Certiorari Petition Versus Proclamation 1959

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT Manila NATIONAL UNION OF PEOPLES’ LAWYERS (NUPL) SECRETARY GENERAL NERI JAVIER COLMENARES, ATTY. JULIUS GARCIA MATIBAG, ATTY. EPHRAIM B. CORTEZ, ATTY. JOBERT ILARDE PAHILGA, ATTY. VOLTAIRE B. AFRICA, BAYAN MUNA REPRESENTATIVE SATUR C. OCAMPO, GABRIELA WOMEN’S PARTY REPRESENTATIVE LIZA L. MAZA, BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN (BAYAN) SECRETARY GENERAL RENATO M. REYES JR., AND ANTHONY IAN CRUZ, Petitioners, - versus -

G.R. No. ____________________________ Very Urgent Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Very Urgent Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction

PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGALARROYO, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES CHIEF OF STAFF GENERAL VICTOR S. IBRADO, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE DIRECTOR GENERAL JESUS A. VERZOSA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SECRETARY AGNES VST DEVANADERA, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES EASTERN MINDANAO COMMAND CHIEF LIEUTENANT GENERAL RAYMUNDO B. FERRER, Respondents. x----------------------------------------------------x

VERY URGENT PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION (WITH VERY URGENT APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION) 1

PETITIONERS, through the undersigned counsel, unto the Honorable Supreme Court, most respectfully states that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1. Petitioners have never thought that once again, after almost four decades, an infamous event unparalleled in history after two EDSA popular uprisings would take place in the country – the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. 2. This very urgent petition is invoked for the first time in thirty-seven (37) years since September 21, 1972 when the late dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1081 placing the entire Philippines under a state of martial law. This time, it is the sitting president, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, arbitrarily exercising the highest and extraordinary powers as commander-in-chief by the issuance on December 4, 2009 of Proclamation No. 1959 proclaiming a state of martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the province of Maguindanao, Philippines. 3. Petitioners seek the nullification of Proclamation No. 1959 dated December 4, 2009 proclaiming a state of martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the province of Maguindanao, except for certain areas, as it is patently illegal and unconstitutional for lack of any factual basis at all. 4. The prayer for the declaration of Proclamation No. 1959 as null and void is anchored on the grounds stated hereunder, thus: (a) First, Proclamation No. 1959 has been issued sans the existence of actual ‘invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it’ which are the only grounds clearly and categorically spelled under the 1987 Philippine Constitution for the valid proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; and

2

(b) Second, Proclamation No. 1959 adversely affects and places in great peril and serious jeopardy the Filipino people’s cry for justice for the fifty-seven (57) innocent civilians, women, journalists and lawyers slaughtered in the Ampatuan town massacre allegedly masterminded by the powerful Ampatuans of Maguindanao. 5. Thus, respondent President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the issuance of Proclamation No. 1959 and causing the implementation of the same by the other respondents. 6. This petition is a special civil action for Certiorari and Prohibition brought under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, herein petitioners have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law which will promptly and immediately relieve herein petitioners from the injurious effects of the unconstitutional acts of the respondents in the issuance and implementation of the assailed Proclamation No. 1959. This petition is anchored on the following provision of the 1987 Philippine Constitution as to the nature thereof and reason for the immediate resort to the Honorable Court’s jurisdiction in the first instance, thus: “Article VII EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT Section 18. 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 of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. Petitioners are all suing in their capacity as citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, in accordance with aforesaid Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. 8. Petitioners thus humbly pray that the Honorable Court issue a judgment: a. Declaring Proclamation No. 1959 dated December 4, 2009 as unconstitutional and void; and 3

b. Enjoining respondents from the continued implementation of Proclamation No. 1959 dated December 4, 2009. 9. Petitioners are likewise praying for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction due to the seriousness and extreme urgency of the matters involved, as well as the grave and irreparable constitutional infirmities of Proclamation No. 1959, thus: a. That petitioners replead by reference the foregoing allegations as well as the allegations hereunder, as part of this application; b. That grave and irreparable injuries result to the entire Filipino nation by virtue of the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Maguindanao without an actual or existing invasion or rebellion and the requirements of public safety clearly and categorically required under the 1987 Philippine Constitution; c. That grave and irreparable injuries result to the entire Filipino nation as there is a brazen abuse of president of the commander-in-chief powers in the issuance of Proclamation No. 1959; d. That grave and irreparable injuries result to the entire Filipino nation through the continued implementation of a patently illegal and unconstitutional Proclamation No. 1959; e. That the issuance and continued implementation of Proclamation No. 1959 smack of downright disregard of the safeguards enshrined under the 1987 Philippine Constitution on the valid exercise of the commander-in-chief powers; f. That petitioners, as citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, are entitled to the relief demanded in the instant petition, and part of such relief consists in restraining respondents from the continued implementation of Proclamation No. 1959 to prevent any further derogation and disregard of the 1987 Philippine Constitution; and 4

g. That the continued implementation of Proclamation No. 1959 would work injustice to the citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, as the assailed Proclamation itself and its continued implementation are patently illegal and unconstitutional. Hence, premises considered, it cannot be overemphasized that the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction is extremely needed to restrain respondents from the continued implementation of Proclamation No. 1959.

