Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila City

Human Rights Advocate Coalition (HRAC) et. al.,

Petitioner,

-versus- CASE NO. x-xxxx

Executive Secretary et. al.,

Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM

PROFESSORS FROM ATENEO LAW SCHOOL AS AMICUS CURIAE IN

FAVOR OF THE PETITIONERS, through the undersigned counsels, unto this Honorable
Supreme Court most respectfully submit and present this Memorandum in the above-titled case
and aver that:
 The Parties
2. Petitioners are Human Rights Advocates Coalition (HRAC), counsels representing
Ombudswoman Morales and other political detainees, and a professor from the Ateneo Law
School (Professor X) serving as amicus curiae in favor of the petitioners.
3. Respondents are from the Office of the Solicitor General, the Judge Advocate General Office
of the military, and a retired Justice of the Supreme Court serving as amicus curiae in favor of
the respondents.
I. Factual Background
1. The petitions are of prohibition, mandamus, and habeas corpus, all related to Proclamation
100081 where President Duterte declared martial law and declared a revolutionary government.
The remedy of prohibition is directed at the Executive Secretary and other officials to restrain
them from implementing Proc. 100081; the remedy of mandamus is directed at Congress,
through for the latter to revoke the proclamation of martial law; and the writ of habeas corpus is
being requested so that people ordered arrested by the President, as an incident to martial law,
are immediately released.
2. The following are agreed facts of the case:

 On New Year’s Eve, January 1, 2018, bombs in the cities of Manila, Davao, and Cebu
were detonated simultaneously, killing over 500 people in the three places. There is no
certainty who detonated the bombs in Manila and Davao but definitely it has been
established that the bombs in Cebu were the handiwork of drug lords taking revenge
against the government for those in their ranks who have been killed in the war against
drugs. As of the time of the oral arguments, the government has not yet been able to
establish with certainty that the Manila and Davao bombings were also planned and
executed by the same drug lords. It also has not ruled out the possibility that the bombs
were planted by other groups with political agendas, including the overthrow of the
government.
 The bombings happened in a tense moment politically for the Philippines. While the
peace processes have been progressing, there was a major encounter between the NPA
and the military on December 26, 2017 during the founding anniversary of the
Communist Party of the Philippines. 30 soldiers and 23 rebels were killed in that firefight
and partisans in both sides are calling for the end of the peace processed. In addition, the
MILF and the military also had tense moments in Maguindanao, threatening the ceasefire
between the two camps. In the meantime, elements of the IS have regrouped after the
Marawi siege and is about to strike another city.
 The Presidential Security Group has also monitored a growing number of politicians and
military officials upset with reports about the corruption of the Duterte family.. So far,
these officials have done nothing but hold public forums where they are discussing their
 grievances and options. But things have escalated since November 30, 2017 after the
Ombudsman released its findings that indeed Duterte has hidden wealth and that the huge
sums that were not reported in the President’s SALN come from gambling and smuggling
interests based in Davao.
 To complicate matters, after months of calmness, the West Philippine Sea dispute has
flared up again and the Chinese coast guard has moved in once again to restrict the
fishing activities of Filipino fisherfolk in Panatag Shoal.
 On January 3, 2018, three days after the bombing, the President issues Proclamation
100081 on the basis of “invasion and rebellion”. Among others, in the same proclamation
he orders the military to arrest prominent Filipinos led by the Ombudsman and the Chief
Justice and to also detain military officials who has been conducting meetings against his
government. Drug lords have also been identified to be arrested and detained based on
existing warrants. Those orders have been carried out but there are still several people
that are at large. It should be noted that in the proclamation, the president has not
suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
 To facilitate the filing of charges, the President has ordered that the cases of illegal
assembly be filed temporarily in military courts against the detained politicians and
military officials. Such charges have been filed as of January 15, 2018.
 The president also orders the closure of all media outlets and its take over to be used for
the public information needs of the government. The same order has been extended to
public utilities, including all telecommunication services.
 Although required by the Constitution to convene within 24 hours of the declaration of
martial law, both the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Senate President
still has not called their members back to Manila as of January 15, 2087. The two have
decided to wait until the Christmas recess is officially over, which will be on January 24,
2018.
 The petitions are filed on January 10, 2018 and the oral arguments are scheduled for
January 15, 2018.

