REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
House of the Representatives Complex
Constitution Hills, Quezon City

IN THE MATTER OF
IMPEACHMENT OF RODRIGO
ROA DUTERTE AS PRESIDENT
OF THE PHILIPPINES

GERICAH MAY RODRIGUEZ,

NESSAN A. FLORES, JAYSON M.
YU, SHEILLA MAE M. CAÑETE,
VENN WEIR S. AÑONUEVO,
KASEY LYN A. ACAIN AND JAY
JAUGAR, CONG. RAUL V. DEL
MAR and CONG. GWENDOLYN F.
GARCIA

Complainants,
x----------------------------------------------x

IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT

Complainants, by counsel, respectfully state:

PREFATORY STATEMENT Commented [U1]: To Sir Venn: Nag draft ko initially sa

prefatory statement, you may add something kay for me,
naa koy na miss. hehe. You can make the Corona
The President is a living symbol of the nation. As a Commander- impeachment complaint nga reference ug giunsa pag
present. If ok naka ani, just tell me.
in Chief of all Armed Forces of the Philippines, he has the duty to
protect his people and territory from invasion. He shall also ensure
that the laws be faithfully executed.

The Constitution provides a process for holding the president to

account, on the principle that sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them. The Constitution provides
for a mechanism to remove high officials who betray public trust,
commit culpable violations of the Constitution, and graft and
corruption.
 “The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme
Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the
Ombudsman may be removed from office, on impeachment for, and
conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason,
bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public
trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from
office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.” (Emphasis ours)

This is a verified complaint for the impeachment of respondent

Rodrigo R. Duterte, incumbent President of the Republic of the
Philippines, upon the grounds mentioned below. This complaint is
filed pursuant to the provisions of Article XI (Accountability of Public
Officers), Sections 2 and 3 of the Philippine Constitution.

This complaint, as far as private complainants are concerned, is

endorsed by Congressmen Raul V. Del Mar and Gwendolyn F. Garcia.

THE PARTIES Commented [U2]: (Gi binagsa nako but we can actually
make this shorter, pwede na man siguro na dli na
individually ang pag present sa parties, mag ask sa ko ni
Complainants are Filipino citizens, of legal ages and taxpayers, Atty.)

namely:

a. Gericah May Rodriguez, with office address at Commission on

Audit Regional Office VII, corner MJ Cuenco and V. Sotto St.,
Cebu City, Cebu

b. Nessan A. Flores, with office address at Unit 304-305, Mango

Square Mall General Maxilom Ave., Cebu City, Cebu,
Philippines

c. Jayson M. Yu, with office address at 8th floor, TGU Building, IT

Park, Cebu City

d. Sheilla Mae M. Cañete, with office address at Zone Ube-260,

Paknaan Mandaue City, Cebu, Philippines

e. Venn Weir S. Anoñuevo, with office address at 2nd Floor,

Provincial Treasurer's Office, Capitol Building ,Cebu City

f. Kasey Lyn A. Acain, with office address at

g. Jay Jaugar, with office address at

 h. Complainants may be served with summons and other
processes through their counsel, Atty. Romeo A. Reyes, Jr. at
Room 308, 6/F Cebu Holdings Center Building, Cebu Business
Park (Ayala), 6000 Cebu City, Philippines.

i. The respondent is the incumbent President of the Republic of the

Philippines and may be served with summons and other
processes of this august body at the Office of the President,
Malacañang, Manila.

STATEMENT OF FACTS Commented [U3]: Dli ko sure ani, pero para nako taas ra.
Let’s make this brief and coherent. hehe

1. On June 30, 2016, respondent took his oath as the 16th President of sa footnotes, ako ra nya ning i-check since nay proper
footnoting ani, nalimot nako
the Republic of the Philippines, stating:

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithful and

conscientiously fulfill my duties as President of the Philippines,
preserve and defend its constitution, execute its laws, do justice
to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the nation.
So help me God."

