REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES

SENATE

SITTING AS THE IMPEACHMENT COURT

IN THE MATTER OF THE

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
JAYROME JAUGAR, CONG.
RAUL V. DEL MAR and CONG.
GWENDOLYN F. GARCIA
Complainants,

x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

REPLY
[TO THE MEMORANDUM FOR IMPEACHMENT, 22 AUGUST
2017]

President Rodrigo “Rody” Roa Duterte, through the undersigned

counsel received a copy of the complainant’s memorandum last August
22,2017.

1. First, defense, thru counsel, most respectfully submits that the claim
of the complainants that “the President culpably violated the
Constitution 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 right over the disputed
territory” is untenable.

Contrary to Complainant’s claim regarding the President’s

inaction with respect to the disputed Scarborough Shoal, recent
statements by Philippine Defense chief Delfin Lorenzana has
indicated that President Duterte has not abandoned the Philippines’
 2

rights and sovereignty over the island. According to Lorenzana,

President Duterte had drawn “a red line” on any reclamation by China
of Scarborough Shoal. On March 2017, the President was quoted as
saying, “Once the Chinese start exploring, putting rigs there, we’ll
talk to them”.

Short and brief as it is, this statement alone indicates that the
President is not far from fighting for our sovereignty over the island if
the need arises. The fact that the UN Arbitral Tribunal recognizes that
the Philippines, in its ruling on July 12, 2016, has exclusive sovereign
rights over the Scarborough Shoal cements our claim and thus,
provides the security that the island cannot be simply and without
utter difficulty be taken away from us.

Furthermore, we would like to stress that the Complainant’s

contention that implied renunciation can be driven from the
President’s statements regarding the island cannot be a substantial
argument as against overt actions and express statements. It would be
of political nature to draw allegations from mere implications with
respect to the President’s actions.

We strongly uphold our contention that President’s Duterte’s

combined actions and statements pertaining to the Scarborough Shoal
is not tantamount to his abandonment of the country’s rightful claim
over the Island and thus, there is no culpable violation of the
constitution as argued by the complainant is immaterial.1

2. Second, that “the approval of the extension of Martial Law in

Mindanao is unconstitutional for lack of sufficient factual basis which
also resulted to numerous instances of human right infractions, a clear
violation of the Article VII Section 18 and Article III Section 1 of the
1987 Constitution” is merely speculative and bereft of merit.

Complainants allege that the approval of the extension of

Martial Law is unconstitutional for lack of sufficient factual basis.
This claim is untenable. According to the Supreme Court, the 1987
Constitution, by providing for judicial review based on the
determination of the sufficiency of the factual bases, has in fact done
away with the test of arbitrariness as provided in Lansang v. Garcia.2

Thus, the purpose of judicial review is not the

determination of accuracy or veracity of the facts upon which the
President anchored his declaration of martial law or suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Rather, its review
should be limited to the sufficiency of the factual basis as to
1
Retrieved from http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-
asia/article/2077439/philippines-very-concerned-chinese-survey-ships-enter-its
2
Retrieved from http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1971/dec1971/gr_33964_1971.html
 3

convince the President that there is probable cause that rebellion

exists.3 (emphasis ours)

The Supreme Court, in the case of Lagman v. Medialdea (G.R.

No. 231658, July 4, 2017)4 held that in determining the existence of
rebellion, the President only needs to convince himself that there
is probable cause or evidence showing that more likely than not a
rebellion was committed or is being committed. To require him to
satisfy a higher standard of proof would restrict the exercise of his
emergency powers. (emphasis ours)

