REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES

SENATE

SITTING AS AN IMPEACHMENT COURT

IN THE MATTER OF THE

IMPEACHMENT OF
RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE
AS PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES,

REPRESENTATIVES GROUP III,

Complainants

X_______________________________________________________X

MEMORANDUM
Respondent, through counsel, respectfully states that;

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
At stake in this proceeding for the impeachment of Rodrigo
"Rody" Roa Duterte, President of the Philippines, is the general
welfare of the Filipino People, the true Sovereign of the Republic
of the Philippines and the political stability of our country.

In the case of Corona v. Senate of the Philippines, (GR No.

200242, July 17, 2012) impeachment proceedings have
been “foreseen as creating divisions, partialities and
enmities, or high-lighting pre-existing factions with the
greatest danger that ‘the decision will be regulated more
by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real
demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Based on the

1
 accusations of the complainants, we believe so that this is
the case.

Hence, this proceeding for impeachment, as a

constitutional mandate to remove selected public officials from
the government, should not be used against officials who are
not committing grave abuse of discretion and at the same time
faithfully observing and implementing the law, with the aim to
advance the interest of the people.
Rebuttal: Herein respondents alleged in their facts that President
Duterte assured to instill discipline to adhere to the rule of law
and strengthen the justice system of the country. They also
purported that the President has a very clear governance: one
with core values, mission and a vision for real change which
would provide the key to address and solve the ills and
weaknesses at their very root most specifically those relating to
drug abuse, corruption and criminality, among others.

However, they also alleged that the “change” would come in

any way, which could actually include “ways” not necessarily
within the ambit of proper observance to the rule of law as what
he assured, and we quote:

“Real change in a way that no matter what comes in the way,

Duterte will make sure he had done what he pledged and had
done what he ought to do in his presidency for the real change
as what he promised.” (Emphasis ours)

PARTIES
1. Complainants: Group III, members of the House of
Representatives.

2
 2. The respondent Rodrigo “Rody” Roa Duterte, President of
the Philippines.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The complainants filed articles of Impeachment grounded on
the following:

1. The death of Mayor Espinosa in Albuera, Leyte and Mayor

Parojinog of Ozamis City, including his brother and his wife,
who was allegedly killed by policemen.
2. The President’s stand in allegedly not pursuing our rights on
the Scarborough Shoal and Kalayaan Group of Islands.
3. The President’s declaration of Martial Law until December
31, 2017.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Rodrigo's Duterte inauguration on June 30 as President of the
Philippines has brought a sense of cautious optimism across all
sectors of the society. Philippine Society has clamored for a fast
end to widespread corruption, inadequacy in the bureaucracy,
earnings inequality, and the proliferation of rebel groups and
other lawless elements.

The president's rise can be understood as a part and parcel

of a broader collapse of powers which is transforming politics in
the Philippines. Duterte positioned himself as an alternative to
the other presidential candidates. His behavior appeared as
unafraid to speak among the Filipinos and as a result, the

3
majority of Filipino registered voters have high expectations for
his presidency.

The platform for Duterte's administration was to suppress

crime, illegal drugs and corruption, to reestablish law and order,
plans to launch a focused, time-bound campaign against
criminals, drug lords and corrupt government officials through
the joint efforts of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) are undermining and
impairing security and hampering the growth of the domestic
economy.

Duterte assured to instill discipline to adhere to the rule of

law and strengthen the justice system of the country. From the
governance and transformation of the President, we can willfully
say that he has a very clear governance: with core values, core
purpose (mission), and a vision for real change. This provides the
key to address and solve our ills and weaknesses such as drug
abuse, corruption, and criminality, at their very root.

The President was direct on his core intention and mission

to re-establish faith and trust in government. Indeed, this is the
Vision that he is pursuing and he has expressed it
thus: Compassion. Real Change.

Real change in a way that no matter what comes in the

way, Duterte will make sure he had done what he pledged and
had done what he ought to do in his presidency for the real
change as what he promised.

According to Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA),

the government's campaign against illegal drugs has been
"successful" in the first year of President Rodrigo Duterte's
administration. The PDEA launched an intensified operation

4
against illegal drugs, as well as the other law enforcement
agencies that support the implementation of the strategies, the
campaign against illegal drugs. The President also claimed that
drug addiction and drug dealing were major obstacles to
Philippines progress and he promised a large-scale crackdown
on dealers and addicts.