2. On July 1, 2016, he assumed his duties and responsibilities as such.

3. That on the 19th day of March 2017, President Duterte willfully and
negligently said that the Philippines cannot stop China from
building facilities in Scarborough Shoal (Panatag Shoal) in the
disputed South China Sea. The President issued the statement when
asked to clarify reports that Beijing was building a radar station in
Panatag Shoal, to quote: “We cannot stop China from doing its
thing. Hindi nga napara ng Amerikano eh,”. 1 (Emphasis ours)

4. That under Section 2 of Republic Act 9522, the act which defines the
archipelagic baselines of the Philippines, provides that the
Philippines exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction over the
Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under Presidential Decree
No. 1596 and Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal.2

1
http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/03/19/17/duterte-ph-cant-stop-china-from-building-facilities-in-
panatag-shoal
2
Section 2, RA 9522
5. That the Philippines won over the arbitration case against China as
decided by the five member International Panel of Judges at the
Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in the Hague which upheld
the Manila’s position that China’s “nine-dash line” maritime claim
is excessive and encroached into the Philippines’ 200-nautical mile
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The judges ruled that there was
no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources
within the sea areas falling within the “nine-dash line”, thus none
of the Spratlys Island grant China an EEZ. 3 (Emphasis ours)

6. That despite the President’s duty to execute laws, the President

willfully neglected the provisions set forth by RA 9522, thus
failing to exercise and fight for the Philippine’s sovereign right
over the Kalayaan Group of Islands and the Scarborough Shoal.
For over one year of his tenure as the President, he has not
initiated actions to exercise the rights over the territories in
dispute. This is a clear manifestation that there is inaction by the
President to initiate efforts to effect the country’s sovereignty
over the disputed territories.

7. That on on May 23, 2017, after the Islamic State-aligned Maute

terrorists launched attacks in Marawi City, burning several
structures and holding hostage more than a dozen people
Duterted declared martial law in Mindano. On July 18, 2017,
President Rodrigo Duterte has called on Congress to extend
martial law in Mindanao until the end of the year since “he has
come to the conclusion” that the siege in Marawi City would not
reach its end by July 22, the deadline for the 60-day period of the
martial law proclamation. Commented [U4]: Nessan, asa ang source ani?

8. That on July 22, 2017, the Senate and House of Representatives

granted President Rodrigo Duterte's request to extend military
rule in the south until December 31, 2017 in view of the expiration
of Proclamation 216, which declared martial law in Mindanao.4

9. That Martial law allows the suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus and warrantless arrests. In fact, the Martial Law
declaration in Mindanao resulted to abuses and human rights
violation which is evident under the submitted documented cases
of rights abuses, which includes 68 political killings, 842 illegal

3
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/140358/philippines-arbitration-decision-maritime-dispute-south-china-
sea-arbitral-tribunal-unclos-itlos
4
http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2017/07/22/Congress-votes-martial-law-extension-Duterte.html
 arrests and detention, 416,000 victims of displacement and
357,000 victims of indiscriminate firing and aerial bombings. Commented [U5]: Nessan, asa ang source ani

10. That Gabriela Women’s Partylist (GWP) Rep. Arlene Brosas cited
more cases of extrajudicial killings, forced evacuation and
arrests committed by security forces against civilians outside the
center of the conflict in Marawi City. These include the killing of
a peasant in Davao del Sur by suspected soldiers, and the death of
another civilian in an aerial bombing in North Cotabato. Commented [U6]: Nessan, asa ang source ani

11. That reports on human rights abuses were presented by Samira

Gutoc-Tomawis, who even brought with her photos and
documents of victims of human rights violations in Marawi. She
even narrated the story of a 20-year-old special child whose hand
was scalded and interrogated by soldiers who suspected him of
being one of their enemies. There were also trapped civilians
trying to escape who were forced by soldiers to walk with shirts
wrapped over their heads and told “to dig your graves”. Gutoc
decried that the bodies of slain civilians littered the streets of
Marawi, which is a taboo in Islam, which dictates that the dead
are buried within the day. Commented [U7]: To Nessan: Girl, naa pa man to ubang
abuses nga gi report ni Tomawis sa Congress, can we make a
brief statement of facts regarding ato? Focus ta sa abuses
12. That on August 7, 2016, President Duterte named more than 150 kay murag dli kaau favorable sa atong side ang extension)
and ang arguments nya ha, please remind Jerome.
officials from the judiciary and local government units who are
allegedly involved in the illegal drugs trade. That among those
named in the President’s list are Ozamiz City Mayor Reynaldo
Parojinog Sr., his daughter Vice Mayor Nova Princess Parojinog-
Echavez, and his brother ex-Board Member Ricardo Parojinog
Ardot of Misamis Occidental. That Vice Mayor, Nova, is the
partner of Bilibid drug lord Herbert Colanggo, but the mayor
denies having any business ties with the drug lord.

