REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES

SENATE

SITTING AS AN IMPEACHMENT COURT

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

CASE NO. 08-2017

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 (other
complainants comprising one third
(1/3) of the total Members of the
House of Representatives as are
indicated below.)

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

Reply (To th

1
Complainants, by counsel, respectfully state:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

“Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees

must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism
and justice, and lead modest lives.”1

At the expense of this complaint is the integrity of the Office of

the President, upon which is laid with a great burden embodied in the
high constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust. This
complaint exposes the President’s culpable violation of the
constitution on the grounds of his inaction to exercise the country’s
rights over Scarborough Shoal and Kalayaan Group of Islands, his
infractions in not securing the proper implementation of the Bill of
Rights and Human Rights through the pronouncement which sought
the Martial Law extension resulting to numerous abuses and his
failure to exercise proper command responsibility during the arrest of
Mayor Parojinog, which led to numerous fatalities and the death of
Mayor Espinosa in his very own prison cell which showcase the futility
and incompetence of his conduct in office as the Chief Executive. As
the highest official of the land, he is supposed to uphold the
Constitution, the Rule of Law and the accountability of the President
to the Filipino People and the true Sovereign of the Republic of the
Philippines. Consequently, this proceeding for impeachment, as a
constitutional exercise, is a way of honoring the Office of the President
and restoring the trust and confidence of the Filipino People.

THE PARTIES

Complainants are Filipino citizens, of legal ages and taxpayers,

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

1 Section I, Article XI, 1987 Constitution

2
 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 Capitol Site, Cebu

City

g. Jerome Jaugar, with office address at 8th floor, TGU Building, IT

Park, Cebu City

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 THE CASE

This is a verified Complaint to impeach and bring to trial
Rodrigo R. Duterte, President of the Republic of the Philippines, in the
name of the Filipino people and for the Filipino people, for his
Culpable Violation of the Constitution and Betrayal of Public Trust.
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.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

President Duterte willfully and negligently disregarded the

Philippine’s economic rights over the Kalayaan Group of Islands and
Scarborough (Panatag Shoal), which is evident by his inaction to
3
execute pertinent laws and favorable court decisions. Pertinent facts
are as follows:

On June 30, 2016, respondent took his oath as the 16th President
of 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." On July 1, 2016, he assumed his duties and
responsibilities as such.

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,”.2 (Emphasis ours)

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.3

Moreover, 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. 4 (Emphasis ours)

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

2http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/03/19/17/duterte-ph-cant-stop-china-from-building-facilities-in-panatag-

shoal
3Section 2, RA 9522
4http://globalnation.inquirer.net/140358/philippines-arbitration-decision-maritime-dispute-south-china-

sea-arbitral-tribunal-unclos-itlos

4
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.

President Duterte also transgressed the law by seeking Martial

Law Extension for an excessive period, which resulted to numerous
cases of human rights infractions and abuses.

On May 23, 2017, after the Islamic State-aligned Maute terrorists

launched attacks in Marawi City, burning several structures and
holding hostage of more than a dozen people, President Duterte
declared martial law in the entire Mindano.5 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.6

On July 22, 2017, the Senate and House of Representatives

granted President Rodrigo Duterte's request to extend military rule in
the entire Mindanao until December 31, 2017 in view of the expiration
of Proclamation 216, which declared martial law in Mindanao.7

In the letter submitted by President Duterte, he justified his

request to extend his martial law decree until the end of 2017 because
the threat of terrorism in Mindanao would continue even beyond the
60-day period of martial rule, due to the continued presence of terrorist
groups in Mindanao – the Da’watul Islamiyah Waliyatul Masriq
(DIWM), Islamic State-inspired elements of the Maute and Abu
Sayyaf, Ansarul Khilafah Philippines and the Bangsamoro Islamic
Freedom Fighters. The existence of a drug production facility in the
Marawi City rebel stronghold,indicating that the rebellion was
drawing funding support from illegal drug syndicates.8

Martial law allows the suspension of the privilege of the writ of

habeas corpus and warrantless arrests. Its purpose is to protect our
nation, but this should not be abused. The Martial Law declaration in
the entire Mindanao signified numerous acts of abuses. In fact, it
resulted to numerous maltreatments and human right violations
which is evident under the submitted documented cases, which

5http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/07/10/1718131/congress-seen-back-martial-law-extension
6http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/07/18/17/duterte-seeks-martial-law-extension-until-end-of-2017
7http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2017/07/22/Congress-votes-martial-law-extension-Duterte.html
8 http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/915242/look-dutertes-report-to-congress-requesting-martial-law-extension

5
includes 68 political killings, 842 illegal arrests and detention,
416,000 victims of displacement and 357,000 victims of
indiscriminate firing and aerial bombings. (Emphasis ours)

Aditionally, 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 bombings.

