 is less than the manpower of 878.

53. David’s victory over Goliath may be a veritable Biblical

account, but in modern warfare the goliath-like superiority of the
country’s government combined forces is a terrifying, formidable and
ascendant force whose victory is assured over puny terrorists and
bandits, particularly the remnants or residues of a vanquished or
failed “rebellion”.

54. No amount of military-sponsored paranoia can justify the

third extension of Martial Law and further suspension of the writ in
Mindanao. Too much must have its limits.

e. The “justifications” proffered by President

Duterte in his aforementioned letter, by his
own admission, “merely illustrates in general
terms the continuing rebellion in Mindanao”,
and consequently, he undertook to submit to
the Congress “a more detailed report on the
subsisting rebellion in Mindanao”, which he
never did.

55. No less than President Duterte acknowledged the lack of

particularity or specificity of the proffered reasons he advanced in his
06 December 2018 letter to the Congress for the third extension, and
consequently, he undertook to submit a more detailed report.

56. In his own language, the President volunteered the

following: “The foregoing merely illustrates in general terms the

24
continuing rebellion in Mindanao. I will be submitting a more detailed
report on the subsisting rebellion in the next few days.”

57. The President completely failed to comply with his

undertaking of submitting a more detailed report. Consequently, his
generalized “justifications” were made to suffice in the absence of a
clear and comprehensive articulation of the alleged subsisting
rebellion in Mindanao.

58. The claim of the officials of the AFP and the PNP that the
separate briefings they made before the Senators and
Representatives constituted the President’s subsequent detailed
report is both contemptuous and erroneous because the thrust of
these briefings were the same incomplete submissions on which the
President based his letter dated 06 December 2018.

59. It must be recalled that the President in his aforesaid

letter dated 06 December 2018 referred to a letter which he received
on 05 December 2018 “from Secretary of National Defense Delfin N.
Lorenzana, as Martial Law Administrator, requesting for the further
extension of Martial Law and the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao up to 31 December 2019.”

60. The letter dated 05 December 2018 of respondent

Secretary Lorenzana was likewise based on the prior “joint
recommendation and security assessment of the Chief of Staff of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), General Carlito G. Galvez, Jr.,
and the Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP), Police Director
General Oscar D. Albayalde.”

61. In other words, the letter dated 06 December 2018 of the

President was based on the prior submissions of respondent
Lorenzana and General Galvez, Jr., the predecessor of respondent
Chief of Staff Madrigal, and PNP Director General Albayalde.

62. Consequently, the President when he undertook to submit

a more detailed report, was not any more referring to the previous
submissions of the Secretary of National Defense, then Chief of Staff
of the AFP General Galvez, Jr., and PNP Director General Albayalde,
because all of these had already been considered by the President
and found them to be in general terms and wanting in specificity to
support that rebellion persists in Mindanao.

63. Verily, the military-police briefings, which to reiterate was

already considered by the President in his letter dated 06 December

25
2018, cannot be substituted for the more detailed report which the
President undertook to submit subsequently to the Congress and
which he utterly failed to do and he likewise failed to explain his non-
compliance with his unequivocal undertaking.

f. If the President has confidential

information which he had accessed or in his
possession, he never shared or disclosed the
same to the Members of the Congress in an
appropriate executive session.

64. It is conceded that as Commander in Chief, the President

is in a singular position to access confidential or sensitive information
involving the security of the State. No less than the ponencia in
Lagman vs. Medialdea (G.R. No. 231658, July 4, 2017)
acknowledged the President’s dominant position in information
gathering in this wise:

In fine, not only does the President have a

wide array of information before him, he also has
the right, prerogative, and the means to access
vital, relevant, and confidential data, concomitant
with his position as Commander-in-Chief of the
Armed Forces.

65. However, to justify the imposition or extension of Martial

Law and the suspension of the writ, the President has the obligation
to share this information with the Members of Congress in an
executive session because the Representatives and Senators in Joint
Session are to decide whether to affirm or reject the President’s
imposition or request for extension.

66. In “justifying” his requested third extension, the President

did not say that he has confidential or sensitive information on the
security of the State other than what he disclosed in his letter dated
06 December 2018.

67. It is on record that neither the President nor his alter

egos in the Executive Department requested for an executive session
with Members of the Congress to disclose any such confidential or
sensitive information.

68. Verily, the “justifications” which the President mentioned

in his letter dated 06 December 2018 are in generalized terms which

26
do not merit the grant of a third extension absent his promised
detailed elaboration.

g. The written reports and documents on

which the military-police briefings were
anchored were not submitted to the Congress
despite the undertaking of the concerned
officials during the Joint Session.