THE PARTIES THE PETITIONERS 10. Petitioner NATIONAL UNION OF PEOPLES’ LAWYERS (NUPL) SECRETARY GENERAL NERI JAVIER COLMENARES is suing in his capacity as a citizen, in accordance with Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. His office address is at Third Floor, Erythrina Building, No. 1 Matatag cor. Maaralin Sts., Central District, Quezon City, Philippines where he may be served notices, orders, resolutions, judgment and other court processes. 11. Petitioner ATTY. JULIUS GARCIA MATIBAG is suing in his capacity as a citizen, in accordance with Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. His office address is at Third Floor, Erythrina Building, No. 1 Matatag cor. Maaralin Sts., Central District, Quezon City, Philippines where he may be served notices, orders, resolutions, judgment and other court processes. 12. Petitioner ATTY. EPHRAIM B. CORTEZ is suing in his capacity as a citizen, in accordance with Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. His office address is at Third Floor, Erythrina Building, No. 1 Matatag cor. Maaralin Sts., Central District, Quezon City, Philippines where he may be served notices, orders, resolutions, judgment and other court processes. 5

13. Petitioner ATTY. JOBERT ILARDE PAHILGA is suing in his capacity as a citizen, in accordance with Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. His office address is at Third Floor, Erythrina Building, No. 1 Matatag cor. Maaralin Sts., Central District, Quezon City, Philippines where he may be served notices, orders, resolutions, judgment and other court processes. 14. Petitioner ATTY. VOLTAIRE B. AFRICA is suing in his capacity as a citizen, in accordance with Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. His office address is at Third Floor, Erythrina Building, No. 1 Matatag cor. Maaralin Sts., Central District, Quezon City, Philippines where he may be served notices, orders, resolutions, judgment and other court processes. 15. Petitioner BAYAN MUNA REPRESENTATIVE SATUR C. OCAMPO is suing in his capacity as a citizen, in accordance with Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. His office address is at Ramon V. Mitra Building, House of Representatives, Batasan Hills, Quezon City, Philippines where he may be served notices, orders, resolutions, judgment and other court processes. 16. Petitioner GABRIELA WOMEN’S PARTY REPRESENTATIVE LIZA L. MAZA is suing in her capacity as a citizen, in accordance with Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Her office address is at South Wing Building, House of Representatives, Batasan Hills, Quezon City, Philippines where she may be served notices, orders, resolutions, judgment and other court processes. 17. Petitioner

BAGONG

ALYANSANG

MAKABAYAN

(BAYAN)

SECRETARY

GENERAL RENATO M. REYES is suing in her capacity as a citizen, in accordance with Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. His office address is at Fourth Floor, Erythrina Building, No. 1 Matatag cor. Maaralin Sts., Central District, Quezon City, Philippines where he may be served notices, orders, resolutions, judgment and other court processes. 6

18. Petitioner ANTHONY IAN CRUZ is suing in his capacity as a citizen, in accordance with Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. His office address is at 2633 Sandejas St., Malate, Manila, Philippines where he may be served notices, orders, resolutions, judgment and other court processes.

THE RESPONDENTS 19. Respondent PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO issued Proclamation No. 1959 on December 4, 2009. Respondent’s office address is at Malacañang Palace, Mendiola, Manila, Philippines where she may be served notices, orders, resolutions, judgment and other court processes. 20. Respondent EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA signed Proclamation No. 1959 under the authority of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Respondent’s office address is at Malacañang Palace, Mendiola, Manila, Philippines where he may be served notices, orders, resolutions, judgment and other court processes. 21. Respondent GENERAL VICTOR S. IBRADO is the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines tasked to implement and continued to implement Proclamation No. 1959. Respondent’s office address is at the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo, EDSA, Quezon City, Philippines where he may be served notices, orders, resolutions, judgment and other court processes. 22. Respondent CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT JESUS A. VERZOSA is the Director General of the Philippine National Police tasked to implement and continued to implement Proclamation No. 1959. Respondent’s office address is at the Philippine National Police, Camp Crame, EDSA corner Boni Serrano Avenue, Quezon City, Philippines where he may be served notices, orders, resolutions, judgment and other court processes.

7

23. Respondent

DEPARTMENT

OF

JUSTICE

SECRETARY

AGNES

VST

DEVANADERA is the chief of the prosecutorial service in the Philippines tasked to prosecute the accused in the Ampatuan town massacre, and is justifying the issuance of Proclamation No. 1959. Respondent’s office address is at the Department of Justice, Padre Faura, Manila, Philippines where she may be served notices, orders, resolutions, judgment and other court processes. 24. Respondent LIEUTENANT GENERAL RAYMUNDO B. FERRER is the Commanding Officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines Eastern Mindanao Command, the highest military official in Central Mindanao who has carried out the implementation of Proclamation No. 1959 and has taken over the provincial capitol of Maguindanao as the province’s administrator. Respondent’s present office address is at the Provincial Capitol, Province of Maguindanao, Philippines where he may be served notices, orders, resolutions, judgment and other court processes.

STATEMENT OF FACTS 25. At about 9:00 AM on November 23, 2009, a convoy of seven vehicles carrying the wife and relatives of Buluan town, Maguindanao vice mayor Esmael Mangudadatu, journalists and media workers, and lawyers left Buluan town to file Mangudadatu’s certificate of candidacy as governor at the Commission on Elections office in Shariff Aguak, capital of Maguindanao. 26. At about 10:00 AM, the convoy was accosted by a group of about one hundred (100) heavily armed men at a checkpoint in Sitio Malating, Ampatuan town, Maguindanao. 27. The leader of the heavily armed group was identified by witnesses as Datu Unsay town, Maguindanao mayor Andal Ampatuan Jr., a son of Maguindanao governor Andal Ampatuan Sr. and a brother of Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao governor Zaldy Ampatuan. 28. Several hours later, search and rescue operations have been conducted by authorities to locate the whereabouts of said innocent civilians. It was later on reported that all had seemed to 8