Similarly, reports on human rights abuses were presented by

Samira Gutoc-Tomawis before the Congress, who brought with her
photos and documentations 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.9 Some Muslim women are also forced to endure tough conditions
like in the case of 2 pregnant women from Pagadian City who were
interrogated by authorities after they were found carrying packs of
dextrose in their bags. She added that because of this situation, the
rescue volunteers bury a baby every 5 days and the mothers endured
the loss of a child.” That one Muslim woman was also forced to
remove her clothes in an evacuation center but did not detail
circumstances of the alleged incident.10 (Emphasis ours).

President Duterte, being the Chief Executive, can also be held

liable for the infractions of his subordinates by virtue of the command
responsibility vested to him. This infraction was greatly showcased in
the case of the late Mayor Parojinog and Espinosa. The events that
transpired were as follows:
On August 7, 2016, President Duterte named more than 150
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.,

9http://bulatlat.com/main/2017/07/22/makabayan-solons-stress-human-rights-violations-vote-vs-

mindanao-martial-law-extension/
10 http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/07/22/17/in-tearful-plea-maranao-civic-leader-alleges-abuses-under-

mindanao-martial-law

6
his daughter Vice Mayor Nova Princess Parojinog-Echavez, and his
brother ex-Board Member Ricardo Parojinog of Misamis Occidental.

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 were
arrested.
Also, Atty. Carim, the legal counsel of the Parojinog Clan, was
barred by the policemen from entering the Custodial Center at Camp
Crame despite the fact that the Parojinogs wished to be escorted by
their counsel to defend them from any possible self-incrimination and
to ensure that their rights are upheld. To add, the inquest proceedings
should have been done at Ozamis City, the proper jurisdiction, and not
in Camp Crame.
Similarly, Mayor Rolando Espinosa of Albuera, Leyte who has
also 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.11
Early morning on November 5, 2016, Mayor Espinosa was shot
dead inside is cell at Baybay City Provincial Jail. 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 VIII.
According to a spot report, Espinosa was killed at around 4 a.m. along
with inmate Raul Yap.12

The 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. They found that the
killing was premeditated and with abuse of authority on the part of
the police operatives. Moreover, the 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 VII planned Espinosa's killing in November last
year to cover up their involvement in illegal drugs. According to them
in a joint report published in the Senate website, although the

11http://news.abs-cbn.com/list/tag/rolando-espinosa-sr
12 Ibid

7
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.

Further, 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.

The Senators also noted 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. Also, the 18-person team of CIDG-VIII was
augmented by six members of the Regional Maritime Unit as perimeter
defense.

Hence, 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.

Lastly, 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. 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.

THE RELEVANT ISSUES

I. WHETHER OR NOT PRESIDENT RODRIGO DUTERTE

CULPABLY VIOLATED THE 1987 CONSTITUTION BY
KNOWINGLY, WILLFULLY AND NEGLIGENTLY

8
 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
BETRAYED PUBLIC TRUST BY SEEKING MARTIAL LAW
EXTENSION THEREBY ALLOWING THE SUSPENSION OF
THE PRIVELEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
WARRANTLESS ARREST WHICH RESULTED TO
NUMEROUS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND ABUSES
EFFECTED BY THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES
TO WHICH THE PRESIDENT HAS COMMAND
RESPONSIBILITY.

III. WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE VIOLATIONS MADE

UNDER ARTICLE III OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
PARTICULARLY THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW
AND THE RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH
AND SEIZURE BY THE POLICE OFFICERS DURING THE
SERVICE OF SEARCH WARRANTS TO MAYOR ROLANDO
ESPINOSA AND MAYOR REYNALDO PAROJINOG, SR.,
AMONG OTHERS

IV. WHETHER OR NOT PRESIDENT RODRIGO DUTERTE, AS

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, CAN BE HELD LIABLE FROM THE
ACTS OF THE POLICE OFFICERS WHICH UNDOUBTEDLY
CONTRAVENED THE PROVISONS OF THE BILL OF
RIGHTS EMBODIED IN ARTICLE III OF THE 1987
CONSTITUTION BY VIRTUE OF HIS COMMAND
RESPONSIBILITY

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

9
 The Constitution provides for a process of 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.

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.
Moreover, 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
Ours)
Also, 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
Ours)
Further, Section 18, Article VII also provides that:
“The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of
all Armed Forces of the Philippines xxx”

10
 Lastly, 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)

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:

“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.”13 (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

13http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2009/ra_9522_2009.html

11
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.14

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 arbitral tribunal.15China 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. 16

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.