According to a 2012 United Nations report, among all the

countries in East Asia, the Philippines had the highest rate of
methamphetamine abuse. In 2015, the national drug
enforcement agency reported that one fifth of the
barangays, the smallest administrative division in the
Philippines, had evidence of drug use, drug trafficking, or drug
manufacturing; in Manila, the capital, 92 percent of the
barangays had yielded such evidence.

On the other hand, on July 12, 2016, the United Nations

(UN) Arbitral Tribunal ruled that the Philippines has exclusive
sovereign rights over the Scarborough Shoal and Kalayaan
Group of Islands.

Despite this ruling, the Chinese government continues to

exercise sovereignty over these islands. They created artificial
islands, infrastructures and other establishments, amounting to
an express refusal to acknowledge the decision of the Tribunal.

On May 15, 2017, Magdalo Representative Gary Alejano

an opposition lawmaker, filed an impeachment complaint
against President Duterte. The insurrectionist-turned-lawmaker
questioned the President's inaction concerning the territorial
issue in the Scarborough Shoal.

5
 President Rodrigo Roa Duterte placed Mindanao under
martial rule and suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus on May 23, as clashes erupted between government
forces and members of the Maute terror group in Marawi City in
Lanao del Sur.The government troops were about to serve a
warrant of arrest against Abu Sayyaf leaderIsnilon Hapilon in
Marawi when they encountered the Maute group.

President Duterte then called on Congress to extend

martial law in Mindanao until the end of the year, saying
government troops could not resolve the Marawi crisis by
Saturday, the end of his 60-day martial law proclamation.

Later, the Supreme Court (SC) voted Tuesday, July 4, to

dismiss the petitions led against President Duterte's declaration
of martial law in Mindanao. Three petitions were led at the SC
challenging Duterte's Proclamation 216, which has placed
Mindanao under martial rule since May 23. SC spokesperson
Theodore Te said Tuesday that 11 members of the SC voted to
dismiss the petitions, three voted to partially grant them, and one
voted to grant them.

After nearly 7 hours of deliberations, Congress on Saturday

extended martial law in Mindanao until Dec. 31 on President
Duterte's request amid the long-drawn conflict between state
troops and Islamic State-linked terrorists in Marawi City.

Thereon, a second impeachment complaint was filed

against President Duterte based on the President’s declaration
of Martial Law until December 31, 2017

6
 ISSUES
I. Whether or not the death of Mayor Espinosa and
Parojinog is a ground for Impeachment?
II. Whether or not President Duterte’s noncombative
assertion on Scarborough Shoal and Kalayaan Group of
Islands a ground of Impeachment?
III. Whether or not the extension of Martial Law until
December 30, 2017, is a ground for Impeachment?

DISCUSSION
The following are the impeachable grounds provided by
the Constitution:
Culpable violation of the Constitution- is a wrongful, intentional
or willful disregard or flouting of the fundamental law. It is a willful
and intentional violation of the Constitution. It does not,
therefore cover violations committed unintentionally, or in good
faith, or on account of an honest mistake of judgment. (Cruz,
2014. Philippine Political Law)

Treason –is committed by “Any Filipino citizen who levies war

against the Philippines or adheres to her enemies, giving them
aid or comfort within the Philippines or elsewhere.” (Art. 114,
Revised Penal Code)
Treason, in its general sense, is a violation by a subject of his
allegiance or his sovereign or to the supreme authority of the
State. (U.S. vs. Abad, 1 Phil. 437)

Bribery – Bribery is defined in Arts. 210 and 211 of the Revised

Penal Code.

7
 Art. 210 refers to Direct Bribery which is committed by “any
public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a
crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties,
in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by
such officer, personally or through the mediation of another x x
x.”
“If the gift was accepted by the officer in
consideration of the execution of an act which does not
constitute a crime, and the officer executed said act, he
shall suffer the same penalty provided in the preceding
paragraph; and if said act shall not have been
accomplished, the officer shall suffer the penalties of prison
correccional in its medium period and a fine of not less than
twice the value of such gift.”
“If the object for which the gift was received or
promised was to make the public officer refrain from doing
something which it was his official duty to do, he shall suffer
the penalties of prison correccional in its maximum period
and a fine of not less than three times the value of such
gift.”
Art. 211 refers to Indirect Bribery. It provides as follows: “The
penalties of prison correccional, in its medium and maximum
periods, suspension and public censure shall be imposed upon
any public officer who shall accept gifts offered to him by reason
of his office.”