69. Even though the bases of the joint military-police

briefings on 11 December 2018 to the Members of Congress were
anterior to the President’s letter dated 06 December 2018 to the
Congress, as explained above, and did not constitute the detailed
report which the President undertook to submit to the Congress “in
the next few days”, nonetheless Rep. Antonio Tinio requested for the
submission of the bases of the briefings to form part of the materials
of the Joint Session.

70. Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra and Respondent

Secretary Lorenzana undertook to submit what was requested by
Rep. Tinio as memorialized in the following interchange:

REP. TINIO. Madam Speaker, I am asking

that the AFP, since according to the Executive
Secretary, the detailed report referred to by the
President that he will submit to Congress is
essentially the report delivered by the AFP in
yesterday’s briefing before Members of the House,
I am asking that it now be presented here so that
it forms part of the official record of the House and
of these deliberations.

Kasi napakahalaga na may nakasulat na malinaw na

batayan na ibinigay ang Presidente na malinaw sa lahat
ng Miyembro at maging sa publiko, Madam Speaker, dahil
ang pinag-uusapan natin dito ay ang pagpapatuloy ng
martial law at pag paglimita sa mga garantisadong
karapatan ng mamamayang Pilipino sa Mindanao.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Alvarez, M.). The

request of the Honorable Tinio is noted. Please proceed
with your interpellation, Sir.

SEC. GUEVARRA. Your Honor, we are ready

with the written report …

27
 REP. TINIO. Madam Speaker, they are ready.
Magpre-present daw sila ng report, Madam Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Alvarez, M.). We are

in the period of interpellation, so please proceed with
your interpellation, Honorable Tinio. The report will be
submitted later.

Thank you.

REP. TINIO. Madam Speaker, ang tanong ko

po kasi ay batay doon sa report, so that is why I
want it to be – to form part of the record, Madam
Speaker.

Ready naman po, baka pwedeng – can I then

ask the AFP to deliver their report.

SEC. LORENZANA. Madam Speaker, Mr.

President, we are ready to submit it now. We will
just put a covering letter to make it official. Still,
it’s all ready. Lagyan lang po naming ng covering
letter para naman po official ang pagka-transmit
sa inyo, pagka-transmit.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Alvarez, M.). We are

assured that they will submit their report upon completion
of all letters aforementioned. Please proceed. (Emphasis
supplied).

Certified true copies of the transcript of stenographic notes

dated 12 December 2018 are collectively marked as ANNEX “H”.

71. Despite their aforesaid unequivocal undertaking,

respondent Secretary Lorenzana and Secretary Menardo Guevarra of
the Department of Justice failed to submit the required written
reports and data as of 04 January 2019 when the Petition was filed.

72. Said failure leads to the presumption that the data and
materials were concealed because they contained information
adverse to the government’s position on the extension. More
specifically, Section 3 (e), Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court
provides: “That evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if
produced.”

28
 h. The “justifications” for a third extension of
Martial Law and the suspension of the writ in
the whole of Mindanao are mere cut and
paste repetitions of the “reasons” for the
second extension requested by the President,
even as they are self-serving conclusions of
fact and law.

73. It appears that the “justifications” for the third extension

are repetitions of the “reasons” for the second extension contained in
the President’s letter dated 08 December 2017 to the Congress, a
copy of which is attached as ANNEX “I”.

74. The following show the unmistakable similarity or even

recycling of justifications for the second and third requests for
extension:

(a) Both letters are prefaced with an acknowledgment that

during the extended period the alleged rebellion has been
significantly placed under control.

The letter dated 08 December 2017 reads: “I am pleased to

inform the Congress that during the Martial Law period as extended
in Mindanao, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) has
achieved remarkable progress in putting the rebellion under
control.”

Of virtually identical phraseology, the letter dated 06 December

2018 reads: “I am pleased to inform the Congress that during the
Martial Law period, as extended in Mindanao, we have achieved
significant progress in putting the rebellion under control.”

(b) Despite the foregoing acknowledgment of significantly

“putting the rebellion under control”, in both letters the President
stated that security concerns still necessitated the requested
extensions to ensure total eradication of the alleged rebellion. The
President in his letter dated 08 December 2017 stated that: “A
further extension of the implementation of Martial Law and
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao
will help the AFP, the Philippine National Police (PNP), and all other
law enforcement agencies to quell completely and put an end to
the on-going rebellion in Mindanao and prevent the same
from escalating to other parts of the country.”

29
 Similarly, in his letter dated 06 December 2018, the President
said: “A further extension of the implementation of Martial Law and
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao will enable the
AFP, the PNP, and all other law enforcement agencies to finally put
an end to the on-going rebellion in Mindanao and continue to
prevent the same from escalating to other parts of the
country.”

