To: Atty.

Salima Jamal
From: Ryan A. Zafra
Date: February 13, 2024
Subject: The Constitutionality of the Proclamation of Martial law by the President.

Introduction:
I am writing this legal memorandum to discuss the Presidents proclamation of Martial
Law as his prerogative to curve the violence and disruption of public order.

Issue and Summary Conclusion

Issue: Whether or not the proclamation of the President of Martial law in Manila is
constitutional?

Ruling:
No, The president’s proclamation of Martial law in the city of Manila is deemed to be
unconstitutional. As ruled in the case of Lagman Vs. Medialdea, G.R. No. 231658, The President
may resort to this extraordinary power whenever it becomes necessary to prevent or suppress
lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion. The power to call is fully discretionary to the
President;" the only limitations being that he acts within permissible constitutional boundaries or
in a manner not constituting grave abuse of discretion. Here, the discretion of the president to
declare Martial law due to strike of employees in the streets of city Manila is excessive and
constituting to grave abuse of discretion. Hence, the proclamation is unconstitutional.
Statement of Facts
For the past weeks, several employees have taken the streets of Manila to strike following
a mass termination. Private companies say that these employees are still contractual and can be
dismissed anytime. International media covered these activities; thus, investors are getting
nervous. The President of the Philippines declares in a press conference that in order to curve the
violence and disruption of public order, he will declare martial law for a month in Manila.

Analysis and Discussion

Requisites for the Declaration of Martial Law
 In order to declare martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of the writ of habeas
corpus, the Constitution requires the following:
(a) The President may declare martial law or suspend of the privilege of habeas corpus only
when there is an invasion or rebellion and public safety requires such declaration or
suspension.
(b) The President’s proclamation or suspension shall be for a period not exceeding 60 days.
(c) Within 48 hours from the proclamation or suspension, the President must submit a Report
in person or in to Congress.
(d) The congress, voting jointly and by a vote of at least a majority of all its members, can
revoke the proclamation or suspension.
(e) The President cannot set aside the Congress’ revocation of his proclamation or
suspension.
(f) The president cannot, by himself, extend his proclamation of suspension. He should ask
the Congress’ approval.
(g) Upon such initiative or request from the President, the Congress, voting jointly and by a
vote of at least a majority of all its Members, can extend the proclamation or suspension
for such period as it may determine.
(h) The extension of the proclamation or suspension shall only be approved when the
invasion or rebellion persists and public safety requires it.
(i) The Supreme Court may review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation or
suspension, or the extension thereof, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen.
(j) The supreme Court must promulgate its decision with 30 days from the filing of the
appropriate proceeding.
(k) Martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the Bill of Rights remains effective under a state of martial law. Its
implementers must adhere to the principle that civilian authority is supreme over the
military and the armed forces are the protector of the people. They must also abide by the
State’s policy to value the dignity of every human person and guarantee full respect for
human rights.
(l) Martial law does not supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies,
nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians
where civil courts are able to function.
(m)The suspension of the privilege of the writ applies only to persons judicially charged for
rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.
(n) Finally, during the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or
detained should be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he should be released.

Under article 134 of the RPC states:

Art. 134. Rebellion or insurrection; How committed. - The crime of rebellion or insurrection is
committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of
removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of the Philippine
Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, depriving the Chief
Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.

In determining the existence of rebellion, 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. To require him to satisfy a higher standard of proof would
restrict the exercise of his emergency powers. Along this line, Justice Carpio, in his Dissent
in Fortun v. President Macapagal-Arroyo, concluded 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, and that 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.
To summarize, the parameters for determining the sufficiency of factual basis are as
follows: 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. In this case, the city of Manila is not in the state of Rebellion or
insurrection although the streets of Manila may have filled with several employees who have
strike due to massive termination, it does not require for it to be place under martial law just to
curve the violence and disruption.

Conclusion

Based on the parameters laid by the constitution to determine the sufficiency of the
factual basis for the declaration of martial law and/or suspension of the privilege if the writ of
habeas corpus, and as ruled in the case of Lagman Vs. Medialdea, The proclamation of Martial
Law by the president is unconstitutional.