13. That on July 30, 2017, almost a year since being named in
Duterte’s drug list, the mayor and 14 others including his wife,
brother, and sister are killed in a police raid. Police say they were
serving a warrant when the mayor’s security guards fired at
them, prompting an exchange of shots. An aide to the Parojinogs
contested this, saying the mayor’s camp did not fire a shot. The
vice mayor and her brother are arrested. Commented [U8]: Jayson, mao pa ni ako na gather..
please add something nalang.. dli nako ma gets tong imong
fcats kay brief ra jud kaau.
14. Kulang pa ug facts ang parojinog
15. That Mayor Rolando Espinosa of Albuera Leyte, who has been
linked to the illegal drug trade by President Rodrigo Duterte was
arrested on October 2016 for alleged possession of illegal drugs
and illegal possession of firearms.5

16. That early morning on November 5, 2016, Mayor Espinosa was

shot dead inside is cell at Baybay City Provincial Jail. That in an
interview with radio DZMM, Chief of Police Espenido said that
the former mayor was killed while being served a search warrant
by CIDG Region 8. According to a spot report, Espinosa was
killed at around 4 a.m. along with inmate Raul Yap. 6

17. That Senators who investigated the killing of Albuera, Leyte

Mayor Rolando Espinosa Sr. concluded it was premeditated and
that police authorities are liable for abuse of authority.

18. That the Senate committees which investigated the death of

Albuera, Leyte Mayor Rolando Espinosa Sr. found that the slay
was "premeditated and with abuse of authority" on the part of
the police operatives. That committee on public order and
dangerous drugs and committee on justice and human rights
concluded after several public hearings that operatives of the
Philippine National Police (PNP) Criminal Investigation and
Detection Group (CIDG) Region 8 planned Espinosa's killing in
November last year to cover up their involvement in illegal drugs.
That according to them in a joint report published in the Senate
website, although the Committees recognize and give due respect
to the authority of the courts to determine the guilt of the police
officers involved in the operation, the Committees are convinced
that the circumstances point out to a systematic 'clean up' made
on any living trace that may reveal their involvement in the
Espinosa drug trade.

19. That the Senate committees questioned the intention of the

police operatives for applying and implementing the search
warrant inside the jail facility in the wee hours, calling the place
of application "suspicious." That Laraga should not have wasted
government resources in applying for a search warrant in Basey,
Samar since they were going to search a detention facility, which
is not a private dwelling that comes under the protection of the
right to privacy.

5
http://news.abs-cbn.com/list/tag/rolando-espinosa-sr
6
Ibid
20. That the Senators noted of the use overwhelming force by the
authorities serving the warrants just for the purpose of searching
for one firearm and a certain amount of illegal drugs in a
government detention facility. That the 18-person team of CIDG-
8 personnel was augmented by six members of the Regional
Maritime Unit as perimeter defense.

21. That probers said it was "peculiar" that no one else apart from the
operating team witnessed what transpired inside Espinosa's and
slain inmate Raul Yap's cell, noting that only one witness saw
the operatives enter the compound while others were present
only during the inventory of seized items.

22. That the jail guards as well as the PNP personnel, assigned to
ensure the safety of Mayor Espinosa, were disarmed and made to
kneel down and face the wall for the entire duration of the
operation even after Mayor Espinosa and Yap were killed.

23. That the committees are also convinced that both Espinosa and
Yap, allegedly killed after resisting arrest and firing at officers,
had no firearms and illegal drugs in their possession. They also
cited that jail guards conducted "Oplan Galugad" a few days
before the raid but merely found cell phones and chargers and
none of the alleged articles mentioned in the application for
search warrants. Commented [U9]: Facts too lengthy, ato ra nya ni I sort
out

THE RELEVANT ISSUES Commented [U10]: Ato ra nya ning irevise ha.. follow ta
sa Facts/Legal Question/Applicable Law na format

I. WHETHER OR NOT PRESIDENT RODRIGO DUTERTE

CULPABLY VIOLATED THE 1987 CONSTITUTION BY
KNOWINGLY, WILLFULLY AND NEGLIGENTLY
UTTERING REMARKS THAT THE PHILIPPINES CANNOT
DO ANYTHING AGAINST THE CHINESE BUILDING
ACTIVITY IN THE SCARBOROUGH SHOAL AND HIS
INACTION TO EXERCISE THE COUNTRY’S RIGHTS OVER
THE DISPUTED TERRITORY