14https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarborough_Shoal
15http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/03/19/17/duterte-ph-cant-stop-china-from-building-facilities-in-

panatag-shoal
16http://globalnation.inquirer.net/140358/philippines-arbitration-decision-maritime-dispute-south-china-

sea-arbitral-tribunal-unclos-itlos

12
 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.

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. This is a clear
willful neglect of the country’s economic rights.

He should have done, at least, any of the following:

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. Sent 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. Asked 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. Accepted the standing U.S. offer to hold joint naval patrols

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

13
 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. 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 ARTICLE VII,
SECTION 18 AND ARTICLE III, SECTION 1 OF THE 1987
CONSTITUTION

Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution known as the Bill
of Rights provides that:
“The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all
armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes
necessary, "he may call out such armed forces to prevent or
suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of
invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it,
he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the
Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.” xxx
Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may,
in the same manner, extend such proclamation or
suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress,
"if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety
requires it. xxx
"The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate
proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension
thereof", and must promulgate its decision thereon within
thirty days from its filing. (Emphasis ours)
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the
Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or
legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on
military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able
to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.

14
 The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to
persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or
directly connected with invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person
thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three
days, otherwise he shall be released.17 (Emphasis ours)
Moreover, 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.18
(Emphasis ours)
One of the reasons stated in the letter for Martial law extension
in Mindanao is Terrorism. Under Article 134 of the Revised Penal
Code, there is terrorism when there is rising publicly and taking arms
against the Government for the purpose of removing from the
allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of the
Philippines Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or
other armed forces, depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature,
wholly or partly, of any of their powers and prerogatives.
It is clearly stipulated in Section 18, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution that the grounds for Martial law is Invasion and
Rebellion. Terrorism is definitely not one of them. Clearly, the Islamic
State-aligned Maute terrorists launched attacks in Marawi City is
not an act of Rebellion or Invasion but merely acts of Terrorism.
They were not taking over government offices, which justified the fact
that it is indeed an Act of Terrorism, which makes Proclamation no.
216 of President Duterte unconstitutional.
The approval of martial law extension should have not 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. The Martial Law
declaration and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, affected
the lives, economy and culture of all the people living in Mindanao.
In paragraph 3 , Section 18 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution
as stated above, it says that the martial law extension is subject for

17
http://www.lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html
18 Section I, Article III of the 1987 Constitution

15
Judicial review to review the factual basis for declaring the extension
of Martial Declaration as stated in Article VII Section 1 paragraph 2,
that Judicial power includes the duty of the court to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess jurisdiction on the part
of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. The mere
presence of Maute Terrorist in Marawi and their criminal acts does
not tantamount to Martial law declaration. The existence of drug
production facility in Marawi City operated by drug cartels does not
indicate a rebellion even if the proceeds of such illegal drugs are being
supported to the drug syndicates. Drug issue is a separate matter and
should not a legal ground to declare a martial law extension.
The approval of Martial law extension and the suspension of the
writ of habeas corpus violated the basic right of the Filipino Citizen as
embodied in Article III, Section 1 as stated above. Many human rights
abuses and extra judicial killings were being reported due to the
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Even if that certain place is
under Martial Law but still the rights of the Filipino Citizen should still
be respected and enforceable as the Constitution is not suspended for
this matter. Illegal detention on the citizens should only last for 3 days
if proven innocent and they should not stay longer in jail as they have
no serious offense committed. The harsh reality in implementing the
martial law is that military authority overruled the innocent civilians,
where in the first place Martial Law is implemented to protect and
promote safety of the public. Grave abuses happened as the Military
carry out their mission. The havoc brought by this approved Martial
Law extension makes it unconstitutional.
On the other hand, numerous instances of infractions of human
rights took place during the Martial Law Extension. It is to be noted
that while the privilege writ of habeas corpus is suspended during
Martial Law, the operation of the Constitution is not suspended most
specially the provisions of Bill of Rights, among others.
No other than Gabriela Women’s Partylist (GWP) Rep. Arlene
Brosas cited 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 bombings.