(c) In both letters, the same terrorist groups are targeted: the
DAESH-inspired Da’awatul Islamiyah Waliyatul Masriq (DIWM) or the
Daulah Islamiyah (DI); Abu Sayyaf Group; and Bangsamoro Islamic
Freedom Fighters and other terrorist groups.

(d) In his letter dated 08 December 2017, the President

alleged that the remnants of DAESH-inspired DIWM “continued
efforts towards radicalization/recruitment”. Likewise, in his letter
dated 06 December 2018, the President said: the DI forces continue
to pursue their rebellion against the government by furthering the
conduct of their radicalization activities and continue to recruit
new members, especially in vulnerable Muslim communities.”

(e) The Communist insurgents collectively called the CTG

(Communist Terrorist Group) were likewise targeted.

In the letter dated 08 December 2017, the President said:

“Last, but certainly not the least, while the government was
preoccupied with addressing the challenges posed by the
DAESH-inspired DIWM and other Local Terrorist Groups
(LTGs), the New People’s Army (NPA) took advantage of the
situation and intensified their decades-long rebellion against the
government and stepped up terrorist acts against innocent civilians
and private entities, as well as guerilla warfare against the security
sector and public and government infrastructure, purposely to
seize political power through violent means and supplant the
country’s democratic form of government with Communist
rule.”

Of similar import and phraseology, in the letter dated 06

December 2018 the President said: “While the government was
preoccupied with the challenges posed by the said groups,
the CTG, which has publicly declared its intension to seize
political power through violent means and supplant the
country’s democratic form of government with Communist
rule, took advantage and likewise posed serious security
concerns.”

30
 75. The foregoing cut-and-paste rationalizations for extended
periods show that the Executive demeans the Congress as it takes for
granted the foregone approval of the requests for extension by a
rubberstamp legislature whatever the singsong “justifications” are.

i. The recommendations for Martial Law

extension by the Regional and Provincial
Peace and Order Councils do not claim that
rebellion exists in Mindanao.

76. In the respective recommendations of the Regional and

Provincial Peace and Order Councils in Mindanao there is no claim
whatsoever that extension of Proclamation No. 216 is being
supported because there is an ongoing rebellion in Mindanao.

(a) Resolution No. 06, Series of 2018, of the Regional Peace

and Order Council XI (Davao City) dated 24 October 2018 provides in
its Whereas Clause that “the local government units of Davao Region
express their intention to extend the period of Martial Law so that
developments and growths that the region achieved can be
sustained and even surpassed the gain the region already had.”
(Emphasis supplied; a copy of the subject Resolution is attached as
ANNEX “J”).

(b) Resolution No. 1, Series of 2018, of the Regional Peace

and Order Council Region XIII (Caraga) dated 15 November 2018
provides in its Whereas Clause that “the Regional Peace and Order
Council through its Executive Committee, in pursuit of lasting
peace, order and security in the area, hereby supports the
extension of Martial Law in Mindanao for a year. (Emphasis supplied;
a copy of the subject Resolution is attached as ANNEX “K”).

(c) Resolution No. 2018-09 of the Provincial Peace and Order

Council of Agusan del Norte dated 15 November 2018 provides in its
Whereas Clause that “they appreciated the proclamation of martial
law in Mindanao because they could really feel the security in
their jurisdictions against lawless elements due to the
presence and efforts of the AFP and the PNP in ensuring the
preservation of peace and order in their localities. (Emphasis
supplied; a copy of the subject Resolution is attached as ANNEX
“L”).

(d) Resolution No. 10, Series of 2018, of the Provincial Peace

and Order Council of Agusan del Sur dated 20 November 2018

31
provides in its Whereas Clause that the “proclamation of martial law
in Mindanao is much appreciated because the people could really
feel the security in their jurisdictions against lawless
elements due to the presence and efforts of the AFP and the PNP in
ensuring the preservation of peace and order in their localities.
(Emphasis supplied; a copy of the subject Resolution is attached as
ANNEX “M”).

(e) Resolution No. 3, Series of 2018, of the Provincial Peace

and Order Council of the Province of Dinagat Islands dated 16
November 2018 provides in its Whereas Clause that “they appreciate
the proclamation of martial law in Mindanao because they could
really feel the security in their jurisdictions against lawless
elements due to the presence and efforts of the AFP and PNP in
ensuring the preservation of peace and order in their localities.”
(Emphasis supplied; a copy of the subject Resolution is attached as
ANNEX “N”).

(f) Statement from the Office of the Governor, Province of

Sarangani, stating that “[W]ith the extension of martial law in
Mindanao, the government will be able to continue its relentless
efforts of running after and neutralizing these lawless
elements” and “we need martial law in Mindanao to achieve a stable
social order that will ensure the full enjoyment of the people of their
rights as well as to promote development.” (Emphasis supplied; a
copy of the subject Resolution is attached as ANNEX “O”).