In the case, the "Court does not need to satisfy itself that the
President's decision is correct, rather it only needs to determine
whether the President's decision had sufficient factual bases." As this
is something President is not expected to do himself, then neither
should the court do the same. Giving due deference to the executive
decision, the Court also held that if later on, the facts known to the
President were found to be inaccurate, the declaration may still be
upheld if the Court finds that, at the time of the issuance of the
Proclamation, the President had probable cause for a valid declaration
of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus. Falsities of and/or inaccuracies in some of the facts stated in
the proclamation and the written report are also not enough reasons
for the Court to invalidate the declaration and/or suspension as long as
there are other facts in the proclamation and the written Report that
support the conclusion that there is an actual invasion or rebellion and
that public safety requires the declaration and/or suspension. As to
what facts must be stated in the proclamation and the written
Report, Lagman v. Medialdea holds that the same is "up to the
President." (emphasis ours) Thus, the contention of the Complainants
is not tenable. Former senator Juan Ponce Enrile said:5

"Diyan nga, hinaharap nga 'yung problema ng ISIS (Islamic

State), at nandito na sa Pilipinas 'yan, at parang HIV 'yan...'pag
nadapuan ka niyan, matagal mong gamutin," Enrile said in a News To
Go interview. He said this is why he supports Duterte's decision to ask
for an extension of martial law in Mindanao.

"Tama 'yung ginawa ni Presidente Duterte, sapagka't

matapos man 'yung barilan 'dun sa Marawi, hindi pa tapos 'yung
problema eh, nandiyan pa sila," Enrile said. (emphasis ours)

3
Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/176332-martial-law-extension-
supreme-court-part-2
4
Retrieved from http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2017/july2017/231658.pdf
5
Retrieved from http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/619583/enrile-supports-
extended-mindanao-martial-law-says-talks-with-reds-useless/story/
 4

The former senator, who served as defense and justice secretary

during Marcos' time, said Duterte's critics should be careful with their
pronouncements against the Mindanao martial law because it concerns
national security.

"Seguridad ng bawat isa sa atin 'yung nangyayari at ang

nakakaalam nga diyan, ang Presidente ng Pilipinas sapagka't nasa
kanyang kamay ang lahat ng detalye, lahat ng impormasyon, lahat
ng desisyon, at lahat ng responsibilidad," (emphasis ours) he added.

Enrile is one of the leader of the 1986 People Power Revolution

that drove Marcos from power, ending the decade-long martial rule in
the country. Last August 25, 2017, gunbattles erupted anew near
the Bato Islamic Mosque in Marawi City Friday, a day after state
troops retook the place of worship from Islamic State-linked
fighters. (emphasis ours) The fighting reportedly started past 6 p.m.
The firefight was 100 meters away from the mosque, an ABS-CBN
News source said. The source added that the Maute group transferred
to nearby buildings after state forces retook the mosque. State troops
had to craft a plan to retake the mosque, a vital part of the largely
Islamic city, so that it would retain its structural integrity, Armed
Forces spokesperson Brig. Gen. Restituto Padilla Jr. said earlier
Friday.

"We did not conduct a frontal attack because we wanted to

preserve the Grand Mosque. Hence, a very elaborate plan was
prepared by our troops on the ground," he said.

Padilla said government troops adopted an "envelopmental

approach," wherein soldiers took control of facilities and structures
around the mosque as they inched their way towards their enemies.
The battle in Marawi City has been raging since May 23, when
Islamic State-inspired militants captured parts of the once-vibrant
Islamic city. It has left at least 770 dead, mostly enemies. Duterte
visited the conflict zone for the third time on Thursday, even
trying his hand at a sniper rifle and firing towards the enemy's
direction. Despite the danger in the main battle area, the
President insisted on stopping outside the safe zone to inspect the
damage near the main battle area, the Palace said. (emphasis ours)

“I will be happy to die for my country. I need to be with you to

show my solidarity,” (emphasis ours) he told the soldiers during his
visit.

