Lagman v. Medialdea (December 5, 2017)

10/4/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 847

G.R. No. 231658. December 5, 2017.*

REPRESENTATIVES EDCEL C. LAGMAN, TOMASITO
S. VILLARIN, GARY C. ALEJANO, EMMANUEL A.
BILLONES, and TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT, JR.,
petitioners, vs. HON. SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA,
Executive Secretary; HON. DELFIN N. LORENZANA,
Secretary of the Department of National Defense and
Martial Law Administrator; and GEN. EDUARDO AÑO,
Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and
Martial Law Implementor, respondents.
G.R. No. 231771. December 5, 2017.*

EUFEMIA CAMPOS CULLAMAT, VIRGILIO T.
LINCUNA, ATELIANA U. HIJOS, ROLAND A.
COBRADO, CARL ANTHONY D. OLALO, ROY JIM
BALANGHIG, RENATO REYES, JR., CRISTINA E.
PALABAY, AMARYLLIS H. ENRIQUEZ, ACT
TEACHERS’ REPRESENTATIVE ANTO-
_____________
* EN BANC.

581
VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 581

Lagman vs. Medialdea
NIO L. TINIO, GABRIELA WOMEN’S PARTY

REPRESENTATIVE ARLENE D. BROSAS, KABATAAN
PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE SARAH JANE I.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d96c803f013d16a82003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/38
ELAGO, MAE PANER, GABRIELA KRISTA DALENA,

ANNA ISABELLE ESTEIN, MARK VINCENT D. LIM,
VENCER MARI CRISOSTOMO, JOVITA MONTES,
petitioners, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR
MEDIALDEA, DEFENSE SECRETARY DELFIN
LORENZANA, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES
CHIEF OF STAFF LT. GENERAL EDUARDO AÑO, and
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE DIRECTOR-
GENERAL RONALD DELA ROSA, respondents.
G.R. No. 231774. December 5, 2017.*

NORKAYA S. MOHAMAD, SITTIE NUR DYHANNA S.
MOHAMAD, NORAISAH S. SANI, ZAHRIA P. MUTI-
MAPANDI, petitioners, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, DEPARTMENT OF
NATIONAL DEFENSE (DND) SECRETARY DELFIN N.
LORENZANA, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DILG) SECRETARY (OFFICER-
IN-CHARGE) CATALINO S. CUY, ARMED FORCES OF
THE PHILIPPINES (AFP) CHIEF OF STAFF GEN.
EDUARDO M. AÑO, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
(PNP) CHIEF DIRECTOR GENERAL RONALD M. DELA
ROSA, and NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER
HERMOGENES C. ESPERON, JR., respondents.
Constitutional Law; Martial Law; Writ of Habeas Corpus; The

initial declaration of martial law and/or suspension of the writ of
habeas corpus is determined solely by the President, while the
extension of the declaration and/or suspension, although initiated
by the President, is approved by Congress.—Section 18, Article VII
of the Constitution provides that “the President x x x may, for a
period not 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 Upon the initiative of the President, the
Congress may, in the same manner, extend such
proclamation or sus-

582
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

pension for a period to be determined by the Congress,

if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires
it.” From the foregoing, it is clear that the President’s declaration
of martial law and/or suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus is effective for 60 days. As aptly described by
Commissioner Monsod, “this declaration has a time fuse. It is only
good for a maximum of 60 days. At the end of 60 days, it
automatically terminates.” Any extension thereof should be
determined by Congress. The act of declaring martial law and/or
suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus by the
President, however, is separate from the approval of the extension
of the declaration and/or suspension by Congress. The initial
declaration of martial law and/or suspension of the writ of habeas
corpus is determined solely by the President, while the extension
of the declaration and/or suspension, although initiated by the
President, is approved by Congress.
Same; Same; Same; Sufficiency of Factual Basis; The
parameters for determining the sufficiency of factual basis are as
follows: 1) actual rebellion or invasion; 2) public safety requires it;
the first two requirements must concur; and 3) there is probable
cause for the President to believe that there is actual rebellion or
invasion.—We held that “the parameters for determining the
sufficiency of factual basis are as follows: 1) actual rebellion or
invasion; 2) public safety requires it; the first two requirements
must concur; and 3) there is probable cause for the President to
believe that there is actual rebellion or invasion.” Moreover, we
stated in the assailed Decision that “the phrase ‘sufficiency of
factual basis’ in Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution should
be understood as 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.” Requiring the Court to
determine the accuracy of the factual basis of the President
contravenes the Constitution as Section 18, Article VII only
requires the Court to determine the sufficiency of the factual
basis. Accuracy is not the same as sufficiency as the former
requires a higher degree of standard.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The President only needs to
convince himself that there is probable cause or evidence showing
that more likely than not a rebellion was committed or is being
committed.—“The President only needs to convince himself that
there is probable cause or evidence showing that more likely
than not a rebellion

583
VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 583

was committed or is being committed.” The standard of proof

of probable cause does not require absolute truth. Since “martial
law is a matter of urgency x x x the President x x x is not expected
to completely validate all the information he received before
declaring martial law or suspending the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus.” Notably, out of the several facts advanced by the
President as basis for Proclamation No. 216, only five of them
were being questioned by the petitioners. However, they were not
even successful in their refutation since their “counter-evidence
were derived solely from unverified news articles on the internet,
with neither the authors nor the sources shown to have
affirmed the contents thereof. It was not even shown that
efforts were made to secure such affirmation albeit the
circumstances proved futile.” Even granting that the
petitioners were successful in their attempt to refute the aforesaid
five incidents, there are other facts sufficient to serve as factual
basis for the declaration of martial law and suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The Supreme Court (SC) is not
even obliged to summon witnesses as long as it satisfies itself with
the sufficiency of the factual basis; it is purely discretionary on its
part whether to call additional witnesses.—There is absolutely no
basis to petitioners’ claim that the Court abdicated its power to
review. To be sure, our findings that there was sufficient factual
basis for the issuance of Proclamation No. 216 and that there was
probable cause, that is, that more likely than not, rebellion exists
and that public safety requires the declaration of martial law and
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, were
reached after due consideration of the facts, events, and
information enumerated in the proclamation and report to
Congress. The Court did not content itself with the examination
only of the pleadings/documents submitted by the parties. In
addition, it conducted a closed-door session where it tried to ferret
additional information, confirmation and clarification from the
resource persons, particularly Secretary of National Defense
Delfin Lorenzana and Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief of
Staff Eduardo Año. At this juncture, it must be stated that the
Court is not even obliged to summon witnesses as long as it
satisfies itself with the sufficiency of the factual basis; it is purely
discretionary on its part whether to call additional witnesses. In
any event, reliance on so-called intelligence reports, even without
presentation of its author, is proper and allowed by law.
584