77. Verily, the people of Mindanao, through their Regional

and Provincial Peace and Order Councils and officials, may have
expressed support for the third extension of Proclamation No. 216
not because rebellion subsists in Mindanao but due to their desire for
economic development and peace and order, which reasons, though
laudable, are not constitutional bases for extension.

j. The alleged public clamor is neither a

ground for another prolongation of Martial
Law nor a constitutional basis for such
extension.

78. No amount of public clamor can justify a third extension

of Proclamation No. 216 if the constitutional grounds of invasion or
rebellion and requirement of public safety do not obtain.

32
 79. The extension of Martial Law or the further suspension of
the writ is never subject to popularity polls. It must comply with the
mandatory prerequisites of the Constitution.

80. No less than Respondent Secretary Lorenzana agreed

that public clamor is not a constitutional ground for the extension of
Martial Law. In answer to the question of Petitioner Lagman,
Respondent Lorenzana replied:

REP. LAGMAN. x x x

Now, is public clamor a ground for extension of

martial law in Mindanao?

SEC. LORENZANA. According to the – it is not per

our Constitution, Mr. Congressman, but we listen to
our people.

REP. LAGMAN. Yes, but it is not a constitutional

ground for the declaration of martial law. (Emphasis
supplied).

Attached as ANNEX “P” is the certified true copy of

the corresponding transcript of stenographic notes dated
12 December 2018.

k. The extension of Martial Law is not a

developmental instrument to sustain the
alleged economic growth in Mindanao.

81. Proponents for the third extension of Proclamation No.

216 advance the disturbing proposition that another extension is
necessary in order to sustain the so-called economic development in
Mindanao which has been achieved by the Martial Law regime.

82. Even the President in his letter dated 06 December 2018

emphasized that: “All of these gains in security and peace and order
have resulted in remarkable economic gains in Mindanao. In fact,
private sectors, local and regional peace and order councils and other
local government units in Mindanao are now also clamoring for a
further extension of the subject proclamation and suspension.”

83. It is an unmitigated fallacy that Martial Law or military

rule is a developmental instrument which must be implemented and
pursued.

33
 84. Despite the claim of the military establishment that the
imposition of Martial Law and the suspension of the writ have
resulted to economic gains in Mindanao, they do not have the
economic indicators and data to support their claim.

85. The following interchange during the Joint Session of the

Congress on 12 December 2018 is glaringly revealing:

REP. LAGMAN. What was the growth rate in

Mindanao as of the first quarter of 2018, starting
from January 1, 2018?

LT. GEN. MADRIGAL. Sir, the – for 2018, Sir, I was

informed the data of the NEDA has not yet been – this
will be released by April of next year. What we have is
the data of 2017. For Davao Region, …

REP. LAGMAN. Excuse me, I am not asking for

2017. I am asking for 2018 which is the coverage of the
extension.

LT. GEN. MADRIGAL. Yes, Sir. We have not

yet been given by the National Economic and
Development Authority on the data for 2018, Your
Honor.

REP. LAGMAN. Okay. What is the growth rate

in Mindanao as of the fourth quarter, starting from
October 1, 2018 up to the present? I think the
same answer, NEDA has not furnished you the
data. Is that correct?

LT. GEN. MADRIGAL. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. LAGMAN. What was the inflation rate in

Mindanao as of the first quarter of 2018, starting
from January 1, 2018?

LT. GEN. MADRIGAL. We have no data, Your

Honor.

REP. LAGMAN. Okay. What is the inflation

rate in Mindanao as of the fourth, starting from
October 1, 2018 up to the present?

34
 LT. GEN. MADRIGAL. We have no data, Your
Honor.

REP. LAGMAN. What was the poverty

incidence in Mindanao as of the first quarter of
2018, starting from January 1, 2018?

LT. GEN. MADRIGAL. We have no data, Your

Honor.

REP. LAGMAN. What is the poverty incidence

in Mindanao as of the fourth quarter, starting from
October 1, 2018 up to the present?

LT. GEN. MADRIGAL. We have no data, Your

Honor.

REP. LAGMAN. I AM ASKING THESE

QUESTIONS, MR. SPEAKER, MADAM – MADAM
SPEAKER, MR. PRESIDENT, BECAUSE THERE HAS
BEEN THIS REPEATED CLAIM THAT MARTIAL LAW
CONTRIBUTED TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND
GROWTH IN MINDANAO. BUT HOW CAN THIS BE
VALIDATED WHEN THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL DATA
ON WHICH THIS CLAIM CAN BE ANCHORED?
(Emphasis supplied).

Attached collectively as ANNEX “Q” are the

portions of the certified true copies of the transcript of
stenographic notes dated 12 December 2018.

B. PUBLIC SAFETY IS NOT

IMPERILED AND DOES NOT
NECESSITATE A THIRD
EXTENSION.

86. The two concurrent grounds for declaration of Martial

Law or suspension of the writ or extension thereof are (1) actual
invasion or rebellion; and (2) when public safety requires it.

87. In Lagman vs. Medialdea, it was held that “[I]t is

worthy to mention that rebellion alone does not justify the
declaration of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the

35
writ of habeas corpus; the public safety requirement must likewise be
present.”

88. Consequently, the existence of actual invasion or rebellion

does not necessarily actualize the requirement of public safety
because rebellion can be effectively contained outside of populated
communities or in isolated or remote areas where public safety is not
imperiled or the overwhelming presence of superior government
forces forestalls the danger to public safety.

89. Moreover, the protection and preservation of public safety

is a constant obligation of government in exercise of its police power
with or without the existence of invasion or rebellion.

90. In the petition at bar, the absence of the requirement of

public safety is underscored by the very absence of an actual
rebellion consisting of an armed uprising against the government for
the purpose of removing Mindanao or a portion thereof from the
allegiance to the Republic.

91. The error of the Executive is its automatic conclusion that

the requirement of public safety is satisfied as a condition consequent
to its pretense that rebellion persists in Mindanao.

C. PROCLAMATION NO. 216

HAS BECOME FUNCTUS
OFFICIO AND CANNOT
ANYMORE BE EXTENDED.

92. Proclamation No. 216 was principally issued to crush the

Marawi siege and to annihilate the Maute and Abu Sayyaf terrorist
leadership.

93. Indelibly pronounced in Proclamation No. 216 and the

President’s Report dated May 25, 2017 to Congress is that the sole
objective or purpose of the proclamation of Martial Law and the
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao was to quell the
Maute-Abu Sayyaf so-called rebellion or the “siege of Marawi”.

94. Proclamation No. 216 reads:

“WHEREAS, part of the reasons for the issuance of

Proclamation No. 55 was the series of violent acts
committed by the Maute terrorist group such as the
attack on the military outpost in Butig, Lanao del Sur in

36
 February 2016, killing and wounding several soldiers, and
the mass jail break in Marawi City in August 2016, freeing
their arrested comrades and other detainees;

“WHEREAS, today, 23 May 2017, the same

Maute terrorist group has taken over a hospital in
Marawi City, Lanao del Sur, established several
checkpoints within the City, burned down certain
government and private facilities and inflicted casualties
on the part of Government forces, and started flying the
flag of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in
several areas, thereby openly attempting to remove from
the allegiance to the Philippine Government this part of
Mindanao and deprive the Chief Executive of his powers
and prerogatives to enforce the laws of the land and to
maintain public order and safety in Mindanao, constituting
the crime of rebellion; and

“WHEREAS, this recent attack shows the

capability of the Maute Group and other rebel groups
to sow terror, and cause death and damage to property
not only in Lanao del Sur but also in other parts of
Mindanao.” (Emphasis supplied).

95. The President’s Report dated May 25, 2017 to the

Congress reiterated verbatim the contents of Proclamation No. 216
and proceeded to state that:

“On 23 May 2017, a government operation to

capture Isnilon Hapilon, senior leader of the ASG,
and Maute Group operational leaders, Abdullah
and Omarkhayam Maute, was confronted with armed
resistance which escalated into open hostility against the
government. Through these group’s armed siege and acts
of violence directed towards civilians and government
authorities, institutions and establishments, they were
able to take control of major social, economic, and
political foundations of Marawi City which led to its
paralysis. This sudden taking of control was intended to
lay the groundwork for the eventual establishment of a
DAESH wilayat or province in Mindanao.

“Based on verified intelligence reports, the Maute

Group, as of the end of 2016, consisted of around two
hundred sixty-three (263) members, fully armed and

37
prepared to wage combat in furtherance of its aims. The
group chiefly operates in the province of Lanao del Sur,
but has extensive networks and linkages with foreign and
local armed groups such as the Jemaah Islamiyah,
Mujahidin Indonesia Timur and the ASG. It adheres to the
ideals being espoused by the DAESH, as evidenced by,
among others, the publication of a video footage
declaring the allegiance to the DAESH. Reports abound
that foreign-based terrorist groups, the ISIS (Islamic
State of Iraq and Syria) in particular, as well as illegal
drug money, provide financial and logistical support to
the Maute Group.

xxx xxx xxx

 1400H members of the Maute Group and

ASG, along with their sympathizers,
commenced their attack on various facilities –
government and privately owned – in the City of
Marawi.

