Besario, Kenny Anne R.

1T

Rep. Edcel Lagman, et al. v. Executive Secretary Medialdea, G.R. No. 231658,
July 4, 2017
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Facts:

May 23, 2017, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216 declaring a state of
martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the Mindanao group of
islands for a period not exceeding sixty days.Following the declaration, the president submitted
to congress on May 25, 2017, a written Report on the factual basis of Proclamation No. 216.
According to the report, Marawi City has been infiltrated by lawless armed groups composed of
members of the Maute Group and the ASG. Included in his report is the list of events that
transpired in Marawi City which impelled him to declare such proclamation. The unfolding of
these events, as well as the classified reports he received, led the President to conclude that
-These activities constitute not simply a display of force, but a clear attempt to establish the
groups' seat of power in Marawi City for theirplanned establishment of a DAESH wilayat or
province covering the entire Mindanao. After the submission of the Report and the briefings, the
Senate issued P.S. Resolution No. 3888 expressing full support to the martial law proclamation
and finding Proclamation No. 216 "to be satisfactory, constitutional and in accordance with the
law". Edcel Lagman, et al. filed a petition claiming that claims that the declaration of martial law
has no sufficient factual 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 12
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. The petitioners claim that there is only a threat of
rebellion in Marawi City which is akin to "imminent danger" of rebellion, which is no longer a
valid ground for the declaration of martial law. The petitioners also claim that the president’s
report contained “false, inaccurate, contrived and hyperbolic accounts”. With that, the petitioners
ask the court to Court to: (1 )"exercise its specific and special jurisdiction to review the
sufficiency of the factual basis of Proclamation No. 216"; and (2) render decision voiding and
nullifying Proclamation No. 216" for lack of sufficient factual basis.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the President in declaring martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus:

a. is required to be factually correct or only not arbitrary in his appreciation of facts

 b. is required to obtain the favorable recommendation thereon of the Secretary of
National Defense;

C. is required to take into account only the situation at the time following the
proclamation, even if subsequent events prove the situation to have not been accurately
reported;

HELD:
1. No. The court is not concerned about absolute correctness, accuracy or precision of the
facts because to do so would unduly tie the hands of the President in responding to an
urgent situation. The president is not obliged to go through the process of verifying the
facts as it would only impede the decision making process
2. No. Section 18, Article VII of the constitution does not necessitate the president to
consult the Secretary of the National Defense or other high ranking officials. The
proclamation only requires the presence of an actual rebellion or invasion and the need to
protect public safety.
3. Yes. In determining the sufficiency of the factual basis of the president’s declaration of
martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, only the
information and data available to the president at the time of the proclamation should be
examined in testing the gravity of the factual basis.

Therefore, the court finds sufficient factual bases for the issuance of the Proclamation No. 216
and declares it constitutional.