have been slaughtered by the heavily armed men in what is dubbed as the “Maguindanao massacre” or the “Ampatuan town massacre”. 29. For several days, the bodies of the massacre victims had been retrieved in a mass grave located in a hill in Ampatuan town around 2.5 kilometers from the checkpoint where the innocent victims were forcibly abducted. 30. As of the filing of this petition, fifty-seven bodies had already been retrieved including the wife, sister and relatives of vice mayor Mangudadatu, at least thirty (30) journalists and media workers, two (2) female lawyers, and scores of women and innocent civilians who were merely passing by the area when the abduction happened. The two (2) female lawyers included in the massacre, Atty. Concepcion Brizuela and Atty. Cynthia Oquendo, were active members of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) and Union of Peoples’ Lawyers in Mindanao (UPLM), both human rights law groups. Atty. Brizuela was the UPLM treasurer at the time of her untimely demise. 31. The manner by which the innocent victims were slaughtered could hardly be imagined, as it was done in the most gruesome and horrifying ways. 32. International media organizations have called the massacre as having the most number of journalists killed in a single day anywhere in the world. 33. The entire Filipino nation and international community have condemned the massacre in the strongest possible terms and a demand for justice for the victims has become the daily rallying cry up to this day. 34. On November 24, 2009, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 1946 declaring a state of emergency in Central Mindanao particularly the provinces of Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat and the City of Cotabato.

9

35. Proclamation No. 1946 stated that the purpose of which is that “there is an urgent need to prevent and suppress the occurrence of similar other incidents of lawless violence in Central Mindanao.” 36. Section 2 of said proclamation states that, “The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) are hereby ordered to undertake such measures as may be allowed by the Constitution and by law to prevent and suppress all incidents of lawless violence in the said jurisdiction.” 37. It likewise added that the state of emergency covering the aforesaid provinces and city “shall remain in force and effect until lifted or withdrawn by the President.” As of the filing of this petition, such state of emergency continues to exist and is remained in force therein and has not yet been lifted or withdrawn by the President. 38. Since the issuance of Proclamation No. 1946 on November 24, 2009, countless military troops and police personnel have already been deployed in Maguindanao to secure the safety of its residents.

39. Three days after the carnage, Andal Ampatuan Jr. surrendered to Secretary Jesus Dureza, presidential adviser on the peace process, after several negotiations with the Ampatuan family. 40. A few days later, multiple murder charges had been filed against Andal Ampatuan Jr. 41. On December 3, 2009, military and police personnel acted on an information and discovered ‘high-powered weapons and ammunition cache’ from a vacant lot near the Ampatuan mansion in Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao. Some of the firearms and ammunitions bore the markings of “Department of National Defense Arsenal” and “PNP Camp Crame”. 42. On December 4, 2009, military and police personnel searched the Ampatuan mansion and they uncovered a hidden armory with ammunition cases likewise bearing the markings of “Department of National Defense Arsenal”. 10

43. On December 5, 2009, Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita announced the issuance of Proclamation No. 1959 dated December 4, 2009 proclaiming a state of martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the province of Maguindanao, except for certain areas. 44. The full text of Proclamation No. 1959 is as follows, thus:

“MALACAÑANG Manila PROCLAMATION NO. 1959 PROCLAIMING A STATE OF MARTIAL LAW AND SUSPENDING THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE PROVINCE OF MAGUINDANAO, EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN AREAS WHEREAS, Proclamation 1946 was issued on 24 November 2009 declaring a state of emergency in the provinces of Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat and the City of Cotabato for the purpose of preventing and suppressing lawless violence in the aforesaid areas; WHEREAS, Section 18 , Article VII of the Constitution provides that ” x x x In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety so requires it, (the President) 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, x x x” WHEREAS, R.A. No. 6986 provides that the crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of xxx depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.” WHEREAS, heavily armed groups in the province of Maguindanao have established positions to resist government troops, thereby depriving the Executive of its powers and prerogatives to enforce the laws of the land and to maintain public order and safety; WHEREAS, the condition of peace and order in the province of Maguindanao has deteriorated to the extent that the local judicial system and other government mechanisms in the province are not functioning, thus endangering public safety; WHEREAS, the Implementing Operational Guidelines of the GRP-MILF Agreement on the General Cessation of Hostilities dated 14 November 1997 provides the following is considered a prohibited act: “xxx establishment of checkpoints except those necessary for the GRP’s enforcement and maintenance of peace and order; and for the defense and security of the MILF in their identified areas, as jointly determined by the GRP and the MILF. xxx ”

11

NOW, THEREFORE, I , GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and by law, do hereby proclaim as follows: SECTION 1. There is hereby declared a state of martial law in the province of Maguindanao, except for the identified areas of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front as referred to in the Implementing Operational Guidelines of the GRPMILF Agreement on the General Cessation of Hostilities. SECTION 2. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall likewise be suspended in the aforesaid area for the duration of the state of martial law. DONE in the City of Manila, this 4th day of December in the year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Nine.

(Sgd.) PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO By the President: (Sgd.) EDUARDO R. ERMITA Executivge Secretary” (Emphasis supplied) A signed copy of Proclamation No. 1959 dated December 4, 2009 is attached hereto as Annex “A”. 45. Immediately after such announcement, several executive officials spoke in a nationally televised conference justifying the issuance of Proclamation No. 1959. Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera was quoted by the media as saying the following in said nationally televised conference as reasons for the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, thus: “We noticed and observed there was a rebellion in the offing. The local governments in the whole of Maguindanao had been removed from the legitimate authorities. Most of these local government units, even the municipal building especially, had closed down. They cease to render government services and there was massing massing in various parts of heavily armed men, government services in the province were no longer functioning, such as the judiciary system, several prosecutors in Maguindanao based in Cotabato City had gone on leave. What we’re saying is that hindi na sinusunod ‘yung [they are no longer following the] legitimate government authorities and dapat bukas ‘yung lahat ng tanggapan ng pamahalaan pero dun sa nakita natin ngayon, hindi na sinusunod yan, sarado na [that all government offices should be open but from what we’ve seen that is no longer followed, these are closed], which is practically removing from the legitimate constituted authority the allegiance of these units. 12