Same; Same; Same; Same; The leeway and flexibility accorded

to the Executive must be construed in the context of the present
setup wherein the declaration of martial law and suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus are grounded on actual
invasion or rebellion, not on imminent threat or danger thereof; as
such, time is of the essence for the President to act quickly to
protect the country.—The Court’s acknowledgment of the
President’s superior data gathering apparatus, and the fact that it
has given the Executive much leeway and flexibility, should never
be understood as a prelude to surrendering the judicial power to
review. The Court never intended to concede its power to verify
the sufficiency of factual basis for the declaration of martial law
and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The
leeway and flexibility accorded to the Executive must be
construed in the context of the present setup wherein the
declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus are grounded on actual invasion or
rebellion, not on imminent threat or danger thereof; as such, time
is of the essence for the President to act quickly to protect the
country. It is also a recognition of the unassailable fact that as
Commander-in-Chief, the President has access to confidential
information. In fact, Fr. Joaquin Bernas even opined that the
Court might have to rely on the fact-finding capabilities of the
Executive; in turn, the Executive should share its findings with
the Court if it wants to convince the latter of the propriety of its
action. Moreover, it is based on the understanding that martial
law is a flexible concept; that “the precise extent or range of the
rebellion [cannot] be measured by exact metes and bounds;” that
public safety requirement cannot be quantified or measured by
metes and bounds; that the Constitution does not provide that the
territorial scope or coverage of martial law should be confined
only to those areas where the armed public uprising actually
transpired; that it will be impractical to expand the territorial
application of martial law each time the coverage of actual
rebellion expands and in direct proportion therewith; and, that
there is always a possibility that the rebellion and other
accompanying hostilities will spill over.
CARPIO, J., Dissenting Opinion:
Constitutional Law; Martial Law; Writ of Habeas Corpus;

View that the ponente is wrong in holding that the 1987
Constitution does not provide for the exact territorial scope of
martial law and that the

585
VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 585

President has the latitude to determine the territorial scope of

martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ.—I
disagree with the ponente that the 1987 Constitution does not
provide the exact territorial scope or coverage of martial law and
that the proclamation of martial law throughout the whole of
Mindanao including areas outside of Marawi City is valid. The
ponente states: [M]artial law is a flexible concept; that the
“precise extent or range of the rebellion [cannot] be measured by
exact metes and bounds;” that public safety requirement cannot
be quantified or measured by metes and bounds; that the
Constitution does not provide that the territorial scope or
coverage of martial law should be confined only to those areas
where the armed public uprising actually transpired; that it will
be impractical to expand the territorial application of martial law
each time the coverage of actual rebellion expands and in direct
proportion therewith; and, that there is always a possibility that
the rebellion and other accompanying hostilities will spill over.
The ponente is wrong in holding that the 1987 Constitution does
not provide for the exact territorial scope of martial law and that
the President has the latitude to determine the territorial scope of
martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ.
Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides: Section
18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed
forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he
may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless
violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion,
when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not
exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under
martial law.
Same; Same; Same; Rebellion; View that actual rebellion must
exist in a particular territory in the Philippines before the
President is authorized by the Constitution to declare martial law
or suspend the privilege of the writ in a particular territory.—
Before the President can declare martial law or suspend the

privilege of the writ, the 1987 Constitution requires that the
President establish the following: (1) the existence of actual
rebellion or invasion; and (2) public safety requires the
declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of
the writ to suppress the rebellion or invasion. Needless to
say, the presence of an actual rebellion is necessary before the
President is authorized by the Constitution to declare martial law
in any part of the country. According to the

586

Revised Penal Code, actual rebellion exists when the

following elements concur: (1) there is (a) a public uprising and (b)
taking up of arms against the Government; and (2) the purpose of
the uprising is either (a) to remove from the allegiance to the
Government or its laws: (i) the territory of the Philippines or any
part thereof; or (ii) any body of land, naval, or other armed forces;
or (b) to deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, wholly or
partially, of any of their powers and prerogatives. The letter and
intent of the 1987 Constitution is that the territorial scope
of the President’s proclamation of martial law and the
suspension of the privilege of the writ must be confined
only to the territory where actual rebellion exists. The
absence of an actual rebellion as defined by the Revised Penal
Code prohibits the President, acting as Commander-in-Chief,
from declaring martial law or suspending the privilege of the writ
in any territory of the Philippines. In short, actual rebellion
must exist in a particular territory in the Philippines
before the President is authorized by the Constitution to
declare martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ in
a particular territory.
Same; Same; Same; View that the President cannot proclaim
martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ in areas outside of
Marawi City simply because of the possibility that the rebels might
escape to areas outside of Marawi City.—As I stated in my
Dissenting Opinion to the 4 July 2017 Decision, the 1987
Constitution gives the President the discretion and prerogative to
decide how to deal with an actual rebellion. The President may
either call out the armed forces to suppress the rebellion or he
may declare martial law, with or without the suspension of the
privilege of the writ. However, he does not have a wide leeway in

determining the territorial scope of martial law. Section 18,
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution is clear that martial law must
be founded on two factual bases: (1) the existence of actual
rebellion or invasion; and (2) public safety requires the
declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the
writ to suppress rebellion or invasion. These two factual bases
cannot be stretched to mean that martial law can be proclaimed
or the privilege of the writ may be suspended in those areas
outside of Marawi City where “there is [a] possibility that the
rebellion and other accompanying hostilities will spill over” (as
held by the ponente). The President cannot proclaim martial law
or suspend the privilege of the writ in areas outside of Marawi
City simply

587
VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 587

because of the possibility that the rebels might escape to

areas outside of Marawi City.
Same; Same; Same; View that with the intentional removal of
“imminent danger” as a ground to declare martial law, the
President cannot proclaim martial law or suspend the privilege of
the writ because of a possibility of a “spill over of hostilities”
outside the place of actual rebellion.—With the intentional
removal of “imminent danger” as a ground to declare martial law,
the President cannot proclaim martial law or suspend the
privilege of the writ because of a possibility of a “spill over of
hostilities” outside the place of actual rebellion.
Same; Same; Same; View that to validate the President’s
action of declaring martial law outside of Marawi City on the
basis of a “spill over of hostilities” would unlawfully reinstate
“imminent danger,” a ground not present in the 1987 Constitution,
as a ground to declare martial law or suspend the privilege of the
writ.—To validate the President’s action of declaring martial law
outside of Marawi City on the basis of a “spill over of hostilities”
would unlawfully reinstate “imminent danger,” a ground not
present in the 1987 Constitution, as a ground to declare martial
law or suspend the privilege of the writ. To reiterate, the
President must be confined strictly to the existence of the
two elements under Section 18, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution of actual rebellion or invasion and the
satisfaction of the public safety requirement for the

declaration of martial law and the suspension of the
privilege of the writ in any part of the Philippines. The
two elements under the Constitution are only present in
Marawi City and are absent in geographic areas of
Mindanao outside of Marawi City.
CAGUIOA, J., Dissenting Opinion:
Constitutional Law; Martial Law; Writ of Habeas Corpus;

View that in the same manner that the Congress has the latitude to
extend martial law in the event that factual circumstances change
despite a theoretical antecedent contrary judgment on the part of
the Supreme Court (SC), the latter, in parity of reasoning, can and
should declare the proclamation as having been issued without
sufficient basis if the facts relied upon by the Executive in the
proclamation have been

588

shown to be false or inaccurate during the pendency of the

Court’s review.—In the same manner that the Congress has the
latitude to extend martial law in the event that factual
circumstances change despite a theoretical antecedent contrary
judgment on the part of the Court, the latter, in parity of
reasoning, can and should declare the proclamation as having
been issued without sufficient basis if the facts relied upon by the
Executive in the proclamation have been shown to be false or
inaccurate during the pendency of the Court’s review. As a
consequence, the proclamation or suspension is nullified, and the
normal workings of government shall be restored. This is the only
reasonable interpretation.
Same; Same; Same; Sufficiency of Factual Basis; View that a
finding of sufficiency of factual basis from the Supreme Court (SC)
that does not carry with it what would otherwise be the silent
premise in every other judicial proceeding that the evidence relied
upon is true, accurate, or at the very least “credible.”—The
ponencia pushes a false dichotomy of “accuracy” versus
“sufficiency” that reeks of avoidance. In a court of law, the judge
deals with evidence. As defined, evidence is the means of
ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter
of fact. Inescapably, therefore, truth, veracity, and accuracy
are indispensable qualities of the evidence that the Court

shall accept to support a finding of a certain fact — in this
case, the existence of the twin requirements for the declaration
and suspension. Otherwise, if any fact offered by a party is
acceptable despite being false or inaccurate, the laying down of
the nature and quantum of evidence required in a Section 18
review becomes illusory. Furthermore, a finding of sufficiency of
factual basis from the Court that does not carry with it what
would otherwise be the silent premise in every other judicial
proceeding that the evidence relied upon is true, accurate, or
at the very least “credible” falls short of its duty under Section
18 — which is, again, to determine not whether the Executive
committed error in issuing the declaration or suspension but
whether there is sufficient factual basis to warrant the
continuation of the abnormal state of affairs that such declaration
or suspension brings about.
MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION of a decision of the

Supreme Court.

