NESTOR JEREMY B.

MORENO LLB 4A
REPRESENTATIVES EDCEL C. LAGMAN, et al vs. HON. SALVADOR MEDIALDEA,
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, et al.
G.R. NO. 231658, 04 JULY 2017, EN BANC
Facts:
Effective May 23rd of 2017, and for a period not exceeding 60 days, President Rodrigo Roa
Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216 declaring a state of Martial Law and suspending the privilege
of the writ of Habeas Corpus in the whole of Mindanao.
Within a timeline set by Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, the President
submitted to Congress on May 25, 2017, his President’s Report on the factual basis of the
declaration of Martial Law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under
Proclamation No. 216. The said President’s 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 Report also highlighted the strategic location of Marawi City and the crucial significant
role it plays in Mindanao the entire Philippines. The Report also pointed out the possible tragic
repercussions once Marawi City falls under the control of the lawless groups.
After submission of such Report and briefings, the Senate of the Philippines issued a
resolution 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 House of
Representatives likewise issued a resolution expressing its full support to the President, as it finds
no reasons to revoke Proclamation No. 216.
Invoking the third paragraph Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, various citizens
filed several petitions, essentially invoking the Court’s specific and special jurisdiction to review
the sufficiency of the factual basis of the Proclamation No. 216 and seeking to nullify Proclamation
No. 216 for being unconstitutional because it lacks sufficient factual basis.
Issues:
a. Were there sufficient factual basis for the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus?
b. Are terrorism or acts attributable to terrorism equivalent to actual rebellion and the
requirements of public safety sufficient to declare martial law or suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
Ruling:
As to the first issue, YES.
The President deduced from the facts available to him that there was an armed public
uprising, the culpable purpose of which was to remove from the allegiance to the Philippine
Government a portion of its territory and to deprive the Chief Executive of any of his powers and
prerogative, leading the President to believe that there was probable cause that the crime of
rebellion was and is being committed and that public safety requires the imposition of Martial Law
and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
Section 18, Article VII itself sets the parameters for determining the sufficiency of the
factual basis for the declaration of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus. “namely, (1) actual invasion or rebellion, and (2) public safety requires the exercise
of such power.” Without the concurrence of the two conditions, the President’s declaration of
Martial Law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus must be struck down. A
review of the aforesaid facts similarly leads the Court to conclude that the President, in issuing the
Proclamation, had sufficient factual bases tending to show that the actual rebellion exists.
The President’s conclusion, that there was an armed public uprising, the culpable purpose
of which was the removal from allegiance of the Philippine Government a portion of its territory
and the deprivation of the President from performing his powers and prerogatives, was reached
after a tactical consideration of the facts. In fine, the President satisfactorily discharged his burden
of proof.
After all, what the President needs to satisfy is only the standard of probable cause for a
valid declaration of Martial Law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. What
the President needs to satisfy is only the standard of probable cause for a valid declaration of
martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
As to the second issue, YES.
For a declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
to be valid, there must be concurrence of actual rebellion or invasion and the public safety
requirement.
In the President’s Report, the President noted that the acts of violence perpetrated by the
Abu Sayyaff Group and Maute Group were directed not only against government forces or
establishment but likewise against civilians and their properties. In addition thereto 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-Muslim or
Christians were targeted, young male Muslims were forced to join the group, medical services and
delivery of basic services were hampered, reinforcement of government troops and civilian
movement were hindered, and the security of the entire Mindanao Islands were compromised.
In any case, even assuming that the insurgency in Marawi City can also be characterized
as terrorism, the same will not in any manner affect Proclamation No. 216. Section 2 of Republic
Act (RA) No. 9372, otherwise known as the Human Security Act of 2007 expressly provides that
"nothing in this Act shall be interpreted as a curtailment, restriction or diminution of
constitutionally recognized powers of the executive branch of the government." Thus, as long as
the President complies with all the requirements of Section 18, Article VII, the existence of
terrorism cannot prevent him from exercising his extraordinary power of proclaiming martial law
or suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. After all, the extraordinary powers of the
President are bestowed on him by the Constitution. No act of Congress can, therefore, curtail or
diminish such powers.
Based on the foregoing, Proclamation no. 216 has sufficient factual basis there being
probable cause to believe that rebellion exists and that public safety requires that Martial Law be
declared and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus be suspended.
Verily, the Court upholds the validity of the declaration of Martial Law and the suspension
of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao Region.