Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Hailed as the bastion of Christianity in Asia, the Philippines Private respondent described herself as a dutiful and faithful
boasts of 86.8 million Filipinos- or 93 percent of a total wife, whose life revolved around her husband. On the other
population of 93.3 million – adhering to the teachings of hand, petitioner, who is of Filipino-Chinese descent, is
Jesus Christ.1 Yet, the admonition for husbands to love their dominant, controlling, and demands absolute obedience
wives as their own bodies just as Christ loved the church and from his wife and children. He forbade private respondent to
gave himself up for her2 failed to prevent, or even to curb, pray, and deliberately isolated her from her friends. When
the pervasiveness of violence against Filipino women. The she took up law, and even when she was already working
National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women part time at a law office, petitioner trivialized her ambitions
(NCRFW) reported that, for the years 2000-2003, "female and prevailed upon her to just stay at home. He was often
violence comprised more than 90o/o of all forms of abuse jealous of the fact that his attractive wife still catches the eye
and violence and more than 90% of these reported cases of some men, at one point threatening that he would have
were committed by the women's intimate partners such as any man eyeing her killed.9
their husbands and live-in partners."3
Things turned for the worse when petitioner took up an affair
Thus, on March 8, 2004, after nine (9) years of spirited with a bank manager of Robinson's Bank, Bacolod City, who is
advocacy by women's groups, Congress enacted Republic Act the godmother of one of their sons. Petitioner admitted to
(R.A.) No. 9262, entitled "An Act Defining Violence Against the affair when private respondent confronted him about it
Women and Their Children, Providing for Protective in 2004. He even boasted to the household help about his
Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties Therefor, and for sexual relations with said bank manager. Petitioner told
Other Purposes." It took effect on March 27, 2004.4 private respondent, though, that he was just using the
woman because of their accounts with the bank.10
R.A. 9262 is a landmark legislation that defines and
criminalizes acts of violence against women and their Petitioner's infidelity spawned a series of fights that left
children (VAWC) perpetrated by women's intimate partners, private respondent physically and emotionally wounded. In
i.e, husband; former husband; or any person who has or had one of their quarrels, petitioner grabbed private respondent
a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom the woman has on both arms and shook her with such force that caused
a common child.5 The law provides for protection orders bruises and hematoma. At another time, petitioner hit
from the barangay and the courts to prevent the commission private respondent forcefully on the lips that caused some
of further acts of VAWC; and outlines the duties and bleeding. Petitioner sometimes turned his ire on their
responsibilities of barangay officials, law enforcers, daughter, Jo-Ann, who had seen the text messages he sent to
prosecutors and court personnel, social workers, health care his paramour and whom he blamed for squealing on him. He
providers, and other local government officials in responding beat Jo-Ann on the chest and slapped her many times. When
to complaints of VAWC or requests for assistance. private respondent decided to leave petitioner, Jo-Ann
begged her mother to stay for fear that if the latter leaves,
A husband is now before the Court assailing the petitioner would beat her up. Even the small boys are aware
constitutionality of R.A. 9262 as being violative of the equal of private respondent's sufferings. Their 6-year-old son said
protection and due process clauses, and an undue delegation that when he grows up, he would beat up his father because
of judicial power to barangay officials. of his cruelty to private respondent.11
The Factual Antecedents All the emotional and psychological turmoil drove private
respondent to the brink of despair. On December 17, 2005,
while at home, she attempted suicide by cutting her wrist.
On March 23, 2006, Rosalie Jaype-Garcia (private
She was found by her son bleeding on the floor. Petitioner
respondent) filed, for herself and in behalf of her minor
simply fled the house instead of taking her to the hospital.
children, a verified petition6 (Civil Case No. 06-797) before
Private respondent was hospitalized for about seven (7) days
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City for the issuance
in which time petitioner never bothered to visit, nor
of a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against her husband,
apologized or showed pity on her. Since then, private
Jesus C. Garcia (petitioner), pursuant to R.A. 9262. She
respondent has been undergoing therapy almost every week
claimed to be a victim of physical abuse; emotional,
and is taking anti-depressant medications.12
psychological, and economic violence as a result of marital
When private respondent informed the management of Petitioner (private respondent herein) to enter the
Robinson's Bank that she intends to file charges against the conjugal dwelling without any danger from the
bank manager, petitioner got angry with her for jeopardizing Respondent.
the manager's job. He then packed his things and told private
respondent that he was leaving her for good. He even told After the Respondent leaves or is removed from
private respondent's mother, who lives with them in the the conjugal dwelling, or anytime the Petitioner
family home, that private respondent should just accept his decides to return to the conjugal dwelling to
extramarital affair since he is not cohabiting with his remove things, the Petitioner shall be assisted by
paramour and has not sired a child with her.13 police officers when re-entering the family home.
Private respondent is determined to separate from petitioner The Chief of Police shall also give the Petitioner
but she is afraid that he would take her children from her and police assistance on Sunday, 26 March 2006
deprive her of financial support. Petitioner had previously because of the danger that the Respondent will
warned her that if she goes on a legal battle with him, she attempt to take her children from her when he
would not get a single centavo.14 arrives from Manila and finds out about this suit.
Petitioner controls the family businesses involving mostly the b) To stay away from the petitioner and her
construction of deep wells. He is the President of three children, mother and all her household help and
corporations – 326 Realty Holdings, Inc., Negros Rotadrill driver from a distance of 1,000 meters, and shall
Corporation, and J-Bros Trading Corporation – of which he not enter the gate of the subdivision where the
and private respondent are both stockholders. In contrast to Petitioner may be temporarily residing.
the absolute control of petitioner over said corporations,
private respondent merely draws a monthly salary of
c) Not to harass, annoy, telephone, contact or
₱20,000.00 from one corporation only, the Negros Rotadrill
otherwise communicate with the Petitioner,
Corporation. Household expenses amounting to not less than
directly or indirectly, or through other persons, or
₱200,000.00 a month are paid for by private respondent
contact directly or indirectly her children, mother
through the use of credit cards, which, in turn, are paid by
and household help, nor send gifts, cards, flowers,
the same corporation together with the bills for utilities.15
letters and the like. Visitation rights to the children
may be subject of a modified TPO in the future.
On the other hand, petitioner receives a monthly salary of
₱60,000.00 from Negros Rotadrill Corporation, and enjoys
d) To surrender all his firearms including a .9MM
unlimited cash advances and other benefits in hundreds of
caliber firearm and a Walther PPK and ordering the
thousands of pesos from the corporations.16 After private
Philippine National Police Firearms and Explosives
respondent confronted him about the affair, petitioner
Unit and the Provincial Director of the PNP to
forbade her to hold office at JBTC Building, Mandalagan,
cancel all the Respondent's firearm licenses. He
where all the businesses of the corporations are conducted,
should also be ordered to surrender any unlicensed
thereby depriving her of access to full information about said
firearms in his possession or control.
businesses. Until the filing of the petition a quo, petitioner
has not given private respondent an accounting of the
businesses the value of which she had helped raise to e) To pay full financial support for the Petitioner
millions of pesos.17 and the children, including rental of a house for
them, and educational and medical expenses.
Action of the RTC of Bacolod City
f) Not to dissipate the conjugal business.
Finding reasonable ground to believe that an imminent
danger of violence against the private respondent and her g) To render an accounting of all advances,
children exists or is about to recur, the RTC issued a TPO18 on benefits, bonuses and other cash he received from
March 24, 2006 effective for thirty (30) days, which is quoted all the corporations from 1 January 2006 up to 31
hereunder: March 2006, which himself and as President of the
corporations and his Comptroller, must submit to
the Court not later than 2 April 2006. Thereafter, an
Respondent (petitioner herein), Jesus Chua Garcia, is hereby:
accounting of all these funds shall be reported to
the court by the Comptroller, copy furnished to the
a) Ordered to remove all his personal belongings Petitioner, every 15 days of the month, under pain
from the conjugal dwelling or family home within of Indirect Contempt of Court.
24 hours from receipt of the Temporary Restraining
Order and if he refuses, ordering that he be
h) To ensure compliance especially with the order
removed by police officers from the conjugal
granting support pendente lite, and considering the
dwelling; this order is enforceable notwithstanding
financial resources of the Respondent and his
that the house is under the name of 236 Realty
threat that if the Petitioner sues she will not get a
Holdings Inc. (Republic Act No. 9262 states
single centavo, the Respondent is ordered to put up
"regardless of ownership"), this is to allow the
a BOND TO KEEP THE PEACE in the amount of FIVE c) Ordering the Chief of the Women's Desk of the
MILLION PESOS, in two sufficient sureties. Bacolod City Police Headquarters to remove
Respondent from the conjugal dwelling within eight
On April 24, 2006, upon motion19 of private (8) hours from receipt of the Temporary Protection
respondent, the trial court issued an amended Order by his counsel, and that he cannot return
TPO,20 effective for thirty (30) days, which included until 48 hours after the petitioners have left, so
the following additional provisions: that the petitioner Rosalie and her representatives
can remove things from the conjugal home and
make an inventory of the household furniture,
i) The petitioners (private respondents herein) are
equipment and other things in the conjugal home,
given the continued use of the Nissan Patrol and
which shall be submitted to the Court.
the Starex Van which they are using in Negros
Occidental.
d) Deliver full financial support of Php200,000.00
and Php50,000.00 for rental and Php25,000.00 for
j) The petitioners are given the continued use and
clothes of the three petitioners (sic) children within
occupation of the house in Parañaque, the
24 hours from receipt of the Temporary Protection
continued use of the Starex van in Metro Manila,
Order by his counsel, otherwise be declared in
whenever they go to Manila.
indirect contempt of Court;
5) Directed to deliver in full financial support of x x x it appearing further that the hearing could not yet be
Php200,000.00 a month and Php50,000.00 for finally terminated, the Temporary Protection Order issued on
rental for the period from August 6 to September 6, August 23, 2006 is hereby renewed and extended for thirty
2006; and support in arrears from March 2006 to (30) days and continuously extended and renewed for thirty
August 2006 the total amount of Php1,312,000.00; (30) days, after each expiration, until further orders, and
subject to such modifications as may be ordered by the court.
6) Directed to deliver educational expenses for
2006-2007 the amount of Php75,000.00 and After having received a copy of the foregoing Order,
Php25,000.00; petitioner no longer submitted the required comment to
private respondent's motion for renewal of the TPO arguing
7) Directed to allow the continued use of a Nissan that it would only be an "exercise in futility."33
Patrol with Plate No. FEW 508 and a Starex van
with Plate No. FFD 991 and should the respondent Proceedings before the CA
fail to deliver said vehicles, respondent is ordered
to provide the petitioner another vehicle which is
During the pendency of Civil Case No. 06-797, petitioner filed
the one taken by J Bros Tading;
before the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition34 for prohibition
(CA-G.R. CEB-SP. No. 01698), with prayer for injunction and
8) Ordered not to dissipate, encumber, alienate, temporary restraining order, challenging (1) the
sell, lease or otherwise dispose of the conjugal constitutionality of R.A. 9262 for being violative of the due
assets, or those real properties in the name of Jesus process and the equal protection clauses, and (2) the validity
of the modified TPO issued in the civil case for being "an The Ruling of the Court
unwanted product of an invalid law."
Before delving into the arguments propounded by petitioner
On May 26, 2006, the appellate court issued a 60-day against the constitutionality of R.A. 9262, we shall first tackle
Temporary Restraining Order36 (TRO) against the the propriety of the dismissal by the appellate court of the
enforcement of the TPO, the amended TPOs and other orders petition for prohibition (CA-G.R. CEB-SP. No. 01698) filed by
pursuant thereto. petitioner.
Subsequently, however, on January 24, 2007, the appellate As a general rule, the question of constitutionality must be
court dismissed36 the petition for failure of petitioner to raise raised at the earliest opportunity so that if not raised in the
the constitutional issue in his pleadings before the trial court pleadings, ordinarily it may not be raised in the trial, and if
in the civil case, which is clothed with jurisdiction to resolve not raised in the trial court, it will not be considered on
the same. Secondly, the challenge to the validity appeal.39 Courts will not anticipate a question of
constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it.40
of R.A. 9262 through a petition for prohibition seeking to
annul the protection orders issued by the trial court In defending his failure to attack the constitutionality of R.A.
constituted a collateral attack on said law. 9262 before the RTC of Bacolod City, petitioner argues that
the Family Court has limited authority and jurisdiction that is
His motion for reconsideration of the foregoing Decision "inadequate to tackle the complex issue of
having been denied in the Resolution37 dated August 14, constitutionality."41
2007, petitioner is now before us alleging that –
We disagree.
The Issues
Family Courts have authority and jurisdiction to consider the
I. constitutionality of a statute.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITION At the outset, it must be stressed that Family Courts are
ON THE THEORY THAT THE ISSUE OF CONSTITUTIONALITY special courts, of the same level as Regional Trial Courts.
WAS NOT RAISED AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY AND THAT, Under R.A. 8369, otherwise known as the "Family Courts Act
THE PETITION CONSTITUTES A COLLATERAL ATTACK ON THE of 1997," family courts have exclusive original jurisdiction to
VALIDITY OF THE LAW. hear and decide cases of domestic violence against women
and children.42 In accordance with said law, the Supreme
Court designated from among the branches of the Regional
II.