Graft and Corruption –This is defined by Sec. 3 of Republic Act

No. 3019 in this manner: “In addition to acts or omissions of public
officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall
constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby
declared to be unlawful:
(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public
officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules

8
and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority
or an offense in connection with the official duties of the
latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or
influenced to commit such violation or offense.
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any
gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for
any other person, in connection with any contract or
transaction between the Government and any other party,
wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to
intervene under the law.
(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any
gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit, for
himself or for another, from any person for whom the public
officer, in any manner or capacity, has secured or
obtained, or will secure or obtain, any Government permit
or license, in consideration for the help given or to be given,
without prejudice to Section thirteen of this Act.
(d) Accepting or having any member of his family
accept employment in a private enterprise which has
pending official business with him during the pendency
thereof or within one year after its termination.
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including
the Government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions
through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to
officers and employees of offices or government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits
or other concessions.
(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or
request, without sufficient justification, to act within a
reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the

9
purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person
interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit
or advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own
interest or giving undue advantage in favor of or
discriminating against any other interested party.
(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any
contract or transaction manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public
officer profited or will profit thereby.
(h) Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary
interest in any business, contract or transaction in
connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his
official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the
Constitution or by any law from having any interest.
(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for
personal gain, or having a material interest in any
transaction or act requiring the approval of a board, panel
or group of which he is a member, and which exercises
discretion in such approval, even if he votes against the
same or does not participate in the action of the board,
committee, panel or group. Interest for personal gain shall
be presumed against those public officers responsible for
the approval of manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or
irregular transaction or acts by the board, panel or group
to which they belong.
(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license,
permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person not
qualified for or not legally entitled to such license, permit,
privilege or advantage, or of a mere representative or
dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled.
(k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential
character, acquired by his office or by him on account of

10
 his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing
such information in advance of its authorized release date.
“The person giving the gift, present, share,
percentage or benefit referred to in subparagraphs (b)
and (c); or offering or giving to the public officer the
employment mentioned in subparagraph (d); or urging the
divulging or untimely release of the confidential information
referred to in subparagraph (k) of this section shall,
together with the offending public officer, be punished
under Section nine of this Act and shall be permanently or
temporarily disqualified in the discretion of the Court, from
transacting business in any form with the Government.”

Other High Crimes –They are those offenses “which like treason
and bribery are of enormous gravity that they strike at the very
life or orderly workings of government.” (Report of the Special
Committee on the Impeachment of President Elpidio Quirino).

Betrayal of Public Trust –“Acts that xxx warrant removal from

office may be less than criminal but must be attended by bad
faith and of such gravity and seriousness as the other grounds of
impeachment.” (Gonzales v. Office of the President, G.R. No.
196231)

I. Whether or not the death of Mayor Espinosa and

Parojinog is a ground for Impeachment?

The death of Mayor Espinosa and Parojinog is not a ground for

impeachment.

Culpable Violation of the Constitution.

11
 On the grounds of Culpable Violation of the Constitution, it
is evident that President Rodrigo Duterte cannot be guilty under
this ground. In the case of the death of Mayor Parojinog, the
critics of our President alleged that he violated the Constitutional
Right of Mayor Parojinog pursuant to Article 3 Section 1 of the
1987 Constitution which provides that;

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property

without due process of law and nor shall any person be denied
the equal protection of the laws"

But the questions now are; (1) is this provision of our

Constitution absolute?, (2) did our President have the intention
and will to deliberately violate this constitutional right against
Mayor Parojinog?

Apparently, NOT. To answer the first question, this provision

of the 1987 Constitution can be negated. Human rights as
clamored by the petitioner are not absolute and are subject to
reasonable restrictions. But this does not mean however that the
human rights can be arbitrarily curtailed by the power of the
President or any person.

To support this claim, let us go first in the International

Scheme. It is a settled rule under on our International Law
pursuant to Article 4 paragraph 2 of ICCPR (International
Covenant and Civil and Political Rights) which provides;
"A State may take measures to derogate obligations under
their convention, during in times of emergency, threatening to
the life of the nation and the people"

12
 When the police officers entered the residence of Mayor
Parojinog, there happened to be an immediate shoot-out
between them and the mayor's company.