In effect, what’s happening there in Maguindanao is that there are groups of people who are taking their leadership to remove the allegiance of the people from the duly-constituted government. Dahil sa kanilang pananakot ay hindi na talaga pumapasok ‘yung tao so hindi na talaga sinusunod ang batas [Because of the fear being sowed, people no longer go to work, the law is no longer followed]. Hindi na sinusunod ang duly-constituted government, like the courts [The dulyconstituted government like the courts is no longer followed].” (Emphasis supplied) 46. On same date, by virtue of Proclamation No. 1959, about 4,000 troops and a dozen military tanks under the command of Lt. Gen. Raymundo B. Ferrer, commanding general of the Armed Forces of the Philippines Eastern Mindanao Command, had been fielded in Maguindanao. The provincial capitol of Maguindanao had formally been taken over by Lt. General Ferrer. 47. Several members of the Ampatuan family had been taken into custody by the military including Andal Ampatuan Sr., Maguindanao governor; Zaldy Ampatuan, Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao governor; Sajid Ampatuan, acting Maguindanao governor; Akmad Ampatuan, Maguindanao vice governor; and Shariff Aguak mayor Anwar Ampatuan along with ARMM Agriculture Secretary Keise Usman and Environment Secretary Kabuntalan Emblawa, Shariff Aguak councilor Paizal Sulaik and supporter Teopilo Chio. 48. Still on same date, Atty. Midas Marquez, Supreme Court deputy court administrator and spokesperson, issued statements to the media and took exception to the statements of Justice Secretary Devanadera that the court system was no longer functioning in Maguindanao, thus: “This is far from a picture of a non-performing judicial system,” Atty. Marquez was quoted as saying in the Philippine Daily Inquirer. Atty. Marquez added that Judge Melanio Guerrero of the Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat, Regional Trial Court, has already issued a commitment order and set a hearing for the bail petition of Mayor Andal Ampatuan, Jr. of Datu Unsay who has been charged with murder, and that Judge Guerrero also already submitted his comment to the Supreme Court in connection with the government’s request for a change of venue that would transfer the proceedings from Cotabato. Kidapawan Regional Trial Court Judge Francis Palmones, Jr. also issued the search warrants that made the raid on the residences of the Ampatuans possible on December 4, 2009. 13

“The information I received from the field is that the trial court has issued a commitment order, a hearing for the petition for bail has been set for Monday (December 7, 2009).” No less than six search warrants have been issued with other applications still being studied by the trial court, and even on weekends.”

Atty. Marquez confirmed the threats against judges and court personnel but denied they have fled or shirked away from their duties, and said “That’s not true.” Marquez said that the Cotabato Regional Trial Court Branch 15 that has jurisdiction over Shariff Aguak area was vacant. Atty. Marquez added that the substitute judge for Branch 15 was a former father-inlaw of one of the Ampatuans and, thus, couldn’t handle the case. As such, Chief Justice Reynato Puno ordered Tacurong Judge Guerrero to take over Branch 15 and the multiple murder charges against Andal, Jr. 49. On December 6, 2009, Justice Secretary Devanadera informed the media that the members of the Ampatuan clan taken into custody would be charged with rebellion in connection with the ‘high-powered arms and ammunition cache’ that were found. 50. As of the filing of this petition, however, no arrest or even a single encounter has happened between military troops and the so-called “heavily armed groups in the province of Maguindanao that have established positions to resist government troops, thereby depriving the Executive of its powers and prerogatives to enforce the laws and to maintain public order and safety” claimed by Malacañang to be present in the province and used as a reason in the issuance of Proclamation No. 1959. 51. The presence of the so-called “heavily armed groups in the province of Maguindanao that have established positions to resist government troops” has not been confirmed by sources other than by mere bare statements from military and executive officials. And yet despite such pronouncements and with the immediate presence of thousands of military soldiers in full-battle gears, no arrest or even a single encounter against these “heavily armed groups” has happened since November 23, 2009, the day of the massacre, and up to this date. 14

This raises serious doubts as to the truth and veracity of Malacañang’s claim about the presence of these “heavily armed groups that have established positions to resist government troops.” 52. Proclamation No. 1959 has been issued absent the existence of actual ‘invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it’ which are the only grounds clearly and categorically spelled under the 1987 Philippine Constitution for the valid proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. 53. Proclamation No. 1959 adversely affects and places in great prejudice and serious jeopardy the Filipino people’s cry for justice for the fifty-seven (57) innocent civilians, women, journalists and lawyers slaughtered in the Ampatuan town massacre allegedly masterminded by the powerful Ampatuans of Maguindanao. Hence, this Petition.

GROUNDS

I. RESPONDENTS HAVE COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN THE ISSUANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PROCLAMATION NO. 1959 ABSENT THE EXISTENCE OF ACTUAL ‘INVASION OR REBELLION, WHEN THE PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES IT’ WHICH ARE THE ONLY GROUNDS CLEARLY AND CATEGORICALLY SPELLED UNDER THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION FOR THE VALID PROCLAMATION OF MARTIAL LAW AND SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. II. THE ISSUANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PROCLAMATION NO. 1959 ADVERSELY AFFECTS AND PLACES IN GREAT PERIL AND SERIOUS JEOPARDY THE FILIPINO PEOPLE’S CRY FOR JUSTICE FOR THE FIFTY-SEVEN (57) INNOCENT CIVILIANS, WOMEN, JOURNALISTS AND LAWYERS SLAUGHTERED IN THE AMPATUAN TOWN MASSACRE ALLEGEDLY MASTERMINDED BY THE POWERFUL AMPATUANS OF MAGUINDANAO. 15