xxx xxx xxx

 The Maute Group forcibly entered the jail

facilities, destroyed its main gate and assaulted
on-duty personnel. BJMP personnel were
disarmed, tied and/or locked inside the cells.

xxx xxx xxx

 Later in the evening, the Maute Group burned

Dansalan College Foundation, Cathedral of Maria
Auxilladora, the nun’s quarters in the church,
and the sha masjid Moncado Colony. Hostages
were taken from the church.

xxx xxx xxx

 The Maute Group also attacked Amai Pakpak

Hospital and hoisted the DAESH flag there,
among other several locations. As of 0600H of
24 May 2017, members of the Maute Group
were seen guarding the entry gates of the Amai
Pakpak Hospital. They held hostage the

38
 employees of the Hospital and took over the
PhilHealth office located thereat.

xxx xxx xxx

 Latest information indicates that about seventy-

five percent (75%) of Marawi City has been
infiltrated by lawless armed groups composed of
members of the Maute Group and the ASG. As
of the time of this Report, eleven (11) members
of the Armed Forces and the Philippine National
Police have been killed in action while thirty-five
(35) others have been seriously wounded.
(Emphasis supplied).

96. The so-called rebellion of the Maute Group and the Abu
Sayyaf Group (ASG) has been defeated with the killing of their
principal leaders (Isnilon Hapilon of ASG and the Maute brothers
Abdullah and Omarkhayam) and hundreds of their followers leading
to the liberation of Marawi City.

97. On 27 October 2017, President Duterte announced the

liberation of Marawi from the terrorists and their influence.

98. Defense Secretary Lorenzana as Martial Law

Administrator likewise subsequently announced the cessation of
combat operations.

99. Verily, Proclamation No. 216 dated 23 May 2017 has been
irrevocably rendered functus officio. As such, it cannot anymore be
extended for the third time even as its second extension from 01
January 2018 to 31 December 2018 was also bereft of anchorage.

100. Indubitably, the purpose and mission of Proclamation No.

216 had been completely accomplished.

D. A THIRD EXTENSION OF
MARTIAL LAW AND
SUSPENSION OF THE WRIT
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY PRO-
LONGS THE REGIME OF
MARTIAL LAW IN MINDANAO
DESPITE THE LIMITED
PERIOD ENVISIONED IN THE
1987 CONSTITUTION.

39
 101. The Martial Law declared by the late dictator Ferdinand
Marcos lasted for 14 ignominious years because the 1973
Constitution, like the 1935 Constitution, did not impose a limitation
on the duration of the imposition of Martial Law, thus making a
Martial Law regime limitless.

102. In order to foreclose the inordinate prolongation of

Martial Law, the 1987 Constitution limited not only the grounds for its
imposition but also the length of its duration.

103. Thus, it is provided that “In case of invasion or rebellion,

when the public safety requires it, he (the President) may, for a
period not exceeding 60 days, suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, or place the Philippines or any part thereof under
martial law.” (Emphasis supplied, Sec. 18 of Art. VII).

104. It stands to reason that any extension of the declaration

of Martial Law or suspension of the writ must likewise be for a short
or limited duration.

105. The 1987 Constitution did not envision a series of long

extensions of the original proclamation of Martial Law or suspension
of the writ.

106. It must be emphasized that with the third extension of

Proclamation No. 216 for another year, by December 31, 2019 the
Martial Law regime imposed by President Duterte in Mindanao would
have lasted for 951 days:

 The original Proclamation No. 215 from 23 May 2017 to 22

July 2017 consisting of 60 days;

 The first extension from 23 July 2017 to 31 December

2017 consisting of 161 days;

 The second extension from 01 January 2018 to 31

December 2018 consisting of 365 days; and

 The third extension from 01 January 2019 to 31 December

2019 consisting of 365 days.

 Grand total of 951 days.

40
 107. The total extension of 891 days (three extensions) is an
enormous increase of 1,485% over the original period of 60 days.
This is inordinately long. It is a deplorable mockery of the
constitutional intention to limit the duration of Martial Law and its
extension.

108. With respect to the extension of the declaration of the

imposition of Martial Law and the suspension of the writ, the
pertinent provision of the 1987 Constitution is Sec. 18 of Art. VII
which reads: “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 shall require
it.” (Emphasis supplied).

109. The grant to the Congress of the discretion to determine

the length of the period of the extension does not confer on the
legislature the absolute power to fix a long duration of the extension
or authorize a series of extensions. Such discretion is circumscribed
by the unequivocal intent of the Constitution to delimit the period of
the Martial Law proclamation and suspension of the writ, and the
extension thereof.