4. Remedies requested:

 A declaration that Proclamation 100081 is unconstitutional.

 A Prohibition order prohibiting the Executive Secretary and other officials from
implementing Proc. 100081 and all related issuances, including the arrest and detention
orders, the take overs of media, public utilities, and telecommunication services, and the
establishment of military courts.
 A Mandamus order to the Speaker and the Senate President to convene Congress in joint
session immediately to vote to revoke or ratify the martial law declaration
 A habeas corpus order to release the Ombudswoman, Chief Justice, and all detainees.
 II. ISSUES

 Can the Supreme Court review Proc. 100081 or is this a political question outside the
power of the Court? Can the Supreme Court order the Congress to convene to revoke or
ratify the declaration of martial law/revolutionary government or is this also a political
question?
 Is 100081 constitutional a proper exercise of the commander in chief power of the
president to declare martial law/a revolutionary government? Based on the facts agreed,
is there sufficient basis for such declaration?
 Is the provision mandating Congress to convene within 24 hours after the declaration of
martial law mandatory or simply directory?
 Is the order to detain the Ombudsman and the anti-Duterte military officials valid? Can
such arrests and detention be done legally as a consequence of a martial
law/revolutionary government declaration or does this require also a suspension of the
privilege of habeas corpus?
 Assuming that the arrests and detention can be done legally with the declaration of
martial law/revolutionary, is the filing of charges of illegal assembly in military courts
sufficient to keep the Ombudsman, Chief Justice, and others in detention.
 Is the creation of temporary military courts a valid exercise of the martial
law/revolutionary government power?
 Are the takeovers of media, public utilities and telecommunication services valid
exercises of the martial law/revolutionary government power?
 III. Arguments and Disussion
Can the Supreme Court review Proc. 100081 or is this a political question outside the
power of the Court? Can the Supreme Court order the Congress to convene to revoke or
ratify the declaration of martial law/revolutionary government or is this also a political
question?
The Supreme Court may review Proclamation 100081.
According to Section 18, Article 7 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the President is
the Commander-in-Chief of all the 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. This is called the President’s ‘calling-out power.’ In case of invasion or rebellion, and
when public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty (60) days, suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial
law.1
Within forty-eight (48) hours from such proclamation, the Congress, voting jointly, by a
vote of at least a majority of all its Members, may revoke such proclamation or suspension. The
President has no power to disregard such revocation. However, upon the initiative of the
President, the Congress may 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.2
The Supreme Court may review the sufficiency of factual bases available to the President
of the Philippines at the time when the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the writ
of habeas corpus was made. However, the Supreme Court may not immediately review such
proclamation, as a petition must first be submitted to them by any citizen of the Philippines,
questioning it. According to the case of Lagman v. Medialdea, the Supreme Court possesses the
power to declare the proclamation as void from the very beginning, depending on how they
would appreciate the sufficiency of factual bases given by the President.3
Proclamation 100081 concerns itself with the President’s declaration of Martial Law.
Given that according to Section 18, Article 7 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution specifically
states that the proclamation of martial law may be reviewed by the Supreme Court in an

