EDCEL LAGMAN, ET AL VS.

AQUILINO PIMENTEL III, ET AL

Facts:
These are consolidated petitions assailing the constitutionality of the extension of the
proclamation of martial law and suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao
for one year from January 1 to December 31, 2018.
On May 23, 2017, President Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216, declaring a state of
martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao
for a period not exceeding sixty (60) days, to address the rebellion mounted by members of the
Maute and Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG). On May 25, 2017, the President submitted to the Senate
and the House of Representatives his written Report, citing the events and reasons that impelled
him to issue Proclamation No. 216. Thereafter, the Senate adopted P.S. Resolution No. 3883
while the House of Representatives issued House Resolution No. 1050, both expressing full
support to the Proclamation and finding no cause to revoke the same. On July 18, 2017, the
President requested the Congress to extend the effectivity of Proclamation No. 216. In a Special
Joint Session on July 22, 2017, the Congress adopted Resolution of Both Houses No. 2 extending
Proclamation No. 216 until December 31, 2017. In a letter to the President, through Defense
Secretary Lorenzana, AFP Chief of Staff General Guerrero, recommended the further extension
of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire
Mindanao for one year beginning January 1, 2018 “for compelling reasons based on current
security assessment.” On the same basis, Secretary Lorenzana wrote a similar recommendation
to the President. The President, in a letter, asked both the Senate and the House of
Representatives to further extend the proclamation of martial law and the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao for one year, from January 1, 2018
to December 31, 2018, or for such period as the Congress may determine. On December 13,
2017, the Senate and the House of Representatives, in a joint session, adopted Resolution of Both
Houses No. 4

Issues:
1. Whether or not the manner in which Congress deliberated on the President’s request
for extension of martial law is subject to judicial review.
2. Whether or not the President and the Congress had sufficient factual basis to extend
Proclamation No. 216.

Ruling:
No. The Court ruled that they cannot review the rules promulgated by Congress in the
absence of any constitutional violation. Petitioners have not shown that the above-quoted rules of
the Joint Session violated any provision or right under the Constitution.
Construing the full discretionary power granted to the Congress in promulgating
its rules, the Court, in the case of Spouses Dela Paz (Ret.) v. Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations, et al. explained that the limitation of this unrestricted power deals only with the
imperatives of quorum, voting and publication. It should be added that there must be a
reasonable relation between the mode or method of proceeding established by the rule and the
result which is sought to be attained.
In the instant case, the rules in question did not pertain to quorum, voting or
publication. Furthermore, deliberations on extending martial law certainly cannot be equated to
the consideration of regular or ordinary legislation. The Congress may consider such matter as
urgent as to necessitate swift action, or it may take its time investigating the factual situation.
This Court cannot engage in undue speculation that members of Congress did not review and
study the President’s request based on a bare allegation that the time allotted for deliberation was
too short.
Furthermore, it has not escaped this Court's attention that the rules that
governed the Joint Session were in fact adopted, without objection, by both Houses of Congress
on December 13, 2017. 107 So also, the Transcript of the Plenary Proceedings of the Joint
Session showed that Members of Congress were, upon request, granted extension of their time to
interpellate.
Yes. Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution requires two factual bases for the
extension of the proclamation of martial law or of the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus: (a) the invasion or rebellion persists; and (b) public safety requires the extension.
A. Rebellion persists
The reasons cited by the President in his request for further extension indicate that
the rebellion, which caused him to issue Proclamation No. 216, continues to exist and its
"remnants" have been resolute in establishing a DAESH/ISIS territory in Mindanao, carrying on
through the recruitment and training of new members, financial and logistical build-up,
consolidation of forces and continued attacks. The AFP General Guerrero cited, among others,
the continued armed resistance of the DAESH-inspired DIWM and their allies and the AFP’s
data showed that Foreign Terrorist Fighters (FTFs) are now acting as instructors to the new
members of the Dawlah Islamiyah. These accounts ineluctably show that the rebellion that
spawned the Marawi crisis persists, and that its remaining members have regrouped,
substantially increased in number, and are no less determined to tum Mindanao into a
DAESH/ISIS territory. The termination of armed combat in Marawi does not conclusively
indicate that the rebellion has ceased to exist. It will be a tenuous proposition to confine rebellion
simply to a resounding clash of arms with government forces. The crime of rebellion consists of
many acts. It is a vast movement of men and a complex net of intrigues and plots." Accordingly,
it would be error to conclude that the rebellion ceased to exist upon the termination of hostilities
in Marawi.