Wasn't it considered as a threat to the life of the police

officers at that time who were merely performing their sworn
duties? Absolutely it is a big threat to their lives.

Shabu and its effects are now considered by the many

Political Scientist and Sociologist as the new Social Cancer in our
society. It has multi-dimensional effects in our society. It
damages the relationship of the families to whom they consider
as an inviolable social institution in which the State is bound to
protect. Then and there when it starts to affect families, problems
start to spring in our such as; poverty, health, the education of
our youths and indisputably the number 1 root cause of crimes
in the Philippines. Clearly, it endangers the life of our Nation.

In the domestic scheme, Article 11 of the Revised Penal

Code expressly provides that Human Rights can be deviated
when a person acted under Self Defense. Thus, Article 11 of the
Revised Penal Code specifically PARS 1, 5, and 6 provides;

"Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur

any criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided
that the following circumstances concur;
First. Unlawful aggression.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it.

13
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself and paragraphs 5 and 6;
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful
exercise of a right or office.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a
superior for some lawful purpose."

In this instant case, during the raid operation of our brave

police officers, it is clear that they acted out of Self-defense as a
means of self- preservation. There is no need to argue further
whether or not Mayor Parojinog and his company are well
equipped with high caliber guns at the time of the incident. The
evidence recovered (such as guns, shabu, hand grenade and
etc) by SOCO are sufficient to prove that these people are
aggressive and well-armed. When the police officers entered
the house of Mayor Parojinog, they were furiously attacked by
the bullets of Mayor Parojinog's company. Our police officers
have no other reasonable means or choice but to protect
themselves due to the imminent danger they are facing at that
time which resulted in the death of Mayor Parojinog and his
company. To supply the third element which is the lack of
sufficient provocation, there is no sufficient provocation in this
case. There is no need to prove further that the Police officer as
stated in Pars. 5 and 6 acted out in a lawful operation. It is
evident that they were merely performing their sworn duties, and
the death of Mayor Parojinog and his company are merely
incidental, not intended and not willfully committed as they
perform their official duties.

As to Mayor Espinosa’s case, a valid search warrant was

served and resistance was put up by Mayor Espinosa leaving the
authorities no choice but to defend themselves resulting in his
death.

14
 In addition, Mayor Parojinog and Espinosa were included
on the list named by our president of politicians who were
involved in illegal drug trade. Was the act of proliferating shabu
within the Philippines be considered as a threat to our Nation?
Definitely.

Thus, the President has not violated the Constitution,

impeachment case on this ground should be dismissed because
the acts done by our police officers were lawful.

This incident does not constitute treason, bribery, graft and

corruption and other high crimes. Obviously, these grounds are
inapplicable in the case at hand.

Other high crimes or Betrayal of Public Trust

For an act to be considered as a Betrayal of public trust the
act must be attended by bad faith, faithful observance of the
law clearly does not constitute bad faith. That being said, it is
clear that this ground is inapplicable in the case at hand.

II. Whether or not President Duterte’s noncombative

assertion on Scarborough Shoal and Kalayaan Group
of Islands a ground for Impeachment?

No. the President’s noncombative assertion of our rights on

Scarborough Shoal and Kalayaan Group of Islands is not a
ground of impeachment.

15
 The alleged actions and statements of the President with
respect to his stand on the islands are not as substantial as to
become tantamount to the offenses mentioned above.
In the case at bar, mere pronouncements by the President
expressing disinterest in pursuing actions to assert Philippine’s
claim over the islands cannot be the grounds for an
impeachable offense. In the absence of a unilateral
pronouncement abandoning our claim over the Scarborough
Shoal and the Kalayaan Group of Islands, it is groundless to
impose that the President concedes on China’s claims over
these islands.

Rebuttal: The Defendants, in their memorandum, indicated

that President Duterte’s noncombative assertion of Philippine’s
right on Scarborough Shoal and Kalayaan Group of Islands does
not constitute a ground of impeachment. They pointed out that
alleged actions and statements of the President with respect to
his stand on the islands are not as substantial as to tantamount
to an impeachable offense. Further, they assert that in the
absence of a unilateral pronouncement abandoning our claim
over the Scarborough Shoal and the Kalayaan Group of Islands
would be groundless to impose that President Duterte concedes
on China’s claims over these islands.