1
PHIL. CONST. art. VII, §18
2
PHIL. CONST. art. VII, §18
3
Lagman v. Medialdea, 231658, July 4, 2017, available at
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr_231658_2017.html (last accessed December 6, 2017).
appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen of the Philippines, it can then be considered as a sui
generis justiciable issue and not merely a political question.
According to Section 18, Article 7 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the Congress, if
not in session, shall, within twenty-four (24) hours following such proclamation or suspension,
convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call. This provision is automatic as it is
couched in mandatory form, which can be seen through the use of the word ‘shall.’ Using the
basic rules of statutory construction, the word ‘shall’ connotes the intention of the lawmakers to
make the law mandatory in nature. Therefore, it is the duty of the Congress to convene within
twenty-four (24) hours after such proclamation.
Since it is the duty of the Congress to convene within twenty-four (24) hours following
the President’s proclamation, their refusal to do so would result to grave abuse of discretion.
Under Section 1, Article 8 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, judicial power includes the duty
of the courts of justice to determine whether or not grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.4 Given
this, the Supreme Court may compel the Congress to exercise their constitutionally mandated
function when the latter fails to do so.
In the case of Fortun v. Arroyo, the Supreme Court stated that the constitutional validity
of the Presidents proclamation of martial law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is first a
political question in the hands of Congress before it becomes a justiciable one in the hands of the
Court.5 This ruling further reinforces the argument that the constitutionally mandated function of
the Congress to convene within twenty-four (24) hours after such proclamation, is mandatory.
However, the Supreme Court also stated that when Congress defaults in its express duty to
defend the Constitution through such review, it could step in as its final rampart to defend the
mandate granted by the Constitution.
Utilizing the Rawls’ approach and Sen’s critiques, it is only just that the Supreme Court,
which the ultimate defender of the Constitution, can review such proclamation. The declaration
of martial law is not merely something trivial but an act of the President which leaves the rights
of the country’s citizens open and prone to abuse. The only lifeline of the Filipino people
regarding their rights is the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. It can be gleaned from its
provisions the intention of its framers is to primarily defend the people’s rights, rights which are
expressly enumerated in its Article 3, the Bill of Rights.
Looking at these Constitutional safeguards through a Rawlsian lens, we drift back to the
‘original position’ and put on the ‘veil of ignorance.’ In that state of ignorance, all things must be
equal. Through this, it is truly just that there be a balance between the different powers of the
government, especially with regard to people’s rights.6 Given that the Executive has the power to

4
PHIL. CONST. art. VIII, §1.
5
Fortun v. Arroyo, 19023, March 20, 2012, available at
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/190293.htm (last accessed December 5, 2017).
declare martial law and the Legislative has the power to review such proclamation, it is only fair
that the Judiciary also be given a say in determining the validity of such proclamation, serving as
an additional check and balance to the Executive’s power.
Analyzing the facts of the case, the President’s declaration of martial law serves only as
his tool in hindering actions regarding the proven allegations of graft and corruption against him.
It can be gleaned from the events following the President’s declaration of martial law that his
intention by resulting to such proclamation was to silence those whom have gone against him,
especially those who have played an active role in proving his guilt, namely: the Ombudsman
and the Chief Justice.
According to Rawls’ Theory of Justice, there must be equal liberties, and that second,
inequalities can never be avoided. One the one hand, equal liberties states that basic liberties
must be equally distributed in a society. Basic rights of the people, namely: political liberty,
freedom of speech and assembly, and right to hold personal property. All of these are essential
for the freedom and autonomy of each and every man. On the other hand, inequalities, Rawls
claims that each person must benefit from any form inequality. Inequalities are always existent,
and although this may be the case, persons on the two different ends of the spectrum must always
stand to gain something from it. One person must not be left with nothing while the other gains
much more.7
Given Rawls’ approach, equal liberties and inequalities must be taken into account when
one goes back to the ‘original position’ and puts on the ‘veil of ignorance.’ In what other way
may these equal liberties and mutual gain in inequality be upheld when the Supreme Court
cannot check and balance the actions of the president, especially one regarding the declaration of
martial law, an act which undermines the rights of the citizens of the nation. By this very notion,
the Supreme Court is expressly granted the power to review the sufficiency of factual bases
available to the President at the time when he declared martial law through Section 18, Article 7.
This is considered as a safeguard against a possible injustice that may be committed by a person
of such high stature to the vast majority of the nation’s citizens.
Is 100081 constitutional a proper exercise of the commander in chief power of the president
to declare martial law/a revolutionary government? Based on the facts agreed, is there
sufficient basis for such declaration?
No, Proclamation 100081 is not a proper exercise of the Commander-in-Chief power of
the President to declare both Martial Law and Revolutionary government.
According to Sec 18 par. 1 of Art VII of the Constitution, the President may call upon the
armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion pursuant to his

