REP. EDCEL C. LAGMAN, ET. AL. VS. HON. SALVADOR C.

MEDIALDEA,
ET. AL.
G.R. NO. 231658, JULY 4, 2017

FACTS:

Effective May 23, 2017, and for a period not exceeding 60 days, President Duterte
issued Proclamation No. 216 declaring a state of Martial Law and suspending the
privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus in Mindanao.

Within the timeline set by Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, the
President submitted to Congress on May 25, 2017, a written report on the factual basis
of Proclamation No. 216. The report pointed out that for decades, Mindanao has been
plagued with rebellion and lawless violence which only escalated and worsened with the
passing of time.

The President also explained that on May 23, 2017, a government operation to
capture the high-ranking officers of the Abu Sayyaf IP (ASG) and the Maute Group was
conducted. These groups, which have been unleashing havoc in Mindanao, however,
confronted the government operation by intensifying their efforts at committing
violence aimed not only against the government authorities and its facilities but likewise
against civilians and their properties. In particular, the President stated in his report the
events which took place on May 23, 2017 in Marawi City which impelled him to declare
a state of martial law and suspend the privilege of writ of habeas corpus

The report highlighted the strategic location of Marawi City and the crucial and
significant role it plays in Mindanao, and the Philippines as a whole. In addition, the
report pointed out the possible tragic repercussions once Marawi City falls under the
control of the lawless groups.

President Duterte concluded, "While the government is presently conducting

legitimate operations to address the on-going rebellion, if not the seeds of invasion,
public safety necessitates the continued implementation of martial law and the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao until
such time that the rebellion is completely quelled."

After the submission of the report and the briefings, the Senate issued P.S.
Resolution No. 390 expressing full support to the martial law proclamation and finding
Proclamation No. 216 "to be satisfactory, constitutional and in accordance with the law".
In the same Resolution, the Senate declared that it found "no compelling reason to
revoke the same".

The Lagman Group, the Cullamat Group and the Mohamad Group petitioned the
Supreme Court, questioning the factual basis of President Duterte's Proclamation of
Martial Law. The OSG sided with President Duterte.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not there were sufficient factual basis for the proclamation of martial law
or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

2. Whether or not Proclamation No. 216 of May 23, 2017 may be considered, vague and
thus null and void:
a. with its inclusion of other rebel groups
b. since it has no guidelines specifying its actual operational parameters within the
entire Mindanao region
3. Whether or not the armed hostilities mentioned in Proclamation No. 216 and in the
Report of the President to Congress are sufficient bases:
a. for the existence of actual rebellion
b. for a declaration of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus in the entire Mindanao region

RULING:

1. The Court's review is confined to the sufficiency, not accuracy, of the information at
hand during the declaration or suspension; subsequent events do not have any bearing
insofar as the Court's review is concerned. In any event, safeguards under Section 18,
Article VII of the Constitution are in place to cover such a situation, e.g., the martial law
period is good only for 60 days; Congress may choose to revoke it even immediately
after the proclamation is made; and, this Court may investigate the factual background
of the declaration.

2. There is sufficient factual basis for the declaration of martial law and the suspension
of the writ of habeas corpus.

At this point, it bears to emphasize that the purpose of judicial review is not the
determination of accuracy of the facts upon which the President anchored his
declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus;
rather, only the sufficiency of the factual basis as to convince the President that there is
probable cause that rebellion exists. It must also be reiterated that martial law is a
matter of urgency and much flexibility should be accorded the President. As such, he is
not expected to completely validate all the information he has received before declaring
martial law or suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

3. Public safety requires the declaration of martial law and the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao.

Invasion or rebellion alone may justify resort to the calling out power but definitely not
the declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
For a declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus to be valid, there must be a concurrence of actual rebellion or invasion and the
public safety requirement. In his report, the President noted that the acts of violence
perpetrated by the ASG and the Maute Group were directed not only against
government forces or establishments but likewise against civilians and their properties.
In addition and in relation to the armed hostilities, bomb threats were issued; road
blockades and checkpoints were set up; schools and churches were burned; civilian
hostages were taken and killed; non-Muslims or Christians were targeted; young male
Muslims were forced to join their group; medical services and delivery of basic services
were hampered; reinforcements of government troops and civilian movement were
hindered and the security of the entire Mindanao Island was compromised.

Indeed, martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus are
necessary for the protection of the security of the nation; suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus is precautionary, and although it might curtail certain rights of
individuals, it is for the purpose of defending and protecting the security of the state or
the entire country and our sovereign people". Commissioner Ople referred to the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus as a "form of immobilization" or
"as a means of immobilizing potential internal enemies" "especially in areas like
Mindanao."
The Court has no machinery or tool equal to that of the Commander-in-Chief to be able
and properly assess the ground conditions.

Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution states that "in case of invasion or rebellion,
when the public safety requires it, the President may suspend the privilege of writ of
habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law." Clearly,
the Constitution grants to the President the discretion to determine the territorial
coverage of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
He may put the entire Philippines or only a part thereof under martial law.

This is both an acknowledgement and a recognition that it is the Executive Department,

particularly the President as Commander-in-Chief, who is the repository of vital,
classified, and live information necessary for and relevant in calibrating the territorial
application of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus. It, too, is a concession that the President has the tactical and military support,
and thus has a more informed understanding of what is happening on the ground. Thus,
the Constitution imposed a limitation on the period of application, which is 60 days,
unless sooner nullified, revoked or extended, but not on the territorial scope or area of
coverage; it merely stated "the Philippines or any part thereof," depending on the
assessment of the President.

The Constitution has provided sufficient safeguards against possible abuses of

Commander-in-Chief's powers; further curtailment of Presidential powers should not
only be discouraged but also avoided.