589
VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 589

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

Edcel C. Lagman and Edcel Greco A.B. Lagman for
petitioners in G.R. No. 231658.
Neri J. Colmenares, Edre U. Olalia, Julian F. Olivia,
Jr., Ephraim B. Cortez, Maria Cristina P. Yambot,
Maneeka Asis-tol Sarza, Minerva F. Lopez, Josalee S.
Deinla, Katherine A. Panguban and Jose V. Begil, Jr. for
petitioners in G.R. No. 231771.
Christian S. Monsod, Ray Paulo J. Santiago, Jomer H.
Aquino, Amparita S. Sta. Maria, Anne Patricia R.
Cervantes-Poco, Takahiro Kenjie C. Aman, Normita V.
Batula and Marlon J. Manuel for petitioners in G.R. No.
231774.
RESOLUTION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

On July 4, 2017, the Court rendered its Decision finding
sufficient factual bases for the issuance of Proclamation
No. 216 and declaring it as constitutional. Petitioners

timely filed separate Motions for Reconsideration. The
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) also filed its
Comment.
After a careful review of the arguments raised by the
parties, we find no reason to reverse our July 4, 2017
Decision.
All three Motions for Reconsideration question two
aspects of the July 4, 2017 Decision, i.e., the sufficiency of
the factual bases of Proclamation No. 216 and the
parameters used in determining the sufficiency of the
factual bases. Petitioners, however, tailed to present any
substantial argument to convince us to reconsider our July
4, 2017 Decision.

590

Sufficiency of the Factual

Bases of Proclamation No.
216 has been rendered moot
by the expiration of the
said Proclamation.

Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution provides that
“the President x x x may, for a period not 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 Upon the initiative of the President, the
Congress may, in the same manner, extend such
proclamation or suspension for a period to be
determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion
shall persist and public safety requires it.”
From the foregoing, it is clear that the President’s
declaration of martial law and/or suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is effective for 60
days. As aptly described by Commissioner Monsod, “this
declaration has a time fuse. It is only good for a maximum
of 60 days. At the end of 60 days, it automatically
terminates.”1 Any extension thereof should be determined
by Congress. The act of declaring martial law and/or
suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus by the
President, however, is separate from the approval of the
extension of the declaration and/or suspension by Congress.
The initial declaration of martial law and/or suspension of

the writ of habeas corpus is determined solely by the
President, while the extension of the declaration and/or
suspension, although initiated by the President, is
approved by Congress.
In this case, Proclamation No. 216 issued on May 23,
2017 expired on July 23, 2017. Consequently, the issue of
whether there were sufficient factual bases for the issuance
of the said
_____________
1 Records (Vol. II), Constitutional Commission, p. 476 (July 30, 1986).

591
VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 591

Proclamation has been rendered moot by its expiration. We

have consistently ruled that a case becomes moot and
academic when it “ceases to present a justiciable
controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a
declaration thereon would be of no practical value.”2 As
correctly pointed out by the OSG, “the martial law and
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus now
in effect in Mindanao no longer finds basis in Proclamation
No. 216”3 but in Resolution of Both Houses No. 11 (RBH
No. 11) adopted on July 22, 2017. RBH No. 11 is totally
different and distinct from Proclamation No. 216. The
former is a joint executive-legislative act while the latter is
purely executive in nature.
The decision of the Congress to extend the same is of no
moment. The approval of the extension is a distinct and
separate incident, over which we have no jurisdiction to
review as the instant Petition only pertains to the
President’s issuance of Proclamation No. 216.
Thus, considering the expiration of Proclamation No.
216 and considering further the approval of the extension
of the declaration of martial law and the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus by Congress, we find
no reason to disturb our finding that there were sufficient
factual bases for the President’s issuance of Proclamation
No. 216.
However, although the Motions for Reconsideration are
dismissible on the ground of mootness, we deem it prudent
to emphasize our discussion on the parameters for

determining the sufficiency of factual basis for the
declaration of martial law and/or the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
_____________
2 Agriex Co., Ltd v. Villanueva, 742 Phil. 574, 583; 734 SCRA 533, 543
(2014).
3 Comment of the Office of the Solicitor General, pp. 7-8; Rollo (G.R.
No. 231658), Vol. 2, pp. 1419-1420.

592

The Constitution requires

sufficiency of factual basis,
not accuracy.

Petitioners, in essence, posit that the Court is required
to determine the accuracy of the factual basis of the
President for the declaration of martial law and/or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. To
recall, we held that “the parameters for determining the
sufficiency of factual basis are as follows: 1) actual rebellion
or invasion; 2) public safety requires it; the first two
requirements must concur; and 3) there is probable cause
for the President to believe that there is actual rebellion or
invasion.”4 Moreover, we stated in the assailed Decision
that “the phrase ‘sufficiency of factual basis’ in Section 18,
Article VII of the Constitution should be understood as 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.”5 Requiring the Court to determine the
accuracy of the factual basis of the President contravenes
the Constitution as Section 18, Article VII only requires the
Court to determine the sufficiency of the factual basis.
Accuracy is not the same as sufficiency as the former
requires a higher degree of standard. As we have explained
in our July 4, 2017 Decision:
In determining the sufficiency of the factual basis of the

declaration and/or the suspension, the Court should look into the
full complement or totality of the factual basis, and not piecemeal
or individually. Neither should the Court expect absolute

correctness of the facts stated in the proclamation and in the
written Report as the President could not be expected to verify the
accuracy and veracity of all facts reported to him due to the
urgency of the situation. To require precision in the President’s
appreciation of facts would unduly burden him and
_____________
4 Decision, p. 184; id., at p. 857.
5 Id., at p. 178; id., at p. 852.

593
VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 593

therefore impede the process of his decision-making. Such a

requirement will practically necessitate the President to be on the
ground to confirm the correctness of the reports submitted to him
within a period that only the circumstances obtaining would be
able to dictate. Such a scenario, of course, would not only place
the 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 ‘immediately put
an end to the root cause of the emergency.’ Possibly, by the time
the President is satisfied with the correctness of the facts in his
possession, it would be too late in the day as the invasion or
rebellion could have already escalated to a level that is hard, if
not impossible, to curtail.
Besides, the framers of the 1987 Constitution considered
intelligence reports of military officers as credible evidence that
the President can appraise and to which he can anchor his
judgment, as appears to be the case here.
At this point, it is wise to quote the pertinent portions of the
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. in Fortun:
President Arroyo cannot be blamed

for relying upon the information given
to her by the Armed Forces of the
Philippines and the Philippine
National Police, considering that the
matter of the supposed armed uprising
was within their realm of competence,
and that a state of emergency 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 safety warranting a
declaration of martial law or
suspension of the writ.
Certainly, the President cannot be
expected to risk being too late before
declaring martial law or suspending
the writ of habeas corpus. The
Constitution, as couched, does not
require precision in establishing the
fact of rebellion. The President is called
to act as public safety requires.