DISCUSSION

I. RESPONDENTS HAVE COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN THE ISSUANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PROCLAMATION NO. 1959 ABSENT THE EXISTENCE OF ACTUAL ‘INVASION OR REBELLION, WHEN THE PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES IT’ WHICH ARE THE ONLY GROUNDS CLEARLY AND CATEGORICALLY SPELLED UNDER THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION FOR THE VALID PROCLAMATION OF MARTIAL LAW AND SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. The proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the province of Maguindanao has no factual basis, thus Proclamation No. 1959 has been issued and continued to be implemented in violation of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Therefore, Proclamation No. 1959 is patently illegal and unconstitutional. 54. The pertinent provision of the 1987 Philippine Constitution with respect to the commanderin-chief powers of the President – the provision which, according to constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., is the “fountainhead of martial rule” – is found under Article VII, Section 18, thus: “ARTICLE VII EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT Section 18. 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. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. 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.

16

The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call. 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 of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. 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 of habeas corpus. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus 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 of habeas corpus, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.” (Emphasis supplied) 55. The foregoing provision is clear and unequivocal – a proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be made only ‘in case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.’ Thus, it depends on two factual bases: first, the existence of invasion or rebellion, and second, the requirements of public safety. Thus, absent any of said factual bases, it is a violation of the highest constitutional order to proclaim martial law and suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, as these are extraordinary powers of extraordinary nature applicable only in extraordinary situations where restrictions of fundamental freedoms may be sanctioned. 56. The fact that these extraordinary powers must be exercised by the president with utmost caution and prudence cannot be overemphasized. During the period within which the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended, any person arrested may be detained within a period of three (3) days without even being judicially charged. Thus, the need for the factual bases of the existence of an actual invasion or rebellion and the requirements of public safety, and not a mere speculation, belief, reports, or bare statements of alleged presence of heavily armed men. 17

57. As to Proclamation No. 1959, petitioners most humbly submit that the same is not founded on any factual basis mandated by the 1987 Philippine Constitution, for the following reasons: (a) The full text of Proclamation No. 1959 itself fails to state any sufficient factual basis for the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; (b) There is no actual and existing invasion or rebellion in the area covered by Proclamation No. 1959; (c) The public safety in the area covered by Proclamation No. 1959 can be ensured even without the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Thus, public safety does not require such proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

The full text of Proclamation No. 1959 itself fails to state any sufficient factual basis for the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. 58. It is noteworthy to highlight the “whereas clauses” of Proclamation No. 1959 to determine whether on its text itself it presents sufficient factual basis for the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, thus its fourth and fifth whereas clauses citing the alleged reasons:

“WHEREAS, heavily armed groups in the province of Maguindanao have established positions to resist government troops, thereby depriving the Executive of its powers and prerogatives to enforce the laws of the land and to maintain public order and safety; WHEREAS, the condition of peace and order in the province of Maguindanao has deteriorated to the extent that the local judicial system and other government mechanisms in the province are not functioning, thus endangering public safety;” (Emphasis supplied)

18

59. That is all there is to it. Proclamation No. 1959 did not even bother to state the particulars about the identity, extent and purpose or purposes, if any, of these alleged “heavily armed groups’. How could the Filipino people ascertain whether the president is indeed telling the truth? How could the Filipino people ascertain whether there is indeed “presence of heavily armed groups” in said area? 60. The president has invoked the highest and extraordinary powers under the commander-inchief powers – the powers to proclaim martial law and suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus – in the issuance of Proclamation No. 1959. And mere bare allegations about the alleged “presence of heavily armed groups in the province of Maguindanao” are utterly insufficient and deficient as factual basis for the exercise of such powers. 61. Moreover, bare allegations about the alleged “presence of heavily armed groups in the province of Maguindanao” do not necessarily mean that there is already an actual and existing rebellion in the area covered by Proclamation No. 1959. Without specifying the intent of these alleged “heavily armed groups”, granting arguendo that these groups indeed exist, there is no way to determine whether there is indeed rebellion in the area covered by Proclamation No. 1959. It is elementary in criminal law that penal laws are strictly construed against the government and interpreted liberally in favor of the accused. Thus, mere bare allegations about the alleged presence of “heavily armed groups” bereft of any specificity do not constitute rebellion. Thus, mere bare allegations under Proclamation No. 1959 about the alleged presence of “heavily armed groups in the province of Maguindanao” are utterly insufficient and deficient as factual basis for the exercise of such highest and extraordinary powers. 62. Besides, the presence of the so-called “heavily armed groups in the province of Maguindanao that have established positions to resist government troops” has not been confirmed by sources other than by mere bare statements from military and executive officials. And despite 19

such pronouncements and with the immediate presence of thousands of military soldiers in full-battle gears since Proclamation No. 1946 was issued on November 24, 2009 and up to this date, no arrest or even a single encounter between the military and these alleged “heavily armed groups” has happened. Thus, this fact raises serious doubts as to the truth and veracity of Malacañang’s claim about the presence of these alleged “heavily armed groups that have established positions to resist government troops.” 63. Furthermore, mere bare allegations under Proclamation No. 1959 about the alleged “deterioration of the condition of peace and order in Maguindanao to the extent that the local judicial system and other government mechanisms in said province are not functioning” are obviously completely not enough to establish an actual and existing rebellion. 64. Curiously, Atty. Midas Marquez, spokesperson and Deputy Administrator of the Supreme Court, has already refuted with clarity such allegations claimed by Proclamation No. 1959 by immediately clarifying matters to the media after the proclamation’s issuance. “The courts are well functioning in the province of Maguindanao,” this is the message of Atty. Marquez as elaborated in paragraph 41 hereof. Thus, glaringly unfounded, the allegations stated in Proclamation No. 1959 are absolutely and utterly insufficient and deficient as factual basis, much less to be considered a factual basis at all.

