Case Citation: G.R. No.

235935

Date: February 6, 2018

Petitioners: Representative Edcel Lagman, et al.

Respondents: Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III, et al.

Doctrine: Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides that a court can take judicial
notice of the official acts of the legislative department without the introduction of
evidence.

“Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts that judges may properly take and
act on without proof because these facts are already known to them; it is the duty of
the court to assume something as matters of fact without need of further evidentiary
support.”

Antecedent On May 23, 2017, Pres. Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216 placing the entirety of
Facts: Mindanao under the state of martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus for a period of sixty (60) days to address the rebellion mounted by
the Maute Group and Abu Sayaff Group. Within 48 hours, the President submitted
a written report to the Congress citing the reasons that impelled him to issue Proc.
No. 216. The Congress then, in separate resolutions, expressed full support in the
said proclamation.

Three petitions then were filed challenging the sufficiency of the factual basis of
Proclamation No. 216. On July 4, 2017, the Court rendered a decision finding
sufficient factual basis for the proclamation and declared it constitutional.

On July 16, 2017, the President requested for the extension of the effectivity of
Proclamation No. 216 which the Congress granted and extended Proclamation No.
216 until Dec. 31, 2017.

After receiving a letter from Defense Sec. Lorenzana and AFP Chief Of Staff
General Guerrero which recommended the further extension of martial law and the
suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus in the whole Mindanao for one
(1) year stating compelling reasons (total eradication of DAESH -inspired group,
other like-minded local/foreign terrorist group, armed lawless group and other
communist groups and their coddlers, supports and financiers), Pres. Duterte again
asked the Congress to further extend the proclamation of martial law and the
suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus from January 1, 2018 to
December 31, 2018.

Acting on the said request, the Congress adopted Resolution No. 4 further
extending the period of martial law and 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.

Petitioner’s The petitioners' failure to attach the Congress' Joint Resolution approving the
Contention: extension is not fatal to the consolidated petitions. Such failure is justified by the
non-availability of the Resolution at the time the petition was filed. In any case, the
Rules on Evidence allow the Court to take judicial notice of the Resolution as an
official act of the legislative.
Respondent’s Petitioners' failure to submit the written Joint Resolution extending the martial law
Contention: and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is fatal since it is
indispensable to the Court's exercise of its review power.

MTC/RTC
Ruling: -

CA Ruling: -

Issue: 1. Whether the petitioner’s failure to attach the Joint Resolution of the Congress in
their petitions is fatal defect which bars the court in reviewing the petitions.
2. Whether there is a sufficient factual basis in extending the proclamation of
martial law in Mindanao.

SC Ruling: 1. No. Failure to attach Resolution of Both Houses No. 4 is not fatal to the petitions.

Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provides that a court can take judicial
notice of the official acts of the legislative department without the introduction of
evidence.

"Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts that judges may properly take and
act on without proof because these facts are already known to them; it is the duty of
the court to assume something as matters of fact without need of further evidentiary
support."

Resolution of Both Houses No. 4 is an official act of Congress; thus, this Court can
take judicial notice thereof. The Court also notes that respondents annexed a copy
of the Resolution to their Consolidated Comment. Hence, the Court see no reason
to consider petitioners' failure to submit a certified copy of the Resolution as a fatal
defect that forecloses this Court's review of the petitions.

2. Yes. The two factual bases required under Section 18, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution 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 were met.
a. Persistence of rebellion - The President issued Proclamation No. 216 in
response to the series of attacks launched by the Maute Group and other rebel
groups in Marawi City. The President reported to the Congress that these groups
had publicly taken up arms for the purpose of removing Mindanao from its
allegiance to the Government and its laws and establishing a
DAESH/ISIS wilayat or province in Mindanao.
b. Public safety requires the extension – the President cited series of attacks made
by the rebel groups in different parts of Mindanao which showed the magnitude of
the atrocities already perpetrated by these rebel groups reveals their capacity to
continue inflicting serious harm and injury, both to life and property. The sinister
plans of attack, as uncovered by the AFP, confirm this real and imminent threat.
The manpower and armaments these groups possess, the continued radicalization
and recruitment of new rebels, the financial and logistical build-up cited by the
President, and more importantly, the groups' manifest determination to overthrow
the government through force, violence and terrorism, present a significant danger
to public safety.
Others Worth to note: In the case of Lagman v. Medialdea the Court sustained the
constitutionality of Proclamation No. 216, holding that the President had probable
cause to believe that actual rebellion exists, and public safety required the
Proclamation. The Court held:

A review of the aforesaid facts similarly leads the Court to conclude that the
President, in issuing Proclamation No. 216, had sufficient factual bases tending to
show that actual rebellion exists. The President's conclusion, that there was an
armed public uprising, the culpable purpose of which was the removal from the
allegiance of the Philippine Government a portion of its territory and the deprivation
of the President from performing his powers and prerogatives, was reached after a
tactical consideration of the facts. In fine, the President satisfactorily discharged his
burden of proof.

After all, what the President needs to satisfy is only the standard of probable cause
for a valid declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus. xx x