6
John Rawls, The Theory of Justice 208, (1999 ed)
7
Rawls, supra note 6, at 216
position as Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. It is within President’s power to call upon
the armed forces and declare martial law whenever public safety requires it.
But since the question is whether proclamation 100081 is a “proper” exercise of the
commander-in-chief power of the president, we answer in the negative. Since basing on the facts
provided in this case, the proclamation can be construed as a way for President Duterte to detain
the Ombudsman due to the uncovering of the Ombudsman of the President’s hidden wealth and
his failure to include these in his SALN.
This would go against Rawls’ theory of justice. According to Rawls, inequality, if any,
must benefit the underprivileged, or the people that are in need the most.8 By proclaiming martial
law, inequality arises in the government due to the increase of power that would be given to the
president from the said declaration. This inequality does not benefit the underprivileged and
those that are in need of help at all. It merely gives the President absolute power to detain his
enemies and use the military for that same purpose. By declaring Martial Law, the President
gives itself enough power that could lead to corruption and further inequality in favor of himself
and his allies.
Rawls’ concept of justice requires that it should be given to all people, rich or poor. This
is why Rawls’ introduced the theory of veil of ignorance wherein in making a judgement, one
has to detach oneself from all the biases, prejudices, etc., in order to give a just and fair
judgement that would possibly benefit everyone. The president’s declaration of Martial law
therefore goes against the theory of Rawls on justice and veil of ignorance.
For the creation of a revolutionary government, the constitution does not confer upon the
president the power to declare a revolutionary government at times of “invasion and rebellion”.
Therefore, it is unconstitutional and prejudicial to the President.
Since the power to declare a revolutionary government is not within the discretion of the
president, President Duterte’s declaration of a revolutionary government has no legal basis at all.
Similar with the President’s possible intention for declaring Martial law, the declaration of a
revolutionary government can also be a way for the president to increase his power and dispose
of his enemies, such goes against the theory of Rawls regarding justice and fairness.
Is the provision mandating Congress to convene within 24 hours after the declaration of
martial law mandatory or simply directory?

The mandate for the Congress to convene within 24 hours after the declaration of martial law
is mandatory
The fact that the Senate President and the House Speaker did not call the members of the
Congress is clearly unconstitutional. According to Article VII, Section 18, paragraph 2 of the

8
Rawls, supra note 6, at 203.
1987 Constitution, “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.”9
Looking back on the intent of the Constitution, the purpose of automatic convening of the
Congress is to limit the powers of the President. The 1987 Constitution is known as a reactionary
constitution to protect the people from an authoritarian ruler like Ferdinand Marcos who abused
his power at the expense of his constituents. It provides the necessary safeguards to prevent the
repetition of such pains and struggles experienced by the people during the Martial Law Era.
This provision is one of those safeguards which should be upheld and followed.
Moreover, in examining the provision, the constitution construction of the same must be
interpreted as a mandatory. By virtue of the rules in statutory construction, there is no need for
construction when the provision itself is clear and unambiguous. Furthermore, the word “shall”
emanates its mandatory character.
According to John Rawls, as supported by Amartya Sen, justice is characterized by
fairness. It is comprised of two principles, liberty and equality. For them, it is the obligation of
the State to guarantee protection of the people’s rights to life, liberty, and property. Rawls
considers this as the most important priority that the society should take into fullest
consideration.10 The deprivation of these rights would result to disorder and injustice which are
the things that must be prevented. In connection to this, the refusal of the heads of the Congress
to convene with the other members of the Congress divests the people of their rights since
President Duterte granted himself a blanket authority to do anything without limitations such as
the arresting illegal assemblies and taking over all media outlets, public utilities, and
telecommunication services.
The automatic convening of Congress is important to check the facts and authority vested
to the President. Without such mechanism would enable the President to abuse his discretionary
powers which would deeply infringe the enjoyment of human rights and liberties.
Is the order to detain the Ombudsman and the anti-Duterte military officials valid? Can
such arrests and detention be done legally as a consequence of a martial law/revolutionary
government declaration or does this require also a suspension of the privilege of habeas
corpus?
No, the order to detain the Ombudsman and the anti-Duterte military officials are invalid.
First is the issue in relation to the declaration of martial law. According to the case of
Lagman v. Medialdea, the President is granted the power to order arrests and seizures without
judicial warrants.11 However, this power is not absolute. The declaration of martial law does not