Trial Courts at least one Family Court in each of several key
cities identified.43 To achieve harmony with the first
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN mentioned law, Section 7 of R.A. 9262 now provides that
FAILING TO CONCLUDE THAT R.A. 9262 IS DISCRIMINATORY, Regional Trial Courts designated as Family Courts shall have
UNJUST, AND VIOLATIVE OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases of VAWC defined
CLAUSE. under the latter law, viz:
We cannot subscribe to the theory espoused by petitioner To obviate potential dangers that may arise concomitant to
that, since a counterclaim, cross-claim and third-party the conduct of a hearing when necessary, Section 26 (b) of
complaint are to be excluded from the opposition, the issue A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC provides that if a temporary protection
of constitutionality cannot likewise be raised therein. A order issued is due to expire, the trial court may extend or
counterclaim is defined as any claim for money or other relief renew the said order for a period of thirty (30) days each
which a defending party may have against an opposing time until final judgment is rendered. It may likewise modify
party.50 A cross-claim, on the other hand, is any claim by one the extended or renewed temporary protection order as may
party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or be necessary to meet the needs of the parties. With the
occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original private respondent given ample protection, petitioner could
action or of a counterclaim therein.51Finally, a third-party proceed to litigate the constitutional issues, without
complaint is a claim that a defending party may, with leave of necessarily running afoul of the very purpose for the
adoption of the rules on summary procedure.
In view of all the foregoing, the appellate court correctly A perusal of the deliberations of Congress on Senate Bill No.
dismissed the petition for prohibition with prayer for 2723,61 which became R.A. 9262, reveals that while the
injunction and temporary restraining order (CA-G.R. CEB - SP. sponsor, Senator Luisa Pimentel-Ejercito (better known as
No. 01698). Petitioner may have proceeded upon an honest Senator Loi Estrada), had originally proposed what she called
belief that if he finds succor in a superior court, he could be a "synthesized measure"62 – an amalgamation of two
granted an injunctive relief. However, Section 22(j) of A.M. measures, namely, the "Anti-Domestic Violence Act" and the
No. 04-10-11-SC expressly disallows the filing of a petition for "Anti-Abuse of Women in Intimate Relationships Act"63 –
certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against any interlocutory providing protection to "all family members, leaving no one
order issued by the trial court. Hence, the 60-day TRO issued in isolation" but at the same time giving special attention to
by the appellate court in this case against the enforcement of women as the "usual victims" of violence and
the TPO, the amended TPOs and other orders pursuant abuse,64 nonetheless, it was eventually agreed that men be
thereto was improper, and it effectively hindered the case denied protection under the same measure. We quote
from taking its normal course in an expeditious and summary pertinent portions of the deliberations:
manner.
Wednesday, December 10, 2003
As the rules stand, a review of the case by appeal or certiorari
before judgment is prohibited. Moreover, if the appeal of a Senator Pangilinan. I just wanted to place this on record, Mr.
judgment granting permanent protection shall not stay its President. Some women's groups have expressed concerns
enforcement,55 with more reason that a TPO, which is valid and relayed these concerns to me that if we are to include
only for thirty (30) days at a time,56 should not be enjoined. domestic violence apart from against women as well as other
members of the household, including children or the
The mere fact that a statute is alleged to be unconstitutional husband, they fear that this would weaken the efforts to
or invalid, does not of itself entitle a litigant to have the same address domestic violence of which the main victims or the
enjoined.57 In Younger v. Harris, Jr.,58 the Supreme Court of bulk of the victims really are the wives, the spouses or the
the United States declared, thus: female partners in a relationship. We would like to place that
on record. How does the good Senator respond to this kind of
Federal injunctions against state criminal statutes, either in observation?
their entirety or with respect to their separate and distinct
prohibitions, are not to be granted as a matter of course, Senator Estrada. Yes, Mr. President, there is this group of
even if such statutes are unconstitutional. No citizen or women who call themselves "WIIR" Women in Intimate
member of the community is immune from prosecution, in Relationship. They do not want to include men in this
good faith, for his alleged criminal acts. The imminence of domestic violence. But plenty of men are also being abused
such a prosecution even though alleged to be unauthorized by women. I am playing safe so I placed here members of the
and, hence, unlawful is not alone ground for relief in equity family, prescribing penalties therefor and providing
which exerts its extraordinary powers only to prevent protective measures for victims. This includes the men,
irreparable injury to the plaintiff who seeks its aid. (Citations children, live-in, common-law wives, and those related with
omitted) the family.65
SOTTO-LEGARDA AMENDMENTS The equal protection of the laws clause of the Constitution
allows classification. Classification in law, as in the other
departments of knowledge or practice, is the grouping of
Therefore, may I propose an amendment that, yes, we
things in speculation or practice because they agree with one
remove the aspect of the men in the bill but not the children.
another in certain particulars. A law is not invalid because of
simple inequality. The very idea of classification is that of
Senator Legarda. I agree, Mr. President, with the Minority inequality, so that it goes without saying that the mere fact of
Leader. inequality in no manner determines the matter of
constitutionality. All that is required of a valid classification is
The President Pro Tempore. Effectively then, it will be that it be reasonable, which means that the classification
women AND CHILDREN. should be based on substantial distinctions which make for
real differences; that it must be germane to the purpose of
Senator Sotto. Yes, Mr. President. the law; that it must not be limited to existing conditions
only; and that it must apply equally to each member of the
class. This Court has held that the standard is satisfied if the
Senator Estrada. It is accepted, Mr. President. classification or distinction is based on a reasonable
foundation or rational basis and is not palpably arbitrary.
The President Pro Tempore. Is there any objection? [Silence] (Emphasis supplied)
There being none, the amendment, as amended, is
approved.66 Measured against the foregoing jurisprudential yardstick, we
find that R.A. 9262 is based on a valid classification as shall
It is settled that courts are not concerned with the wisdom, hereinafter be discussed and, as such, did not violate the
justice, policy, or expediency of a statute. 67 Hence, we dare equal protection clause by favoring women over men as
not venture into the real motivations and wisdom of the victims of violence and abuse to whom the State extends its
members of Congress in limiting the protection against protection.
violence and abuse under R.A. 9262 to women and children
only. No proper challenge on said grounds may be I. R.A. 9262 rests on substantial distinctions.
entertained in this proceeding. Congress has made its choice
and it is not our prerogative to supplant this judgment. The
choice may be perceived as erroneous but even then, the The unequal power relationship between women and men;
remedy against it is to seek its amendment or repeal by the the fact that women are more likely than men to be victims
legislative. By the principle of separation of powers, it is the of violence; and the widespread gender bias and prejudice
legislative that determines the necessity, adequacy, wisdom against women all make for real differences justifying the
and expediency of any law.68 We only step in when there is a classification under the law. As Justice McIntyre succinctly
violation of the Constitution. However, none was sufficiently states, "the accommodation of differences ... is the essence
shown in this case. of true equality."70
R.A. 9262 does not violate the guaranty of equal protection A. Unequal power relationship between men and women
of the laws.
According to the Philippine Commission on Women (the
Equal protection simply requires that all persons or things National Machinery for Gender Equality and Women's
similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights Empowerment), violence against women (VAW) is deemed to
conferred and responsibilities imposed. The oft-repeated be closely linked with the unequal power relationship
disquisition in the early case of Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope between women and men otherwise known as "gender-
Workers' Union69 is instructive: based violence". Societal norms and traditions dictate people
to think men are the leaders, pursuers, providers, and take
on dominant roles in society while women are nurturers,
The guaranty of equal protection of the laws is not a guaranty men's companions and supporters, and take on subordinate
of equality in the application of the laws upon all citizens of roles in society. This perception leads to men gaining more
the state. It is not, therefore, a requirement, in order to avoid power over women. With power comes the need to control
the constitutional prohibition against inequality, that every
man, woman and child should be affected alike by a statute.
to retain that power. And VAW is a form of men's expression The privilege, ancient though it may be, to beat one's wife
of controlling women to retain power.71 with a stick, to pull her hair, choke her, spit in her face or kick
her about the floor, or to inflict upon her like indignities, is
The United Nations, which has long recognized VAW as a not now acknowledged by our law... In person, the wife is
human rights issue, passed its Resolution 48/104 on the entitled to the same protection of the law that the husband
Declaration on Elimination of Violence Against Women on can invoke for himself.
December 20, 1993 stating that "violence against women is a
manifestation of historically unequal power relations As time marched on, the women's advocacy movement
between men and women, which have led to domination became more organized. The temperance leagues initiated it.
over and discrimination against women by men and to the These leagues had a simple focus. They considered the evils
prevention of the full advancement of women, and that of alcoholism as the root cause of wife abuse. Hence, they
violence against women is one of the crucial social demonstrated and picketed saloons, bars and their husbands'
mechanisms by which women are forced into subordinate other watering holes. Soon, however, their crusade was
positions, compared with men."72 joined by suffragette movements, expanding the liberation
movement's agenda. They fought for women's right to vote,
Then Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno traced the historical and to own property, and more. Since then, the feminist
social context of gender-based violence and developments in movement was on the roll.
advocacies to eradicate VAW, in his remarks delivered during
the Joint Launching of R.A. 9262 and its Implementing Rules The feminist movement exposed the private invisibility of the
last October 27, 2004, the pertinent portions of which are domestic violence to the public gaze. They succeeded in
quoted hereunder: transforming the issue into an important public concern. No
less than the United States Supreme Court, in 1992 case
History reveals that most societies sanctioned the use of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, noted:
violence against women. The patriarch of a family was
accorded the right to use force on members of the family In an average 12-month period in this country, approximately
under his control. I quote the early studies: two million women are the victims of severe assaults by their
male partners. In a 1985 survey, women reported that nearly
Traditions subordinating women have a long history rooted in one of every eight husbands had assaulted their wives during
patriarchy – the institutional rule of men. Women were seen the past year. The [American Medical Association] views
in virtually all societies to be naturally inferior both physically these figures as "marked underestimates," because the
and intellectually. In ancient Western societies, women nature of these incidents discourages women from reporting
whether slave, concubine or wife, were under the authority them, and because surveys typically exclude the very poor,
of men. In law, they were treated as property. those who do not speak English well, and women who are
homeless or in institutions or hospitals when the survey is
conducted. According to the AMA, "researchers on family
The Roman concept of patria potestas allowed the husband
violence agree that the true incidence of partner violence is
to beat, or even kill, his wife if she endangered his property
probably double the above estimates; or four million severely
right over her. Judaism, Christianity and other religions
assaulted women per year."
oriented towards the patriarchal family strengthened the
male dominated structure of society.
Studies on prevalence suggest that from one-fifth to one-
third of all women will be physically assaulted by a partner or
English feudal law reinforced the tradition of male control
ex-partner during their lifetime... Thus on an average day in
over women. Even the eminent Blackstone has been quoted
the United States, nearly 11,000 women are severely
in his commentaries as saying husband and wife were one
assaulted by their male partners. Many of these incidents
and that one was the husband. However, in the late 1500s
involve sexual assault... In families where wife beating takes
and through the entire 1600s, English common law began to
place, moreover, child abuse is often present as well.
limit the right of husbands to chastise their wives. Thus,
common law developed the rule of thumb, which allowed
husbands to beat their wives with a rod or stick no thicker Other studies fill in the rest of this troubling picture. Physical
than their thumb. violence is only the most visible form of abuse. Psychological
abuse, particularly forced social and economic isolation of
women, is also common.
In the later part of the 19th century, legal recognition of
these rights to chastise wives or inflict corporeal punishment
ceased. Even then, the preservation of the family was given Many victims of domestic violence remain with their abusers,
more importance than preventing violence to women. perhaps because they perceive no superior
alternative...Many abused women who find temporary
refuge in shelters return to their husbands, in large part
The metamorphosis of the law on violence in the United
because they have no other source of income... Returning to
States followed that of the English common law. In 1871, the
one's abuser can be dangerous. Recent Federal Bureau of
Supreme Court of Alabama became the first appellate court
Investigation statistics disclose that 8.8 percent of all
to strike down the common law right of a husband to beat his
homicide victims in the United States are killed by their
wife:
spouses...Thirty percent of female homicide victims are killed Table 1. Annual Comparative Statistics on Violence Against
by their male partners. Women, 2004 - 2011*
The Philippines has been in cadence with the half – and full –
Physical
steps of all these women's movements. No less than Section 3,553 2,335 1,892 1,505 1,307 1,498 2,018 1,5
Injuries
14, Article II of our 1987 Constitution mandates the State to
recognize the role of women in nation building and to ensure
the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.
