Digests for Constitution 1

John Dominic A. Masacote- JD 1D

Lagman vs Medialdea(Main Case)

GR No. 231658 July 4, 2017

Facts:
Effective May 23, 2017, Then President Rodrigo Roa Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216, declaring
Martial Law and suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the whole of Mindanao. This was in line of
the attack of the Maute Group in Marawi where there were a lot of casualties resulting to damage of
properties and even deaths of innocent civilians. The unfolding of these events and 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. After the
submission of the Report and the briefings, the Senate issued P.S. Resolution No. 388 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."

On June 5, 2017, Representatives Edcel C. Lagman, Tomasito S. Villarin, Gary C. Alejano, Emmanuel A.
Billones, and Teddy Brawner Baguilat, Jr. filed a Petition 11 Under the Third Paragraph of Section 18
of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution on the following grounds:

First, the Lagman Petition claims that the declaration of martial law has no sufficient factual basis
because there is no rebellion or invasion in Marawi City or in any part of Mindanao. It argues that acts
of terrorism in Mindanao do not constitute rebellion 12 since there is no proof that its purpose is to
remove Mindanao or any part thereof from allegiance to the Philippines, its laws, or its territory.

Second, the Lagman Petition claims that the declaration of martial law has no sufficient factual basis
because the President's Report contained "false, inaccurate, contrived and hyperbolic accounts.

Third, It also lack sufficient factual bases for the reason that the President included events which
already took place long before the conflict of Marawi began.

Fourth, The President acted alone, without consulting the military.

Finally, It lacks sufficient factual bases because the number of the foreign fighters allied with the ISIS
is undetermined.

Issues:
1. W/N the petitions docketed as G.R. Nos. 231658, 231771, and 231774 are the "appropriate
proceeding" covered by Paragraph 3, Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution sufficient to invoke the
mode of review required of this Court when a declaration of martial law or the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is promulgated
2. W/N Presidential Proclamation 216 is Constitutional

Ruling:
Based on the ponencia, there are two tests to determine the constitutionality of a declaration of
martial law or a suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus: the arbitrariness test as applied in the 1971
case of Lansang vs Garcia, and the suffiency of factual basis test. Under our Rules of Court, it is
presumed that an official duty has been regularly performed.It has likewise been held that a public
officer is presumed to have acted in good faith in the performance of his duties. It is also a settled rule
that he who alleges must prove,and the rule applies even to negative assertions.Thus,the burden of
proving that the President's factual basis for declaring martial law and suspending the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao was insufficient, lies with the petitioners.
Petitioners were unable to show that the President had no sufficient factual basis in issuing
Proclamation No. 216. The attempt of petitioners to discredit some of the President's reasons for
issuing his Proclamation must perforce fail as it was based merely on news articles they found online.
Such news reports amount to "hearsay evidence, twice removed" and are, therefore, "not only
inadmissible but without any probative value at all whether objected to or not, unless offered for a
purpose other than proving the truth of the matter asserted." 17 Indeed, it appears that not even an
effort to verify said news reports was made, or affidavits of witnesses presented, to directly refute the
President's factual assertions.
The facts, upon which the President based his Proclamation and which have not been satisfactorily
controverted, show that more likely than not, there was rebellion and public safety required the
exercise of the President's powers to declare martial law and to suspend the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao.The events as reported by the President to Congress show that
the violent attacks of the Maute group and its sympathizers have resulted in destruction of
government and privately-owned properties as well as human casualties. The government has been
prevented from delivering basic services and from sending troop reinforcements to restore peace in
Marawi City. Civilians and government personnel have no easy access to and from the City. All of these
were taking place as part of the plan of the Maute Group and its sympathizers to establish their seat of
power in Marawi City and create a DAESH wilayat in Mindanao. Clearly, the proclamation of martial
law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus have been firmly grounded
on the requirements of public safety.

Therefore, petition is DISMISSED

Lagman vs Medialdea(1st Extension)
GR No. 231658 December 5, 2017

Facts:
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, failed to present any substantial argument to
convince us to reconsider our July 4, 2017 Decision.

Issue:
W/N the motion for reconsideration by the petitioners has merit.

Ruling:
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."
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. 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.

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
inn immediately. SO ORDERED.