II. WHETHER OR NOT PRESIDENT RODRIGO DUTERTE

CULPABLY VIOLATED THE 1987 CONSTITUTION BY
SEEKING MARTIAL LAW EXTENSION, WHICH ALLOWS
THE SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVELEGE OF THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS AND WARRANTLESS ARREST, A
CLEAR VIOLATION AGAINST HUMAN RIGHTS Commented [U11]: Nessan, mas maau dagway ato i twist
ni gamay, we’ll add PDuterte’s command responsibility
perhaps? Hehe. Let me know your thoughts about this.
III. WHETHER OR NOT DUE PROCESS OF LAW PURSUANT
TO ARTICLE III OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION WAS
TRANSGRESSED BY THE ARRESTING OFFICERS DURING
THE ARREST OF MAYOR PAROJINOG Commented [U12]: Jays, let’s sort this out. Atong I merge
ang duha ka issues. Kinanglan ni ug brain storming.

IV. WHETHER OR NOT THE NUMEROUS INFRACTION

COMMITTED BY THE POLICE OFFICERS WHICH CAUSED
THE DEATH OF MAYOR PAROJINOG CAN BE ASCRIBED
TO PRESIDENT DUTERTE’S COMMAND
RESPONSIBILITY AS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

V. WHETHER OR NOT THE CIDG 8 CAN BE CHARGED OF

GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION PURSUANT TO SECTION
2 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6975, AN ACT ESTABLISHING
THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE UNDER A
REORGANIZED DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Commented [U13]: Let’s consider revising the issue?
Kanang maigo ang president kay naa siya command
responsibility
VI. WHETHER OR NOT PRESIDENT RODRIGO DUTERTE, AS
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, CAN BE HELD LIABLE FROM THE
ACTS OF CIDG 8 WHICH UNDOUBTEDLY
TRANSGRESSED THE PROVISONS OF THE BILL OF
RIGHTS EMBODIED IN ARTICLE III OF THE 1987
CONSTITUTION

ARGUMENTS Commented [U14]: Dli ko sure sa presentation. Huhu

katag kaau ang thoughts. Help me regarding the formulation
of arguments.)
I. THE PRESIDENT CULPABLY VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS
OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES THROUGH UTTERING REMARKS THAT THE
PHILIPPINES CANNOT DO ANYTHING AGAINST THE
CHINESE BUILDING ACTIVITY IN THE SCARBOROUGH
SHOAL AND HIS INACTION TO EXERCISE THE
COUNTRY’S RIGHTS OVER THE DISPUTED TERRITORY

Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the

Philippines provides that:

" The President, the Vice President, the members of the

Supreme Court, the members of the constitutional commission, and
 the Ombudsman may be removed from office, on impeachment for
and conviction of, culpable of the Constitution, treason, bribery,
graft, and corruption, other higher crimes or betrayal of public
trust.”

President Duterte willfully and culpably violated the Constitution

by his inaction to exercise over our rights over the Kalayaan Group of
Islands and Scarborough Shoal, to which the Philippines claims
sovereignty, thus failing to meet and observe the stringent standard of
several provisions of the 1987 Constitution particulary Section 1 of
Article XII, Sections 17 and 18 of Article VII and Section 3 of Article II.
Section 1, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines provides that:
“ xxx The state shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its
Archipelagic Waters, Territorial Sea, and Exclusive Economic
Zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino
Citizen.” (Emphasis Supplied)
Section 17, Article VII of the same Constitution provides that:
“The President shall have the control of all the Executive
Departments, Bureaus, and Offices. He shall ensure that the
laws be faithfully executed.” (Emphasis Supplied)

Section 18, Article VII also provides that:

“The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all
Armed Forces of the Philippines xxx”
Section 3, Article II of the same Constitution provides that:
“xxx The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector
of the people and the state. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty
of the state and the integrity of the National Territory.”
(Emphasis Supplied) Commented [U15]: (dli sad ko sure sa mga indention ani.
Any thoughts, guys?)