The emergence of groups pledging allegiance to Islamic State

has been considered the biggest security problem to face the year-old
Duterte administration. The rise of pro-Islamic State groups in the
country has also raised alarm in Washington and the Philippines’
 5

neighbors in the region, which fear that the notorious group was
seeking to establish a new front in Asia amid its successive losses in
Iraq and Syria.6

Complainants allege that what is happening in Marawi is not

rebellion or invasion but mere acts of terrorism. This contention is
untenable. In the Lagman v. Medialdea7 case, the case describes that
what is happening in Marawi City is a case of actual rebellion.
According to the Court, the President deduced from the facts
available to him that there was an armed public uprising, the
culpable purpose of which was to remove from the allegiance to
the Philippine Government a portion of its territory and to
deprive the Chief Executive of any of his powers and prerogatives,
leading the President to believe that there was probable cause that
the crime of rebellion was and is being committed and that public
safety requires the imposition of martial law and suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Moreover, the President's
conclusion, that there was an armed public uprising, the culpable
purpose of which was the removal from the allegiance of the
Philippine Government a portion of its territory and the
deprivation of the President from performing his powers and
prerogatives, was reached after a tactical consideration of the
facts. In fine, the Court concludes that the President satisfactorily
discharged his burden of proof. After all, what the President needs
to satisfy is only the standard of probable cause that there is
actual rebellion. (emphasis ours) Thus, the contention of the
Complainants is not tenable.

Complainants allege that the approval of martial law extension

should not have been declared all throughout Mindanao as the Islamic
State aligned with Maute Terrorists is only making Marawi as their
safe houses, which means that the affected area is only in Marawi and
that their mere presence in Marawi and their criminal acts does not
tantamount to Martial Law Declaration. The contentions are
untenable. Senator Dick Gordon, in his official and verified Facebook
page, stated:8

“Not wanting the Philippines to go the way of Syria and Iraq,

Senator Richard J. Gordon on Saturday voted in favor of extending
martial law imposed in Mindanao following the siege in Marawi City.
Explaining his yes vote during the Special Joint Session held at the
House of Representatives, Gordon pointed out that the rebellion is a
6
Retrieved from http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/08/25/17/fighting-reignites-near-marawi-
mosque
7
Retrieved from http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/2017/july2017/231658.pdf
8
Retrieved from
https://www.facebook.com/senatorgordon/photos/a.261832317830.144280.225987507830/1015
4917201582831/?type=3&theater
 6

malady that needs to be contained before it could spread out to other

parts of the country. (emphasis ours) “Nobody wants martial law,
that’s the nature of man. Nobody wants strong leadership that can
affect our rights. But this was not something that we wanted, it was
placed upon us. This is about containment – we must contain the
malady. We don’t want it to spread to any other part of the country…
(emphasis ours) So, Mr. President, I vote yes (on the basis that we
need to act quickly and decisively). God bless the Philippines!” the
senator said. “We don’t want to be a Syria, we don’t want to be an
Iraq. (The current fighting in those countries) started with little
things, (then metastasized like cancer) to create chaos, destruction
and death, to destroy nations… I have to remind everyone that we
vote on a very vital issue today that (could alter the course of our
sovereign state),” he added.

Tony La Viña, former dean of the Ateneo School of

Government and Regina Ongsiako, an incoming 3rd year law student
at the Ateneo Law School, in explaining the case of Lagman v.
Medialdea, stated that the Court held that the 1987 Constitution
grants to the President, as Commander-in-Chief, the discretion to
determine the territorial coverage or application of martial law or
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. (emphasis
ours) The Constitution could have imposed a limitation on the
territorial scope or area of coverage such as it did with the limitation
on the period of application, but it did not impose such. The provision
merely states that martial law may be declared in "the Philippines or
any part thereof." The Constitution clearly leaves the territorial scope
of martial law to the assessment of the President. In his discretion, he
may put the entire Philippines or only a part thereof under martial law.
Moreover, the Court held that the President's duty to maintain
peace and public safety is not limited only to the place where there
is actual rebellion. It extends to other areas where the present
hostilities are in danger of spilling over. "It is not intended merely
to prevent the escape of lawless elements from Marawi City, but
also to avoid enemy reinforcements and to cut their supply line
coming from different parts of Mindanao." Therefore, limiting
the proclamation and/or suspension to the place where there is
actual rebellion would not only defeat the purpose of declaring
martial law, it will make the exercise thereof ineffective and
useless. (emphasis ours) The Lagman case also emphasized that the
precise extent or range of the rebellion could not be measured by
"exact metes and bounds." For the crime of rebellion to be
consummated, it is not required that all armed participants
should congregate in one place. (emphasis ours) The Court holds
that it is sufficient that a portion of the contingent gathered and
formed a mass or a crowd and engaged in an armed public uprising
against the government. The Court said that it "cannot simply take
the battle of Marawi in isolation" because rebellion is a crime
 7