Point well taken. The defendants, in their statement, assent

with the plaintiff’s contention that there were willful and negligent
statements uttered by no less than the President, venting his
stand that the Philippines cannot stop China from exploiting the
disputed territory as well as prohibiting Filipino Fishermen to fish
around Scarborough Shoal. However, they contended that in the
absence of unilateral pronouncement abandoning the country’s
claim, the President has not concede with China yet.

16
 As to the defendant’s contentions, the petitioners would like
to manifest that the main issue regarding the case is the
President’s inaction, as the Head of the State, to pursue the
country’s rights over the Kalayaan Group of Islands and the
Scarborough (Panatag Shoal).

This “inaction” by the President amounts to a “willful

neglect” in

It might be true that there was no “official written

pronouncement” issued by the Office of the President which
declares that the Philippines concedes over China on the issue
regarding the disputed territories particularly on the
Scarborough (Panatag) Shoal. However, no less than the
President’s stand, manifested by his overt act of uttering
statements in his capacity as the President, which impliedly
waives Philippine sovereignty over the disputed territories would
tantamount to a breach of his oath saying that "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.”

Culpable violation of the Constitution

Sec 2 of Article II of the Philippine Constitution provides:

“The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national

policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international
law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of
peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with
all nations.”

17
 The President can only do so much. Judgment was already
issued in our favor yet China still won’t recognize the
International Court’s decision. Steps are taken diplomatically
however, this does not follow that we are conceding our rights
over these islands.

The Constitution was not violated contrary to what the

complainants alleged. In fact, careful regard to the Constitution
was made in advancing the national interest over these islands.

Bribery and Graft and Corruption- no money or any gift was

involved in any of our diplomatic endeavors concerning these
disputed Islands. Promotion of the national interest is the utmost
consideration. This is not a ground for impeachment.

Treason - the President’s inaction does not constitute

abandonment on the Philippine sovereign right and territorial
claims on the Scarborough Shoal and Kalayaan Group of Islands
and does not amount to the breach of allegiance to our
government thus this is clearly not treason.

Other high crimes or Betrayal of Public Trust - Bad faith is non-

existent without competent proof that the President means to
desert the Philippines exclusive territorial and sovereign rights
over the Scarborough Shoal and the Kalayaan Group of Islands
and does not amount to the Betrayal of Public trust.

III. Whether or not the extension of Martial Law until

December 30, 2017, is a ground for Impeachment?

No, the extension of martial law is not impeachable and it is

valid. Presidential Spokesman Ernesto Abella said that “The
extension of martial law is essential to the overall peace and

18
stability. The rebellion in Marawi continues to persist and we want
to stop the spread of the evil ideology of terrorism and free the
people of Mindanao from the tyranny of lawlessness and violent
extremism.” In the case of Lagman vs Medialdea(G.R. No.
231658, July 4, 2017) the Supreme Court gave the President a lot
of discretion. The Court also said in the case that 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. Additionally, the Court also stated that as to
what facts must be stated in the proclamation and the written
Report, Lagman vs Medialdea holds that the same is "up to the
President." As Commander-in-Chief, he has sole discretion to
determine what to include and what not to include in the
proclamation and the written Report taking into account the
urgency of the situation as well as national security. "He cannot
be forced to divulge intelligence reports and confidential
information that may prejudice the operations and the safety of
the military."

Moreover, the Supreme Court 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.

According to Tony La Viña, former dean of the

Ateneo School of Government, and Regina Ongsiako,
incoming 3rd year law student at the Ateneo Law School:
“The Court held that the 1987 Constitution grants to the
President, as Commander-in-Chief, the discretion to
19
determine the territorial coverage or application of martial
law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus. 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. 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. 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 without
predetermined bounds. Thus, Lagman vs Medialdea holds
that for as long as the President has reasonable basis to
believe that the declaration of martial law, as well as the

20
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. Based on our understanding
of Lagman vs Medialdea, we think that given another
round of petitions on the matter, the Supreme Court will
probably approve the extension of martial law decree in
Mindanao as it has sustained the declaration of martial law
in Proclamation No. 216.

The Independent, a British online newspaper,

reported last August 20, 2017, that according to the
formerly UN-affiliated news network IRIN, security forces say
they have regained control of all but two areas of the city,
but the president has extended the period of martial law to
the end of the year to allow his forces to track down radical
Islamists police believe may be attempting to blend in with
the local population.