594

Corollary, as the President is expected to decide quickly on

whether there is a need to proclaim martial law even only on the
basis of intelligence reports, it is irrelevant, for purposes of the
Court’s review, if subsequent events prove that the situation had
not been accurately reported to him. After all, the Court’s review
is confined to the sufficiency, not accuracy, of the information at
hand during the declaration or suspension; subsequent events do
not have any bearing insofar as the Court’s review is concerned. x
xx
Hence, the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus finds no
application in this case. Falsities of and/or inaccuracies in some
of the facts stated in the proclamation and written report are
not enough reasons for the Court to invalidate the declaration
and/or suspension as long as there are other facts in the
proclamation and the written Report that support the
conclusion that there is an actual invasion or rebellion
and that public safety requires the declaration and/or
suspension.
In sum, the Court’s power to review is limited to the
determination of whether the President in declaring
martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus had sufficient factual basis. Thus, our
review would be limited to an examination on whether the
President acted within the bounds set by the Constitution,
i.e., whether the facts in his possession prior to and at the
time of the declaration or suspension are sufficient for him
to declare martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus.6 (Emphasis supplied)

This is consistent with our ruling that “the President
only needs to convince himself that there is probable cause
or evidence showing that more likely than not a rebellion
was committed or is being committed.”7 The standard of
proof of
_____________
6 Id., at pp. 179-182; id., at pp. 853-855.
7 Id., at p. 53; id., at p. 857.

595
VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 595

probable cause does not require absolute truth. Since

“martial law is a matter of urgency x x x the President x x x
is not expected to completely validate all the information
he received before declaring martial law or suspending the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.”8
Notably, out of the several facts advanced by the
President as basis for Proclamation No. 216, only five of
them were being questioned by the petitioners. However,
they were not even successful in their refutation since their
“counter-evidence were derived solely from unverified news
articles on the internet, with neither the authors nor
the sources shown to have affirmed the contents
thereof. It was not even shown that efforts were
made to secure such affirmation albeit the
circumstances proved futile.”9 Even granting that the
petitioners were successful in their attempt to refute the
aforesaid five incidents, there are other facts sufficient to
serve as factual basis for the declaration of martial law and
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
There is absolutely no basis to petitioners’ claim that the
Court abdicated its power to review. To be sure, our
findings that there was sufficient factual basis for the
issuance of Proclamation No. 216 and that there was
probable cause, that is, that more likely than not, rebellion
exists and that public safety requires the declaration of
martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, were reached after due consideration of the
facts, events, and information enumerated in the
proclamation and report to Congress. The Court did not
content itself with the examination only of the

pleadings/documents submitted by the parties. In addition,
it conducted a closed-door session where it tried to ferret
additional information, confirmation and clarification from
the resource persons, particularly Secretary of National
Defense Delfin Lorenzana and Armed Forces of the
Philippines Chief
_____________
8 Id., at p. 185; id., at p. 858.
9 Id., at p. 195; id., at p. 867.

596

of Staff Eduardo Año. At this juncture, it must be stated

that the Court is not even obliged to summon witnesses as
long as it satisfies itself with the sufficiency of the factual
basis; it is purely discretionary on its part whether to call
additional witnesses. In any event, reliance on so-called
intelligence reports, even without presentation of its
author, is proper and allowed by law.
The Court’s acknowledgment of the President’s superior
data gathering apparatus, and the fact that it has given the
Executive much leeway and flexibility, should never be
understood as a prelude to surrendering the judicial power
to review. The Court never intended to concede its power to
verify the sufficiency of factual basis for the declaration of
martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus. The leeway and flexibility accorded to the
Executive must be construed in the context of the present
setup wherein the declaration of martial law and
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus are
grounded on actual invasion or rebellion, not on imminent
threat or danger thereof; as such, time is of the essence for
the President to act quickly to protect the country. It is also
a recognition of the unassailable fact that as Commander-
in-Chief, the President has access to confidential
information. In fact, Fr. Joaquin Bernas even opined that
the Court might have to rely on the fact-finding capabilities
of the Executive; in turn, the Executive should share its
findings with the Court if it wants to convince the latter of
the propriety of its action.10 Moreover, it is based on the
understanding that martial law is a flexible concept; that

“the precise extent or range of the rebellion [cannot] be
measured by exact metes and bounds”;11 that public safety
requirement cannot be quantified or measured by metes
and bounds; that the Constitution does not provide that the
territorial scope or coverage of martial law should be
confined only to those areas where the armed public
uprising actually tran-
_____________
10 Id., at p. 201; id., at p. 872.
11 Id., at p. 206; id., at p. 876.

597
VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 597

spired; that it will be impractical to expand the territorial

application of martial law each time the coverage of actual
rebellion expands and in direct proportion therewith; and,
that there is always a possibility that the rebellion and
other accompanying hostilities will spill over.
As regards the other arguments raised by petitioners,
the same are a mere rehash which have already been
considered and found to have no merit.
WHEREFORE, petitioners’ Motions for
Reconsideration are hereby DENIED WITH FINALITY
for mootness and lack of merit.
No further pleadings shall be entertained.
Let entry of judgment be made in immediately.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin,**

Martires, Tijam, Reyes, Jr. and Gesmundo,** JJ., concur.
Sereno, CJ., I reiterate my Dissent.
Carpio, J., See Dissenting Opinion.
Perlas-Bernabe, J., I concur in the result to deny the
MR. On the merits, I maintain my Separate Opinion.
Leonen, J., I reiterate my earlier dissent in the main
opinion.
Jardeleza, J., On Leave.
Caguioa, J., See Separate Dissent.
_____________
** CJ. Sereno certified that JJ. Bersamin & Gesmundo left their vote of
concurrence.

598

DISSENTING OPINION

CARPIO, J.:

The Motion for Reconsideration seeks to review the 4
July 2017 Decision of this Court declaring valid
Presidential Proclamation No. 216 dated 23 May 2017
which declared a state of martial law and suspended the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (writ) in the whole
Mindanao group of islands. Exercising this Court’s power
to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege
of the writ under the third paragraph of Section 18, Article
VII of the 1987 Constitution, this Court sustained the
validity of the territorial application of martial law in
Marawi City and the whole Mindanao group of islands.
In the 4 July 2017 Decision, the ponente held that there
is “no constitutional edict that martial law should be
confined only in the particular place where the armed
public uprising actually transpired.”1 The ponente gave two
reasons for this: (1) as a crime, rebellion has a unique
character of absorbing other crimes punishable under the
Revised Penal Code and other special laws which may be
committed outside the particular place where the actual
rebellion transpired; and (2) the prerogative to declare
martial law lies with the President, meaning he has a wide
leeway and flexibility in determining the territorial scope of
martial law.
I disagree with the ponente that the 1987 Constitution
does not provide the exact territorial scope or coverage of
martial law and that the proclamation of martial law
throughout the whole of Mindanao including areas outside
of Marawi City is valid. The ponente states:
[M]artial law is a flexible concept; that the “precise extent or

range of the rebellion [cannot] be measured by
_____________
1 Decision, p. 207.