16
 Similarly, reports on human rights abuses were presented by
Samira Gutoc-Tomawis before the Congress, who brought with her
photos and documentations 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. Some Muslim women are also forced to endure tough
conditions like in the case of two (2) pregnant women from Pagadian
City who were interrogated by authorities after they were found
carrying packs of dextrose in their bags. She added that because of this
situation, the rescue volunteers bury a baby every 5 days and the
mothers endured the loss of a child.” That one Muslim woman was
also forced to remove her clothes in an evacuation center but did not
detail circumstances of the alleged incident.

Section III, Article II of the 1987 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.”

Moreover, Section XVII, Article VII, of the same Constitution states

that:
“The President shall have the control of all the
executive departments, bureaus and offices. He shall
ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.”

It is clear and evident that the purpose of extending Martial Law

is to attain peace and order for the whole country and to attain public
security for the people. But in lieu of carrying out their official duties,
there has been several instances of human rights abuses which defeats
the sole purpose of implementing martial law which is to protect its
people against harm and abuses. How will the people be able to gain
trust and confidence to their elected president, when his trusted
officers who carry out their functions on his behalf is not that lawful
enough, who respected the rights and dignity of the citizens of the
Philippines?

17
 Further, Section II, Article II of the 1987 Constitution provides
that:
”The state values the dignity of every human person
and guarantees full respect for human rights”.

The military should have at least respected and upheld the

rights of the people as the law is created by the people, to the people
and for the people. Human rights issue should be taken seriously as
the citizens entrusted their lives to the state expecting that will be
respected and be treated with dignity. Conversely, the reported abuses
during the martial law and its extension is a clear disregard of human
rights. Many innocent lives were sacrificed and grievances from the
victims of the abuses from the martial law implementer has been kept
in silence. It should have been instilled in every heart of the
implementers that rights and dignity should be upheld and respected,
among others. The President, having the control of all executive
bureaus, should be liable in all the grave abuses that his agents have
committed.

III. CLEAR VIOLATIONS UNDER ARTICLE III OF THE 1987

CONSTITUTION PARTICULARLY THE RIGHT TO DUE
PROCESS OF LAW AND THE RIGHT AGAINST
UNREASONABLE SEARCH 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.

Before being elected, President Duterte reiterated his

unrelenting position against illegal drugs: “If I make it to the
presidential palace, I will do just what I did as mayor. You drug
pushers, hold-up men and do-nothings, you better go out. Because
as the mayor, I'd kill you.” These are the exact words uttered by the
then mayor during the several months of campaign. A long standing
promise that arguably catapulted him to the presidency by a landslide.
During his inauguration, the president reiterated such promise by
stating that the fight against criminality and illegal drugs and
corruption will be relentless and sustained. This was further reiterated
in his first State of the Nation Address (SONA).

Since then Philippine National Police (PNP) has so far killed

close to 300 and arrested over 3,700 drug suspects in operations around
the country. More than 129,000 drug users and pushers, meanwhile,
have surrendered as a result of the PNP’s “Oplan Tokhang.”
18
 As part of this all-out war against illegal drugs, President Duterte
named more than 150 officials from the judiciary and local government
units who are allegedly involved in the illegal drugs trade. That among
those named are Albuera, Leyte Mayor Rolando Espinosa and Ozamiz
City Mayor Reynaldo Parojinog Sr., together with his daughter Vice
Mayor Nova Princess Parojinog-Echavez, and his brother ex-Board
Member Ricardo Parojinog of Misamis Occidental.

As to the case of Mayor Espinosa, on August 1, 2016, President

Rodrigo Duterte, asked Espinosa and his son Kerwin to surrender
themselves within 24 hours "on the grounds of drug-trafficking and
coddling." Duterte said that the police would arrest and possibly shoot
them if they resisted arrest.

Subsequently, after the voluntary surrender and arrest of Mayor

Espinosa, the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) of
Region VIII, led by Police Chief Inspector Leo Laraga, served the
warrants in the early morning of November 5, 2016. According to the
CIDG, Espinosa and Yap first shot at the CIDG operatives, resulting in
a shootout between the two men and the CIDG. Espinosa and Yap died
in the alleged firefight.

On the other hand, in the case of Mayor Parojinog, 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 were 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 were arrested.

Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution also 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)

Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution also provides that:

“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

19
 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.”

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.

In the case of Mayor Espinosa, the President, in his speech

stated that policemen charged with killing drug suspects could just
plead guilty and he would grant them absolute pardon. It is his only
weapon against harassment of government men. “Now they have been
charged with murder, I will support them,” he said.