“We have to profile the Muslim areas,” said police

superintendent Roy Ga of Iligan City in the north of the
island.
“This conflict in Marawi, unfortunately, it is being
committed by Muslims, so we have to make sure there are
no sympathizers with the terrorists in this area.”

Based on an August 15, 2017, report by News5

Interaksyon.com, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
begged for patience from the people in finishing off the
Maute terrorist group in Marawi City, reiterating that the
military was not facing an ordinary enemy.

“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

21
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, “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.

“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,” he added.

According to a report by CNN Philippines last July 22,

2017, Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, who read
President Duterte's request for martial law extension before
the lawmakers, said it was the first time the government
faced a "newly evolving type of urban warfare."

"Ibang klase po (It's a different kind)… It's not an easy

task to be running against these rebels," Medialdea said.
He presented to Congress First Lt. Kent Fagyan, his
right arm banded after he was wounded from fighting in
Marawi.

The 29-year-old lieutenant who also fought during the

bloody Zamboanga siege in 2013 and the Maute group's
siege of Butig town in Lanao del Sur in 2016, said the
terrorists in Marawi were the hardest to defeat.

“Compared with previous attacks, the one in Marawi

is more difficult because houses are dense, and most of

22
 them have third and fourth floor. The enemy in Marawi is
upgraded because they have many .50 caliber guns, radio
scanner, drones, and unlimited supply of bullets.”

Culpable violation of the Constitution

Obviously, this ground cannot be invoked for the Supreme Court
ruled that Proclamation 216 is constitutional, specifically in their
ruling in the case of Lagman vs Medialdea.

Treason- the extension of Martial Law is not a breach of

allegiance to the government. In fact, the Constitution
authorizes the president, with the concurrence of Congress, to
validly place the Philippines under Martial. Sec. 18 Art. VII reads:

“The President xxx in case of invasion or rebellion, when the

public safety requires it he may, for a period not exceeding sixty
days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place
the Philippines or any part thereof under Martial Law xxx Upon
the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same
manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period of
to be determined by Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall
persist and public safety requires it.”

Bribery- the President, in the extension of Martial law, did not in

any way receive gifts in exchange of favors, this eliminates this
specific ground for Impeachment.

Graft and Corruption- referring to the definition in the provisions

of RA 3019 as previously presented above, the extension of
Martial Law does not involve graft and corruption and is
therefore not a ground for impeachment.

Other High Crimes or Betrayal of Public trust- the Congress

already approved the extension of Martial Law and the Supreme
Court in their power of Judicial review already ruled that the
23
proclamation of Martial law is valid and Constitutional. Having
been assessed by the three Co-equal branches of government
it is clear that there is no Betrayal of Public Trust nor this be
considered as a crime at all.

The complaint for impeachment against President Rodrigo

Duterte is baseless, insufficient in substance and politically
driven. By his conduct, Rodrigo Roa Duterte, President of the
Philippines, has upheld the Constitution, Strived to Maintain
Peace and order in our Society, and advanced the National
Interest of our nation. Instead of always ranting and complaining
the Filipinos must as a nation help our beloved President in our
long and arduous road to development.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, President Rodrigo “Rody” Roa Duterte respectfully
prays unto this Honorable Impeachment Court for the outright
dismissal of the “Impeachment Complaint” for failing to meet
the grounds provided by the Constitution or that the
Impeachment Court enter a judgment of acquittal for all the
Articles of Impeachment.
Other just and equitable remedies under the circumstances are
likewise prayed for.

Cebu for Pasay City, Tuesday, 22 August 2017.

Respectfully submitted by
Counsel for President Rodrigo R. Duterte

MARIA ERA G. CANEDA

Address:

24
IBP No:
PTR No:
Roll No:
MCLE No:

JIMMY CHRISTIAN B. CINCO

Address:
IBP No:
PTR No:
Roll No:
MCLE No:

DARLENE MARIE B. DACLES

Address:
IBP No:
PTR No:
Roll No:
MCLE No:

JLAYDA CARMEL Y. GABOR

Address:
IBP No:
PTR No:
Roll No:
MCLE No:

CHRISTIAN PHILIP A. TIEMPO

Address:
IBP No:
PTR No:
Roll No:
MCLE No:

25
LIEZEL
Address:
IBP No:
PTR No:
Roll No:
MCLE No:

Copy furnished:
Group III
Counsel for Complainants

26