Moreover, President Duterte violated the law and his own oath of
office when he gave his stand on the Scarborough Shoal Territorial
Dispute saying that “We cannot stop China from doing its thing. Hindi
nga napara ng Amerikano eh,”. This is contrary to his oath to execute
the law faithfully because said acts clearly contravened Section 2 of RA
9552.
Section 2 Republic Act 9522, known as the act which defines the
archipelagic baselines of the Philippines provides that:

“Section 2. The baseline in the following areas over which

the Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction
shall be determined as "Regime of Islands" under the Republic
of the Philippines consistent with Article 121 of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS):
a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under
Presidential Decree No. 1596; and
b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough
Shoal.”7 (Emphasis ours)

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

(UNCLOS), to which the Republic of the Philippines and People’s
Republic of China are signatories, defined the Exclusive Economic
Zone as the area which extends from the outer limit of the territorial
sea to a maximum of 200 nautical from the territorial sea baseline, thus
it includes the contiguous zone. A coastal nation has control of all
economic resources within its exclusive economic zone, including
fishing, mining, oil exploration, and any pollution of those resources.
However, it cannot prohibit passage or loitering above, on, or under
the surface of the sea that is in compliance with the laws and
regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the
provisions of the UN Convention, within that portion of its exclusive
economic zone beyond its territorial sea.

The Scarborough Shoal is about 198 kilometers (123 NM) west of Subic
Bay. The nearest landmass is Palauig, Zambales on Luzon Island in the
Philippines, about 220 kilometers (137 NM) due east. From its
geographical location, Scarborough Shoal is within the Philippine’s
Exclusive Economic Zone thus the country has the rights to explore its
resources which includes living and non-living things.8

In 2012, Scarborough Shoal, while being prized by Filipino fishermen

for its rich resources, was seized by China from the Philippines.
Chinese coast guard blocked Filipino fishermen from accessing the
shoal, prompting Manila to bring Beijing to a United Nations-backed

7
http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2009/ra_9522_2009.html
8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarborough_Shoal
arbitral tribunal.9 China had palpably violated Philippines' sovereign
rights in its EEZ by interfering with fishing and petroleum exploration,
constructing artificial islands, and failing to prevent Chinese
fishermen from fishing in the zone.

Lastly, President Duterte failed to implement the jurisdiction as held

by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in the Hauge which is
the rightful body to settle arbitrary disputes relating to territorial
disputes.

The five member International Panel of Judges at the Permanent Court

of Arbitration (PCA) in the Hague upheld the Manila’s position that
China’s “nine-dash line” maritime claim is excessive and encroached
into the Philippines’ 200-nautical mile Exclusive Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ). The judges ruled that there was no legal basis for China
to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within
the “nine-dash line”, thus none of the Spratly’s Island (Kalayaan
Group of Islands) grant China an EEZ. 10

Undoubtedly, the Philippines has a rightful claim over the Kalayaan

Group of Islands and the Scarborough or Panatag Shoal by virtue of
RA 9552, the UNCLOS to which the Philippines is a signatory and the
favorable judgement of the Permanent Court of Arbitration which
declared China’s claim bereft of legal basis. As the Head of the State,
he should ensure that our sovereignty be exercised for the benefit of
the state and its people.

The uttering of willful and negligent remark was subjected to a

comment of no less than Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice
Antonio Carpio which made it clear that any statement that the
Philippines cannot stop China from building on Scarborough Shoal
"actually encourages China to build on Scarborough Shoal.” The said
remark would tantamount to implied renunciation of our rights.

It is the constitutional duty of the President of the Republic of the

Philippines, as the Commander-in Chief of the Armed forces of the
Philippines to secure the sovereignty and integrity of our national
territory. He should be, at least, exercise his capacity as a leader to
initiate actions to fight and maintain for our rights.

9
http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/03/19/17/duterte-ph-cant-stop-china-from-building-facilities-in-
panatag-shoal
10
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/140358/philippines-arbitration-decision-maritime-dispute-south-china-
sea-arbitral-tribunal-unclos-itlos
For over a year of serving as the President, the respondent has not
commenced any direct or overt act to fight for our claim over the
Kalayaan Group of Islands and Scarborough Shoal.