Sexual
Our Senate has ratified the CEDAW as well as the Convention 53 37 38 46 18 54 83
Harassment
on the Rights of the Child and its two protocols. To cap it all,
Congress, on March 8, 2004, enacted Rep. Act No. 9262,
entitled "An Act Defining Violence Against Women and RATheir
9262 218 924 1,269 2,387 3,599 5,285 9,974 9,0
Children, Providing for Protective Measures for Victims,
Prescribing Penalties therefor and for other Purposes."Threats 319 223 199 182 220 208 374 2
(Citations omitted)
Seduction 62 19 29 30 19 19 25
B. Women are the "usual" and "most likely"
RA 9208
At the time of the presentation of Senate Bill No. 2723, 17 11 16 24 34 152 190
official statistics on violence against women and children
show that –
Abduction
/Kidnapping 16 34 23 28 18 25 22
x x x physical injuries had the highest number of cases29
at
5,058 in 2002 representing 55.63% of total cases reported
(9,903). And for the first semester of 2003, there were 2,381
Unjust
reported cases out of 4,354 cases which represent 54.31%. 90 50 59 59 83 703 183 1
xxx (T)he total number of women in especially difficultVexation
circumstances served by the Department of Social Welfare
and Development (DSWD) for the year 2002, there areTotal 1,417 6,271 5,374 4,881 5,729 6,905 9,485 15,104 12,9
physically abused/maltreated cases out of the total of 5,608
cases. xxx (T)here are 1,091 DSWD cases out of a total
number of 3,471 cases for the first semester of 2003. Female *2011 report covers only from January to August
violence comprised more than 90% of all forms of abuse and
violence and more than 90% of these reported cases were
Source: Philippine National Police – Women and Children
committed by the women's intimate partners such as their
Protection Center (WCPC)
husbands and live-in partners.73
Our own Senator Loi Estrada lamented in her Sponsorship Towards this end, the State shall exert efforts to address
Speech for Senate Bill No. 2723 that "(w)henever violence violence committed against women and children in keeping
occurs in the family, the police treat it as a private matter and with the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the
advise the parties to settle the conflict themselves. Once the Constitution and the provisions of the Universal Declaration
complainant brings the case to the prosecutor, the latter is of Human Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All
hesitant to file the complaint for fear that it might later be Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Convention on the
withdrawn. This lack of response or reluctance to be involved
Rights of the Child and other international human rights b) acts causing or attempting to cause the
instruments of which the Philippines is a party. victim to engage in any sexual activity by
force, threat of force, physical or other
In 1979, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the CEDAW, harm or threat of physical or other harm
which the Philippines ratified on August 5, 1981. or coercion;
Subsequently, the Optional Protocol to the CEDAW was also
ratified by the Philippines on October 6, 2003.86 This c) Prostituting the woman or child.
Convention mandates that State parties shall accord to
women equality with men before the law87 and shall take all C. "Psychological violence" refers to acts or omissions causing
appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim
women in all matters relating to marriage and family such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment, stalking,
relations on the basis of equality of men and women.88 The damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation, repeated
Philippines likewise ratified the Convention on the Rights of verbal abuse and marital infidelity. It includes causing or
the Child and its two protocols.89 It is, thus, bound by said allowing the victim to witness the physical, sexual or
Conventions and their respective protocols. psychological abuse of a member of the family to which the
victim belongs, or to witness pornography in any form or to
III. The classification is not limited to existing witness abusive injury to pets or to unlawful or unwanted
deprivation of the right to custody and/or visitation of
conditions only, and apply equally to all members common children.
Moreover, the application of R.A. 9262 is not limited to the D. "Economic abuse" refers to acts that make or attempt to
existing conditions when it was promulgated, but to future make a woman financially dependent which includes, but is
conditions as well, for as long as the safety and security of not limited to the following:
women and their children are threatened by violence and
abuse. 1. withdrawal of financial support or
preventing the victim from engaging in
R.A. 9262 applies equally to all women and children who any legitimate profession, occupation,
suffer violence and abuse. Section 3 thereof defines VAWC business or activity, except in cases
as: wherein the other spouse/partner objects
on valid, serious and moral grounds as
defined in Article 73 of the Family Code;
x x x any act or a series of acts committed by any person
against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a
woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating 2. deprivation or threat of deprivation of
relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against financial resources and the right to the
her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without use and enjoyment of the conjugal,
the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in community or property owned in
physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic common;
abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault,
coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. It 3. destroying household property;
includes, but is not limited to, the following acts:
4. controlling the victims' own money or
A. "Physical Violence" refers to acts that include bodily or properties or solely controlling the
physical harm; conjugal money or properties.
B. "Sexual violence" refers to an act which is sexual in nature, It should be stressed that the acts enumerated in the
committed against a woman or her child. It includes, but is aforequoted provision are attributable to research that has
not limited to: exposed the dimensions and dynamics of battery. The acts
described here are also found in the U.N. Declaration on the
a) rape, sexual harassment, acts of Elimination of Violence Against Women.90 Hence, the
lasciviousness, treating a woman or her argument advanced by petitioner that the definition of what
child as a sex object, making demeaning constitutes abuse removes the difference between violent
and sexually suggestive remarks, action and simple marital tiffs is tenuous.
physically attacking the sexual parts of
the victim's body, forcing her/him to There is nothing in the definition of VAWC that is vague and
watch obscene publications and indecent ambiguous that will confuse petitioner in his defense. The
shows or forcing the woman or her child acts enumerated above are easily understood and provide
to do indecent acts and/or make films adequate contrast between the innocent and the prohibited
thereof, forcing the wife and acts. They are worded with sufficient definiteness that
mistress/lover to live in the conjugal persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what
home or sleep together in the same room conduct is prohibited, and need not guess at its meaning nor
with the abuser; differ in its application.91 Yet, petitioner insists92that phrases
like "depriving or threatening to deprive the woman or her enables the court to award temporary custody of minor
child of a legal right," "solely controlling the conjugal or children to protect the children from violence, to prevent
common money or properties," "marital infidelity," and their abduction by the perpetrator and to ensure their
"causing mental or emotional anguish" are so vague that they financial support."97
make every quarrel a case of spousal abuse. However, we
have stressed that the "vagueness" doctrine merely requires The rules require that petitions for protection order be in
a reasonable degree of certainty for the statute to be upheld writing, signed and verified by the petitioner98 thereby
– not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude, as undertaking full responsibility, criminal or civil, for every
petitioner seems to suggest. Flexibility, rather than allegation therein. Since "time is of the essence in cases of
meticulous specificity, is permissible as long as the metes and VAWC if further violence is to be prevented,"99 the court is
bounds of the statute are clearly delineated. An act will not authorized to issue ex parte a TPO after raffle but before
be held invalid merely because it might have been more notice and hearing when the life, limb or property of the
explicit in its wordings or detailed in its provisions.93 victim is in jeopardy and there is reasonable ground to
believe that the order is necessary to protect the victim from
There is likewise no merit to the contention that R.A. 9262 the immediate and imminent danger of VAWC or to prevent
singles out the husband or father as the culprit. As defined such violence, which is about to recur.100
above, VAWC may likewise be committed "against a woman
with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating There need not be any fear that the judge may have no
relationship." Clearly, the use of the gender-neutral word rational basis to issue an ex parte order. The victim is
"person" who has or had a sexual or dating relationship with required not only to verify the allegations in the petition, but
the woman encompasses even lesbian relationships. also to attach her witnesses' affidavits to the petition.101
Moreover, while the law provides that the offender be
related or connected to the victim by marriage, former
The grant of a TPO ex parte cannot, therefore, be challenged
marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not
as violative of the right to due process. Just like a writ of
preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under
preliminary attachment which is issued without notice and
the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Thus, in the case of Go-Tan v.
hearing because the time in which the hearing will take could
Spouses Tan,94 the parents-in-law of Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan,
be enough to enable the defendant to abscond or dispose of
the victim, were held to be proper respondents in the case
his property,102 in the same way, the victim of VAWC may
filed by the latter upon the allegation that they and their son
already have suffered harrowing experiences in the hands of
(Go-Tan's husband) had community of design and purpose in
her tormentor, and possibly even death, if notice and hearing
tormenting her by giving her insufficient financial support;
were required before such acts could be prevented. It is a
harassing and pressuring her to be ejected from the family
constitutional commonplace that the ordinary requirements
home; and in repeatedly abusing her verbally, emotionally,
of procedural due process must yield to the necessities of
mentally and physically.
protecting vital public interests,103among which is protection
of women and children from violence and threats to their
R.A. 9262 is not violative of the personal safety and security.
due process clause of the Constitution.
It should be pointed out that when the TPO is issued ex
Petitioner bewails the disregard of R.A. 9262, specifically in parte, the court shall likewise order that notice be
the issuance of POs, of all protections afforded by the due immediately given to the respondent directing him to file an
process clause of the Constitution. Says he: "On the basis of opposition within five (5) days from service. Moreover, the
unsubstantiated allegations, and practically no opportunity to court shall order that notice, copies of the petition and TPO
respond, the husband is stripped of family, property, guns, be served immediately on the respondent by the court
money, children, job, future employment and reputation, all sheriffs. The TPOs are initially effective for thirty (30) days
in a matter of seconds, without an inkling of what from service on the respondent.104
happened."95
Where no TPO is issued ex parte, the court will nonetheless
A protection order is an order issued to prevent further acts order the immediate issuance and service of the notice upon
of violence against women and their children, their family or the respondent requiring him to file an opposition to the
household members, and to grant other necessary reliefs. Its petition within five (5) days from service. The date of the
purpose is to safeguard the offended parties from further preliminary conference and hearing on the merits shall
harm, minimize any disruption in their daily life and facilitate likewise be indicated on the notice.105
the opportunity and ability to regain control of their life.96
The opposition to the petition which the respondent himself
"The scope of reliefs in protection orders is broadened to shall verify, must be accompanied by the affidavits of
ensure that the victim or offended party is afforded all the witnesses and shall show cause why a temporary or
remedies necessary to curtail access by a perpetrator to the permanent protection order should not be issued.106
victim. This serves to safeguard the victim from greater risk
of violence; to accord the victim and any designated family or
It is clear from the foregoing rules that the respondent of a
household member safety in the family residence, and to
petition for protection order should be apprised of the
prevent the perpetrator from committing acts that
charges imputed to him and afforded an opportunity to
jeopardize the employment and support of the victim. It also
present his side. Thus, the fear of petitioner of being respondent just claim any property and appropriate it for
"stripped of family, property, guns, money, children, job, herself, as petitioner seems to suggest?
future employment and reputation, all in a matter of
seconds, without an inkling of what happened" is a mere The non-referral of a VAWC case
product of an overactive imagination. The essence of due to a mediator is justified.
process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be
heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of
Petitioner argues that "by criminalizing run-of-the-mill
one's defense. "To be heard" does not only mean verbal
arguments, instead of encouraging mediation and counseling,
arguments in court; one may be heard also through
the law has done violence to the avowed policy of the State
pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through
to "protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous
oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of
social institution."109
procedural due process.107
The wording of the pertinent rule, however, does not by any Petitioner contends that protection orders involve the
stretch of the imagination suggest that this is so. It states: exercise of judicial power which, under the Constitution, is
placed upon the "Supreme Court and such other lower courts
as may be established by law" and, thus, protests the
SEC. 11. Reliefs available to the offended party. -- The
delegation of power to barangay officials to issue protection
protection order shall include any, some or all of the
orders.111 The pertinent provision reads, as follows:
following reliefs:
Conclusion
HON. SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; WHEREAS, Proclamation No. 55, series of 2016, was issued
HON. DELFIN N. LORENZANA, SECRETARY OF THE on 04 September 2016 declaring a state of national
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEF'ENSE AND MARTIAL LAW emergency on account of lawless violence in Mindanao;
ADMINISTRATOR; AND GEN. EDUARDO ANO, CHIEF OF STAFF
OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES AND MARTIAL WHEREAS, Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution provides
LAW IMPLEMENTOR, Respondents that 'x x x In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public
safety requires it, he (the President) may, for a period not
x-----------------------x exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof
under martial law x x x';
G.R. No. 231771
• Based on various verified intelligence reports from the AFP The Report highlighted the strategic location of Marawi City
and the PNP, there exists a strategic mass action of lawless and the crucial and significant role it plays in Mindanao, and
armed groups in Marawi City, seizing public and private the Philippines as a whole. In addition, the Report pointed
facilities, perpetrating killings of government personnel, and out the possible tragic repercussions once Marawi City falls
committing armed uprising against and open defiance of the under the control of the lawless groups.
government.3
The groups' occupation of Marawi City fulfills a strategic
The unfolding of these events, as well as the classified reports objective because of its terrain and the easy access it
he received, led the President to conclude that - provides to other parts of Mindanao. Lawless armed groups
have historically used provinces adjoining Marawi City as
These activities constitute not simply a display of force, but a escape routes, supply lines, and backdoor passages.
clear attempt to establish the groups' seat of power in
Considering the network and alliance-building activities First, the Lagman Petition claims that the declaration of
among terrorist groups, local criminals, and lawless armed martial law has no sufficient factual basis because there is no
men, the siege of Marawi City is a vital cog in attaining their rebellion or invasion in Marawi City or in any part of
long-standing goal: absolute control over the entirety of Mindanao. It argues that acts of terrorism in Mindanao do
Mindanao. These circumstances demand swift and decisive not constitute rebellion12 since there is no proof that its
action to ensure the safety and security of the Filipino people purpose is to remove Mindanao or any part thereof from
and preserve our national integrity.6 allegiance to the Philippines, its laws, or its territory.13 It
labels the flying of ISIS flag by the Maute Group in Marawi
The President ended his Report in this wise: City and other outlying areas as mere propaganda114 and
not an open attempt to remove such areas from the
allegiance to the Philippine Government and deprive the
While the government is presently conducting legitimate
Chief Executive of the assertion and exercise of his powers
operations to address the on-going rebellion, if not the seeds
and prerogatives therein. It contends that the Maute Group
of invasion, public safety necessitates the continued
is a mere private army, citing as basis the alleged interview of
implementation of martial law and the suspension of the
Vera Files with Joseph Franco wherein the latter allegedly
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of
mentioned that the Maute Group is more of a "clan's private
Mindanao until such time that the rebellion is completely
militia latching into the IS brand theatrically to inflate
quelled.7
perceived capability".15 The Lagman Petition insists that
during the briefing, representatives of the military and
In addition to the Report, representatives from the Executive defense authorities did not categorically admit nor deny the
Department, the military and police authorities conducted presence of an ISIS threat in the country but that they merely
briefings with the Senate and the House of Representatives gave an evasive answer16 that "there is ISIS in the
relative to the declaration of martial law. Philippines".17 The Lagman Petition also avers that Lt. Gen.