without predetermined bounds. (emphasis ours) Thus, Lagman v.

Medialdea holds that for as long as the President has reasonable basis
to believe that the declaration of martial law, as well as the suspension
of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of
Mindanao, is most necessary, effective, and called for by the
circumstances, then the Court should not look into or question the
same.9

Last August 23, 2017, government forces have already regained

control of the police station in Marawi City, GMA News' Sandra
Aguinaldo reported on "24 Oras," Wednesday. The report aired a
video given to radio dzBB's Benjie Liwanag that showed buildings
were burned and destroyed as a result of the ongoing battle between
soldiers and local enemies in the city. The mission to regain control
of the police station is dangerous. The station is located in the
main battle area in the besieged city. (emphasis ours) The members
of the operation to regain the police station is composed of the Task
Group Musang of Scout Rangers, 51st infantry Battalion of the
Philippine Army, and Joint Task Group composed of the Special
Action Force of the Philippine National Police. Meanwhile, officials
found human remains that are believed to be of Senior Insp. Edwin
Placido, the Marawi police deputy chief, inside the station. Placido
had defended the station against members of the ISIS-inspired
Maute group. (emphasis ours) The military remains mum on the
buildings that they were able to take back from the notorious group.
But officials said there are several important buildings under their
control, including some mosques.

"We have taken over strategic locations within the main battle
area. In fact 'yung mga locations po na ito ay areas where we can
launch further assault into the area," said Col. Romeo Brawner,
deputy commander of Joint Task Group Ranao.10

Last August 15, 2017, the Armed Forces of the Philippines

(AFP) begged for patience from the people in finishing off the
Maute group in Marawi City, reiterating that the military was not
facing an ordinary enemy. (emphasis ours)

“How long? We can’t say. Konting patience lang po (Some

patience please). It would be over,” AFP chief of staff Eduardo Año
said at the briefing for the proposed 2018 budget of the Department of
National Defense at the House of Representatives.
Asked by ACT Teachers partylist Rep. France Castro on the
whereabouts of Abu Sayyaf leader Isnilon Hapilon, Año said:

9
Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/176332-martial-law-extension-
supreme-court-part-2
10
Retrieved from http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/metro/623073/gov-t-troops-
regains-control-of-marawi-city-police-station/story/
 8

“Based on our monitoring, he’s still in Marawi City. Based on

our information, he’s still alive.” of the estimated 600 Maute
members that infiltrated Marawi, Año said over 500 have been
killed, but he pointed out that the battle was not easy. (emphasis
ours)

“Madaling magsabi na madali (Easy to say it’s like a walk in

the park), but the enemy does not play by the rules, they used
humans as shields,” he said. “If there are no hostages … it’s very
easy to finish this fight,” (emphasis ours) he added.11

Finally, Complainants allege that Martial Law is being used as a

means of human rights abuses and extrajudicial killings. Defense
Secretary Delfin Lorenzana said the fear of people outside Mindanao
is "unfounded" as the Duterte-style of martial law would still allow
the public to practice their constitutional rights unlike the version of
the late dictator President Ferdinand Marcos, Sr.12 In an interview with
ABS-CBN News, Zia Alonto Adiong, head of the Marawi Crisis
Management Committee, denied claims that a woman was forced
to remove her clothes in an evacuation shelter. While Adiong
denied that women were subjected to strip searches, he
encouraged the public to report allegations of human rights abuse
to authorities.13 (emphasis ours) According to a report by
Inquirer.net last August 26, 2017, Task Force Bangon Marawi
spokesperson Kristoffer Purisima said that there is no humanitarian
crisis in Marawi City because the government is working to address
the needs of residents displaced by the fighting. Purisima disputed the
contention of French aid groups that warned of a humanitarian crisis
in Mindanao, saying basic needs were not covered.