He should have done, at least, any of the following: Commented [U16]: (Shall we omit this part?) Any
thought about this?

a. Filed a strong formal protest against the Chinese building

activity, which is the least thing that a President should do. This has
been dictated by the history with what the Vietnamese did recently
when China sent cruise tours to the disputed Paracels.

b. Send the Philippine Navy to patrol Scarborough Shoal. If the

Chinese attack Philippine navy vessels, the President can always
invoke the Philippines-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty, which covers any
armed attack on Philippine navy vessels operating in the South China
Sea.

c. Ask the United States to declare that Scarborough Shoal is part

of Philippine territory for purposes of the Philippines-US Mutual
Defense Treaty since the shoal has been part of Philippine territory
even during the American colonial period. This was done when the
Senkaku islands sourced a dispute between Japan and China in the
East China Sea. The U.S. has successfully declared the Senkakus as part
of Japanese territory for purposes of the US-Japan mutual defense
treaty.

d. Accept the standing U.S. offer to hold joint naval patrols in

the South China Sea, which includes Scarborough Shoal.Thiswill
demonstrate joint Philippine and US determination to prevent China
from building on Scarborough Shoal.

e. Lastly, he should have avoided any act, statement or

declaration that expressly or impliedly waives Philippine sovereignty
to any Philippine territory in the West Philippine Sea.

II. Note: wa pay martial law

III. DUE PROCESS OF LAW WAS TRANSGRESSED BY THE

ARRESTING OFFICERS DURING THE ARREST OF MAYOR
PAROJINOG, AN EVIDENT VIOLATION OF THE BILL OF
RIGHTS EMBODIED IN ARTICLE III OF THE 1987
CONSTITUTION. Commented [U17]: Okay so naa tay legal basis but we
need to relate it with the facts to show that there were
really infractions
Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution known as the Bill of
Rights provides that:
“ No Person shall be deprived of life liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the
equal protection of the laws”. (Emphasis ours)
Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution known as the Bill of
Rights provides that:
“Any person under investigation for the commission of
an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to
remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one.
These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel.
No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any
other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against
him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other
similar forms of detention are prohibited.
Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this
or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against
him. xxx “ (Emphasis ours)

Kulang pa arguments ang parohinog

IV. CIDG 8 CAN BE CHARGED OF GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION PURSUANT TO SECTION 2 OF REPUBLIC
ACT NO. 6975, AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL POLICE UNDER A REORGANIZED
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Section 2 of RA No. 6975 provides that:

“Section 2. Declaration of Policy. – It is hereby declared to
be the policy of the State to promote peace and order, ensure
public safety and further strengthen local government capability
aimed towards the effective delivery of the basic services to the
citizenry through the establishment of a highly efficient and
competent police force that is national in scope and civilian in
 character. Towards this end, the State shall bolster a system of
coordination and cooperation among the citizenry, local
executives and the integrated law enforcement and public safety
agencies created under this Act.
The police force shall be organized, trained and equipped
primarily for the performance of police functions. Its national
scope and civilian character shall be paramount. No element of
the police force shall be military nor shall any position thereof be
occupied by active members of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines.” Commented [U18]: Where ang bill of rights? Mo site unta
ta dri ug sections nga na violate sa CIDG

The CIDG 8 had failed the act of performing of police functions. They
failed to have coordination with the other forces in pursuant to their
duties as being organized, trained and equipped primarily to promote
peace and order. What abuses it most is that being in the police force,
they should know the process in performing their duty for the public
safety of everyone. The case of espinosa who was incarcerated was the
subject for the application of warrant of arrest.
Well-planned ang pagka.issue sa CIDG simply because the subject of
application for warrant of arrest is already incarcerated. How could be
a warrant applied when the subject is already arrested and
incarcerated in the provincial jail in Leyte.
The CIDG ransacked the jail. Taking camera, Giti.onan ang guards ug
Gipatalikod sa bungbong dayon ni Tawag og soco ani nga time ug sa
operation nila. It is clear violation sa constitutional rights nga gi.attack
ug gi.pusil without any sufficient reason or justification by ransacking
the provincial jail where the target is major espenosa. The group of
cidg, is only getting warrant of arrest so that their action will be
justified but their intention established to the fact that it is well planned
action because espinosa is the target.Another inmates yap was only the
collateral damage because he is not really the target.

Well-planned ang operation sa police kay ang SOCO Tawgon rana

kung naa ray mamatay sa operation. Pero this is a classic case nga ang
operation sa police nitawag sa SOCO para sa napresso nga drug lord
pero wala pa namatay.
Kay ang protocol sa police operation nga mutawag ra og SOCO kung
patay na ang subject pero kani buhi pa ang subject. Material evidence
pod ang oras. (ato e.research ang time ani Ke)
The subject kay buhi pa kay wala pa sila nisugod og nagoperate sa
carsel gitatawagt na nila ang soco---kani nga fact makit-an nato nga
naa gyoy plan to kill sa subject although namatay later on.