Salvador Mison, Jr. himself admitted that the current armed
After the submission of the Report and the briefings, the conflict in Marawi City was precipitated or initiated by the
Senate issued P.S. Resolution No. 3888 expressing full government in its bid to capture Hapilon.18 Based on said
support to the martial law proclamation and finding statement, it concludes that the objective of the Maute
Proclamation No. 216 "to be satisfactory, constitutional and Group's armed resistance was merely to shield Hapilon and
in accordance with the law". In the same Resolution, the the Maute brothers from the government forces, and not to
Senate declared that it found "no compelling reason to lay siege on Marawi City and remove its allegiance to the
revoke the same". The Senate thus resolved as follows: Philippine Republic.19 It then posits that if at all, there is only
a threat of rebellion in Marawi City which is akin to
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as it is hereby resolved, "imminent danger" of rebellion, which is no longer a valid
by way of the sense of the Senate, that the Senate finds the ground for the declaration of martial law.20
issuance of Proclamation No. 216 to be satisfactory,
constitutional and in accordance with the law. The Senate Second, the Lagman Petition claims that the declaration of
hereby supports fully Proclamation No. 216 and finds no martial law has no sufficient factual basis because the
compelling reason to revoke the sarne.9 President's Report containef "false, inaccurate, contrived and
hyperbolic accounts".21
The Senate's counterpart in the lower house shared the same
sentiments. The House of Representatives likewise issued It labels as false the claim in the President's Report that the
House Resolution No. 105010 "EXPRESSING THE FULL Maute Group attacked Amai Pakpak Medical Center. Citing
SUPPORT OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO online reports on the interview of Dr. Amer Saber (Dr. Saber),
PRESIDENT RODRIGO DUTERTE AS IT FINDS NO REASON TO the hospital's Chief, the Lagman Petition insists that the
REVOKE PROCLAMATION NO. 216, ENTITLED 'DECLARING A Maute Group merely brought an injured member to the
STATE OF MARTIAL LAW AND SUSPENDING THE PRIVILEGE hospital for treatment but did not overrun the hospital or
OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE WHOLE OF harass the hospital personnel. 22 The Lagman Petition also
MINDANAO"'. refutes the claim in the President's Report that a branch of
the Landbank of the Philippines was ransacked and its
armored vehicle commandeered. It alleges that the bank
employees themselves clarified that the bank was not
ransacked while the armored vehicle was owned by a third
The Petitions party and was empty at the time it was commandeered.23 It
also labels as false the report on the burning of the Senator
A) G.R. No. 231658 (Lagman Petition) Ninoy Aquino College Foundation and the Marawi Central
Elementary Pilot School. It avers that the Senator Ninoy
On June 5, 2017, Representatives Edcel C. Lagman, Tomasito Aquino College Foundation is intact as of May 24, 2017 and
s. Villarin, Gary C. Alejano, Emmanuel A. Billones, and Teddy that according to Asst. Superintendent Ana Alonto, the
Brawner Baguilat, Jr. filed a Petition11 Under the Third Marawi Central Elementary Pilot School was not burned by
Paragraph of Section 18 of Article VII of the 1987 the terrorists.24 Lastly, it points out as false the report on the
Constitution. beheading of the police chief of Malabang, Lanao del Sur, and
the occupation of the Marawi City Hall and part of the concludes that Proclamation No 216 "failed to show any
Mindanao State University.25 factual basis for the imposition of martial law in the entire
Mindanao,"35 "failed to allege any act of rebellion outside
Third, the Lagman Petition claims that the declaration of Marawi City, much less x x x allege that public safety requires
martial law has no sufficient factual basis since the the imposition o martial law in the whole of Mindanao".36
President's Report mistakenly included the attack on the
military outpost in Butig, Lanao del Sur in February 2016, the The Cullamat Petition claims that the alleged "capability of
mass jail break in Marawi City in August 2016, the the Maute Group and other rebel groups to sow terror and
Zamboanga siege, the Davao market bombing, the cause death and damage to property"37 does not rise to the
Mamasapano carnage and other bombing incidents in level of rebellion sufficient to declare martial law in the
Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, and Basilan, as additional factual whole of Mindanao.38 It also posits that there is no lawless
bases for the proclamation of martial law. It contends that violence in other parts of Mindanao similar to that in Marawi
these events either took place long before the conflict in City.39
Marawi City began, had long been resolved, or with the
culprits having already been arrested.26 Moreover, the Cullamat Petition assails the inclusion of the
phrase "other rebel groups" in the last Whereas Clause of
Fourth, the Lagman Petition claims that the declaration of Proclamation No. 216 for being vague as it failed to identify
martial law has no sufficient factual basis considering that the these rebel groups and specify the acts of rebellion that they
President acted alone and did not consult the military were supposedly waging.40
establishment or any ranking official27 before making the
proclamation. In addition, the Cullamat Petition cites alleged inaccuracies,
exaggerations, and falsities in the Report of the President to
Finally, the Lagman Petition claims that the President's Congress, particularly the attack at the Amai Pakpak Hospital,
proclamation of martial law lacks sufficient factual basis the ambush and burning of the Marawi Police Station, the
owing to the fact that during the presentation before the killing of five teachers of Dansalan College Foundation, and
Committee of the Whole of the House of Representatives, it the attacks on various government facilities.41
was shown that the military was even successful in pre-
empting the ASG and the Maute Group's plan to take over In fine, the Cullamat Petition prays for the Court to declare
Marawi City and other parts of Mindanao; there was absence Proclamation No. 216 as unconstitutional or in the
of any hostile plan by the Moro Islamic Liberation Front; and alternative, should the Court find justification for the
the number of foreign fighters allied with ISIS was declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege of
"undetermined"28 which indicates that there are only a the writ of habeas corpus in Marawi City, to declare the same
meager number of foreign fighters who can lend support to as unconstitutional insofar as its inclusion of the other parts
the Maute Group.29 of Mindanao.42
Based on the foregoing argumentation, the Lagman Petition C) G.R. No. 231774 (Mohamad Petition)
asks the Court to: (1)"exercise its specific and special
jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of
The Mohamad Petition, denominated as a "Petition for
Proclamation No. 216"; and (2) render "a Decision voiding
Review of the Sufficiency of [the] Factual Basis of [the]
and nullifying Proclamation No. 216" for lack of sufficient
Declaration of Martial Law and [the] Suspension of the
factual basis.30
Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus,"43 labels itself as "a
special proceeding"44 or an "appropriate proceeding filed by
In a Resolution31 dated June 6, 2017, the Court required any citizen"45 authorized under Section 18, Article VII of the
respondents to comment on the Lagman Petition and set the Constitution.
case for oral argument on June 13, 14, and 15, 2017.
The Mohamad Petition posits that martial law is a measure of
On June 9, 2017, two other similar petitions docketed as G.R. last resort46 and should be invoked by the President only
Nos. 231771 and 231774 were filed and eventually after exhaustion of less severe remedies.47 It contends that
consolidated with G.R. No. 231658.32 the extraordinary powers of the President should be
dispensed sequentially, i.e., first, the power to call out the
B) G.R. No. 231771 (Cullamat Petition) armed forces; second, the power to suspend the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus; and finally, the power to declare
The Cullamat Petition, "anchored on Section 18, Article VII"33 martial law.48 It maintains that the President has no
of the Constitution, likewise seeks the nullification of discretion to choose which extraordinary power to use;
Proclamation No. 216 for being unconstitutional because it moreover, his choice must be dictated only by, and
lacks sufficient factual basis that there is rebellion in commensurate to, the exigencies of the situation.49
Mindanao and that public safety warrants its declaration. 34
The issues as contained in the revised Advisory78 are as a. for the existence of actual rebellion; or
follows:
b. for a declaration of martial law or the suspension of the
1. Whether or not the petitions docketed as G.R. Nos. privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao
231658, 231771, and 231774 are the "appropriate 1 region;
proceeding" covered by Paragraph 3, Section 18, Article VII of
the Constitution sufficient to invoke the mode of review 8. Whether or not terrorism or acts attributable to terrorism
required of this Court when a declaration of martial law or are equivalent to actual rebellion and the requirements of
the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is public safety sufficient to declare martial law or suspend the
promulgated; privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; and
2. Whether or not the President in declaring martial law and 9. Whether or not nullifying Proclamation No. 216 of 23 May
suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus: 2017 will:
a. is required to be factually correct or only not arbitrary in a. have the effect of recalling Proclamation No. 55 s. 2016; or
his appreciation of facts;
b. also nullify the acts of the President in calling out the
b. is required to obtain the favorable recommendation armed forces to quell lawless violence in Marawi and other
thereon of the Secretary of National Defense; parts of the Mindanao region.
c. is required to take into account only the situation at the After the oral argument, the parties submitted their
time of the proclamation, even if subsequent events prove respective memoranda and supplemental memoranda.
the situation to have not been accurately reported;
OUR RULING
3. Whether or not the power of this Court to review the
sufficiency of the factual basis [of] the proclamation of I. Locus standi of petitioners.
martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus is independent of the actual actions that have
been taken by Congress jointly or separately; One of the requisites for judicial review is locus standi, i.e.,
"the constitutional question is brought before [the Court] by
a party having the requisite 'standing' to challenge it."79 As a
4. Whether or not there were sufficient factual [basis] for the general rule, the challenger must have "a personal and
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or
of the writ of habeas corpus; will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement."80
Over the years, there has been a trend towards relaxation of
a. What are the parameters for review? the rule on legal standing, a prime example of which is found
in Section 18 of Article VII which provides that any citizen
may file the appropriate proceeding to assail the sufficiency
of the factual basis of the declaration of martial law or the The Court agrees.
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
"[T]he only requisite for standing to challenge the validity of a) Jurisdiction must be specifically conferred by the
the suspension is that the challenger be a citizen. He need Constitution or by law.
not even be a taxpayer."81
It is settled that jurisdiction over the subject matter is
Petitioners in the Cullamat Petition claim to be "suing in their conferred only by the Constitution or by the law.89 Unless
capacities as citizens of the Republic;"82 similarly, petitioners jurisdiction has been specifically conferred by the
in the Mohamad Petition all claim to be "Filipino citizens, all Constitution or by some legislative act, no body or tribunal
women, all of legal [age], and residents of Marawi City".83 In has the power to act or pass upon a matter brought before it
the Lagman Petition, however, petitioners therein did not for resolution. It is likewise settled that in the absence of a
categorically mention that they are suing's citizens but clear legislative intent, jurisdiction cannot be implied from
merely referred to themselves as duly elected the language of the Constitution or a statute.90 It must
Representatives.84 That they are suing in their official appear clearly from the law or it will not be held to exist.91
capacities as Members of Congress couLd have elicited a
vigorous discussion considering the issuance by the House of
A plain reading of the afore-quoted Section 18, Article VII
Representatives of House Resolution No. 1050 expressing full
reveals that it specifically grants authority to the Court to
support to President Duterte and finding no reason to revoke
determine the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
Proclamation No. 216. By such resolution, the House of
proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of
Representatives is declaring that it finds no reason to review
the writ of habeas corpus.
the sufficiency of the factual basis of the martial law
declaration, which is in direct contrast to the views and
arguments being espoused by the petitioners in the Lagman b) "In an appropriate proceeding" does not refer to a petition
Petition. Considering, however, the trend towards relaxation for certiorari filed under Section 1 or 5 of Article VIII
of the rules on legal standing, as well as the transcendental
issues involved in the present Petitions, the Court will It could not have been the intention of the framers of the
exercise judicial self-restraint85 and will not venture into this Constitution that the phrase "in an appropriate proceeding"
matter. After all, "the Court is not entirely without discretion would refer to a Petition for Certiorari pursuant to Section 1
to accept a suit which does not satisfy the requirements of a or Section 5 of Article VIII. The standard of review in a
[bona fide] case or of standing. Considerations paramount to petition for certiorari is whether the respondent has
[the requirement of legal standing] could compel assumption committed any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of jurisdiction."86 In any case, the Court can take judicial or excess of jurisdiction in the performance of his or her
cognizance of the fact that petitioners in the Lagman Petition functions. Thus, it is not the proper tool to review the
are all citizens of the Philippines since Philippine citizenship is sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamationor
a requirement for them to be elected as representatives. We suspension. It must be emphasized that under Section 18,
will therefore consider them as suing in their own behalf as Article VII, the Court is tasked to review the sufficiency of the
citizens of this country. Besides, respondents did not factual basis of the President's exercise of emergency
question petitioners' legal standing. powers. Put differently, if this Court applies the standard of
review used in a petition for certiorari, the same would
II. Whether or not the petitions are the "appropriate emasculate its constitutional task under Section 18, Article
proceeding" covered by paragraph 3, Section 18, Article VII of VII.
the Constitution sufficient to invoke the mode of review
required by the Court. c) Purpose/significance of
All three petitions beseech the cognizance of this Court based Section 18, Article VII is to
on the third paragraph of Section 18, Article VII (Executive
Department) of the 1987 Constitution which provides: constitutionalize the pre-Marcos
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate martial law ruling in In the Matter of
proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual
basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of
the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Lansang.
promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its
filing.