“We do not think it’s a humanitarian crisis because we’re

addressing the situation that’s happening,” Purisima said in a press
briefing. “We know what’s happening on the ground and we’re
addressing all the needs of our IDPs, whether they be in our
evacuation centers or home-based,” he added. The government is
aware that the situation is “delicate,” he said. It is expected that the
displaced residents would have a lot of needs that have to be
fulfilled, he said. “We always have representatives on the ground to
go around,” (emphasis ours) he added.

The post-conflict needs assessment is being done, and this will

be used to craft a comprehensive rehabilitation and recovery program,
he said.
11
Retrieved from http://www.interaksyon.com/afp-pleads-for-patience-in-resolving-marawi-
standoff/
12
Retrieved from http://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/local-news/2017/08/25/survey-local-
investors-unfazed-martial-law-560546
13
Retrieved from https://coconuts.co/manila/news/govt-official-denies-human-rights-abuse-
allegations-marawi/
 9

“If we are not doing anything on the ground, maybe it can be

said that there’s a crisis. But I differ on that because I know that we’re
doing everything we can on the ground,” he added.14

As of August 20, 2017, the Armed Forces of the Philippines

(AFP) Eastern Mindanao Command (Easmincom) has not
received any formal complaint on human rights violations from
the public. Easmincom deputy commander and martial law
spokesperson, Brigadier General Gilbert Gapay, on Saturday,
August 19, said that the members of the Multi-Sectoral Advisory
Group (MSAG) for martial law have negative record in terms of
human rights complaints. The MSAG is the committee that
monitors human rights violations and provide guidance to the
soldiers in the enforcement of martial law provisions. (emphasis
ours)

"We haven't received formal complaints on human rights

violations committed by our troops relative to the implementation of
martial law. No report was also received by martial law help desks
manned by our stakeholders from the academe and legal sector,"
Gapay said. (emphasis ours)

President Rodrigo Duterte declared martial law last May 23

after the Maute Group launched attacks in Marawi City bringing
hundreds of death toll from civilians and government troopers. Hours
before the 60-day martial law implementation expired, it was
extended until the end of the year after conflicts remained
unsettled to flush out the threats and avoid further spillover to
other neighboring cities and municipalities. (emphasis ours) The
martial law implementation has drawn flak among militant groups
because of alleged HR violations against Indigenous People,
however, the AFP continues to challenge them to formally file a
case and prove their accusations instead of throwing black
propaganda.15 (emphasis ours) In the book of Rene V. Sarmiento,
“Human Rights Law, Human Rights Culture (2014),” a human rights
violation may be proved only by a preponderance of evidence. 16
(emphasis ours) Clearly, mere suspicion, alleged violation, and
black propaganda is never enough. (emphasis ours)

Last June 12, 2017, Respect for International Humanitarian

Law (IHL) and Human Rights (HR) is the reason why the Armed
Forces of the Philippines (AFP) is taking heavy casualties in the
14
Retrieved from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/925689/marawi-city-maute-group-islamic-state-
terrorism-task-force-bangon-marawi-kristoffer-purisima
15
Retrieved from http://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/local-news/2017/08/20/afp-no-martial-
law-related-violations-recorded-559445
16
Retrieved from Sarmiento, Rene V. Human Rights Law/Human Rights Culture. (2014). Rex
Bookstore.
 10

ongoing operations to clear Marawi City of the remaining Maute

Groups. (emphasis ours) In the same vein, the military puts premium
on civilian lives, unlike the lawless elements who indiscriminately fire
weapons, regardless of the targets.

“Our losses are because we put premium on saving more

civilian lives and complete respect for IHL/HR,” (emphasis ours)
AFP spokesperson Brig. Gen. Restituto Padilla said late Sunday.

To avoid more losses, however, he added that many adjustments

will be made in the conduct of military operations in the remaining
areas of Marawi City still being held by the Maute group. Fighting
started 3:30 a.m. and ended 5 p.m. of June 9. Around 40 were also
reported wounded.

“Our men served with honor and we ask you to join us in

prayer for the repose of their souls, strength for the bereaved families
in this moment of grief and for peace in our land,” Padilla
concluded.17

3. Third, complainant’s allege that there are “clear violations under

article III of the 1987 Constitution particularly the right to due process
of law and the right against unreasonable searches and seizure by the
police officers during the service of search warrants to Mayor
Rolando Espinosa and Mayor Reynaldo Parojinog Sr., among others
thereby making the President liable for such acts by virtue of his
command responsibility” is untenable.

The allegations of the complainant based on its previous

memorandum is bereft from sufficient showing to prove the guilt
of President Duterte.

The basic rule in argumentation is that “a mere allegation is not

an evidence and is not equivalent to proof; charges based on a
mere suspicion and speculation likewise cannot be given
credence” In other words, when complainant on an impeachment
proceeding merely relied on mere conjectures and suppositions and
fails to substantiate his allegations, the impeachment proceedings
must be dismissed for lack of merit.

The complainant (as reflected on his memorandum) clearly based

his allegations only to the words uttered by the President during
interviews. For instance, the complainant made the following
utterances of the President as one of their basis on pursuing this
impeachment case. To wit:
17
Retrieved from http://news.mb.com.ph/2017/06/12/afp-on-marawi-battles-we-respect-
human-rights-intl-humanitarian-law/
 11

(a) “If I make it to the Presidential palace, I will do just

what I did as a mayor. You drug pushers, hold-up men
and do-nothings you better go out because as the mayor,
I will kill you” and
(b)“Any policeman or military man charged [with] killing
those bastards, they will have my protection. You can
charge them with anything”

These are only mere words by the President, shall we say harsh
words made by our President. Harsh words or even words similar
to those words as quoted above are not among the grounds
enumerated under the 1987 Constitution. It is ill to impeach the
most important person in this country which was conferred with
power and privileges by the Constitution (due to the crucial role he
plays in our country) just because only on mere words he had
uttered during press conferences and interviews.

Nonetheless, the complainant invoked Article III Sec 1 of the 1987

Constitution which provides that:
“Section 1. 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”

and, Article III Section 2 which provides that:

“Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose
shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest
shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched
and the persons or things to be seized.

While it is true that the complainants have mentioned some

Constitutional provisions above, but the complainant failed to
expound or connect these Constitutional provisions on their
allegations as to sufficiently prove the guilt of the President. They
merely cited what was stated under Article III Sections 1 and 2
under the 1987 Constitution and nothing more. As what we have
mentioned above one must “substantiate his allegations” by
connecting his allegation to the legal basis.

Instead of expounding or connecting the legal basis they have

cited, the complainants of this case surprisingly proceed to an
illogical declaration, to state:
 12

“These are the exact Constitutional provisions violated by the

acts of unscrupulous police officers backed up by the support of
no less than President Rodrigo Duterte himself”

The question now is that, how did the complainant arrived in this
declaration when in fact they never cited or supplied any
supporting information or incident during the said operation? The
answer is they relied on the mere words uttered by the
President, and not on conclusive evidence as to prove the
violation they have alleged against the President. In effect, they
invoked Article 3 Sections 1 and 2 out of nowhere.