There is no actual and existing invasion or rebellion in the area covered by Proclamation No. 1959.

65. The third “whereas clause” of Proclamation No. 1959 has invoked the felony of rebellion by simply stating a portion of what said felony is, thus:

20

“WHEREAS, R.A. No. 6986 provides that the crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of xxx depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.” (Emphasis supplied)

66. Petitioners wish to point out that respondent President Arroyo has invoked a wrong law –

“R.A. No. 6986” – in the third whereas clause of Proclamation No. 1959. Republic Act No. 6986 is “AN ACT ESTABLISHING A HIGH SCHOOL IN BARANGAY DULOP, MUNICIPALITY OF DUMINGAG, PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR, TO BE KNOWN AS THE DULOP HIGH SCHOOL, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFORE.” 67. The gravamen of the felony of rebellion is the armed public uprising against the government, as clearly defined in Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, thus: “Article 134. Rebellion or insurrection; How committed. — The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by 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 Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.” (Emphasis supplied) 68. It must emphasized that Proclamation No. 1959 does not cover territories in the province of Maguindanao which are within the control and supervision of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). Such intent is clearly and categorically spelled in Proclamation No. 1959, thus:

“NOW, THEREFORE, I , GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and by law, do hereby proclaim as follows: SECTION 1. There is hereby declared a state of martial law in the province of Maguindanao, except for the identified areas of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front as referred to in the Implementing Operational Guidelines of the GRPMILF Agreement on the General Cessation of Hostilities. SECTION 2. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall likewise be suspended in the aforesaid area for the duration of the state of martial law.” (Emphasis supplied) 21

69. Thus, the rebellion being staged by the MILF is not covered by Proclamation No. 1959. And what is the alleged rebellion being invoked by Malacañang in Proclamation No. 1959 and which allegedly “deprives the Executive of its powers and prerogatives to enforce the laws of the land and to maintain public order and safety?” The truth is there is none, whether in law or in fact. 70. The element of the felony of rebellion invoked by Proclamation No. 1959 in its third whereas clause, that is, “depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives”, aside from the absence of an armed public uprising against the government, is not applicable. 71. Said element refers to either the “Chief Executive” or the “Legislature”. And the “Chief Executive” refers to the “President”. There was no instance since the Ampatuan town massacre happened that any of the powers or prerogatives of the President have been deprived to respondent President Arroyo. There was never such instance. 72. In fact, respondent President Arroyo already even invoked and exercised her “calling out powers” as commander-in-chief” of the Armed Forces of the Philippines by the issuance of Proclamation No. 1946 on November 24, 2009, a day after the Ampatuan town massacre. 73. Proclamation No. 1946 clearly and categorically states that, “There is an urgent need to prevent and suppress the occurrence of similar other incidents of lawless violence in Central Mindanao” and that, “The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) are hereby ordered to undertake such measures as may be allowed by the Constitution and by law to prevent and suppress all incidents of lawless violence in the said jurisdiction.” 74. It likewise added that the state of emergency covering the aforesaid provinces and city “shall remain in force and effect until lifted or withdrawn by the President.” And no such lifting or withdrawal thereof has been made by respondent President Arroyo as of the present date, thus, it continues to remain in force and effect. 22

75. So where is the deprivation of respondent President Arroyo’s powers or prerogatives? The glaring truth is there is none; there has never been such deprivation of any of the powers or prerogatives of respondent President Arroyo as the Chief Executive. 76. How could respondent President Arroyo be deprived of any of her powers or prerogatives as Chief Executive when she was able to successfully exercise her “calling out powers” by the issuance and implementation of Proclamation No. 1946 on November 24, 2009, a day immediately after the Ampatuan town massacre? 77. Respondent President Arroyo had even time to file her certificate of candidacy to run as member of the House of Representatives in next year’s elections after the Ampatuan town massacre. So where is such deprivation of powers or prerogatives? 78. The truth is in several pronouncements to the media by executive officials, particularly by Justice Secretary Devanadera, they merely “noticed and observed that there was a rebellion in the offing,” granting arguendo that the alleged mere presence of heavily armed groups, which presence is supported only by mere bare allegations, can be considered an act preparatory to rebellion at all. 79. Thus, such executive officials, though their own admission, have stated that there is no actual and existing rebellion in the area covered by Proclamation No. 1959 when the same was issued and implemented. The word “offing” means “in the near or immediate future” or “soon to come”. It means that no actual or existing rebellion has been happening yet, granting arguendo that such things can lead to rebellion in the first place. Thus, there is no way for respondent President Arroyo to be deprived of any of the powers or prerogatives by mere incidents, if they do exist, that are simply in the offing and have not yet taken place. 80. Verily, no rebellion, actual and existing, is happening in the area covered by Proclamation No. 1959. Aside from the absence of the gravamen of an armed public uprising against the government, any of the purposes of the felony of rebellion is absent in the area covered by Proclamation No. 1959, whether in law or in fact. 23

The public safety in the area covered by Proclamation No. 1959 can be ensured even without the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Thus, public safety does not require such proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. 81. The proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus are utterly not necessary to ensure public safety in the area covered by Proclamation No. 1959. 82. At this point, petitioners most humbly submit that the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus are not a substitute for any incompetence of the police in the conduct of their work and investigation, or in the gathering, preservation and evaluation of evidence. More importantly, the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus are not a substitute for the incompetence of the authorities in the immediate arrest and detention of the ‘butchers’ in the Ampatuan town massacre. 83. The proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus are intended only against an actual or existing invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it. The proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus are not intended to be used in solving multiple murder crimes. 84. Petitioners wish to reiterate, for fear of being redundant, that respondent President Arroyo already exercised her “calling out powers” as commander-in-chief to prevent lawlessness and violence in the province of Maguindanao by the issuance of Proclamation No. 1946 dated November 24, 2009, immediately a day after the Ampatuan town massacre. And such “calling out” of the Armed Forces of the Philippines continues to remain in force and effect up to this date. 24