The cidg who operated were convicted in the court of law but the
president duterte gave clemency or absolute pardon to the convicted
which is awkward tan-awn sa public.(tan-awn nato kung naa bay
abuse of discretion ang pag.issue ni duterte sa clemency ug naa bay
constitutional rights nga na.violate)

the case at bar was proven beyond the clouds of doubts that CIDG
Personnel led by superintendent Marcos who get the warrant of arrest
from JUDE _____ of leyte has no jurisdiction to issue warrant of arrest
of the municipal mayor who is already incarcerated in jail.
The issuance of warrant of arrest has no legal effect:
•Dili na kinahanglan og warrant kay naa na sas sulod sa Karsel.
•Ang court nga nagissue og warrant of arrest walay Jurisdiction. Commented [U19]: Hahaha. Girls, nice point pero ato
ning ininglison.. hahaha and ang source pud

CONCLUSION Commented [U20]: To Sheilla: Hi She, I inserted the initial

conclusion (gi copy ra nako ni sa Estrada nga impeachment,
hehe). Please add or revise nalang ha, Salamat. And please
Public office is a public trust. When a teacher or government clerk don’t miss the strong points why the defendant should be
impeached.
commits a dishonest act, he or she is removed from the service. When
the President no less commits betrayal of the public trust, and culpably
violates the Constitution and his own oath of office, he should also be
removed. No less than the people deserve faith and justice and
honesty. No less than the Constitution mandates this.

PRAYER Commented [U21]: Hi Sir Venn. Please take charge sa

prayer. Thank youuuuu.

Wherefore, pursuant to the procedure laid down by the

provisions of Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers), Sections 2
and 3 of the Philippine Constitution. The undersigned are private
complainants concerned, is endorsed by Congressmen Raul V. Del
Mar and Gwendolyn F. Garcia, hereby filed the verified complaint of
impeachment against President Rodrigo R. Duterte.
 We, therefore, pray that the Honorable members of the Senate
conducting the trial will render judgment of conviction against the
Respondent.

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this complaint

after evaluation, be given due course.

We, therefore, pray that Congress act favorably.

Manila, for Quezon City, Philippines, 12 October 2000.

ROMEO A. REYES Commented [U22]: Dli na ko sure sa format from here na

part. Please advise me unsaon. Thank you all!
Counsel for Complainants
Room 308, 6/F Cebu Holdings Center Building,
Cebu Business Park (Ayala) Cebu City, Philippines
IBP OR#495677, 1/20/2017, Cebu City
PTT No. 115497,2/7/2017, Cebu City

- and –

PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER

Counsel for Complainants
Kaija Bldg., 7836 Makati Avenue
Makati City

By:
RAYMUND FORTUN
IBP OR# 487221, 10/29/99, Nueva Ecija
PTR No. 3496604, 1/10/00, Muntinlupa City

VERIFICATION

I, CONG. RAUL V. DEL MAR, under oath state:

That I am one of the complainants in the above-entitled complaint for

impeachment; that I have caused the said complaint to be prepared
and have read the contents thereof; and that the allegation therein are
true of my own knowledge and belief on the basis of my reading and
appreciation of documents and other records pertinent thereto.
CONG. RAUL V. DEL MAR
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of August 2017 at
Quezon City, Philippines.
Doc. No. 307;
Page No. 62;
Book No. I;
Series of 2017.

I, GWENDOLYN F. GARCIA, under oath state:

That I am one of the complainants in the above-entitled complaint for

impeachment; that I have caused the said complaint to be prepared
and have read the contents thereof; and that the allegation therein are
true of my own knowledge and belief on the basis of my reading and
appreciation of documents and other records pertinent thereto.

GWENDOLYN F. GARCIA
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of August 2017 at
Quezon City, Philippines.
Doc. No. 308;
Page No. 62;
Book No. I;
Series of 2017.

VERIFICATION

We, GERICAH MAY RODRIGUEZ and NESSAN A. FLORES, under

oath state:
That we are two of the complainants in the above-entitled complaint
for impeachment; that we have caused the said complaint to be
prepared and have read the contents thereof; and that the allegations
therein are true of my own knowledge and belief on the bais of my
reading and appreciation of documents and other records pertinent
thereto.

GERICAH MAY RODRIGUEZ AND NESSAN FLORES

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 12th day of October
2000 at Quezon City, Philippines
Doc. No. 308
Page No. 63;
Book No. I;
Series of 2017.