599
VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 599

exact metes and bounds”; that public safety requirement cannot

be quantified or measured by metes and bounds; that the
Constitution does not provide that the territorial scope or
coverage of martial law should be confined only to those areas
where the armed public uprising actually transpired; that it will
be impractical to expand the territorial application of martial law
each time the coverage of actual rebellion expands and in direct
proportion therewith; and, that there is always a possibility that
the rebellion and other accompanying hostilities will spill over.2

The ponente is wrong in holding that the 1987
Constitution does not provide for the exact territorial
scope of martial law and that the President has the
latitude to determine the territorial scope of martial law
and the suspension of the privilege of the writ. Section 18,
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief

of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes
necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or
suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of
invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may,
for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part
thereof under martial law. (Emphasis supplied)

Before the President can declare martial law or suspend
the privilege of the writ, the 1987 Constitution requires
that the President establish the following: (1) the
existence of actual rebellion or invasion; and (2)
public safety requires the declaration of martial law
or suspension of the privilege of the writ to suppress
the rebellion or invasion. Needless to say, the presence
of an actual rebel-
____________
2 Resolution, pp. 596-597.

600

lion is necessary before the President is authorized by the

Constitution to declare martial law in any part of the
country.
According to the Revised Penal Code, actual rebellion
exists when the following elements concur: (1) there is (a) a
public uprising and (b) taking up of arms against the
Government; and (2) the purpose of the uprising is either
(a) to remove from the allegiance to the Government or its
laws: (i) the territory of the Philippines or any part thereof;
or (ii) any body of land, naval, or other armed forces; or (b)
to deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, wholly or
partially, of any of their powers and prerogatives.3
The letter and intent of the 1987 Constitution is
that the territorial scope of the President’s
proclamation of martial law and the suspension of
the privilege of the writ must be confined only to the
territory where actual rebellion exists. The absence of
an actual rebellion as defined by the Revised Penal Code
prohibits the President, acting as Commander-in-Chief,
from declaring martial law or suspending the privilege of
the writ in any territory of the Philippines. In short,
actual rebellion must exist in a particular territory
in the Philippines before the President is authorized
by the Constitution to declare martial law or
suspend the privilege of the writ in a particular
territory.
Proclamation No. 216 and the President’s Report to
Congress do not show the existence of actual rebellion
outside of Marawi City. In fact, the Proclamation itself
states that the Maute-Hapilon armed fighters in Marawi
City intended to remove “this part of Mindanao,”
referring to Marawi City, from Philippine sovereignty. The
Proclamation itself admits that only “this part of
Mindanao,” referring to Marawi City,
_____________
3 Ladlad v. Velasco, 551 Phil. 313, 329; 523 SCRA 318, 336 (2007).

601
VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 601

is the subject of separation from Philippine sovereignty by

the rebels. The President’s Report did not mention any
other city, province, or territory in Mindanao, other than
Marawi City, that had a similar public uprising by a rebel
group, an element of actual rebellion. Thus, the President’s
Report concludes that “based on various verified
intelligence reports from the AFP and the PNP, there
exists a strategic mass action of lawless armed groups in
Marawi City.”4 To extend the territorial scope of
martial law to areas outside of Marawi City where
there is no actual rebellion would uphold a clear
violation of the letter and intent of the 1987
Constitution.
By way of background, the concept of martial law was
first introduced into the organic law of the Philippines
through the Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916 or the Jones
Law.5 Under the law, the Governor-General of the
Philippine Islands may place the Islands or any part
thereof under martial law in case of rebellion or imminent
danger thereof and public safety requires it:
Section 21.
xxxx
[The Governor-General of the Philippine Islands] shall be
responsible for the faithful execution of the laws of the Philippine
Islands and of the United States operative within the Philippine
Islands, and whenever it becomes necessary he may call upon the
commanders of the military and naval forces of the United States
in the Islands, or summon the posse comitatus, or call out the
militia or other locally created armed forces, to prevent or
suppress lawless violence, invasion, insurrection, or rebellion; and
he may, in case of rebellion or invasion, or imminent
danger thereof, when the public safety requires it, suspend
the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus, or place the Islands,
or any part thereof, un-
______________
4 Decision, p. 129.
5 See Justice Leonen’s Concurring and Dissenting Opinion in Padilla
v. Congress of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 231671 and 231694, 25 July 2017,
832 SCRA 282.

602

der martial law: Provided, That whenever the Governor-General

shall exercise this authority, he shall at once notify the President
of the United States thereof, together with the attending facts and
circumstances, and the President shall have power to modify or
vacate the action of the Governor-General. (Emphasis supplied)

With the passage of the Tydings-McDuffie Act or the
Philippine Independence Act, the 1935 Constitution was
subsequently enacted. Section 10(2), Article VII of the 1935
Constitution, as amended, provided for the power of the
President to place the country or any part thereof under
martial law in case of rebellion or imminent danger thereof
and public safety requires it:
ARTICLE VII
Executive Department

Section 10. x x x x
(2) The President shall be commander-in-chief of all armed
forces of the Philippines, and, whenever it becomes necessary, he
may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless
violence, invasion, insurrection, or rebellion. In case of
invasion, insurrection, or rebellion or imminent danger
thereof, when the public safety requires it, he may suspend
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or place the
Philippines or any part thereof under Martial Law.
(Boldfacing and underscoring supplied)

The text of paragraph 2, Section 10, Article VII of the
1935 Constitution was reproduced m Section 9, Article VII
of the 1973 Constitution:
ARTICLE VII
The President and Vice President

Section 9. The President shall be commander-in-chief of all
armed forces of the Philippines and, whenever it becomes
necessary, he may call out such armed forces to

603
VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 603

prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, insurrection, or

rebellion. In case of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, or
imminent danger thereof, when the public safety requires
it, he may suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or
place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial
law. (Emphasis supplied)

As I stated in my Dissenting Opinion to the 4 July 2017
Decision, the 1987 Constitution gives the President the
discretion and prerogative to decide how to deal with an
actual rebellion. The President may either call out the
armed forces to suppress the rebellion or he may declare
martial law, with or without the suspension of the privilege
of the writ.6 However, he does not have a wide leeway in
determining the territorial scope of martial law. Section 18,
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution is clear that martial
law must be founded on two factual bases: (1) the existence
of actual rebellion or invasion; and (2) public safety
requires the declaration of martial law or suspension of the
privilege of the writ to suppress rebellion or invasion.
These two factual bases cannot be stretched to mean that
martial law can be proclaimed or the privilege of the writ
may be suspended in those areas outside of Marawi City
where “there is [a] possibility that the rebellion and other
accompanying hostilities will spill over”7 (as held by the
ponente). The President cannot proclaim martial law or
suspend the privilege of the writ in areas outside of Marawi
City simply because of the possibility that the rebels might
escape to areas outside of Marawi City.
Indeed, the Jones Law,8 the 1935 Constitution, and the
1973 Constitution seemed to have conferred to the
President
_____________
6 Justice Antonio T. Carpio’s Dissenting Opinion, p. 299.
7 Resolution, p. 597.
8 Under the Jones Law, it is the Governor-General who may place the
Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. The President of the
United States shall have the power to modify or vacate the action of the
Governor-General.

