Constitutional Law: Case set # 7 - During the presentation before the

Chapter 10 – Art. VII Executive Department Committee of the Whole of the House of
SECTION 18 Representatives, it was shown that the
15. Lagman v. Medialdea (2017) military was even successful in
Ponente: J. Del Castillo preempting the ASG and the Maute
- May 23, 2017 Proclamation 216 Declaring Group's plan to take over Marawi City and
Martial Law in Mindandao and Suspending other parts of Mindanao; there was
the Privilege of Writ of Habeas Corpus. absence of any hostile plan by the Moro
- May 25, 2017, a report was submitted to Islamic Liberation Front; and the number
the congress, “According to the Report, the of foreign fighters allied with ISIS was
lawless activities of the ASG, Maute Group, "undetermined" which indicates that there
and other criminals, brought about undue are only a meager number of
constraints and difficulties to the military foreign fighters who can lend support to
and government personnel, particularly in the Maute Group.
the performance of their duties and - Is the factual basis for the declaration of
functions, and untold hardships to the ML a Political Question?
civilians. After the submission of the o No, Section 18 of Art VII Par. 3
Report and the briefings, the Senate issued allows the SC to review the factual
a resolution expressing full support to the basis of the declaration of Martial
martial law proclamation and finding Law.
Proclamation No. 216 "to be satisfactory, - Difference between the checking powers
constitutional and in accordance with the of the Congress and SC in the exercise of
law". In the same Resolution, the Senate the ML
declared that it found "no compelling Congress Supreme Court
reason to revoke the same". May revoke the May strike down
- The Lagman Petition claims that the proclamation or nullify the
declaration of martial law has no sufficient proclamation
factual basis because there is no rebellion Congress can Needs for a
or invasion in Marawi City or in any part of review any time petition by a
Mindanao. It argues that acts of terrorism after the citizen
in Mindanao do not constitute rebellion proclamation
since there is no proof that its purpose is In reviewing; may In reviewing;
take into Court considers
to remove Mindanao or any part thereof
consideration not only the
from allegiance to the Philippines, its laws,
only the data information and
or its territory. available prior to data available to
- The Lagman Petition insists that during the proclamation the president at
the briefing, representatives of the but likewise the time of the
military and defense authorities did not events proclamation
categorically admit nor deny the presence supervening Not allowed to
of an ISIS threat in the country but that conduct
they merely gave an evasive answer. independent
- Declaration of martial law has no sufficient investigation
factual basis because the President's Can delve into the Factual Basis only
Report contained "false, inaccurate, accuracy of the
contrived and hyperbolic accounts. facts presented
- The president’s report included events - The recommendation of the Defense
that took place long before the Marawi Secretary is not a condition for declaration
Siege. of ML – it would be contrary to common
- The President acted alone without sense if the decision of the President is
consulting high ranking military official. made dependent on the recommendation
of his mere alter ego.
 - Most benign of the Extraordinary powers
– Calling out powers as it involves
ordinary police power whenever it
becomes necessary.
- Void for Vagueness doctrine – a law is
facially invalid if "men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning and differ as to its application."
And only applicable in free speech cases.
- (1) it violates due process for failure to
accord persons, especially the parties
targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to
avoid; and (2) it leaves law enforcers
unbridled discretion in carrying out its
provisions and becomes an arbitrary
flexing of the Government
muscle."
- Operative fact doctrine – the
unconstitutional statute is recognized as
an "operative fact" before it is declared
unconstitutional.
- Sufficiency of factual basis test - the only
test for judicial review of the President's
power to declare martial law and suspend
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
under Section 18, Article VII of the
Constitution. The Court does not need to
satisfy itself that the President's decision is
correct, rather it only needs to determine
whether the President's decision had
sufficient factual bases.
- Rebellion – same meaning in the RPC,
taking up arms against the government.
- Probable cause is the only standard of
proof needed by the president to declare
Martial Law.
- Invasion or rebellion alone may justify
resort to the calling out power but
definitely not the declaration of martial
law or suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus.
- For a declaration of martial law or
suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus to be valid, there must be a
concurrence of actual rebellion or invasion
and the public safety requirement.
- Petitions DISMISSED
16. David v. Arroyo (2006)
Ponente: J. Gutierrez
- Declaration of National Emergency
- PP 1107 and GO 5 implementing the PP
1107.
- The authority to decide whether an
exigency has arisen belongs to the
President and his decision is final and
conclusive on the courts.
- Sec 18 Calling out power, the authority to
decide whether an exigency has arisen
belongs to the President and his decision is
final and conclusive on the courts.
- Sec 17 Take care provision, primary
function of the President is to enforce the
laws as well as to formulate policies to be
embodied in existing laws.
- Legislative decrees are within the ambit of
the Legislative department.
- To be sure, neither martial law nor a state
of rebellion nor a state of emergency can
justify President Arroyo’s exercise of
legislative power by issuing decrees. It
follows that these decrees are void and,
therefore, cannot be enforced. With
respect to “laws”, she cannot call the
military to enforce or implement certain
laws such as customs laws, laws governing
family and property relations, laws on
obligations and contracts, and the like. She
can only order the military under PP1017,
to enforce laws pertaining to its duty to
suppress lawless violence.