85. And by virtue of such Proclamation No. 1946, thousands of military troops were deployed in the province of Maguindanao precisely to prevent or suppress any lawlessness or violence or even a supposed rebellion, if Malacañang is determined to insist that such a rebellion is taking place in the area. 86. By virtue of such exercise of the “calling out powers”, the military and police have the necessary means to prevent or suppress any lawlessness or violence or even a Malacañang insisted rebellion, whether real or imaginary. In fact, even without exercising such “calling out powers”, the military and police personnel have the duty to prevent or suppress any lawlessness or violence. 87. Thus, there is no need for the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus to ensure public safety in the area covered by Proclamation No. 1959. Public safety does not require such proclamation and suspension as the exercise of respondent President Arroyo’s “calling out powers” is more than enough to prevent or suppress any lawlessness or violence in the area covered by Proclamation No. 1959. The exercise of respondent President Arroyo’s “calling out powers” is more than enough for the military and the police to bring back the rule of law in the area covered by Proclamation No. 1959, if such lawlessness and violence continue to persist. 88. Are the military and the police saying that they could not assert the rule of law in the area covered by Proclamation No. 1959 under respondent President Arroyo’s “calling out powers” and could do so only under respondent President Arroyo’s “martial law powers” and “power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus”? This is an excuse too lame and shallow. 89. In engaging heavily armed groups in combat, does it take “martial law powers” and “power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus” to carry a soldier’s rifle and fire a trigger? 25

Indeed, the exercise of the “martial law powers” and “power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus” in the area covered by Proclamation No. 1959 has more than meets the eye. Based on the circumstances of the state of things, it appears now that said highest and extraordinary powers – “martial law powers” and “power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus” – have been invoked and exercised by respondent President Arroyo not to prevent or suppress any lawlessness or violence, much less to crash an imaginary rebellion, but for reasons respondent President Arroyo is not amenable to disclose to the public. 90. Besides, the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus has become more suspect as the same were made after the military and the police have already confiscated the “heavy arms and ammunition cache” bearing the markings “Department of National Defense Arsenal” and “PNP Camp Crame”. Since those “high-powered arms and ammunition cache” came from the military and the police themselves, then it is reasonably fair to conclude that it is the military and the police that are causing the lawlessness and violence in said area. 91. And we must emphasize, lest we inadvertently fail to notice it, not a single reference about the Ampatuan town massacre has been made in the full text of Proclamation No. 1959. Not a single reference. This is very significant considering the fact that when Proclamation No. 1959 has been implemented, the “heavily armed groups” cited as reason by Proclamation No. 1959 were not the ones engaged in by the military and the police, but rather the alleged masterminds of the Ampatuan town massacre. 92. Again, for fear of being redundant, the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus are not a substitute for any incompetence of the police

26

in the conduct of their work and investigation, or in the gathering, preservation and evaluation of evidence. The proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus are not a substitute for the incompetence of the authorities in the immediate arrest and detention of the ‘butchers’ in the Ampatuan town massacre. 93. Verily, the exercise by respondent President Arroyo of “martial law powers” and “power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus” has created more questions than answers, and has roused suspicions than confidence. 94. Indeed, respondent President Arroyo is testing the outer limits of the Constitution; the president is playing fire with fundamental freedoms by placing the military above civilian authorities. 95. This is a brazen violation of the 1987 Philippine Constitution as to the constitutionally sanctioned effects of the proclamation of martial law, thus: “ARTICLE VII EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT Section 18. xxx. xxx. 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 of habeas corpus.” (Emphasis supplied) 96. Thus, absent any factual basis for the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the province of Maguindanao, as invasion or rebellion and requirements of public safety are lacking, Proclamation No. 1059 is patently illegal and unconstitutional.

27

II. THE ISSUANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PROCLAMATION NO. 1959 ADVERSELY AFFECTS AND PLACES IN GREAT PERIL AND SERIOUS JEOPARDY THE FILIPINO PEOPLE’S CRY FOR JUSTICE FOR THE FIFTY-SEVEN (57) INNOCENT CIVILIANS, WOMEN, JOURNALISTS AND LAWYERS SLAUGHTERED IN THE AMPATUAN TOWN MASSACRE ALLEGEDLY MASTERMINDED BY THE POWERFUL AMPATUANS OF MAGUINDANAO. The prosecution of the ‘butchers’ in the Ampatuan town massacre has been put in great peril and serious jeopardy by the issuance and implementation of Proclamation No. 1959. 97. The slaughter of fifty-seven (57) innocent civilians, women, journalists and lawyers has become the torch that fueled the Filipino people’s desire for the dismantlement of warlords and private armies that have long been tolerated to exist by the ruling government officials. It is of public knowledge that the Ampatuans are a close political ally of respondent President Arroyo. Maguindanao governor Ampatuan Sr. and ARMM governor Zaldy Ampatuan were even inside the Malacañang Palace conversing with respondent President Arroyo at the time the Ampatuan town massacre happened. The president’s spokesperson has even stated in national television that even if the Ampatuans are being investigated for the Ampatuan town massacre, it does not mean that the president is no longer a friend to the Ampatuans. 98. It was in the province of Maguindanao where respondent President Arroyo obtained the more than one million votes she needed to win the 2004 presidential elections over close rival Fernando Poe Jr. Likewise, it was in the province of Maguindanao where documented reports of massive electoral fraud and cheating had happened during the 2004 and 2007 national elections. 99. The foregoing matters are necessary to state because those are the factual political milieu of the state of things between respondent President Arroyo and the Ampatuans. 28