604

the absolute prerogative to determine the territorial scope

of martial law because of the phrase “the Philippines or
any part thereof.” However, this seeming absolute
discretion must also be interpreted in relation to the legal
reality then that the “imminent danger” of rebellion was a
valid ground to declare martial law. In other words, the
three organic laws expressly empowered the President to
place the entire country under martial law, even if the
rebellion was limited to a particular locality, because of the
“imminent danger” that it would spread or spill over
outside the place of actual rebellion.
This no longer holds true under the 1987
Constitution. With the intentional removal of “imminent
danger” as a ground to declare martial law, the President
cannot proclaim martial law or suspend the privilege of the
writ because of a possibility of a “spill over of hostilities”
outside the place of actual rebellion. As I stated in my
Dissenting Opinion:
Moreover, imminent danger or threat of rebellion or invasion is

not sufficient. The 1987 Constitution requires the existence of
actual rebellion or actual invasion. “Imminent danger” as a
ground to declare martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ,
which was present in both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, was
intentionally removed in the 1987 Constitution. By the
intentional deletion of the words “imminent danger” in the 1987
Constitution, the President can no longer use imminent danger of
rebellion or invasion as a ground to declare martial law or
suspend the privilege of the writ. Thus, the President cannot
proclaim martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ absent
an actual rebellion or actual invasion. This is the clear,
indisputable letter and intent of the 1987 Constitution.9
xxxx
x x x. The fear that the rebellion in Marawi City will spread to
other areas in Mindanao is a mere danger or
_____________
9 Justice Antonio T. Carpio’s Dissenting Opinion, p. 307.

605
VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 605

threat and may not even amount to an imminent danger or

threat. In any event, to allow martial law outside Marawi City on
the basis of an imminent danger or threat would unlawfully
reinstate the ground of “imminent danger” of rebellion or
invasion, a ground that was intentionally removed from the 1987
Constitution.10 (Emphasis supplied)

To validate the President’s action of declaring martial
law outside of Marawi City on the basis of a “spill over of
hostilities” would unlawfully reinstate “imminent danger,”
a ground not present in the 1987 Constitution, as a ground
to declare martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ.
To reiterate, the President must be confined strictly
to the existence of the two elements under Section
18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution of actual
rebellion or invasion and the satisfaction of the
public safety requirement for the declaration of
martial law and the suspension of the privilege of
the writ in any part of the Philippines. The two
elements under the Constitution are only present in
Marawi City and are absent in geographic areas of
Mindanao outside of Marawi City.
ACCORDINGLY, I vote to PARTIALLY GRANT the
Motion for Reconsideration in G.R. Nos. 231658, 231771,
and 231774, and DECLARE Proclamation No. 216
UNCONSTITUTIONAL as to geographic areas of
Mindanao outside of Marawi City, for failure to comply
with Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
Proclamation No. 216 is valid, effective, and
CONSTITUTIONAL only within Marawi City.
_____________
10 Id., at pp. 311-312.

606

DISSENTING OPINION

CAGUIOA, J.:

I maintain my dissent.
I maintain that no sufficient factual basis was shown for
the declaration of martial law and suspension of the writ of
habeas corpus over the entire Mindanao. As well, I
maintain that the Court’s review under Section 18 to
determine the sufficiency of factual basis necessarily
requires an examination of the veracity and accuracy of the
factual basis offered by the Executive.
To reiterate, Section 18, being a neutral and
straightforward fact-checking mechanism, serves the
functions of (1) preventing the concentration in one person
— the Executive — of the power to put in place a rule that
significantly implicates civil liberties, (2) providing the
sovereign people a forum to be informed of the factual basis
of the Executive’s decision, and (3) at the very least,
assuring the people that a separate department
independent of the Executive may be called upon to
determine for itself the propriety of the declaration of
martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ.1
This is what is owed to the sovereign people in this case.

The petition for the re-
view of the sufficiency
of factual basis of Procla-
mation No. 216 is not
mooted by its expiration.
_____________
1 J. Caguioa, Dissenting Opinion, Lagman v. Medialdea, G.R. Nos.
231658, 231771 & 231774, July 4, 2017, 829 SCRA 1, 644-645.

607
VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 607

In International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-

Biotech Applications, Inc. v. Greenpeace Southeast Asia
(Phils.),2 the Court explained:
An action is considered ‘moot’ when it no longer presents a

justiciable controversy because the issues involved have become
academic or dead, or when the matter in dispute has already been
resolved and hence, one is not entitled to judicial intervention
unless the issue is likely to be raised again between the parties.
Time and again, courts have refrained from even expressing an
opinion in a case where the issues have become moot and
academic, there being no more justiciable controversy to speak of,
so that a determination thereof would be of no practical use or
value.
Nonetheless, courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and
academic if: first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution;
second, the exceptional character of the situation and the
paramount public interest is involved; third, when the
constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling
principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public; and fourth,
the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. x x x3

Guided by these exceptions, the Court had ruled on the
case and ultimately enjoined the field testing of Bt talong
despite its termination. Similarly, the Court ruled on the
constitutionality of the Memorandum of Agreement on the
Ancestral Domain Aspect (MOA-AD) of the GRP-MILF
Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 despite the
government’s claim of satisfaction of the reliefs prayed for
in Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the
Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral
Domain (GRP),4 certain provisions in the
_____________
2 774 Phil. 508; 776 SCRA 434 (2015) [Per J. Villarama, Jr., En Banc].
3 Id., at pp. 577-578; p. 507.
4 589 Phil. 387; 568 SCRA 402 (2008) [Per J. Carpio-Morales, En
Banc].

608

national budget despite the end of the fiscal year for which
the law was passed in Belgica v. Ochoa,5 and a declaration
of a state of emergency and the corresponding
implementing General Order despite their having been
lifted in David v. Macapagal-Arroyo,6 among the catena of
cases where the issue of mootness was raised.
This case falls within the second, third, and fourth
exceptions. First, the state of martial law and suspension of
the writ of habeas corpus is an exception to the normal
workings of our system of government and involves
paramount public interest in view of the attendant
curtailment of civil liberties. Second, the issues raised by
the petitions require formulation of controlling principles to
guide the bench, the bar and the public, more specifically,
the agents of the Executive department, the police, and the
military, with respect to the nature and threshold of
evidence required in a Section 18 petition, and the scope of
and standards in the implementation of martial law,
among others. Lastly, the events (e.g., skirmishes,
kidnappings, explosions) that led to the issuance of
Proclamation No. 216 are neither rare nor exceptional so as
to foreclose the possibility of repetition.
The first exception is irrelevant in a Section 18 review
because its function is not to determine a grave violation of
the Constitution. In this regard, I had summarized in my
Dissent to the July 4, 2017 Decision the essence of the
Court’s duty to review under Section 18 is, thus:
x x x To embrace and actively participate in the neutral,

straightforward, apolitical fact-checking mechanism that is
mandated by Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, and
accordingly determine the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
declaration of martial law or
_____________
5 721 Phil. 416; 710 SCRA 1 (2013) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc].
6 522 Phil. 705; 489 SCRA 160 (2006) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, En
Banc].