9
PHIL. CONST. art. VII, §18, ¶2.
10
Rawls, supra note 6, at 214.
11
Lagman v. Medialdea, 231658, July 4, 2017, available at
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr_231658_2017.html (last accessed December 6, 2017).
suspend the Constitution, especially Article 3, the Bill of Rights. This means that rights during
arrest and detention remain active. Without the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus, the extended detention of the Ombudsman and anti-Duterte officials are invalid.
Second is the issue in relation to the declaration of a revolutionary government. The
President is want of power to declare a revolutionary government. It is an act that is not
recognized by the 1987 Philippine Constitution. In no way does the Constitution grant such
power to the President. With this, the President’s declaration of a revolutionary government and
his orders of arrests as a consequence of such act, is void.
It can be gleaned from the facts that from the acts of the President, his only intention for
declaring martial law/revolutionary government and ordering the arrest of dissenting officials are
to intimidate them into submission. It is meant as a preventive measure in order to enjoin them
from further pursuing actions against the President for his proven acts of graft and corruption.
With this, true justice cannot be achieved. Applying Rawls’ Theory of Justice, equal liberties and
mutual gain from inequality must always be fulfilled in attaining true justice.12 By drifting back
to the ‘original position’ and putting on the ‘veil of ignorance,’ there is no justice when a person
in power abuses his position in order to intimidate and evade the punishment that is due him. The
people’s liberties are being curtailed by such proclamation, and they are left with nothing if such
acts continue. The President stands to gain so much from ordering the arrest of the country’s
citizens who are merely exercising their power of free speech in bringing to light the crime that
the President has committed.
Incorporating Sen’s approach, there is all the more reason why the President’s actions
are not just. Sen’s comparative approach would see that there is indeed injustice committed on
the part of the President with regard to orders which are not sanctioned by the Constitution nor
by the declaration of martial law. By comparing this injustice toward the sentiment of the people,
whose rights are being curtailed as of the moment, it could be reasoned that truly, what is just in
the people’s minds through social deliberations must take precedence in order to weed out the
injustice committed by the President through his declaration of martial law. It is not enough that
we examine it through an impartial lens, but also take into account the differing opinions of those
whose rights have been curtailed, those who have been arrested just by exercising their free
speech, in attaining true justice.13
Assuming that the arrests and detention can be done legally with the declaration of martial
law/revolutionary, is the filing of charges of illegal assembly in military courts sufficient to
keep the Ombudsman, Chief Justice, and others in detention?
No, the filing of charges of illegal assembly in military courts is not sufficient to keep the
Ombudsman, Chief Justice, and others in detention. According to Sec 18 par. 4 of Art. VII of the
Constitution:

12
Rawls, supra note 6, at 107.
13
Amartya Sen, The Idea of Justice 103, (2009 ed)
 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
Sec 18 par. 4 of Art VII clearly states that the declaration of martial law does not “authorize the
conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are
able to function”. The clear intent of the constitution is that the declaration of martial law does
not and will not suspend the operation of the constitution as well as civil courts. Assuming
arguendo that the arrest and detention of the Ombudsman, the Chief Justice, and the other drug
lords are done legally, the charges against them must be filled not in a military court, but in a
civil court as the constitution clearly states.
Rawls’ theory on veil of ignorance states that one who makes political decisions sits behind a
veil of ignorance that keeps him from knowing who he is and identifying with his personal
circumstances. By being ignorant of his circumstances, that person can more objectively consider
how societies should operate.15 Applying Rawls’ theory in this case, if one is to sit behind a veil
of ignorance to decide whether the charges against these prominent Filipinos should be filed in a
civil court or a military court, it would be more in line with Rawls’ theory by choosing to file the
charges in a civil court rather than in a military court. At first, military courts do not have
jurisdiction over these people since court-marshals may only try military officials and soldiers.
Second, the constitution clearly intends to prevent such a case from occurring.