During the oral argument, the petitioners theorized that the The third paragraph of Section 18, Article VII was inserted by
jurisdiction of this Court under the third paragraph of Section the framers of the 1987 Constitution to constitutionalize the
18, Article VII is sui generis.87 It is a special and specific pre-Marcos martial law ruling of this Court in In the Matter of
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court different from those the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Lansang,92 to wit: that the
enumerated in Sections 1 and 5 of Article VIII.88 factual basis of the declaration of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is not
a political question but precisely within the ambit of judicial were deliberating on whether the President could proclaim
review. martial law even without the concurrence of Congress. Thus:
"In determining the meaning, intent, and purpose of a law or MR. SUAREZ. Thank you, Madam President.
constitutional provision, the history of the times out of which
it grew and to which it may be rationally supposed to bear The Commissioner is proposing a very substantial
some direct relationship, the evils intended to be remedied, amendment because this means that he is vesting exclusively
and the good to be accomplished are proper subjects of unto the President the right to determine the factors which
inquiry."93 Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. (Fr. Bernas), a member may lead to the declaration of martial law and the
of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. I suppose he has
Constitution, explained: strong and compelling reasons in seeking to delete this
particular, phrase. May we be informed of his good and
The Commander-in-Chief provisions of the 1935 Constitution substantial reasons?
had enabled President Ferdinand Marcos to impose
authoritarian rule on the Philippines from 1972 to 1986. MR. MONSOD. This situation arises in cases of invasion or
Supreme Court decisions during that period upholding the rebellion. And in previous interpellations regarding this
actions taken by Mr. Marcos made authoritarian rule part of phrase, even during the discussions on the Bill of Rights, as I
Philippine constitutional jurisprudence. The members of the understand it, the interpretation is a situation of actual
Constitutional Commission, very much aware of these facts, invasion or rebellion. In these situations, the President has to
went about reformulating the Commander-in-Chief powers act quickly. Secondly, this declaration has a time fuse. It is
with a view to dismantling what had been constructed during only good for a maximum of 60 days. At the end of 60 days, it
the authoritarian years. The new formula included revised automatically terminates. Thirdly, the right of the judiciary to
grounds for the activation of emergency powers, the manner inquire into the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
of activating them, the scope of the powers, and review of proclamation always exists, even during those first 60 days.
presidential action.94 (Emphasis supplied)
I believe that there are enough safeguards. The Constitution For the first time, there is a provision that the state of martial
is supposed to balance the interests of the country. And here law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution nor
we are trying to balance the public interest in case of abolish civil courts or legislative assemblies, or vest
invasion or rebellion as against the rights of citizens. And I am jurisdiction to military tribunals over civilians, or suspend the
saying that there are enough safeguards, unlike in 1972 when privilege of the writ. Please forgive me if, at this point, I state
Mr. Marcos was able to do all those things mentioned.100 that this constitutional provision vindicates the dissenting
opinions I have written during my tenure in the Supreme
Court in the martial law cases.101
To give more teeth to this additional safeguard, the framers
of the 1987 Constitution not only placed the President's
proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of f) To interpret "appropriate proceeding" as filed under
the writ of habeas corpus within the ambit of judicial review, Section 1 of Article VIII would be contrary to the intent of the
it also relaxed the rule on standing by allowing any citizen to Constitution.
question before this Court the sufficiency of the factual basis
of such proclamation or suspension. Moreover, the third To conclude that the "appropriate proceeding" refers to a
paragraph of Section 18, Article VII veritably conferred upon Petition for Certiorari filed under the expanded jurisdiction of
any citizen a demandable right to challenge the sufficiency of this Court would, therefore, contradict the clear intention of
the factual basis of said proclamation or suspension. It the framers of the Constitution to place additional safeguards
further designated this Court as the reviewing tribunal to against possible martial law abuse for, invariably, the third
examine, in an appropriate proceeding, the sufficiency of the paragraph of Section 18, Article VII would be subsumed
factual basis and to render its decision thereon within a under Section 1 of Article VIII. In other words, the framers of
limited period of 30 days from date of filing. the Constitution added the safeguard under the third
paragraph of Section 18, Article VII on top of the expanded
e) Purpose of Section 18, Article VII is to curtail the extent of jurisdiction of this Court.
the powers of the President.
g) Jurisdiction of the Court is not restricted to those
The most important objective, however, of Section 18, Article enumerated in Sections I and 5 of Article VIII
VII is the curtailment of the extent of the powers of the
Commander-in-Chief. This is the primary reason why the The jurisdiction of this Court is not restricted to those
provision was not placed in Article VIII or the Judicial enumerated in Sections 1 and 5 of Article VIII. For instance,
Department but remained under Article VII or the Executive its jurisdiction to be the sole judge of all contests relating to
Department. the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or
Vice-President can be found in the last paragraph of Section
During the closing session of the Constitutional Commission's 4, Article VII.102 The power of the Court to review on
deliberations, President Cecilia Muñoz Palma expressed her certiorari the decision, order, or ruling of the Commission on
sentiments on the 1987 Constitution. She said: Elections and Commission on Audit can be found in Section 7,
Article IX(A).103
h) Unique features of the third paragraph of Section 18, may revoke the proclamation or suspension, which
Article VII make it sui generis. revocation shall not be set aside by the President.
The unique features of the third paragraph of Section 18, In reviewing the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
Article VII clearly indicate that it should be treated as sui proclamation or suspension, the Court considers only the
generis separate and different from those enumerated in information and data available to the President prior to or at
Article VIII. Under the third paragraph of Section 18, Article the time of the declaration; it is not allowed td "undertake an
VII, a petition filed pursuant therewith will follow a different independent investigation beyond the pleadings."106 On the
rule on standing as any citizen may file it. Said provision of other hand, Congress may take into consideration not only
the Constitution also limits the issue to the sufficiency of the data available prior to, but likewise events supervening the
factual basis of the exercise by the Chief Executive of his declaration. Unlike the Court I which does not look into the
emergency powers. The usual period for filing pleadings in absolute correctness of the factual basis as will be discussed
Petition for Certiorari is likewise not applicable under the below, Congress could probe deeper and further; it can delve
third paragraph of Section 18, Article VII considering the into the accuracy of the facts presented before it.
limited period within which this Court has to promulgate its
decision. In addition, the Court's review power is passive; it is only
initiated by the filing of a petition "in an appropriate
A proceeding "[i]n its general acceptation, [is] the form in proceeding" by a citizen. On the other hand, Congress' review
which actions are to be brought and defended, the manner of mechanism is automatic in the sense that it may be activated
intervening in suits, of conducting them, the mode of by Congress itself at any time after the proclamation or
deciding them, of opposing judgments, and of executing."104 suspension was made.
In fine, the phrase "in an appropriate proceeding" appearing
on the third paragraph of Section 18, Article VII refers to any Thus, the power to review by the Court and the power to
action initiated by a citizen for the purpose of questioning revoke by Congress are not only totally different but likewise
the sufficiency of the factual basis of the exercise of the Chief independent from each other although concededly, they
Executive's emergency powers, as in these cases. It could be have the same trajectory, which is, the nullification of the
denominated as a complaint, a petition, or a matter to be presidential proclamation. Needless to say, the power of the
resolved by the Court. Court to review can be exercised independently from the
power of revocation of Congress.
III. The power of the Court to review the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the b) The framers of the 1987 Constitution intended the judicial
suspension of power to review to be exercised independently from the
congressional power to revoke.
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under Section 18,
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution is independent of the If only to show that the intent of the framers of the 1987
actions taken by Congress. Constitution was to vest the Court and Congress with veto
powers independently from each other, we quote the
During the oral argument,105 the OSG urged the Court to following exchange:
give! deference to the actions of the two co-equal branches
of the Government: on' the part of the President as MS. QUESADA. Yesterday, the understanding of many was
Commander-in-Chief, in resorting to his extraordinary powers that there would be safeguards that Congress will be able to
to declare martial law and suspend the privilege of the writ of revoke such proclamation.
habeas corpus; and on the part of Congress, in giving its
imprimatur to Proclamation No. 216 and not revoking the
MR. RAMA. Yes.
same.
xxxx
It is thus beyond doubt that the power of judicial review does MR. SUAREZ. Thank you.
not extend to calibrating the President's decision pertaining
to which extraordinary power to avail given a set of facts or The Commissioner is suggesting that in connection with
conditions. To do so would be tantamount to an incursion Section 15, we delete the phrase 'and, with the concurrence
into the exclusive domain of the Executive and an of at least a majority of all the Members of the Congress...'
infringement on the prerogative that solely, at least initially,
lies with the President.
MR. PADILLA. That is correct especially for the initial
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or
d) The framers of the 1987 Constitution intended the also the declaration of martial law.
Congress not to interfere a priori in the decision-making
process of the President.
MR. SUAREZ. So in both instances, the Commissioner is
suggesting that this would be an exclusive prerogative of the
The elimination by the framers of the 1987 Constitution of President?
the requirement of prior concurrence of the Congress in the
initial imposition of martial law or suspension of the privilege
MR. PADILLA. At least initially, for a period of 60 days. But
of the writ of habeas corpus further supports the conclusion
even that period of 60 days may be shortened by the
that judicial review does not include the calibration of the
Congress or the Senate because the next sentence says that
President's decision of which of his graduated powers will be
the Congress or the Senate may even revoke the
availed of in a given situation. Voting 28 to 12, the framers of
proclamation.136
the 1987 Constitution removed the requirement of
congressional concurrence in the first imposition of martial
law and suspension of the privilege.133 xxxx
MR. PADILLA.x x x
We all agree with the suspension of the writ or the MR. SUAREZ. x x x
proclamation of martial law should not require beforehand
the concurrence of the majority of the Members of the
Congress. However, as provided by the Committee, the
Congress may revoke, amend, or shorten or even increase The Commissioner is proposing a very substantial
the period of such suspension.134 amendment because this means that he is vesting exclusively
unto the President the right to determine the factors which
xxxx may lead to the declaration of martial law and the
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. I suppose he has
MR. NATIVIDAD. First and foremost, we agree with the strong and compelling reasons in seeking to delete this
Commissioner's thesis that in the first imposition of martial particular phrase. May we be informed of his good and
law there is no need for concurrence of the Members of substantial reasons?
Congress because the provision says 'in case of actual
invasion or rebellion.' If there is actual invasion and rebellion, MR. MONSOD. This situation arises in cases of invasion or
as Commissioner Crispino de Castro said, there is a need for rebellion. And in previous interpellations regarding this
immediate response because there is an attack. Second, the phrase, even during the discussions on the Bill of Rights, as I
fact of securing a concurrence may be impractical because understand it, the interpretation is a situation of actual
the roads might be blocked or barricaded. x x x So the invasion or rebellion. In these situations, the President has to
requirement of an initial concurrence of the majority of all act quickly. Secondly, this declaration has a time fuse. It is
Members of the Congress in case of an invasion or rebellion only good for a maximum of 60 days. At the end of 60 days, it
might be impractical as I can see it. automatically terminates. Thirdly, the right of the judiciary to
inquire into the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
Second, Section 15 states that the Congress may revoke the proclamation always exists, even during those first 60 days.
declaration or lift the suspension.
xxxx
And third, the matter of declaring martial law is already a
justiciable question and no longer a political one in that it is MR. MONSOD. Yes, Madam President, in the case of Mr.
subject to judicial review at any point in time. So on that Marcos[,] he is undoubtedly an aberration in our history and
basis, I agree that there is no need for concurrence as a national consciousness. But given the possibility that there
would be another Marcos, our Constitution now has
sufficient safeguards. As I said, it is not really true, as the extraordinary powers to avail given a certain situation or
Gentleman mentioned, that there is an exclusive right to condition.
determine the factual basis because the paragraph being on
line 9 precisely tells us that the Supreme court may review, in It cannot be overemphasized that time is paramount in
an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency situations necessitating the proclamation of martial law or
of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. It
suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension was precisely this time element that prompted the
thereof and must promulgate its decision on the same within Constitutional Commission to eliminate the requirement of 1
30 days from its filing. concurrence of the Congress in the initial imposition by the
President of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the
I believe that there are enough safeguards. The Constitution writ of habeas corpus.
is supposed to balance the interests of the country. And here
we are trying to balance the public interest in case of Considering that the proclamation of martial law or
invasion or rebellion as against the rights of citizens. x x x suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
now anchored on actual invasion or rebellion and when
MR. SUAREZ. Will that prevent a future President from doing public safety requires it, and is no longer under threat or in
what Mr. Marcos had done? imminent danger thereof, there is a necessity and urgency
for the President to act quickly to protect the country.138
MR. MONSOD. There is nothing absolute in this world, and The Court, as Congress does, must thus accord the President
there may be another Marcos. What we are looking for are the same leeway by not wading into the realm that is
safeguards that arereasonable and, I believe, adequate at this reserved exclusively by the Constitution to the Executive
point. On the other hand, in case of invasion or rebellion, Department.
even during the first 60 days when the intention here is to
protect the country in that situation, it would be j) The recommendation of the Defense Secretary is not a
unreasonable to ask that there should be a concurrence on condition for the declaration of martial law or suspension of
the part of the Congress, which situation is automatically the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
terminated at the end of such 60 days.
Even the recommendation of, or consultation with, the
xxxx Secretary of National Defense, or other high-ranking military
officials, is not a condition for the President to declare
MR. SUAREZ. Would the Gentleman not feel more martial law. A plain reading of Section 18, Article VII of the
comfortable if we provide for a legislative check on this Constitution shows that the President's power to declare
awesome power of the Chief Executive acting as martial law is not subject to any condition except for the
Commander-in-Chief? requirements of actual invasion or rebellion and that public
safety requires it. Besides, it would be contrary to common
sense if the decision of the President is made dependent on
MR. MONSOD. I would be less comfortable if we have a
the recommendation of his mere alter ego. Rightly so, it is
presidency that cannot act under those conditions.
only on the President and no other that the exercise of the
powers of the Commander-in-Chief under Section 18, Article
MR. SUAREZ. But he can act with the concurrence of the VII of the Constitution is bestowed.
proper or appropriate authority?
g) In any event, the President initially employed the most
MR. MONSOD. Yes. But when those situations arise, it is very benign action - the calling out power -before he declared
unlikely that the concurrence of Congress would be available; martial law and suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas
and, secondly, the President will be able to act quickly in corpus.
order to deal with the circumstances.
At this juncture, it must be stressed that prior to
MR. SUAREZ. So, we would be subordinating actual Proclamation No. 216 or the declaration of martial law on
circumstances to expediency? May 23, 201 7, the President had already issued
Proclamation No. 55 on September 4, 2016, declaring a state
MR. MONSOD. I do not believe it is expediency when one is of national emergency on account of lawless violence in
trying to protect the country in the event of an invasion or a Mindanao. This, in fact, is extant in the first Whereas Clause
rebellion.137 of Proclamation No. 216. Based on the foregoing presidential
actions, it can be gleaned that although there is no obligation
The foregoing exchange clearly manifests the intent of the or requirement on his part to use his extraordinary powers
Constitution not to allow Congress to interfere a priori in the on a graduated or sequential basis, still the President made
President's choice of extraordinary powers. the conscious anddeliberate effort to first employ the most
benign from among his extraordinary powers. As the initial
and preliminary step towards suppressing and preventing the
e) The Court must similarly and necessarily refrain from armed hostilities in Mindanao, the President decided to use
calibrating the President's decision of which among his his calling out power first. Unfortunately, the situation did
not improve; on the contrary, it only worsened. Thus, statutes regulate or proscribe speech and no readily apparent
exercising his sole and exclusive prerogative, the President construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the
decided to impose martial law and suspend the privilege of statutes in a single prosecution, the transcendent value to all
the writ of habeas corpus on the belief that the armed society of constitutionally protected expression is deemed to
hostilities in Mindanao already amount to actual rebellion justify allowing attacks on overly broad statutes with no
and public safety requires it. requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate
that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute
V. Whether or not Proclamation No. 216 may be considered drawn with narrow specificity.' The possible harm to society
vague and thus void because of (a) its inclusion of "other in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is
rebel groups"; and (b) the absence of any guideline specifying outweighed by the possibility that the protected speech of
its actual operational parameters within the entire Mindanao others may be deterred and perceived grievances left to
region. fester because of possible inhibitory effects of overly broad
statutes.
Proclamation No. 216 is being facially challenged on the
ground of "vagueness" by the insertion of the phrase "other This rationale does not apply to penal statutes. Criminal
rebel groups"139 in its Whereas Clause and for lack of statutes have general in terrorem effect resulting from their
available guidelines specifying its actual operational very existence, and, if facial challenge is allowed for this
parameters within the entire Mindanao region, making the reason alone, the State may well be prevented from enacting
proclamation susceptible to broad interpretation, laws against socially harmful conduct. In the area of criminal
misinterpretation, or confusion. law, the law cannot take chances as in the area of free
speech.
This argument lacks legal basis.
xxxx
a) Void-for-vagueness doctrine.
In sum, the doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth, and
vagueness are analytical tools developed for testing 'on their
The void-for-vagueness doctrine holds that a law is facially
faces' statutes in free speech cases or, as they are called in
invalid if "men of common intelligence must necessarily
American law, First Amendment cases. They cannot be made
guess at its meaning and differ as to its application."140 "[A]
to do service when what is involved is a criminal statute.
statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks
With respect to such statute, the established rule is that'one
comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence
to whom application of a statute is constitutional will not be
must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its
heard to attack the statute on the ground that impliedly it
application. [In such instance, the statute] is repugnant to the
might also be taken as applying to other persons or other
Constitution in two respects: (1) it violates due process for
situations in which its application might be unconstitutional.'
failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it,
As has been pointed out, 'vagueness challenges in the First
fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves law
Amendment context, like overbreadth challenges typically
enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions
produce facial invalidation, while statutes found vague as a
and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government
matter of due process typically are invalidated [only] 'as
muscle."141
applied' to a particular defendant.' x x x145
Coates highlights what has been referred to as a 'perfectly In Kulayan v. Tan,152 the Court ruled that the President's
vague' act whose obscurity is evident on its face. It is to be calling out power is in a different category from the power to
distinguished, however, from legislation couched in imprecise suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the
language - but which nonetheless specifies a standard though power to declare martial law:
defectively phrased - in which case, it may be 'saved' by
proper construction.151 x x x Congress may revoke such proclamation or suspension
and the Court may review the sufficiency of the factual basis
The term "other rebel groups" in Proclamation No. 216 is not thereof. However, there is no such equivalent provision
at all vague when viewed in the context of the words that dealing with the revocation or review of the President's
accompany it. Verily, the text of Proclamation No. 216 refers action to call out the armed forces. The distinction places the
to "other rebel groups" found in Proclamation No. 55, which calling out power in a different category from the power to
it cited by way of reference in its Whereas clauses. declare martial law and the power to suspend the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus, otherwise, the framers of the
Constitution would have simply lumped together the three
e) Lack of guidelines/operational parameters does not make
powers and provided for their revocation and review without
Proclamation No. 216 vague.
any qualification.153
But, even assuming arguendo that the Court finds no VII. The Scope of the Power to Review.
sufficient basis for the declaration of martial law in this case,
such ruling could not affect the President's exercise of his a) The scope of the power of review under the 1987
calling out power through Proclamation No. 55. Constitution refers only to the determination of the
sufficiency of the factual basis of the declaration of martial
b) The operative fact doctrine. law and suspension of the privilege of habeas corpus.
Neither would the nullification of Proclamation No. 216 result To recall, the Court, in the case of In the Matter of the
in the nullification of the acts of the President done pursuant Petition for Habeas Corpus of Lansang,160 which was
thereto. Under the "operative fact doctrine," the decided under the 1935 Constitution,161 held that it can
unconstitutional statute is recognized as an "operative fact" inquire into, within proper bounds, whether there has been
before it is declared unconstitutional.15 adherence to or compliance with the constitutionally-
imposed limitations on the Presidential power to suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.162 "Lansang limited
Where the assailed legislative or executive act is found by the
the review function of the Court to a very prudentially
judiciary to be contrary to the Constitution, it is null and void.
narrow test of arbitrariness."163 Fr. Bernas described the
As the new Civil Code puts it: 'When the courts declare a law
"proper bounds" in Lansang as follows:
to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be
void and the latter shall govern. Administrative or executive
acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are What, however, are these 'proper bounds' on the power of
not contrary to the laws or the Constitution.' The above the courts? The Court first gave the general answer that its
provision of the Civil Code reflects the orthodox view that an power was 'merely to check - not to supplant - the Executive,
unconstitutional act, whether legislative or executive, is not a or to ascertain merely whether he has gone beyond the
law, confers no rights, imposes no duties, and affords no constitutional limits of his jurisdiction, not to exercise the
protection. This doctrine admits of qualifications, however. power vested in him or to determine the wisdom of his act.
As the American Supreme Court stated: 'The actual existence More specifically, the Court said that its power was not 'even
comparable with its power over civil or criminal cases Report taking into account the urgency of the situation as
elevated thereto by appeal...in which cases the appellate well as national security. He cannot be forced to divulge
court has all the powers of the courtof origin,' nor to its intelligence reports and confidential information that may
power of quasi-judicial administrative decisions where the prejudice the operations and the safety of the military.
Court is limited to asking whether 'there is some evidentiary
basis' for the administrative finding. Instead, the Court Similarly, events that happened after the issuance of the
accepted the Solicitor General's suggestion that it 'go no proclamation, which are included in the written report,
further than to satisfy [itself] not that the President's decision cannot be considered in determining the sufficiency of the
is correct and that public safety was endangered by the factual basis of the declaration of martial law and/or the
rebellion and justified the suspension of the writ, but that in suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus since
suspending the writ, the President did not act arbitrarily.'164 these happened after the President had already issued the
proclamation. If at all, they may be used only as tools, guides
Lansang, however, was decided under the 1935 Constitution. or reference in the Court's determination of the sufficiency of
The 1987 Constitution, by providing only for judicial review factual basis, but not as part or component of the portfolio of
based on the determination of the sufficiency of the factual the factual basis itself.
bases, has in fact done away with the test of arbitrariness as
provided in Lansang. In determining the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
declaration and/or the suspension, the Court should look into
b) The "sufficiency of factual basis test". the full complement or totality of the factual basis, and not
piecemeal or individually. Neither should the Court expect
Similarly, under the doctrine of contemporaneous absolute correctness of the facts stated in the proclamation
construction, the framers of the 1987 Constitution are and in the written Report as the President could not be
presumed to know the prevailing jurisprudence at the time expected to verify the accuracy and veracity of all facts
they were drafting the Constitution. Thus, the phrase reported to him due to the urgency of the situation. To
"sufficiency of factual basis" in Section 18, Article VII of the require precision in the President's appreciation of facts
Constitution should be understood as the only test for would unduly burden him and therefore impede the process
judicial review of the President's power to declare martial of his decision-making. Such a requirement will practically
law and suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus necessitate the President to be on the ground to confirm the
under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution. The Court correctness of the reports submitted to him within a period
does not need to satisfy itself that the President's decision is that only the circumstances obtaining would be able to
correct, rather it only needs to determine whether the dictate. Such a scenario, of course, would not only place the
President's decision had sufficient factual bases. President in peril but would also defeat the very purpose of
the grant of emergency powers upon him, that is, to borrow
the words of Justice Antonio T. Carpio in Fortun, to
We conclude, therefore, that Section 18, Article VII limits the
"immediately put an end to the root cause of the
scope of judicial review by the introduction of the
emergency".166 Possibly, by the time the President is
"sufficiency of the factual basis" test.
satisfied with the correctness of the facts in his possession, it
would be too late in the day as the invasion or rebellion could
As Commander-in-Chief, the President has the sole discretion have already escalated to a level that is hard, if not
to declare martial law and/or to suspend the privilege of the impossible, to curtail.
writ of habeas corpus, subject to the revocation of Congress
and the review of this Court. Since the exercise of these
Besides, the framers of the 1987 Constitution considered
powers is a judgment call of the President, the determination
intelligence reports of military officers as credible evidence
of this Court as to whether there is sufficient factual basis for
that the President ca appraise and to which he can anchor his
the exercise of such, must be based only on facts or
judgment,167 as appears to be the case here.
information known by or available to the President at the
time he made the declaration or suspension, which facts or
information are found in the proclamation as well as the At this point, it is wise to quote the pertinent portions of the
written Report submitted by him to Congress. These may be Dissenting Opinion of Justice Presbitero J. Velasco Jr. in
based on the situation existing at the time the declaration Fortun:
was made or past events. As to how far the past events
should be from the present depends on the President. President Arroyo cannot be blamed for relying upon the
information given to her by the Armed Forces of the
Past events may be considered as justifications for the Philippines and the Philippine National Police, considering
declaration and/or suspension as long as these are connected that the matter of the supposed armed uprising was within
or related to the current situation existing at the time of the their realm of competence, and that a state of emergency
declaration. has also been declared in Central Mindanao to prevent
lawless violence similar to the 'Maguindanao massacre,'
which may be an indication that there is a threat to the public
As to what facts must be stated in the proclamation and the
safety warranting a declaration of martial law or suspension
written Report is up to the President.165 As Commander-in-
of the writ.
Chief, he has sole discretion to determine what to include
and what not to include in the proclamation and the written
Certainly, the President cannot be expected to risk being too technical or legal meaning.171 Since the Constitution did not
late before declaring martial law or suspending the writ of define the term "rebellion," it must be understood to have
habeas corpus. The Constitution, as couched, does not the same meaning as the crime of "rebellion" in the Revised
require precision in establishing the fact of rebellion. The Penal Code (RPC).172
President is called to act as public safety requires.168
During the July 29, 1986 deliberation of the Constitutional
Corollary, as the President is expected to decide quickly on Commission of 1986, then Commissioner Florenz D. Regalado
whether there is a need to proclaim martial law even only on alluded to actual rebellion as one defined under Article 134
the basis of intelligence reports, it is irrelevant, for purposes of the RPC:
of the Court's review, if subsequent events prove that the
situation had not been accurately reported to him. MR. DE LOS REYES. As I see it now, the Committee envisions
actual rebellion and no longer imminent rebellion. Does the
After all, the Court's review is confined to the sufficiency, not Committee mean that there should be actual shooting or
accuracy, of the information at hand during the declaration actual attack on the legislature or Malacañang, for example?
or suspension; subsequent events do not have any bearing Let us take for example a contemporary event - this Manila
insofar as the Court's review is concerned. In any event, Hotel incident, everybody knows what happened. Would the
safeguards under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution Committee consider that an actual act of rebellion?
are in place to cover such a situation, e.g., the martial law
period is good only for 60 days; Congress may choose to MR. REGALADO. If we consider the definition of rebellion
revoke it even immediately after the proclamation is made; under Articles 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code, that
and, this Court may investigate the factual background of the presupposes an actual assemblage of men in an armed public
declaration.169 uprising for the purposes mentioned in Article 134 and by the
means employed under Article 135. x x x173
Hence, the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus finds no
application in this case. Falsities of and/or inaccuracies in Thus, rebellion as mentioned in the Constitution could only
some of the facts stated in the proclamation and the written refer to rebellion as defined under Article 134 of the RPC. To
report are not enough reasons for the Court to invalidate the give it a different definition would not only create confusion
declaration and/or suspension as long as there are other but would also give the President wide latitude of discretion,
facts in the proclamation and the written Report that support which may be abused - a situation that the Constitution see k
the conclusion that there is an actual invasion or rebellion s to prevent.174
and that public safety requires the declaration and/or
suspension.
Article 134 of the RPC states:
To summarize, the parameters for determining the Since the President supposedly signed Proclamation No. 216
sufficiency of factual basis are as follows: l) actual rebellion or on May 23, 2017 at 10:00 PM,180 the Court will consider only
invasion; 2) public safety requires it; the first two those facts and/or events which were known to or have
requirements must concur; and 3) there is probable cause for transpired on or before that time, consistent with the scope
the President to believe that there is actual rebellion or of judicial review. Thus, the following facts and/or events
invasion. were deemed to have been considered by the President in
issuing Proclamation No. 216, as plucked from and extant in
Proclamation No. 216 itself:
Having laid down the parameters for review, the Court shall
nowproceed to the core of the controversy - whether
Proclamation No. 216,Declaring a State of Martial Law and 1. Proclamation No. 55 issued on September 4, 2016,
Suspending the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the declaring a state of national emergency on account of lawless
whole of Mindanao, lacks sufficient factual basis. violence in Mindanao;181
IX. There is sufficient factual basis for the 2. Series of violent acts182 committed by the Maute terrorist
group including:
declaration of martial law and the suspension ofthe writ of
habeas corpus. a) Attack on the military outpost in Butig, Lanao del Sur m
February 2016, killing and wounding several soldiers;
At this juncture, it bears to emphasize that the purpose of
judicial review is not the determination of accuracy or b) Mass jailbreak in Marawi City in August 2016 of the
veracity of the facts upon which the President anchored his arrested comrades of the Maute Group and other detainees;
declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus; rather, only the sufficiency of the 3. On May 23, 2017:183
factual basis as to convince the President that there is
probable cause that rebellion exists. It must also be a) Takeover of a hospital in Marawi;
reiterated that martial law is a matter ofurgency and much
leeway and flexibility should be accorded the President. As
such, he is not expected to completely validate all the b) Establishment of several checkpoints within Marawi;
information he received before declaring martial law or
suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. c) Burning of certain government and private facilities;
We restate the elements of rebellion for reference: d) Mounting casualties on the part of the government;
1. That there be (a) public uprising, and (b) taking up arms e) Hoisting the flag of ISIS in several areas; and
against the Government; and
f) Capability of the Maute Group and other rebel groups to
2. That the purpose of the uprising or movement is either: (a) sow terror, and cause death and damage to property not only
to remove from the allegiance to said Government or its laws in Lanao del Sur but also in other parts of Mindanao; and the
the territory of the Philippines or any part thereof, or any Report184 submitted to Congress:
body of land, naval or other armed forces or (b) to deprive
1. Zamboanga siege;185
2. Davao bombing;186 c) by 4:30 PM, intem1ption of power supply; sporadic
gunfights; city-wide power outage by evening;204
3. Mamasapano carnage;187
d) from 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM, Maute Group ambushed and
4. Cotabato bombings;188 burned the Marawi Police Station; commandeered a police
car;205
5. Sultan Kudarat bombings;189
e) BJMP personnel evacuated the Marawi City Jail and other
affected areas;206
6. Sulu bombings;190
14. Extensive networks or linkages of the Maute Group with n) attacking and burning of the Filipino-Libyan Friendship
foreign and local armed groups;198 Hospital;215
15. Adherence of the Maute Group to the ideals espoused by o) ransacking of a branch of Landbank of the Philippines and
ISIS;199 commandeering an armored vehicle;216
16. Publication of a video showing Maute Group's declaration p) reports regarding Maute Group's plan to execute
of allegiance to ISIS;200 Christians;217
17. Foreign-based terrorist groups provide financial and q) preventing Maranaos from leaving their homes;218
logistical support to the Maute Group;201
r) forcing young Muslims to join their group;219 and
18. Events on May 23, 2017 in Marawi City, particularly:
s) intelligence reports regarding the existence of strategic
a) at 2:00 PM, members and sympathizers of the Maute mass action of lawless armed groups in Marawi City, seizing
Group and ASG attacked various government and privately- public and private facilities, perpetrating killings of
owned facilities;202 government personnel1 , and committing armed uprising
against and open defiance of the Government.220
b) at 4:00 PM, around fifty (50) armed criminals forcibly
entered the Marawi City Jail; facilitated the escape of b) The President's Conclusion
inmates; killed a member of PDEA; assaulted and disarmed
on-duty personnel and/or locked them inside the cells; After the assessment by the President of the aforementioned
confiscated cellphones, personnel-issued firearms, and facts, he arrived at the following conclusions, as mentioned
vehicles;203 in Proclamation No. 216 and the Report:
1) The Maute Group is "openly attempting to remove from restoring peace and order in the area. Movement by both
the allegiance to the Philippine Government this part of civilians and government personnel to and from the city is
Mindanao and deprive the Chief Executive of his powers and likewise hindered."227
prerogatives to enforce the laws of the land and to maintain
public order and safety in Mindanao, constituting the crime 8) "The taking up of arms by lawless armed groups in the
of rebellion."221 area, with support being provided by foreign-based terrorists
and illegal drug money, and their blatant acts of defiance
2) "[L]awless armed groups have taken up arms and which embolden other armed groups in Mindanao, have
committed public uprising against the duly constituted resulted in the deterioration of public order and safety in
government and against the people of Mindanao, for the Marawi City; they have likewise compromised the security of
purpose of removing Mindanao - starting with the City of the entire Island of Mindanao."228
Marawi, Lanao del Sur - from its allegiance to the
Government and its laws and depriving the Chief Executive of 9) "Considering the network and alliance-building activities
his powers and prerogatives to enforce the laws of the land among terrorist groups, local criminals, and lawless armed
and to maintain public order and safety in Mindanao, to the men, the siege f Marawi City is a vital cog in attaining their
great damage, prejudice, and detriment of the people therein long-standing goal: absolute control over the entirety of
and the nation as a whole."222 Mindanao. These circumstances demand swift and decisive
action to ensure the safety and security of the Filipino people
and preserve our national integrity."229
3) The May 23, 2017 events "put on public display the groups' Thus, the President deduced from the facts available to him
clear intention to establish an Islamic State and their that there was an armed public uprising, the culpable
capability to deprive the duly constituted authorities - the purpose of which was to remove from the allegiance to the
President, foremost - of their powers and prerogatives. "223 Philippine Government a portion of its territory and to
deprive the Chief Executive of any of his powers and
prerogatives, 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
4) "These activities constitute not simply a display of force,
martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of
but a clear attempt to establish the groups' seat of power in
habeas corpus.
Marawi City for their planned establishment of a DAESH
wilayat or province covering the entire Mindanao."224
A review of the aforesaid facts similarly leads the Court to
conclude that the President, in issuing Proclamation No. 216,
5) "The cutting of vital lines for transportation and power;
had sufficient factual bases tending to show that actual
the recruitment of young Muslims to further expand their
rebellion exists. The President's conclusion, that there was an
ranks and strengthen their force; the armed consolidation of
armed public uprising, the culpable purpose of which was the
their members throughout Marawi City; the decimation of a
removal from the allegiance of the Philippine Government a
segment of the city population who resist; and the brazen
portion of its territory and the deprivation of the President
display of DAESH flags constitute a clear, pronounced, and
from performing his powers and prerogatives, was reached
unmistakable intent to remove Marawi City, and eventually
after a tactical consideration of the facts. In fine, the
the rest of Mindanao, from its allegiance to the
President satisfactorily discharged his burden of proof.
Government."225
Probable cause is the same amount of proof required for the 2. that the Maute Group ambushed and burned the Marawi
filing of a criminal information by the prosecutor and for the Police Station (Proclamation No. 216 and the Report);
issuance of an arrest warrant by a judge. Probable cause has
been defined as a 'set of facts and circumstances as would Statements made by PNP Director General Ronald dela Rosa
lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that and Marawi City Mayor Majul Gandamra in the online news
the offense charged in the Information or any offense reports of ABS-CBN News and CNN Philippines233 denying
included therein has been committed by the person sought that the Maute group occupied the Marawi Police Station.
to be arrested.'
Aside from protecting the security of the country, martial law or tool equal to that of the
also guarantees and promotes public safety. It is worthy of
mention that rebellion alone does not justify the declaration Commander-in-Chief to ably and
of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus; the public safety requirement must likewise properly assess the ground
be present.
conditions.
b) As Commander-in-Chief, the President receives vital,
relevant, classified, and live information which equip and
In contrast, the Court does not have the same resources
assist him in making decisions.
available to the President. However, this should not be
considered as a constitutiona1 lapse. On the contrary, this is
In Parts IX and X, the Court laid down the arsenal of facts and in line with the function of the Court, particularly in this
events that formed the basis for Proclamation No. 216. For instance, to determine the sufficiency of factual basis of
the President, the totality of facts and events, more likely Proclamation No. 216. As thoroughly discussed in Part VIII,
than not, shows that actual rebellion exists and that public the determination by the Court of the sufficiency of factual
safety requires the declaration of martial law and suspension basis must be limited only to the facts and information
of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Otherwise mentioned in the Report and Proclamation. In fact, the Court,
stated, the President believes that there is probable cause in David v. President Macapagal-Arroyo,258 cautioned not to
that actual rebellion exists and public safety warrants the "undertake an independent investigation beyond the
issuance of Proclamation No. 216. In turn, the Court notes pleadings." In this regard, "the Court will have to rely on the
that the President, in arriving at such a conclusion, relied on fact-finding capabilities of the [E]xecutive [D]epartment;"259
the facts and events included in the Report, which we find in turn, the Executive Department will have to open its
sufficient. findings to the Court,260 which it did during the closed door
session last June 15, 2017.
To be sure, the facts mentioned in the Proclamation and the
Report are far from being exhaustive or all-encompassing. At d) The 1987 Constitution grants to the President, as
this juncture, it may not be amiss to state that as Commander-in-Chief, the discretion to determine the
Commander-in-Chief, the President has possession of territorial coverage or application of martial law or
documents and information classified as "confidential", the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
contents of which cannot be included in the Proclamation or
Report for reasons of national security. These documents
Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution states that "[i]n revoked, nullified, or extended; at the same time, it is subject
case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires to the veto powers of the Court and Congress.
it, [the President] may x x x suspend the privilege of writ of
habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof Commissioner Monsod, who, incidentally, is a counsel for the
under martial law." Clearly, the Constitution grants to the Mohamad Petition, even exhorted his colleagues in the
President the discretion to determine the territorial coverage Constitutional Convention to look at martial law from a new
of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ perspective by elaborating on the sufficiency of the proposed
of habeas corpus. He may put the entire Philippines or only a safeguards:
part thereof under martial law.
MR. MONSOD. x x x
This is both an acknowledgement and a recognition that it is
the Executive Department, particularly the President as
Second, we have been given a spectre of non sequitur, that
Commander-in-Chief, who is the repository of vital, classified,
the mere declaration of martial law for a fixed period not
and live information necessary for and relevant in calibrating
exceeding 60 days, which is subject to judicial review, is going
the territorial application of martial law and the suspension
to result in numerous violations of human rights, the
of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. It, too, is a
predominance of the military forever and in untold
concession that the President has the tactical and military
sufferings. Madam President, we are talking about invasion
support, and thus has a more informed understanding of
and rebellion. We may not have any freedom to speak of
what is happening on the ground. Thus, the Constitution
after 60 days, if we put as a precondition the concurrence of
imposed a limitation on the period of application, which is 60
Congress. That might prevent the President from acting at
days, unless sooner nullified, revoked or extended, but not
that time in order to meet the problem. So I would like to
on the territorial scope or area of coverage; it merely stated
suggest that, perhaps, we should look at this in its proper
"the Philippines or any part thereof," depending on the
perspective. We are only looking at a very specific case. We
assessment of the President.
are only looking at a case of the first 60 days at its maximum.