110. Members of the Constitutional Commission were already

apprehensive of a long extension like Commissioner Jose E. Suarez
who argued:

“Mr. Suarez. We are afraid of a situation that

may develop where the extended period
would be even longer than the initial period,
Madam President. It is only reasonable to suggest
that we have to put a restriction on the matter of
the exercise of this right within a reasonable
period.” (Record of the Constitutional Commission
Proceedings and Debates, Vol. 2, page 509;
emphasis supplied).

111. Commissioner Suarez continued: “That is the reason

why we want to make it clear that there must be a
reasonable period for the extension. So, if my suggestion is not
acceptable to the Committee, may I request that a voting be held on
it, Madam President.” (Record of the Constitutional Commission
Proceedings and Debates, Vol. 2, page 509; emphasis supplied).

41
 112. The voting was not held due to the intervening comments
and suggestions of other Commissioners like Father Bernas who
made the following proposal:

“Fr. Bernas. Madam President, may I propose

something because I see the problem. Suppose we were
to say ‘or extend the same FOR A PERIOD TO BE
DETERMINED BY CONGRESS’ - that gives Congress a
little flexibility on just how long the extension should
be.” (Record of the Constitutional Commission
Proceedings and Debates, Vol. 2, page 510; Emphasis
supplied).

113. That “little flexibility” for the Congress to determine the

length of the extension must be consistent with the clear and
manifest intention of the Constitution to reasonably limit the period
of the extension in the same manner that the original or initial
duration of Martial Law must not exceed sixty (60) days.

114. That “little flexibility” must not be abused by the

President and the Congress to impose extensions in virtual
perpetuity.

115. A restriction on a grant of extraordinary powers must be

strictly construed. A strict construction of the power of the Congress
to extend Martial Law and the suspension of the writ of habeas
corpus upon the initiative of the President must foreclose a series of
long extensions. Otherwise, the intention and mandate of the
Constitution limiting the period of Martial Law and the suspension of
the writ and the extension thereof would be breached.

116. The President is not authorized to keep on

requesting for extensions and defy in the process the
constitutional limitations on the period of Martial Law.

117. It is an aberration for a series of extensions to

constitute 1,485% more than the original 60 days imposed
by the Constitution.

E. THE GRANT BY THE JOINT

SESSION OF THE REQUEST BY
THE PRESIDENT FOR A THIRD
EXTENSION WAS CONSU-
MATED IN INORDINATE
HASTE BY THE SUPER-

42
MAJORITY ALLIES OF THE
PRESIDENT EVEN AS THE
PERIOD FOR INTER-
PELLATION, DEBATE AND
EXPLANATION OF VOTES WAS
UNDULY RESTRICTED.

118. To reiterate, the Executive made a haphazard letter dated

06 December 2018 because it took for granted that the request for a
third extension of Proclamation No. 216 would be given with alacrity
by the administration’s supermajority allies in the Congress.

119. “Martial Law” was also extended to the Joint Session of

the Congress when the freedom of expression of Senators and
Representatives was restricted to three minutes for interpellation and
one minute for the explanation of their respective votes.

120. While Martial Law was extended in Mindanao for another

year or 8,760 hours, the congressional grant of the President’s
initiative for another extension of Martial Law was consummated in
barely four hours, which is .01% of the total new extended period.

121. The Congress as a deliberative assembly must allow the

free rein of interpellation and debate on crucial issues like a third
extension of Martial Law in Mindanao which may embolden anew the
military to violate civil, political and human rights even as the citizens
are cowed from expressing dissent.

122. The undue restriction on the right to interpellate and

explain one’s vote follows the pattern of limitation designed by the
Executive in forwarding the request for extension on the eleventh
hour, thus depriving the Congress from fully deliberating on the
merits of the requested extension and amply validating the
sufficiency of the proffered factual basis.

123. Premeditated alacrity is anathema to democracy.

F. MARTIAL LAW AND THE

SUSPENSION OF THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS AND THE
EXTENSION THEREOF
EMBOLDENS THE MILITARY
AND POLICE AUTHORITIES TO
VIOLATE WITH IMPUNITY
THE CIVIL AND POLITICAL

43
RIGHTS, AS WELL AS HUMAN
RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS IN
MINDANAO, EVEN AS THE
PEOPLE ARE COWED BY FEAR
FROM EXERCISING THEIR
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
AND DISSENT.

124. Although as expected, the military and police

establishments proclaim that during the second extension of Martial
Law and the suspension of the writ from January to December 2018
no violations of political and civil rights as well as human rights were
reported, there are various human rights violations perpetrated
during the extended period involving military and police personnel.