Is the creation of temporary military courts a valid exercise of the martial

law/revolutionary government power?

The creation of temporary military courts is an invalid exercise of the martial law power.
Accordingly, Article VIII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitutions states that only the Congress can
create courts.16 The provision provides that “the Congress shall have the power to define,
prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme
Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Sec. 5 hereof. No law shall be passed
reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its Members.”

The conferment of arrested illegal detainees to temporary military courts would deprive
the right to due process to the same. The military court does not have jurisdiction over them
unless the civil courts stop functioning. In this case, the operation of civil courts did not cease.
Therefore, the president’s order is invalid.

14
PHIL. CONST. art. VII, §18 para. 4
15
Veil of Ignorance. Ethics Unwrapped. Retrieved 6 December 2017, from
http://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/veil-of-ignorance
16
PHIL. CONST. art. VIII, §2.
 John Rawls stated that in order for justice to be achieved, rights and liberties must take
precedence above all things. By giving the military courts jurisdiction over civilians, it would
undermine the principle of civilian supremacy over the military which in turn may empower the
military to abuse their authority. The public still need to understand the situation and know the
nature of such declaration. Amartya Sen, on the other hand, opined that the President should
make a decision that would make the situation less unjust and not perfectly just. Sen accepts the
idea of making incomplete and imperfect decisions but he furthered that one must consider the
diverse interests of other people. In this case, the President should have established more facts
that would support his declaration as some of them are not at least confirmed to suffice the
reason for martial law and revolutionary government. The immediate declaration has
unfavourable consequences to the rights of the people.

Are the takeovers of media, public utilities and telecommunication services valid
exercises of the martial law/revolutionary government power?

The president’s order to close all media outlets and takeover public utilities and
telecommunication services is unconstitutional and without legal basis. The exercise of such
emergency powers is limited by the 1987 Constitution. These restrictions are provided in Article
VI, Section 23 which provides that in times of war or other national emergency, the Congress
may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it
may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy.
Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next
adjournment thereof.17 Since there was no law passed based on the facts, this means that the
exercise is invalid.
Assuming arguendo that the takeover is valid, the President still lacks basis in declaring
martial law and revolutionary government since actual invasion or rebellion was not established.
The reason behind these restrictions on the president is to check his/her overwhelming power
during the martial law. The 1987 Constitution balances the powers of the President for him/her to
re-examine his/her decisions. During martial law, the Constitution does not stop operating so the
rights of the people are still intact and inviolable according to Article VII, Section 18, par. 4
stating that “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 need
for second thoughts in taking over private businesses is essential to provide the people a valued
judgment as the right to information of the people are necessary for social stability and
cooperation.

17
PHIL. CONST. art. VI, §23, ¶2.
 According to Sen, in order to make good decisions, it is important that there is a
persistent room for reassessment and further scrutiny.18 In his social choice framework for
reasoning, allowing such checks and balances would be beneficiary not only to the public but
also to the president himself/herself. It would improve his/her decision-making during martial
keeping in mind its possible impact on the people. Although the discretion is on the president,
this discretion must not be left unchecked. To Sen, it would allow the President to make just
decisions if outsiders such as the other two branches, legislative and judiciary, carry their
mandates according to the Constitution in serving the interests of the people and protecting the
rights of the people.

PRAYER

18
Amartya Sen, supra note 13, at 107 (2009 ed)
A.) WHEREFORE, premise considered, it respectfully prayed for that this
Honorable Supreme Court that Petitioner’s prayer to declare Proclamation 100081 as
unconstitutional be GRANTED.

Respectfully submitted,

Makati City, Philippines. December 7, 2017.

Johann Angelo Bulatao

Fritz Paolo Casama
Nico Fabian