After presenting some words (uttered by the President) and

Constitutional provisions, the complainants further added that:

“By this categorical support of the President, police officers

and other armed operatives are more encouraged to do
whatever it takes whether legal or illegal to eradicate the
problem”

This is clearly a very subjective matter. We believed this is a

political question and not a judicial question, thus beyond the
jurisdiction of our Courts.

Our President is not lenient about our laws, contrary to the

allegations of the complainant. The President upholds the rule of
Law, the Due Process of Law etc. The President is only performing
his sworn duty to the public. In pursuing this impeachment case,
the complainants must be able to substantiate their allegations
based on an actual and conclusive violation of Constitution, not on
mere words uttered by the President. Granting an impeachment
under this basis (words, uttered by a President) puts the welfare of
the Filipino at stake.

4. Fourth, that the “President Rodrigo Duterte, as the Chief Executive,

can be held liable from the acts of the police officers which
undoubtedly contravened the provisions of the Bill of Rights
embodied in Article III of the 1987 constitution by virtue of his
Command Responsibility” .This allegation is outrageous.

The doctrine of Command-Responsibility cannot be applied in this

case. As we previously stated, the Parojing and Espinosa case is a
result of a lawful police operation, the death of the two is a result of
their resistance of the service of the warrants issued against them. If
there be any irregularity, it is still subject to the courts’ determination
as there are still pending investigations regarding these incidents. How
 13

can one be made liable through the doctrine of Command and

responsibility if in the first place there is no liability to speak of?

In the case of Rubrico vs Arroyo G.R 183871 the Supreme Court

defined the Principle of Command Responsibility as:

“The Principle of Command Responsibility pertains only to the

responsibility of the commanders for the crimes committed by
his subordinates”

Therefore, there is no responsibility in the part of the commander (on

this case the President) if there is no crime committed by his
subordinates and this was supported in the case of Jesus vs Aquino
G.R. NO. 171491 were the court ruled that:

“In the absence of substantial evidence as to prove that the

head of office was negligent, neither will allegation of the
Principle of Command Responsibility makes respondents
liable”

In other words, the Principle of Command Responsibility has no merit

in this case. The subordinates of the President must be first proven
guilty (but we believe the police operation was lawful) before they
can invoke a possible Command Responsibility against the President.

Even if it will be applied, President Duterte cannot be held liable. Like

any other doctrine, the Doctrine of Command-responsibility is not
absolute. Under E.O. 226, a government official may be held liable
for neglect of duty under the doctrine of command responsibility “if
he has knowledge that a crime or offense shall be committed, is being
committed, or has been committed by his subordinates, or by others
within his area of responsibility xxx”. (emphasis ours.)

Indeed, the President does not have any knowledge at that time, that a
crime or offense shall be committed, is being committed, or has been
committed by his subordinates, or by others within his area of
responsibility.

Even though the grand campaign for the war on illegal drugs came
from the President himself, it doesn’t necessarily mean that he knows
every detail on every drug raid operation conducted by the PNP
because the President assumes plentitude of authority and the
corresponding awesome responsibility. If there be irregularities in the
said operations we cannot point to the president directly, it is absurd to
 14

presume that the President is automatically the author of said

irregularity.

Thus, it is erroneous to make the President liable by the doctrine of

command responsibility.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte respectfully prays for
the outright dismissal of the “Verified Impeachment Complaint,” for failing
to meet the requirements of the Constitution, or that the Impeachment Court
enter a judgment of acquittal for all the Articles of Impeachment.

President Duterte likewise prays for all other reliefs just and equitable
under the premises.

Cebu for Pasay City, Tuesday, 31 August 2017.

Respectfully submitted by
Counsel for President Rodrigo Roa Duterte:

MARIA ERA G. CANEDA JLAYDA CARMEL Y. GABOR

JIMMY CHRISTIAN B. CINCO CHRISTIAN PHILIP A. TIEMPO

DARLENE MARIE B. DACLES LIEZEL B. OBERO

LEONA DECENA
Copies furnished:

House of Representatives
Batasan Complex
Batasan Hills, Quezon City