Martial Law RevGov UST Law Moot Court Instructions 2020

Constitutional Law
Martial Law/Revolutionary Government Moot Court Exercise
Human Rights Advocates Coalition et. al. vs Executive Secretary, Speaker

of House of Representatives, Senate President, AFP Chief of Staff,
PNP Chief, Secretary of Justice, et. al.
Note1: This is an academic exercise based on fictitious facts and current law.
The characters are real life people but the facts are completely made-up.
Note 2: Except for justiciability (whether or not the issues here are properly a
subject for judicial review), procedural and jurisdictional issues are not included
in this moot court exercise. Ignore for this purpose the procedural requirements
of prohibition, mandamus and habeas corpus petitions.
Note 3: The facts of the case and the issues to be litigated are annexed to these
instructions.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. There will be six sets of counsels in this omnibus petition of prohibition,

mandamus, and habeas corpus. Two litigation teams will argue for the petitioners
while two litigation teams will argue for the respondents. The fifth team will be
Amicus Curiae who can decide who to side with. Each team will have 2 members
while the rest of the class will be Justices headed by a CJ.
2. On the side of the petitioners:
Lawyers from the Human Rights Advocates Coalition (HRAC)
Counsels representing Senator De Lima and other political detainees
They will apportion the issues identified in the Annex among themselves.
3. On the side of the respondents:
Counsels from the Office of the Solicitor General
The Judge Advocate General Office of the military

They will apportion the issues identified in the Annex among themselves.
4. Amicus Curiae 1 is a law professor. He or she will speak last and take
whatever side he or she believes is right.
5. Amicus Curiae 1 is a retired Justice of the Supreme Court. He or she will

speak last and take whatever side he or she believes is right.
PROCESS:
Every litigation team will choose an oralist who will record his or her argument up
to 15 minutes each. The recording will be submitted to the beadle 24 hours
before the Zoom session.
Each group will also assign two persons as Justice with one of them assigned as
Chief Justice. Two of the Justices (not from the same group) will be assigned to
question one litigation team up to a maximum of 15 minutes during the zoom
session.
The zoom session will be on. December 7.
AFTER THE ORAL ARGUMENTS:
After the oral arguments, the Court shall convene offline and vote on the case,
voting on each issue as outlined above and then deciding whether to grant the
remedies requested. They will announce their decision in the next meeting of the
class.
SUBMISSION OF LEGAL MEMORANDUMS AND OPINIONS
Each team must submit legal memorandums stating their case 5pm the day
before the moot court exercise is conducted. Each team will address all legal
issues up for adjudication and not just their assigned issue.
The Justices must also prepare a decision, including majority, concurring, and
dissenting opinions as needed. The deadline for this will be set after the moot
court.
ANNEX
FACTS AND ISSUES
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.
3. The following are agreed facts of the case:
 On New Year’s Eve, January 1, 2021, 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.

Among others, there was a major encounter between the NPA and the
military on December 26, 2020 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.
 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 4, 2021, 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
opposition figures and to also detain military officials who has been
conducting meetings against his government. No arrest warrants were
issued but criminal charges were filed two days after the arrests.
 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.
 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 31, 2021.
 The petitions are filed on February 1, 2021 and the oral arguments are
scheduled for February 15, 2021.
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 all the political detainees detainees.
5. The legal issues being litigated and subject of the oral arguments are as
follows:
 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 opposition figures 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 arrested opposition
figures and soldiers 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?
 Does martial law/revolutionary government suspend the Bill of Rights, thus
rendering all the rights of the accused unavailable?

Martial Law RevGov UST Law Moot Court Instructions 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Martial Law RevGov UST Law Moot Court Instructions 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constitutional Law

Martial Law/Revolutionary Government Moot Court Exercise

Human Rights Advocates Coalition et. al. vs Executive Secretary, Speaker

1. There will be six sets of counsels in this omnibus petition of prohibition,

2. On the side of the petitioners:

Lawyers from the Human Rights Advocates Coalition (HRAC)

Counsels representing Senator De Lima and other political detainees

3. On the side of the respondents:

Counsels from the Office of the Solicitor General

The Judge Advocate General Office of the military

5. Amicus Curiae 1 is a retired Justice of the Supreme Court. He or she will

The zoom session will be on. December 7.

AFTER THE ORAL ARGUMENTS:

SUBMISSION OF LEGAL MEMORANDUMS AND OPINIONS

3. The following are agreed facts of the case:

 On New Year’s Eve, January 1, 2021, bombs in the cities of Manila,

 The bombings happened in a tense moment politically for the Philippines.

 The Presidential Security Group has also monitored a growing number of

 To complicate matters, after months of calmness, the West Philippine Sea

 Although required by the Constitution to convene within 24 hours of the

 A declaration that Proclamation 100081 is unconstitutional.

You might also like