148. Lagman vs.

Senate President
G.R. No. 235935, February 6, 2018
Topic: Separation of Powers
Doctrine
The doctrine of separation of powers enjoins upon the three coordinate departments of the Government a
becoming courtesy for each other's acts. The theory is that every law, being the joint act of the Legislature
and the Executive, has passed careful scrutiny to ensure that it is in accord with the fundamental law. This
Court, however, may declare a law, or portions thereof, unconstitutional, where a petitioner has shown a
clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not merely a doubtful or argumentative one.
Facts

 Repeat case: Petition assailing the constitutionality of the extension of the proclamation of martial
law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao in 2018.
 These are consolidated petitions, filed under the third paragraph, Section 18 of Article VII of the
Constitution, assailing the constitutionality of the extension of the proclamation of martial law and
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao for one year from
January 1 to December 31, 2018.
 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 Group and Abu Sayyaf Group
(ASG). Subsequently, the effectivity of Proclamation No. 216 was extended until December 31,
2017.
Issue
W/N petition was proper, with respect to the principle of separation of powers.
Decision
Such purported human right violations cannot be utilized as ground either to enjoin the President from
exercising the power to declare martial law, or the Congress in extending the same. To sanction
petitioners' plea would result into judicial activism, thereby going against the principle of separation of
powers.
Petitioners are not left without any recourse. Such transgressions can be addressed in a separate and
independent court action. Recall that the imposition of martial law does not result in suspending the
operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts nor authorize the conferment
of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function.
Hence, petitioners can lodge a complaint-affidavit before the prosecutor's office or file a direct complaint
before the appropriate courts against erring parties.
Concurring Opinion Justice Velasco
Surely, as an act of both the executive and the legislative branches, Resolution of Both Houses No. 4 has
in its favor the presumption of constitutionality, which was explained by this Court as follows:
. . . . This presumption is rooted in the doctrine of separation of powers which enjoins upon the three
coordinate departments of the Government a becoming courtesy for each other's acts. The theory is that
every law, being the joint act of the Legislature and the Executive, has passed careful scrutiny to ensure
that it is in accord with the fundamental law. This Court, however, may declare a law, or portions thereof,
unconstitutional, where a petitioner has shown a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not
merely a doubtful or argumentative one. In other words, the grounds for nullity must be beyond
reasonable doubt, for to doubt is to sustain.
The burden of proving the invalidity of this joint exercise of discretion that is the extension of Martial
Law rests on those who challenge it. In this case, petitioners failed to present any proof, much less clear
and convincing evidence, that will convince this Court beyond reasonable doubt of the nullity of the
assailed Resolution. Hence, in the absence of the required proof of the unequivocal infraction of the
Constitution committed by the President and both houses of Congress, this Court will indulge the
presumption of constitutionality of the assailed Resolution of Both Houses No. 4. The validity of the
extension of Martial Law embodied therein must perforce prevail.