Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

SOMOLLO, DEANNE MITZI A.

LLB 4A

LAGMAN V. MEDIALDEA ET. AL. GR. NO. 231568/231771/231774

Facts: This is a consolidated case on proclamation no. 216 issued by President Duterte which
effectively placed the entire Mindanao in the state of martial law with the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Within the time provided for by Article VII Section 18,
the President presented a report to congress specifying the factual basis for the Proc. No. 216.
The report cites among other things that Mindanao is a hot bed of rebellion and lawless violence
which has only escalated through the years. In the same report, the President discussed the
strategic importance of Marawi. Congress, both House of Representatives and the House of
Senate found no cogent reason to revoke the proclamation. Both Houses issued a resolution
assenting to the effect that they found the president to have factual basis in placing Mindanao
under Martial law.

Invoking the Constitutional right to question the factual basis for the declaration of martial law,
various citizens filed a petition questioning the factual basis of the proclamation and seeking out
its nullification.

Issues: 1. WON there is factual basis to declare martial law and suspend the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao area.
2. WON in reviewing the proclamation, the Court has to define the three powers vested
by Article VII Sec. 18.

Held:

1. Yes, there is sufficient factual basis in declaring martial law and suspend the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao area. The Court elucidated its ruling in this manner,
what Article VII Section 18 grants to the president is his power as a commander in chief. Among
which include the calling out power, power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
and the power to declare martial law.
Due to the historical experience of the Philippines with respect to Martial law the present
Constitution provided sufficient standards to ensure that the Marcos Martial Law will not be
repeated this includes: the duty of Congress to convene within 24 hours ,after the declaration, if
not in session to determine whether or not there is sufficient factual basis for the declaration, the
President is also required to appear before congress to report on the basis of the said declaration
and as a last protection- any citizen may question the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
declaration of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the
extension thereof.

Furthermore, in the determination of what is sufficient factual basis, the President merely has to
satisfy the quantum of probable cause. In this instant case the President used facts which were
available to him to determine whether or not there is indeed a necessity to declare martial law
and suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. He can rely on reports given to him by
his military commanders. The Court cannot expect that there be a 100% accuracy on the report
made by the President to Congress. If precision is required prior to action then the power to act
of the President in cases of extreme urgency such as this will be rendered inutile. Whether to
declare martial law or not is based on the judgment call of the President. Subsequent events
should not be used to determine whether at the time Martial Law was declared there was already
sufficient factual basis. The Court also clarified that it cannot conduct a separate investigation on
the facts which the President reported as the Courts will rely only on the facts used prior to and
during the declaration.
The Court also found that there is indeed sufficient factual basis as there is rebellion in Marawi
and not terrorism. There was indeed an armed group, they were clear in their purpose of uprising
against the Government of the Philippines and sought to remove sovereignty from the
Government by establishing a DAESH wilayat and consequently removing from the President
the ability to exercise his powers.