17. Aquino v. Enrile (1974)
Ponente: C.J. Makalintal
- Habeas Corpus Case
- Petitioners having been arrested and
detained by the military by virtue of
Proclamation 1081. The petitioners were
arrested and held pursuant to General
Order No.2 of the President “for being
participants or for having given aid and
comfort in the conspiracy to seize political
and state power in the country and to take
over the Government by force…” General
Order No. 2 was issued by the President in
the exercise of the power he assumed by
virtue of Proclamation 1081 placing the
entire country under martial law.
- Is the existence of conditions claimed to
justify the exercise of the power to declare
martial law subject to judicial inquiry?
 - Is the detention of the petitioners legal in
accordance with the declaration of martial
law?
- 5 Justices held that the issue is a political
question, hence, not subject to judicial
inquiry, while 4 Justices held that the issue
is a justiciable one. However, any inquiry
by this Court in the present cases into the
constitutional sufficiency of the factual
bases for the proclamation of martial law
has become moot and academic. Implicit in
the state of martial law is the suspension
of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus with respect to persons arrested or
detained for acts related to the basic
objective of the proclamation, which is to
suppress invasion, insurrection or
rebellion, or to safeguard public safety
against imminent danger thereof. The
preservation of society and national
survival takes precedence. The
proclamation of martial law automatically
suspends the privilege of the writ as to the
persons referred to in this case.
18. Ruffy v. Chief of Staff
Ponente: J. Tuason
- FACTS: During the Japanese insurrection
in the Philippines, military men were
assigned at designated camps or military
bases all over the country. Japanese forces
went to Mindoro thus forcing petitioner
and his band move up the mountains and
organize a guerilla outfit and call it the
"Bolo area". A certain Capt. Beloncio
relieved Ruffy and fellow petitioners of
their position and duties in the "Bolo area"
by the new authority vested upon him
because of the recent change of command.
Capt. Beloncio was thus allegedly slain by
Ruffy and his fellow petitioners.
- ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners
were subject to military law at the time the
offense was committed, which was at the
time of war and the Japanese occupancy.
- HELD: The Court held that the petitioners
were still subject to military law since
members of the Armed Forces were still
covered by the National Defense Act,
Articles of War and other laws even during
an occupation. The act of unbecoming of an
officer and a gentleman is considered as a
defiance of 95th Article of War held
petitioners liable to military jurisdiction
and trial. Moreover, they were operating
officers, which makes them even more
eligible for the military court's
jurisdiction. In consideration of the
foregoing, the petition has no merit and
should be dismissed. Thus, the petition is
hereby DENIED.
19. Olaguer v. Militarry Commission No. 34
(1987)
Ponente: J. Gancayco
- Petitioners were charged with multiple
crimes of unlawful possession of
explosives, rebellion, attempted
assassination of Mrs. Marcos, etc.
- Sole issue in Habeas corpus is detention.
- When the person which is the subject of
the petition for Writ of habeas Corpus is
released the petition is dismissed for being
moot and academic.
- Whether or not Military courts have
jurisdiction over civilians during ML.
- NO, The SC nullified for lack of jurisdiction
all decisions rendered by the military
courts or tribunals during the period of
martial law in all cases involving civilian
defendants.
- A military commission or tribunal cannot
try and exercise jurisdiction, even during
the period of martial law, over civilians for
offenses allegedly committed by them as
long as the civil courts are open and
functioning, and that any judgment
rendered by such body relating to a
civilian is null and void for lack of
jurisdiction on the part of the military
tribunal concerned.
- Art VII Sec 18 Par 4, non-conferment of
jurisdiction to Military Courts when Civil
courts are able to function.
20. IBP v. Zamora (2000)
Ponente: J. Kapunan
- Pres, Estrada in a verbal directive, ordered
the PNP and the Marines to conduct joint
visibility patrols for the purpose of crime
prevention and suppression.
- When the President calls the armed forces
to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
invasion or rebellion, he necessarily
 exercises a discretionary power solely
vested in his wisdom.
- This does not prevent an examination of
whether such power was exercised within
permissible constitutional limits or
whether it was exercised in a manner
constituting grave abuse of discretion.
- Grounds for declaration of ML, (1) there
must be an actual invasion or rebellion
and, (2) public safety must require it.
o Not required in the case of the
power to call out the Armed
Forces.
- The President as Commander-in-Chief has
a vast intelligence network to gather
information, some of which may be
classified as highly confidential or
affecting the security of the state.
- In the exercise of the power to call, on-the-
spot decisions may be imperatively
necessary in emergency situations to avert
great loss of human lives and mass
destruction of property.
- Sin qua none for Judicial Review
a. Actual case / Controversy
b. Legal Standing
c. Issue is raised at the earliest possible
d. Issue is the lis mota of the case