609
VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 609

suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The

Court, under Section 18, steps in, receives the submissions
relating to the factual basis of the declaration of martial law or
suspension of the privilege of the writ, and then renders a
decision on the question of whether there is sufficient factual
basis for the declaration of martial law or suspension of the
privilege of the writ. Nothing more.
To be sure, the Court will even ascribe good faith to the
Executive in its decision to declare martial law or suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. But that does not diminish
the Court’s duty to say, if it so finds, that there is insufficient
factual basis for the declaration of martial law and suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. That is the essence of
the Court’s duty under Section 18.
In discharging this duty, the Court does not assign
blame, ascribe grave abuse or determine that there was a
culpable violation of the Constitution. It is in the courageous
and faithful discharge of this duty that the Court fulfills the most
important task of achieving a proper balance between freedom
and order in our society. It is in this way that the Court honors
the sacrifice of lives of the country’s brave soldiers — that they
gave their last breath not just to suppress lawless violence, but in
defense of freedom and the Constitution that they too swore to
uphold.7 (Emphasis supplied)

And:
Since Section 18 is a neutral straightforward fact-checking

mechanism, any nullification necessarily does not ascribe any
grave abuse or attribute any culpable violation of the Constitution
to the Executive. Meaning, the fact that Section 18 checks for
sufficiency and not mere arbitrariness does not, as it was not
intended to, denigrate the power of the Executive to act swiftly
and deci-
_____________
7 J. Caguioa, Dissenting Opinion, supra note 1 at pp. 667-668.

610

sively to ensure public safety in the face of emergency. Thus, the

Executive will not be exposed to any kind of liability
should the Court, in fulfilling its mandate under Section
18, make a finding that there were no sufficient facts for
the declaration of martial law or the suspension of the
privilege of the writ.8 (Emphasis supplied)

The veracity and accu-
racy of the factual basis
offered by the Executive is
inextricably linked to the
review of its sufficiency.

This appears to be the where the case turns. The
ponencia, in drawing distinctions between a review of
sufficiency and accuracy, adverts to Justice Velasco’s
Dissenting Opinion in Fortun v. Macapagal-Arroyo:9
President Arroyo cannot be blamed for relying upon the

information given to her by the Armed Forces of the
Philippines and the Philippine National Police, considering that
the matter of the supposed armed uprising was within their realm
of competence, and that a state of emergency 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 public safety warranting a declaration of
martial law or suspension of the writ.
Certainly, the President cannot be expected to risk being
too late before declaring martial law or suspending the
writ of habeas corpus. The Constitution, as couched, does
not require precision in es-
_____________
8 Id., at p. 652.
9 684 Phil. 526, 620-631; 668 SCRA 504, 584-596 (2012) [Per J. Abad,
En Banc].

611
VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 611

tablishing the fact of rebellion. The President is called to act as

public safety requires.10 (Emphasis supplied)

This justification misses the mark. Since the function of
the Court’s Section 18 review is NOT to ascribe fault to the
Executive in declaring martial law or suspending the writ
of habeas corpus, but to determine the sufficiency of the
factual basis for the proclamation of martial law — an
anomalous situation that directly affects the operations of
government and the enjoyment of the people of their civil
liberties within the scope of its implementation — with a
view of either upholding or nullifying the same, a finding of
sufficient factual basis should necessarily mean sufficient,
truthful, accurate, or at the very least, credible,
factual basis. This is because the Court’s judgment is not
temporally-bound to the time the proclamation was issued
— the ultimate question not being the liability of the
Executive for the proclamation or suspension, but whether
the abnormal state of affairs should continue. The
transitory nature of the actions of the legislative and
judicial branches was discussed by the framers, thus:
MR. BENGZON: And if the Supreme Court promulgates its

decision ahead of Congress, Congress is foreclosed because the
Supreme Court has 30 days within which to look into the factual
basis. If the Supreme Court comes out with the decision one way
or the other without Congress having acted on the matter, is
Congress foreclosed?
FR. BERNAS: The decision of the Supreme Court will be
based on its assessment of the factual situation.
Necessarily, therefore, the judgment of the Supreme Court
on that is a transitory judgment because the factual
situation can change. So, while the decision of the Supreme
Court may be valid at that certain point of time, the situation
may change so
_____________
10 Id., at p. 629; p. 593.

612

that Congress should be authorized to do something about it.

MR. BENGZON: Does the Gentleman mean the decision of the
Supreme Court then would just be something transitory?
FR. BERNAS: Precisely.

MR. BENGZON: It does not mean that if the Supreme Court
revokes or decides against the declaration of martial law, the
Congress can no longer say, “no, we want martial law to continue”
because the circumstances can change.
FR. BERNAS: The Congress can still come in because the
factual situation can change.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you, Madam President.11 (Emphasis
supplied)

In the same manner that the Congress has the latitude
to extend martial law in the event that factual
circumstances change despite a theoretical antecedent
contrary judgment on the part of the Court, the latter, in
parity of reasoning, can and should declare the
proclamation as having been issued without sufficient basis
if the facts relied upon by the Executive in the
proclamation have been shown to be false or inaccurate
during the pendency of the Court’s review. As a
consequence, the proclamation or suspension is nullified,
and the normal workings of government shall be restored.
This is the only reasonable interpretation.
Therefore, I harken back to my previous discussion on
this point:
As well, in the same manner that the Court is not limited to

the four comers of Proclamation No. 216 or the President’s report
to Congress, it is similarly not temporally-bound to the time of
proclamation to determine the
_____________
11 Records (Vol. II), Constitutional Commission: Proceedings and
Debates, p. 494 (1986).

613
VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 613

sufficiency of the factual basis for both the existence of rebellion

and the requirements of public safety. In other words, if enough
of the factual basis relied upon for the existence of rebellion or
requirements of public safety are shown to have been inaccurate
or no longer obtaining at the time of the review to the extent that
the factual basis is no longer sufficient for the declaration of

martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ, then there
is nothing that prevents the Court from nullifying the
proclamation.
In the same manner, if the circumstances had changed enough
to furnish sufficient factual basis at the time of the review, then
the proclamation could be upheld though there might have been
insufficient factual basis at the outset. A contrary interpretation
will defeat and render illusory the purpose of review.
To illustrate, say a citizen files a Section 18 petition on day 1 of
the proclamation, and during the review it was shown that while
sufficient factual basis existed at the outset (for both rebellion and
public necessity) such no longer existed at the time the Court
promulgates its decision at say, day 30 then it makes no sense to
uphold the proclamation and allow the declaration of martial law
or suspension of the privilege of the writ to continue for another
thirty days, assuming it is not lifted earlier.
Conversely, if it was shown that while there was insufficient
factual basis at the outset, circumstances had changed during the
period of review resulting in a finding that there is now sufficient
factual basis for the declaration of martial law or suspension of
the privilege of the writ, then the Court is called upon to uphold
the proclamation.12

The ponencia pushes a false dichotomy of “accuracy”
versus “sufficiency” that reeks of avoidance. In a court of
law, the judge deals with evidence. As defined, evidence is
the means of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth
respecting a
_____________
12 J. Caguioa, Dissenting Opinion, supra note 1 at pp. 652-653.

614

matter of fact.13 Inescapably, therefore, truth, veracity,

and accuracy are indispensable qualities of the
evidence that the Court shall accept to support a
finding of a certain fact — in this case, the existence of
the twin requirements for the declaration and suspension.
Otherwise, if any fact offered by a party is acceptable

despite being false or inaccurate, the laying down of the
nature and quantum of evidence required in a Section 18
review becomes illusory. Furthermore, a finding of
sufficiency of factual basis from the Court that does not
carry with it what would otherwise be the silent premise in
every other judicial proceeding that the evidence relied
upon is true, accurate, or at the very least
“credible”14 falls short of its duty
_____________
13 Rule 128, Section 1. Evidence defined.—Evidence is the means,
sanctioned by these Rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the
truth respecting a matter of fact.
14 MR. NATIVIDAD. And the Commissioner said that in case of
subversion, sedition or imminent danger of rebellion or invasion, that
would be the causus beli for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus. But I wonder whether or not the Commissioner
would consider intelligence reports of military officers as
evidence of imminent danger of rebellion or invasion because this
is usually the evidence presented.
MR. PADILLA. Yes, as credible evidence, especially if they are
based on actual reports and investigation of facts that might soon
happen.
MR. NATIVIDAD. Then the difficulty here is, of course, that the
authors and the witnesses in intelligence reports may not be forthcoming
under the rule of classified evidence or documents. Does the Commissioner
still accept that as evidence?
MR. PADILLA. It is for the President as commander-in-chief of the
Armed Forces to appraise these reports and be satisfied that the public
safety demands the suspension of the writ. After all, this can also be
raised before the Supreme Court as in the declaration of martial law
because it will no longer be, as the former Solicitor General always
contended, a political issue. It becomes now a justiciable issue. The
Supreme Court may even investigate the factual background in support of
the suspension of the writ or the declara-

615
VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 615

under Section 18 — which is, again, to determine not

whether the Executive committed error in issuing the
declaration or suspension but whether there is sufficient
factual basis to warrant the continuation of the abnormal

state of affairs that such declaration or suspension brings
about. I reiterate my discussion on this point:
The use of the word “sufficiency,” signals that the Court’s role
in the neutral straightforward fact-checking mechanism of
Section 18 is precisely to check post facto, and with the full benefit
of hindsight, the validity of the declaration of martial law or
suspension of the privilege of the writ, based upon the
presentation by the Executive of the sufficient factual basis
therefor (i.e., evidence tending to show the requirements of the
declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the
writ: actual rebellion or invasion, and requirements of public
safety). This means that the Court is also called upon to
investigate the accuracy of the facts forming the basis of the
proclamation — whether there is actual rebellion and whether the
declaration of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of
the writ are necessary to ensure public safety.

For truly, without ascertaining the accuracy of the
factual basis offered for the proclamation, the Court is
sending a perverse message that the Executive, in this case
and in future Section 18 reviews that may come before it,
may offer any and all kinds of “factual” bases, without
regard to accuracy. It is truly baffling how the majority’s
concession of the Executive’s superior “competence,”
“logistical machinery,” and “superior data gathering
apparatus” does not equate to the Court imposing upon the
Executive the obligation to produce before the Court
sufficient evidence that is true, accurate, or at the very
least, credible. This superiority must lead
____________
tion of martial law. (Emphasis supplied) Records (Vol. II), Constitutional
Commission: Proceedings and Debates, p. 470 (1986).

616

the Court to raise the bar instead of lower it. Else, it leads
precisely to a nugatory Court finding I already adverted to:
x x x The Executive needs to reveal so much of its factual basis

for the declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege
of the writ so that it produces in the mind of the Court the
conclusion that the declaration and suspension meets the
requirements of the Constitution. Otherwise, the Court’s
finding of sufficiency becomes anchored upon bare
allegations, or silence. In any proceeding, mere allegation
or claim is not evidence; neither is it equivalent to proof.15
(Emphasis supplied)

The holding that the review of sufficiency of factual
basis does not involve an examination of the accuracy of
factual basis is but one degree removed from allowing the
use of presumptions of constitutionality and regularity in a
Section 18 review, which, as well, I have already described
as incompatible to the nature of the exercise:
x x x The presumption disposes of the need to present evidence

— which is totally opposite to the fact-checking exercise of Section
18; to be sure, reliance on the presumption in the face of an
express constitutional requirement amounts to a failure by the
Executive to show sufficient factual basis, and judicial
rubberstamping on the part of the Court.16 (Emphasis
supplied)

Again, and in fine, a Section 18 review functions not to
fix blame, but to be an avenue for the restoration of the
normal workings of government and the enjoyment of
individual liberties should there be showing of insufficient
factual ba-
_____________
15 J. Caguioa, Dissenting Opinion, supra note 1 at p. 647-648.
16 Id., at p. 648.

617
VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 617

sis.17 In a democracy like ours, a ruling that directly affects

these terminal values requires no less than accuracy and
truth. The Court must uphold this standard.
Therefore, I vote to grant the Motions for

Reconsideration and to declare the proclamation of martial
law over the entire Mindanao as having been issued
without sufficient factual basis, and the proclamation can
be justified only in Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, and Sulu.
Motions for Reconsideration denied with finality.
Note.—It is evident that under the 1986 Constitution

the President and the Congress act in tandem in exercising
the power to proclaim martial law or suspend the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus. They exercise the power, not
only sequentially, but in a sense jointly. (Fortun vs.
Macapagal-Arroyo, 668 SCRA 504 [2012])
——o0o——
_____________
17 “[I]f the Executive satisfies the requirement of showing sufficient
factual basis, then the proclamation is upheld, and the sovereign people
are either informed of the factual basis or assured that such has been
reviewed by the Court. If the Executive fails to show sufficient factual
basis, then the proclamation is nullified and the people are restored to full
enjoyment of their civil liberties.” Id., at p. 651.
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Lagman v. Medialdea (December 5, 2017)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lagman v. Medialdea (December 5, 2017)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10/4/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 847

G.R. No. 231658. December 5, 2017.*

G.R. No. 231771. December 5, 2017.*

VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 581

NIO L. TINIO, GABRIELA WOMEN’S PARTY

ELAGO, MAE PANER, GABRIELA KRISTA DALENA,

G.R. No. 231774. December 5, 2017.*

Constitutional Law; Martial Law; Writ of Habeas Corpus; The

582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

pension for a period to be determined by the Congress,

VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 583

was committed or is being committed.” The standard of proof

584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Same; Same; Same; Same; The leeway and flexibility accorded

CARPIO, J., Dissenting Opinion:

Constitutional Law; Martial Law; Writ of Habeas Corpus;

VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 585

President has the latitude to determine the territorial scope of

Before the President can declare martial law or suspend the

586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Revised Penal Code, actual rebellion exists when the

privilege of the writ. However, he does not have a wide leeway in

VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 587

because of the possibility that the rebels might escape to

satisfaction of the public safety requirement for the

CAGUIOA, J., Dissenting Opinion:

Constitutional Law; Martial Law; Writ of Habeas Corpus;

588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

shown to be false or inaccurate during the pendency of the

are indispensable qualities of the evidence that the Court

MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION of a decision of the

VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 589

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

No. 216 and declaring it as constitutional. Petitioners

590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sufficiency of the Factual

The initial declaration of martial law and/or suspension of

VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 591

Proclamation has been rendered moot by its expiration. We

to emphasize our discussion on the parameters for

592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Constitution requires

In determining the sufficiency of the factual basis of the

or individually. Neither should the Court expect absolute

VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 593

therefore impede the process of his decision-making. Such a

President Arroyo cannot be blamed

an indication that there is a threat to

594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Corollary, as the President is expected to decide quickly on

VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 595

probable cause does not require absolute truth. Since

content itself with the examination only of the

596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

of Staff Eduardo Año. At this juncture, it must be stated

understanding that martial law is a flexible concept; that

VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 597

spired; that it will be impractical to expand the territorial

Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin,**

598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

[M]artial law is a flexible concept; that the “precise extent or

VOL. 847, DECEMBER 5, 2017 599

exact metes and bounds”; that public safety requirement cannot

Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief