Christie Joi C.

Navallasca 4A
Lagman et. al. vs Medialdea et. al.,
G.R. Nos. 2311568/231771/231773, July 4, 2017

Facts:
May 23, 2017, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216 and for a
period not exceeding 60 days, a state of Martial Law and suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus
in the whole of Mindanao. Within the timeline set by Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution,
the President submitted to Congress on May 25, 2017, a written Report on the factual basis of
Proclamation No.216. The report pointed out that for decades, Mindanao has been plagued with
rebellion and lawless violence which only escalated and worsened with the passing of time. The
report also highlighted the strategic location of Marawi City and the crucial and significant role it
plays in Mindanao, and the Philippines as a whole. In addition, the Report pointed out the
possible tragic repercussions once Marawi City falls under the control of the lawless groups.
After the submissions of the Report and the briefings, the Senate issued a resolution
expressing full support to the martial law proclamation and finding Proclamation No. 216 to be
satisfactory, constitutional and in accordance with the law. In the same resolution, the senate
declared that it found no compelling reason to revoke the same. The House of Representatives
likewise issued a resolution expressing its full support to the President, as it finds no reason to
revoke Proclamation No. 216.
Invoking the third paragraph of Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, various
citizens filed several petitions, essentially invoking the Court’s specific and special jurisprudence
to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of Proclamation No. 216, and seeking to nullify
Proclamation No. 216 for being unconstitutional because it lacks sufficient factual basis.
Lagman Petition, claims that the declaration of martial law in Mindanao has no sufficient
basis because there is no rebellion or invasion in Marawi City or in any part of Mindanao. It
argues that acts of terrorism in Mindanao do not constitute rebellion since there is no proof that
its purpose is to remove Mindanao or any part thereof from allegiance to the Philippines, its
laws, or its territory. In Cullamat Petition, likewise seeks the nullification of Proclamation no.
216 for being unconstitutional because it lacks sufficient factual basis that there is rebellion in
Mindanao and that public safety warrants its declaration. In Mohamad Petiton on the other hand,
denominated as a "Petition for Review of the Sufficiency of the Factual Basis of the Declaration
of Martial Law and the Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. The
Mohamad Petition insists that the Court may "look into the wisdom of the President's actions,
and not just the presence of arbitrariness"
Issues:
1. Whether or not the power of this Court to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of
the proclamation of 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.

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

a. What are the parameters for review?

b. Who has the burden of proof?

c. What is the threshold of evidence?

Christie Joi C. Navallasca 4A

Ruling:

1. The power of the Court to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus under Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution is independent of the
actions taken by Congress. The Court may strike down the presidential proclamation
in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen on the ground of lack sufficient
factual basis. On the other hand, Congress may revoke the proclamation or
suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. In reviewing the
sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation or suspension, the court considers
only the information and data available to the President prior to, or at the time of the
declaration; it is not allowed to undertake an independent investigation beyond the
pleadings. On the other hand, Congress may take into consideration not only the data
available prior to, but likewise events supervening the declaration. Unlike the Court
which does not look into absolute correctness of the factual basis as will be discussed
below, Congress could probe deeper and further, it can delve into the accuracy of the
facts presented before it.
2. The President deduced from the facts available to him that there was an armed public
uprising, the culpable purpose of which was to remove from the allegiance to the
Philippine Government a portion of its territory and to deprived the Chief Executive
of any of his power and prerogative, leading the President to believe that there was
probable cause that the crime of rebellion was and is being committed and that public
safety requires the imposition of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus.
a. The parameters for review is Section 18, Art. VII itself. For determining the
sufficiency of the factual basis for the declaration of martial law and/or
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; 1. Actual invasion or
rebellion, and 2. Public safety requires the exercise of such power. Without the
concurrence of the two conditions, the President’s declaration of martial law
and/or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus must be struck
down.
A review of the aforesaid facts similarly leads the court to conclude that the
President, in issuing Proclamation No.216, had sufficient factual bases tending to
show that actual rebellion exists. The President’s conclusion, that there was an
armed public uprising, the culpable purpose of which was the removal from the
alliance of the Philippine Government a portion of its territory and the deprivation
of the President from performing his powers and prerogatives, was reached after a
tactical consideration of the facts. In fine, the President satisfactorily discharged
his burden of proof.
b. After all, what the president needs to satisfy is only the standard of probable cause
for a valid declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus.
c. What the president needs to satisfy is only the standard of probable cause for a
valid declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus.