Estillore, John Michael G.

JD- 1
Central Philippine University

Lagman, et al. v Medialdea, et al., G.R. Nos. 231658, 231771, 231774, July 4, 2017
(DIGEST)

FACTS:
This is a consolidated petition [G.R. No. 231658 (Lagman Petition), G.R. No. 231771 (Cullamat
Petition), and G.R. No. 231774 (Mohamad Petition)] questioning the constitutionality of the
factual basis of Proclamation No. 216, declaring a state of martial law and suspending the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao.

On May 23, 2017, for a period not exceeding 60 days, President Rodrigo Duterte issued
Proclamation No. 216. The President, on May 25, 2017, submitted to Congress a written Report
on the factual basis of Proclamation No. 216 in accordance to the requirement set by Article VII,
Section 18 of the Constitution. President Duterte’s report pictured Mindanao being plagued with
rebellion and lawless violence for decades, with unclear resolution until the present times. The
President stated in his Report that the Maute Group is openly attempting to remove from the
allegiance to the Philippine Government this part of Mindanao and deprive the Chief Executive
of his powers and prerogatives to enforce the laws of the land and to maintain public order and
safety in Mindanao, constituting the crime of rebellion; The Maute Group also, established
several checkpoints within the city; burned down certain government and private facilities and
inflicted casualties on the part of Government forces; and started flying the flag of the Islamic
State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in several areas, thereby indicating a removal of allegiance from
the Philippine Government. These events, as well as the classified reports he received, led the
President to conclude that these activities constitute not simply a display of force, but a clear
attempt to establish the groups' seat of power in Marawi City for their planned establishment of a
DAESH wilayat or province covering the entire Mindanao.

It was further discussed in the Report that the said lawless armed groups are attempting to
deprive the President of his power, authority, and prerogatives within Marawi City as a precedent
to spreading their control over the entire Mindanao, in an attempt to undermine his control over
executive departments, bureaus, and offices in said area and defeat his mandate to ensure that all
laws are faithfully executed, and remove his supervisory powers over local govemments. After
the submission of the Report and the briefings, the Senate issued P.S. Resolution No. 3888
expressing full support to the martial law proclamation and finding Proclamation No. 216 "to be
satisfactory, constitutional and in accordance with the law". In the same Resolution, the Senate
declared that it found "no compelling reason to revoke the same".

ISSUES:
1. Whether the exercise of the power of judicial review by The Court involves the calibration of
graduated powers granted to the President as Commander-in-Chief?

2. Whether or not there were sufficient factual basis for the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus?

RULING:
The Court mentioned that petitioners from the three separate petitions were suing in their own
behalf as citizens of the country. The respondents did not question petitioners' legal standing. All
three petitions sought the cognizance of Supreme Court based on the third paragraph of Section
18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution which provides: The Supreme Court may review, in an
appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension
thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. Petitioners
claimed that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Section 18, Article VII is sui generis. It
is a special and specific jurisdiction of the Supreme Court different from those enumerated in
Sections 1 and 5 of Article VIII. The Court agrees to this assumption.

This study source was downloaded by 100000860529952 from CourseHero.com on 09-22-2023 07:53:08 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/36240351/Lagman-Digestdocx/
 (1) No. The Supreme Court ruled that the judicial power to review the sufficiency of factual basis
of the declaration of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
does not extend to the calibration of the President’s decision of which among his graduated
powers he will avail of in a given situation. It was discussed that to do so would be tantamount to
an incursion into the exclusive domain of the Executive and an infringement on the prerogative
that solely lies with the President.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President has the sole discretion to declare martial law and/or to
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, subject to the revocation of Congress and the
review of the Supreme Court. The exercise of this power is a judgment call of the President, thus
the Supreme Court shall determine whether there is sufficient factual basis for the exercise of
such power ONLY basing on the information known or available to the President at the time he
made the Proclamation. These facts were included by President Duterte on the Proclamation
itself, and on the written Report he submitted to the Congress, as mandated by the Constitution.

(2) Yes, the Supreme Court found sufficient factual basis for the proclamation of martial law or
the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao. The Court elaborated
parameters for determining the sufficiency of factual basis of Proclamation No. 216. The said
parameters were: (l) 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. The Court said that the President needs only to satisfy probable
cause as the standard of proof in determining the existence of either invasion or rebellion for
purposes of declaring martial law. The Court further held that the said probable cause is the most
reasonable, most practical and most expedient standard by which the President can fully
ascertain the existence or non-existence of rebellion necessary for a declaration of martial law or
suspension of the writ and to require him to satisfy a higher standard of proof would restrict the
exercise of his emergency powers.

In his report, the President noted that the acts of violence perpetrated by the Abu Sayyaf Group
(ASG) and the Maute Group were directed not only against government forces or establishment
but likewise against civilians and their properties. There were bomb threats, road blockades,
burning of schools and churches, hostages and killings of civilians, forced entry of young male
Muslims to the group, there were hampering of medical services and delivery of basic services,
reinforcement of government troops, among others. These particular scenarios convinced the
President that the atrocities had already escalated to a level that risked public safety and thus
impelled him to declare martial law and suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. And,
as the Court said that it is within the President’s judgment whether or not there exists an actual
rebellion or invasion, or a similar grave threat, the Proclamation was upheld.

The Supreme Court affirms the validity and constitutionality of the declaration of martial law
and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao region. The
Court found sufficient factual bases for the issuance of Proclamation No. 216 and declares it as
Constitutional. Consolidated petitions were dismissed.

This study source was downloaded by 100000860529952 from CourseHero.com on 09-22-2023 07:53:08 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/36240351/Lagman-Digestdocx/
 Estillore, John Michael G. JD- 1
Central Philippine University

Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen on Lagman, et al. v

Medialdea, et al., G.R. Nos. 231658, 231771, 231774, July 4, 2017

FACTS:
Associate Justice Leonen dissents from the majority opinion on the Supreme Court’s Decision on
the petitions [G.R. No. 231658 (Lagman Petition), G.R. No. 231771 (Cullamat Petition), and
G.R. No. 231774 (Mohamad Petition)] upholding the constitutionality of the factual basis of
Proclamation No. 216, declaring a state of martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao. Wherein President Rodrigo Duterte issued
Proclamation No. 216 on May 23, 2017, anchored on Article VII, Section 18 of the Constitution,
where it is stated:

Section 18. (1) 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. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial
law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall
submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a
vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke
such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the
President. 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.

The President’s report animated that there was enough factual basis for the declaration of state of
martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao;
that the acts of the Maute Group, and other rebel forces in the South constitutes a clear display of
rebellion and threat to the Government, and not merely acts of terrorism. The Congress
supported the President, and the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the declaration of martial
law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao region
and dismissed the consolidated petitions of Lagman et al.

ISSUES:
1) Whether or not there were sufficient factual basis for the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus?

2) Whether Proclamation No. 216, General order No. 1 is unconstitutional for vagueness and for
evading review of its factual basis.

DISCUSSION:
"Blindly accepting a possibly far-fetched narrative of what transpired in Marawi leading up to
and including the events of May 23, 2017 and ignoring the cultural context will have its own
consequences. The public will accept this far-fetched narrative as reasonable or the truth, when
it could be nothing but fake news,"

“There is no rebellion that justifies martial law. There is terrorism that requires more thoughtful
action,” Associate Justice Leonen said. Leonen believes that the threats and terror inflicted by the
Maute group in Mindanao are not acts of rebellion or taking up arms against the Government. He
added that the Government exaggerated these series of events leading into the declaration of
President Duterte of Proclamation No. 216 declaring a state of martial law and suspending the

This study source was downloaded by 100000860529952 from CourseHero.com on 09-22-2023 07:53:08 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/36240351/Lagman-Digestdocx/
 privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao, and labeled the President’s
official narrative as "far-fetched, when it could be nothing but fake news."
Leonen furthered that the Supreme Court should have looked into the cultural context in
Mindanao, which anchors his stand that the Marawi crisis is not a case of rebellion. The Supreme
Court upheld the constitutionality of the martial law in Mindanao, with only three justices voting
to restrict it to only certain areas in the region.

1) Associate Justice Leonen believes that there are no sufficient factual bases for the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in
Mindanao. He said in his dissent that sufficiency can be seen in two senses: the first sense is that
the facts as alleged and used by the President is credible. This entails an examination of what
kinds of sources and analysis would be credible for the President as intelligence information. The
second sense is whether the facts will have public safety to require the use of specific powers
under the rubric of martial law allowable in the Constitution.

Leonen argued that there are factual allegations that find no relevance to the declaration of
martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Second, there are
facts that have been contradicted by credible intelligence sources. Lastly, there are facts that have
absolutely no basis as they are unsupported by credible evidence. An example of these is the
alleged taking-over of Amai Pakpak Medical Center, where the President’s Report declared that
members of Maute Group held hostages and took-over the whole hospital. Dr. Amer Saber of
APMC stated that hospital was "not taken over by the Maute Group." Dr. Saber said that two
Maute armed men went to the hospital to seek treatment for their injured comrade. When the
armed men were inside the facility, Senior Inspector Freddie Solar, intelligence unit chief of the
Marawi City Police, together with other policemen, came to the hospital to have his wife treated
for appendicitis. The policemen were held hostage by the Maute fighters and thereafter, Senior
Inspector Solar was shot. Saber stressed that the only incident when gunshots were fired was
during the shootout where Solar was killed. The Maute Group then left the following day. This,
and many other ‘incidents’ reported, claimed to have no credibility at all. Leonen made it clear
that the terror acts in Marawi City are not to be taken lightly, but for him, martial law is not the
answer.

2) Leonen believes that Proclamation No. 216 is vague, thus unconstitutional. It is a basic rule in
Statutory Construction that if a statute is vague- it shall render void for vagueness and
unenforceable because it will be too unclear for the average citizen to understand. Leonen said
that the broad scope of declaration of Martial Law is no longer allowed in the present
Constitution (Article VII, Section 18). While clear about what martial law does not include, it
does not define what the President will want to actually do as a result of the proclamation. A
broad declaration of martial law therefore will not be sufficient to inform. It will thus
immediately violate due process of law. Furthermore, it would be difficult if not impossible to
determine the sufficiency of the facts to determine when "public safety requires" martial law if
the powers of martial law are not clear.

The General Order expands the scope of martial law to include lawless violence and is vague as
to the other offense which are "in relation thereto, in connection therewith, or in furtherance
thereof." Leonen said that the scope of martial law now includes degrading the capabilities of
the New People's Army or the Communist Party of the Philippines, illegal drugs, and other
lawless violence. The facts which were used as basis to include these aspects of governance were
never presented to Congress through the President's report or to the Supreme Court. The
government's concept of martial law, from the broad provisions of Proclamation No. 216
therefore partakes of different senses. Rightly so, the public is not specifically guided and their
rights are put at risk. For this alone, Proclamation No. 216, General Order No. 1 as well as
the Operational Directive should be declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL for being VAGUE and for
evading review of its factual basis.

This study source was downloaded by 100000860529952 from CourseHero.com on 09-22-2023 07:53:08 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/36240351/Lagman-Digestdocx/
 Estillore, John Michael G. JD- 1
Central Philippine University

Dissenting Opinion of Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio on Lagman, et al. v Medialdea, et

al., G.R. Nos. 231658, 231771, 231774, July 4, 2017

FACTS:
Associate Justice Carpio disagreed on the Supreme Court’s Decision on the petitions [G.R. No.
231658 (Lagman Petition), G.R. No. 231771 (Cullamat Petition), and G.R. No. 231774
(Mohamad Petition)] upholding the constitutionality of the factual basis of Proclamation No.
216, declaring a state of martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in
the whole of Mindanao. Three other magistrates dissented from the SC ruling approved by a
majority of 11 justices during its session last July 4, 2017. Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno
and Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa voted to partially grant the petitions and limit
the martial law coverage to the provinces of Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao and Sulu, while
Associate Justice Marvic Leonen voted to grant the petitions and declare Duterte’s proclamation
as unconstitutional.

ISSUES:
1) Whether or not there were sufficient factual basis for the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus?

2)

DISCUSSION:
Associate Justice Carpio said a repeat of the nation’s experience during the Marcos era
highlighted by extrajudicial killings and human rights violations might not be farfetched after the
Supreme Court gave its approval to President Duterte’s martial law declaration. He said that the
current President’s martial law “will not be any different from what Marcos did” after he issued
Proclamation No. 216. Carpio added that the 1987 Constitution was written precisely to prevent
a recurrence of the martial law of Marcos. It is apparent that President Duterte does not
understand, or refuses to understand, this fundamental principle.

This study source was downloaded by 100000860529952 from CourseHero.com on 09-22-2023 07:53:08 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/36240351/Lagman-Digestdocx/

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)