100. The cry for justice for the victims of the Ampatuan town massacre is deafening. The grief and outrage of the Filipino people over such horrifying act of mass slaughter can hardly be imagined. And it is in this light that respondents may have thought that they themselves can do anything they want – banking on the Filipino people’s grief and outrage – to carry out hideous plans that merely serve their own selfish interests, the full scale of which is known only to the respondents. 101. The manner by which respondents have implemented Proclamation No. 1959 against the Ampatuans puts in serious jeopardy and great peril their prosecution as the alleged masterminds of the Ampatuan town massacre. As such, the cry for justice of the Filipino people is likewise placed in grave danger. 102. A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion. 103. The Ampatuans are believed to be behind the Ampatuan town massacre, a gruesome act which does not constitute rebellion but multiple murder. However, executive officials particularly Justice Secretary Devanadra have issued pronouncements to the media that the new members of the Ampatuan clan and several others that were taken into custody on December 5, 2009 by virtue of Proclamation No. 1959 would be charged with the crime of rebellion instead of multiple murder. 104. And since it is glaring that no such rebellion has been committed by the Ampatuans, a charge for rebellion shall surely fail. And acts of multiple murder may be absorbed in the crime of rebellion. This prosecutorial move after the issuance and implementation of Proclamation No. 1959 shall certainly weaken the prosecution of the Ampatuans as the alleged masterminds of the Ampatuan town massacre.

29

105. What the petitioners could not understand is the wisdom behind the planned filing of rebellion charges against the Ampatuans. Is Malacañang really serious in putting behind bars the perpetrators of the Ampatuan town massacre? 106. Moreover, the Ampatuans that were taken into custody last December 5, 2009 by virtue of Proclamation No. 1959 can easily question the manner by which they were arrested and detained. Said Ampatuans can easily escape any prosecution against them from any rebellion charges for the simple reason that they did not commit any rebellion and that no such rebellion has ever been committed by them. This is not the way things should have been handled as regards the prosecution of the masterminds of the Ampatuan town massacre. 107. Worse, a top military official, Maj. Gen. Guadencio Pangilinan, vice chief of staff for operations, has even recommended that Proclamation No. 1959 be extended to cover the May 2010 elections. This latest development paves the way for the Filipino people to seriously start thinking that Proclamation No. 1959 is a mere first step towards placing the entire country under martial law. 108. The Honorable Court is very much aware of our dreadful experience during the dictatorship of the late strongman Ferdinand E. Marcos. And when the Filipino people have said ‘Never again to martial law’, they really mean ‘Never’ and nothing less. Once again, the Honorable Court is solemnly asked through the instant petition to perform its sacred constitutional duty of protecting the fundamental freedoms of the Filipino people. It is on this prayer that the instant petition is brought to the Honorable Supreme Court of the Philippines.

30

PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioners most respectfully pray of the Honorable Court the following: 1. That this Petition be given due course; 2. That a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Preliminary Injunction be issued to restrain respondents from the continued implementation of Proclamation No. 1959 dated December 4, 2009; 3. That after notice and hearing, a final order is issued: (a) Declaring Proclamation No. 1959 dated December 4, 2009 as unconstitutional and void; and (b) Enjoining respondents from the continued implementation of Proclamation No. 1959 dated December 4, 2009.

Petitioners likewise pray for such other reliefs as are just and equitable under the circumstances. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Quezon City for Manila, December 7, 2009.

NATIONAL UNION OF PEOPLES’ LAWYERS Third Floor, Erythrina Building, No. 1 Matatag cor. Maaralin Sts., Central District, Quezon City (02) 920.6660, (02) 927.2812

31

JULIUS GARCIA MATIBAG Counsel for Petitioners Roll of Attorneys No. 55254 IBP 773865, 03-30-09, Oriental Mindoro PTR 2598006, 01-13-09, Oriental Mindoro Admitted to Bar, 2008 MCLE not yet required

JOBERT ILARDE PAHILGA Counsel of Petitioners Roll of Attorneys No. 48289 IBP 786606, 03-18-09, Antique PTR 0822551, 01-26-09, Navotas MCLE Compliance No. II-0012413, 09-08-2008

EPHRAIM B. CORTEZ Counsel of Petitioners Roll of Attorneys No. 41366 IBP 786805, 03-26-09, Isabela PTR 1698205, 04-08-09, Quezon City MCLE Compliance No. II-0008441

VOLTAIRE B. AFRICA Counsel for Petitioners Roll of Attorneys No. 57095 IBP 788279, 04-14-09, Batangas PTR 0811729, 05-20-09, Lipa City, Batangas Admitted to Bar, 2009 MCLE not yet required

Copy furnished: Through Registered Mail PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO Malacañang Palace, Mendiola Manila, Philippines EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA Malacañang Palace, Mendiola Manila, Philippines

32

GENERAL VICTOR S. IBRADO Chief of Staff Armed Forces of the Philippines Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo EDSA, Quezon City, Philippines CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT JESUS A. VERZOSA Director General Philippine National Police Camp Crame, EDSA corner Boni Serrano Avenue Quezon City, Philippines SECRETARY AGNES VST DEVANADERA Department of Justice Padre Faura, Manila, Philippines LIEUTENANT GENERAL RAYMUNDO B. FERRER Commanding Officer Armed Forces of the Philippines Eastern Mindanao Command SOLICITOR GENERAL OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OSG Bldg., 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City

EXPLANATION FOR SERVICE OF PETITION THROUGH REGISTERED MAIL The service of copies of the instant Petition is made through registered mail. Pursuant to Rule 13, Section 11 of the Rules of Court, the service of copies of the instant Petition cannot be made personally due to distance and lack of available personnel.

JULIUS GARCIA MATIBAG

33