125. The most recent of these violations victimized former

Representative Satur Ocampo and incumbent Representative France
Castro who were arrested and detained for trumped up charges of
kidnapping and trafficking in children during their humanitarian
mission to rescue discriminated and abused Lumads.

126. During the Joint Session of the Congress, Representatives

from the Makabayan bloc enumerated various human rights
violations committed during the second extended period, not to
mention violations during the period of the original Proclamation 216
and its first extension.

127. Petitioners reserve the right to submit validated

documentation of these human rights violations in addition to the
ones being investigated by the Commission on Human Rights (CHR).

PRAYER FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO) OR A WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

128. Petitioners replead the foregoing averments which may

be necessary and relevant to the instant prayer for injunctive relief.

129. Petitioners as duly elected Representatives to the 17th

Congress of the Philippines have sworn to defend and uphold the
Constitution.

130. Verily, they have the right to challenge violations of the

Constitution like the gross transgressions committed by the
respondents herein in seeking the third extension of Martial Law and

44
the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in
Mindanao for an additional one (1) year which is utterly without
sufficient factual basis and violates the constitutional intent of a
limited Martial Law regime even as they inveigled the Congress to
grant the extension.

131. Petitioners have also the corollary right to seek before the
Honorable Supreme Court the rectification of such betrayal of the
Constitution.

132. The respondents in implementing the third extension of

Martial Law and the suspension of the writ in Mindanao will cause the
violation and continuing violation of the aforementioned rights of the
petitioners resulting to grave and irreparable injustice and injury to
the latter, which are beyond quantification.

133. The issuance of injunctive relief will foreclose the violation

of the Constitution and commission of human rights violations and
the derogation of the rule of law in Mindanao during the extended
period, which violations also occurred in the initial implementation of
Proclamation No. 216 and its first and second extensions.

134. The petitioners are ready and willing to post the requisite
bond which the Honorable Supreme Court may direct as a condition
for the issuance of injunctive relief.

PRAYER

Petitioners respectfully pray of the Honorable Supreme Court

that:

1. Upon filing of the instant Petition to immediately issue a

Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or as soon as the Parties can be
heard, a Writ of Preliminary Injunction be issued forthwith to stop the
implementation by the respondents and their agents of the third
extension of Martial Law and the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao for one year effective 01 January
2019 to 31 December 2019, and restrain the disbursement of funds
to further finance the implementation of Martial Law and the
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao.

2. After due hearing and consideration of the Petition, to

declare null and void the Joint Resolution of Both Houses No. 6 dated
12 December 2018 extending Proclamation No. 216 for another year

45
from 01 January 2019 to 31 December 2019 on the declaration of
Martial Law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in the
whole of Mindanao for having been requested and granted:

(a) without sufficient factual basis on the actual existence of

rebellion in Mindanao as well as the absence of the requirement of
public safety; and

(b) violation of the clear intendment of the Constitution on the

limited and short duration of Martial Law or the suspension of the
privilege of habeas corpus or extension thereof.

Petitioners pray for other just and equitable reliefs.

Quezon City, for Manila.

04 January 2019

LAGMAN* & LAGMAN LAW FIRM

Counsel for the Petitioners
2/F Tempus Place Condominium
Makatarungan and Matalino Streets,
Brgy. Central, Diliman, Quezon City
Telefax: 433-5354
lagmanlaw@gmail.com

JAKE REY M. FAJARDO

Roll of Attorneys No.: 68933
IBP O.R. No. 050516/ Quezon City/
24 August 2018
PTR No. 4419496/Pasig City/05-07-18
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0012911
jakefajardo1984@gmail.com
0906-5313787

_________________
*Rep. Edcel C. Lagman is on leave for being a Member of the House of Representatives.

46
 EXPLANATION

Copies of the foregoing Petition were individually furnished to

the Respondents by registered mail because of personnel constraints.

JAKE REY M. FAJARDO

Copy furnished:

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA QC Hall Post Office

Office of the Executive Secretary Registry Receipt No. ____
Malacañang, Manila 04 January 2019

SECRETARY DELFIN N. LORENZANA QC Hall Post Office

Department of National Defense Registry Receipt No. ____
Segundo Avenue, Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo 04 January 2019
Quezon City

GEN. BENJAMIN MADRIGAL, JR. QC Hall Post Office

AFP Chief of Staff Registry Receipt No. ____
Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo, Quezon City 04 January 2019

SECRETARY BENJAMIN E. DIOKNO QC Hall Post Office

Department of Budget and Management Registry Receipt No. ____
Gen. Solano St., San Miguel, Manila 04 January 2019

SOLICITOR GENRAL JOSE C. CALIDA QC Hall Post Office

Office of the Solicitor General Registry Receipt No. ____
134 Amorsolo St., Legazpi Village 04 January 2019
Makati City

47