And we are looking at actual invasion and rebellion, and
e) The Constitution has there are other safeguards in those cases.262
provided sufficient safeguards against Even Bishop Bacani was convinced that the 1987 Constitution
has enough safeguards against presidential abuses and
possible abuses of Commander-in- commission of human rights violations. In voting yes for the
elimination of the requirement of prior concurrence of
Chief's powers; further curtailment of Congress, Bishop Bacani stated, viz.:
Presidential powers should not only BISHOP BACANI. Yes, just two sentences. The reason I vote II
yes is that despite my concern for human rights, I believe that
a good President can also safeguard human rights and human
be discouraged but also avoided.
lives as well. And I do not want to unduly emasculate the
powers of the President. Xxx263
Considering the country's history, it is understandable that
the resurgence of martial law would engender apprehensions
Commissioner Delos Reyes shared the same sentiment, to
among the citizenry. Even the Court as an institution cannot
wit:
project a stance of nonchalance. However, the importance of
martial law in the context of our society should outweigh
one's prejudices and apprehensions against it. The MR. DE LOS REYES. May I explain my vote, Madam President.
significance of martial law should not be undermined by
unjustified fears and past experience. After all, martial law is x x x The power of the President to impose martial law is
critical and crucial to the promotion of public safety, the doubtless of a very high and delicate nature. A free people
preservation of the nation's sovereignty and ultimately, the are naturally jealous of the exercise of military power, and
survival of our country. It is vital for the protection of the the power to impose martial law is certainly felt to be one of
country not only against internal enemies but also against no ordinary magnitude. But as presented by the Committee,
those enemies lurking from beyond our shores. As such, there are many safeguards: 1) it is limited to 60 days; 2)
martial law should not be cast aside, or its scope and potency Congress can revoke it; 3) the Supreme Court can still review
limited and diluted, based on bias and unsubstantiated as to the sufficiency of factual basis; and 4) it does not
assumptions. suspend the operation of the Constitution. To repeat what I
have quoted when I interpellated Commissioner Monsod, it is
Conscious of these fears and apprehensions, the Constitution said that the power to impose martial law is dangerous to
placed several safeguards which effectively watered down liberty and may be abused. All powers may be abused if
the power to declare martial law. The 1987 Constitution placed in unworthy hands. But it would be difficult, we think,
"[clipped] the powers of [the] Commander-in-Chief because to point out any other hands in which this power will be
of [the] experience with the previous regime."261 Not only more safe and at the same time equally effectual. When
were the grounds limited to actual invasion or rebellion, but citizens of the State are in arms against each other and the
its duration was likewise fixed at 60 days, unless sooner constituted authorities are unable to execute the laws, the
action of the President must be prompt or it is of little value. were merely lurking inside the compound of PGH and MSHS.
x x x264 (Emphasis supplied) However, it must be pointed out that for the crime of
rebellion to be consummated, it is not required that all
At this juncture, it bears to stress that it was the collective armed participants should congregate in one place, in this
sentiment of the framers of the 1987 Constitution that case, the Court's compound, and publicly rise in arms against
sufficient safeguards against possible misuse and abuse by the government for the attainment of their culpable purpose.
the Commander-in-Chief of his extraordinary powers are It suffices that a portion of the contingent gathered and
already in place and that no further emasculation of the formed a mass or a crowd and engaged in an armed public
presidential powers is called for in the guise of additional uprising against the government. Similarly, it cannot be
safeguards. The Constitution recognizes that any further validly concluded that the grounds on which the armed
curtailment, encumbrance, or emasculation of the public uprising actually to6k place should be the measure of
presidential powers would not generate any good among the the extent, scope or range, of the actual I rebellion. This is
three co-equal branches, and to the country and its citizens logical since the other rebels positioned in PGH, MSHS, I or
as a whole. Thus: elsewhere, whose participation did not involve the publicity
aspect of rebellion, may also be considered as engaging in
the crime of rebellion.
MR. OPLE. The reason for my concern, Madam President, is
that when we put all of these encumbrances on the President
and Commander-in-Chief during an actual invasion or Proceeding from the same illustration, suppose we say that
rebellion, given an intractable Congress that may be the President, after finding probable cause that there exists
dominated by opposition parties, we may be actually actual rebellion and that public safety requires it, declares
impelling the President to use the sword of Alexander to cut martial law and suspends the writ of habeas corpus in the
the Gordian knot by just declaring a revolutionary whole of Metro Manila, could we then say that the territorial
government that sets him free to deal with the invasion or coverage of the proclamation is too expansive?
the insurrection. x x x265 (Emphasis supplied)
To answer this question, we revert back to the premise that
f) Rebellion and public safety; the discretion to determine the territorial scope of martial
law lies with the President. The Constitution grants him the
prerogative whether to put the entire Philippines or any part
nature, scope, and range.
thereof under martial law. There is no constitutional edict
that martial law should be confined only in the particular
It has been said that the "gravamen of the crime of rebellion place where the armed public uprising actually transpired.
is an armed public uprising against the government;"266 and This is not only practical but also logical. Martial law is an
that by nature, "rebellion is x x x a crime of masses or urgent measure since at stake is the nation's territorial
multitudes, involving crowd action, that cannot be confined a sovereignty and survival. As such, the President has to
priori, within predetermined bounds."267 We understand respond quickly. After the rebellion in the Court's compound,
this to mean that the precise extent or range of the rebellion he need not wait for another rebellion to be mounted in
could not be measured by exact metes and bounds. Quezon City before he could impose martial law thereat. If
that is the case, then the President would have to wait until
To illustrate: A contingent armed with high-powered firearms every remote corner in the country is infested with rebels
publicly assembled in Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila where the before he could declare martial law in the entire Philippines.
Court's compound is situated. They overpowered the guards, For sure, this is not the scenario envisioned by the
entered the Court's premises, and hoisted the ISIS flag. Their Constitution.
motive was political, i.e., they want to remove from the
allegiance to the Philippine government a part of the Going back to the illustration above, although the President is
territory of the Philippines, particularly the Court's compound not required to impose martial law only within the Court's
and establish it as an ISIS-territory. compound because it is where the armed public uprising
actually transpired, he may do so if he sees fit. At the same
Based on the foregoing illustration, and vis-a-vis the nature of time, however, he is not precluded from expanding the
the crime of rebellion, could we validly say that the rebellion coverage of martial law beyond the Court's compound. After
is confined only within the Court's compound? Definitely not. all, rebellion is not confined within predetermined bounds.
The possibility that there are other rebels positioned in the
nearby buildings or compound of the Philippine General Public safety, which is another component element for the
Hospital (PGH) or the Manila Science High Schoo1 (MSHS) declaration of martial law, "involves the prevention of and
could not be discounted. There is no way of knowing that all protection from events that could endanger the safety of the
participants in the rebellion went and stayed inside the general public from significant danger, injury/harm, or
Court's compound. damage, such as crimes or disasters."268 Public safety is an
abstract term; it does not take any physical form. Plainly, its
range, extent or scope could not be physically measured by
metes and bounds.
Neither could it be validly argued that the armed contingent
positioned in PGH or MSHS is not engaged in rebellion Perhaps another reason why the territorial scope of martial
because there is no publicity in their acts as, in fact, they law should not necessarily be limited to the particular vicinity
where the armed public uprising actually transpired, is another's territory. Clearly, the power to determine the
because of the unique characteristic of rebellion as a crime. scope of territorial application belongs to the President. "The
"The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. It is a vast Court cannot indulge in judicial legislation without violating
movement of men and a complex net of intrigues and plots. the principle of separation of powers, and, hence,
Acts committed in furtherance of rebellion[,] though crimes undermining the foundation of our republican system."281
in themselves[,] are deemed absorbed in one single crime of
rebellion."269 Rebellion absorbs "other acts committed in its To reiterate, the Court is not equipped with the competence
pursuance".270 Direct assault,271 murder,272 homicide,273 and logistical machinery to determine the strategical value of
arson,274 robbery,275 and kidnapping,276 just to name a other places in the military's efforts to quell the rebellion and
few, are absorbed in the crime of rebellion if committed in restore peace. It would be engaging in an act of adventurism
furtherance of rebellion; "[i]t cannot be made a basis of a if it dares to embark on a mission of deciphering the
separate charge."277 Jurisprudence also teaches that not territorial metes and bounds of martial law. To be blunt
only common crimes may be absorbed in rebellion but also about it, hours after the proclamation of martial law none of
"offenses under special laws [such as Presidential Decree No. the members of this Court could have divined that more than
1829]278 which are perpetrated in furtherance of the ten thousand souls would be forced to evacuate to Iligan and
political offense".279 "All crimes, whether punishable under Cagayan de Oro and that the military would have to secure
a special law or general law, which are me e components or those places also; none of us could have predicted that
ingredients, or committed in furtherance thereof, become Cayamora Maute would be arrested in Davao City or that his
absorbed in the crime of rebellion and cannot be isolated and wife Ominta Romato Maute would be apprehended in Masiu,
charged as separate crimes in themselves.280 Lanao del Sur; and, none of us had an inkling that the
Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) would launch an
Thus, by the theory of absorption, the crime of murder attack in Cotabato City. The Court has no military background
committed in Makati City, if committed in furtherance of the and technical expertise to predict that. In the same manner,
crime of rebellion being hypothetically staged in Padre Faura, the Court lacks the technical capability to determine which
Ermita, Manila, is stripped of its common complexion and is part of Mindanao would best serve as forward operating
absorbed in the crime of rebellion. This all the more makes it base of the military in their present endeavor in Mindanao.
difficult to confine the application of martial law only to the Until now the Court is in a quandary and can only speculate
place where the armed public uprising is actually taking whether the 60-day lifespan of Proclamation No. 216 could
place. In the illustration above, Padre Faura could only be the outlive the present hostilities in Mindanao. It is on this score
nerve center of the rebellion but at the same time rebellion is that the Court should give the President sufficient leeway to
also happening in Makati City. address the peace and order problem in Mindanao.
In fine, it is difficult, if not impossible, to fix the territorial Thus, considering the current situation, it will not serve any
scope of martial law in direct proportion to the "range" of purpose if the President is goaded into using "the sword of
actual rebellion and public safety simply because rebellion Alexander to cut the Gordian knot"282 by attempting to
and public safety have no fixed physical dimensions. Their impose another encumbrance; after all "the declaration of
transitory and abstract nature defies precise measurements; martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
hence, the determination of the territorial scope of martial habeas corpus is essentially an executive act."283
law could only be drawn from arbitrary, not fixed, variables.
The Constitution must have considered these limitations Some sectors, impelled perhaps by feelings of patriotism,
when it granted the President wide leeway and flexibility in may wish to subdue, rein in, or give the President a nudge, so
determining the territorial scope of martial law. to speak, as some sort of reminder of the nation's experience
under the Marcos-styled martial law. However, it is not fair to
Moreover, the President's duty to maintain peace and public judge President Duterte based on the ills some of us may
safety is not limited only to the place where there is actual have experienced during the Marcos-martial law era. At this
rebellion; it extends to other areas where the present point, the Court quotes the insightful discourse of
hostilities are in danger of spilling over. It is not intended Commissioner Ople:
merely to prevent the escape of lawless elements from
Marawi City, but also to avoid enemy reinforcements and to MR. OPLE. x x x
cut their supply lines coming from different parts of
Mindanao. Thus, limiting the proclamation and/or suspension
xxxx
to the place where there is actual rebellion would not only
defeat the purpose of declaring martial law, it will make the
exercise thereof ineffective and useless. Madam President, there is a tendency to equate patriotism
with rendering the executive branch of the government
impotent, as though by reducing drastically the powers of the
g) The Court must stay within
executive, we are rendering a service to human welfare. I
think it is also important to understand that the
the confines of its power. extraordinary measures contemplated in the Article on the
Executive pertain to a practical state of war existing in this
The Court can only act within the confines of its country when national security will become a common bond
power.1âwphi1 For the Court to overreach is to infringe upon of patriotism of all Filipinos, especially if it is an actual
invasion or an actual rebellion, and the President may have a. On January 13, 2017, an improvised explosive device (IED)
to be given a minimum flexibility to cope with such exploded in Barangay Campo Uno, Lamita City, Basilan. A
unprecedented threats to the survival of a nation. I think the civilian was killed while another was wounded.290
Commission has done so but at the same time has not, in any
manner, shunned the task of putting these powers under a b. On January 19, 2017, the ASG kidnapped three Indonesians
whole system of checks and balances, including the possible near Bakungan Island, Taganak, Tawi-Tawi.291
revocation at any time of a proclamation of martial law by
the Congress, and in any case a definite determination of
c. On January 29, 2017, the ASG detonated an IED in
these extraordinary powers, subject only to another
Barangay Danapah, Albarka, Basilan resulting in the death of
extension to be determined by Congress in the event that it is
two children and the wounding of three others.292
necessary to do so because the emergency persists.
Mindanao. There were also intelligence reports from the military about
offensives committed by the ASG and other local rebel
With a predominantly Muslim population, Marawi City is "the groups. All these suggest that the rebellion in Marawi has
only Islamic City of the South."285 On April 15, 1980, it was already spilled over to other parts of Mindanao.
conferred the official title of "Islamic City of Marawi."286 The
city's first name, "Dansalan," "was derived from the word Moreover, considering the widespread atrocities in
'dansal', meaning a destination point or rendezvous. Literally, Mindanao and the linkages established among rebel groups,
it also means arrival or coming."287 Marawi lies in the heart the armed uprising that was initially staged in Marawi cannot
of Mindanao. In fact, the Kilometer Zero marker in Mindanao be justified as confined only to Marawi. The Court therefore
is found in Marawi City thereby making Marawi City the point will not simply disregard the events that happened during the
of reference of all roads in Mindanao. Davao City bombing, the Mamasapano massacre, the
Zamboanga City siege, and the countless bombings in
Thus, there is reasonable basis to believe that Marawi is only Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Sulu, and Basilan, among
the staging point of the rebellion, both for symbolic and others.298 The Court cannot simply take the battle of
strategic reasons. Marawi may not be the target but the Marawi in isolation. As a crime without predetermined
whole of Mindanao. As mentioned in the Report, "[l]awless bounds, the President has reasonable basis to believe that
armed groups have historically used provinces adjoining the declaration of martial law, as well as the suspension of
Marawi City as escape routes, supply lines, and backdoor the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of
passages;"288 there is also the plan to establish a wilayat in Mindanao, is most necessary, effective, and called for by the
Mindanao by staging the siege of Marawi. The report that circumstances.
prior to May 23, 2017, Abdullah Maute had already
dispatched some of his men to various places in Mindanao,
such as Marawi, Iligan, and Cagayan de Oro for bombing
operations, carnapping, and the murder of military and police
i) Terrorism neither negates
personnel,289 must also be considered. Indeed, there is
some semblance of truth to the contention that Marawi is
only the start, and Mindanao the end. nor absorbs rebellion.