The President said he had instructed the police and the military
to arrest drug suspects and shoot them if they resisted arrest and
promised them that he would protect them if charges were brought
against them.

“Any policeman or military man charged [with] killing those

bastards, they will have my protection. You can charge them with
anything,” he said.

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 drug problem. But this simply
is not right; the end does not justify the means. We are governed by
the rule of law and not of men. Any person whether guilty or not is
protected by the rule of law. The violations against the right to due
process and the right against unreasonable search and seizure should
never be allowed, promoted nor supported, not even by the President.

IV. PRESIDENT RODRIGO DUTERTE, AS THE CHIEF

EXECUTIVE, CAN BE HELD LIABLE FROM THE ACTS OF
THE POLICE OFFICERS WHICH UNDOUBTEDLY
CONTRAVENED THE PROVISONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS
EMBODIED IN ARTICLE III OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION BY
VIRTUE OF HIS COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY

20
 In the case of Gudani vs Senga19, the Supreme Court held that as
the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the
President has absolute authority over all its members.

One possible example of a person effectively acting as a

commander is a civilian head of state who has supreme command
powers over that country's armed forces. This same individual might
also fall under "direct" command responsibility, which could apply to
either a military commander or a civilian superior. In either its direct
form or its imputed form, the command responsibility doctrine
envisions and implements criminal accountability that upwardly
traverses the chain of command to the culpable leader. 20

Thus, it is essential that the responsibility to prevent

extrajudicial killings, and to penalize the culprits be pinned on the
Commander-in-Chief because of the requirement under the command
responsibility rule that the crimes concerned are activities within the
effective responsibility and control of the superior. The President
should use his or her power to prevent or repress the commission of
irregularities and illegal acts, or to direct the commanding officers
concerned to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of the crimes.
This will create a legal duty on the part of the President, as
Commander-in-Chief, to take necessary measures to prevent human
right violations or to punish the perpetrators thereof.

Section XVII, Article VII, of the same Constitution states that:

“The President shall have the control of all the

executive departments, bureaus and offices. He shall
ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Also, under Article VII, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution, the

President, before they enter on the execution of their office, shall take
the following oath or affirmation:

“I do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will faithfully

and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President [or
Vice-President or Acting 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.” [In case of affirmation,
last sentence will be omitted]. (Emphasis ours)
19 G.R. No. 170165, 498 SCRA 671, August 15, 2006
20 Greg Vetter, Command Responsibility of the Non-Millitary Superiors in the International Criminal Court
25 Yale J. Int'l 1. 89, 137 (2000); internal footnotes omitted

21
 The recent facts unfolding clearly manifest the violation of the
President of his Oath of Office. A violation each and every Filipino
should never take for granted. This is not just a violation of the
Constitution but a violation of the trust we bestowed upon him since
the day of the election. A trust that is so valuable. A trust that only
deserves the best from the highest officer of the land.

CONCLUSION

ACCORDINGLY, the complainant concludes that:

SUFFICIENT PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS TO IMPEACH the

President of the Republic Roa Rodrigo Duterte for Betrayal of Public
Trust and Culpable violation of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

When the President no less commits betrayal of public trust, and

culpably violates the Constitution and his own oath of office, he
himself in the performance of duties and functions gravely abuse the
power and discretion as president is a daylight clear oversteps his
boundaries and limitation, should be outright removed in office. No
less than the people deserve faith, justice and honesty. No less than the
Constitution mandates that public office is public trust.

Indeed, by such conduct, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte

warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and
disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit
under the Republic of the Philippines.

In a government of laws, existence of government will be

imperiled if the President fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our
President is the potent, the omnipotent teacher. For good or for ill, the
President teaches the whole people by her example. If the President
becomes a lawbreaker, he breeds contempt for the law; he invites every
person to become a law unto herself; he invites anarchy.

The fundamental law of the land, the Constitution, requires

Rodrigo Roa Duterte, President of the Philippines, and his utmost
fealty to his oath of office. If he fails to live up its high ideals and
instead commits culpable violations of the Constitution and betrays
the public trust, the same high ideals require– after impeachment and

22
trial – no less than his removal from office and his disqualification to
hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the Republic
of the Philippines.

PRAYER

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.

Manila, for Quezon City, Philippines, 22 August 2017.

ROMEO A. REYES, JR.

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, 1/18/17, Nueva Ecija
PTR No. 3496604, 1/10/17, Muntinlupa City

Copy Furnished:

Counsel for the defendants

23
24