RE: QUERY of MR.

ROGER PRIOS

Facts:
The Hon. Court Administrator Jose Perez pointed out to the need of complying with OCA Circular
No. 42-2005 and Rule 141 that reserves this "privilege" to indigent persons.
In addition, this law deals mainly with "individual indigent" and it does not include Foundations or
Associations that work with and for the most Indigent persons.
We have been... working hard for the very Filipino people, that the Government and the society
cannot reach to, or have rejected or abandoned them.
Issues:
Can the Courts grant to our Foundation who works for indigent and underprivileged people, the same
option granted to indigent people?
Ruling:
To answer the query of Mr. Prioreschi, the Courts cannot grant to foundations like the Good
Shepherd Foundation, Inc. the same exemption from payment of legal fees granted to indigent
litigants even if the foundations are working for indigent and underprivileged people.
The free access clause, embodied in Sec. 11, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution provides clear intent
and precise language of the afore quoted provisions of the Rules of Court indicate that only a natural
party litigant may be regarded as an indigent litigant.
Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc. is working for indigent and underprivileged people is of no
moment... free access clause on a person's poverty, a condition that only a natural person can suffer...
juridical person on the ground that it works for indigent and underprivileged people may be prone to
abuse... too time-consuming and wasteful for the courts.

LAGMAN v MEDIALDEA

Effective May 23, 2017, and for a period not exceeding 60 days, President Rodrigo Roa 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.
Within the timeline set by Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, the President submitted to
Congress on May 25, 2017, a written Report on the factual basis of Proclamation No. 216.
The Report pointed out that for decades, Mindanao has been plagued with rebellion and lawless
violence which only escalated and worsened with the passing of time.

ISSUE
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:
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 this Court. Since the exercise of these powers is a judgment call of the President, the
determination of this Court as to whether there is sufficient factual basis for the exercise of such,
must be based only on facts or information known by or available to the President at the time he
made the declaration or suspension, which facts or information are found in the proclamation as well
as the written Report submitted by him to Congress.
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.

LAGMAN vs PIMENTAL
Facts:
This case involves consolidated petitions challenging 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. On May 23, 2017, President Rodrigo
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 days. The
President submitted a written report to the Senate and the House of Representatives, citing the events
and reasons that led to the proclamation. The Congress expressed full support for the proclamation
and found no cause to revoke it. Several petitions were subsequently filed challenging the sufficiency
of the factual basis of the proclamation, but the Court found it constitutional. On July 18, 2017, the
President requested the Congress to extend the effectivity of the proclamation, and the Congress
adopted a resolution extending it until December 31, 2017. The President then requested another
extension for one year, from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018, citing the need to quell the
rebellion and ensure public safety. The Congress granted the extension.

Issue:
The main issue raised in the case is whether there is a sufficient factual basis for the extension of
martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that there is a sufficient factual basis for the extension of martial law in Mindanao.
The Court held that there is an ongoing rebellion in the Philippines, with various armed groups
engaging in armed conflict with government forces and seeking to topple the government. The Court
emphasized that the state of martial law is an extraordinary power that is premised on necessity and
meant to protect the Republic from its enemies. It also noted that the President has the discretion to
determine the existence of rebellion and the necessity of martial law.

PADILLA VS CONGRESS

Facts:

The case involves the interpretation of Article VII, Section 18 of the Philippine Constitution. The court
reviews the history of the text and corresponding jurisprudence. The exercise of the power to suspend
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was conditioned upon the concurrence of the legislature.

The Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916 retained the concept of habeas corpus but allowed the Governor
General to suspend the writ without legislative concurrence. The Tydings-Mcduffie Act or the Philippine
Independence Act paved the way for the enactment of Article VII, Section 10 of the Philippine
Constitution, which grants the President the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus.

The exercise of this power is not subject to review by any other branch of the government, except when
emergency powers are granted by

Issue:

The main issue raised in the case is the interpretation of Article VII, Section 18 of the Philippine
Constitution.

The issue revolves around the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the role
of Congress in revoking or extending such suspension.

Ruling:

The court rules that the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is not exclusively
vested in the President.

Congress plays an active role in revoking or extending the suspension. Congress has the authority to
revoke or affirm the President's proclamation or suspension, allow their limited effectivity to lapse, or
extend the same if deemed warranted.

Congress' scope of review is not bound or restricted by any legal standard, except when it is arbitrary or
unreasonable.
CHAVEZ VS COURT OF APPEALS

Facts:

Respondents filed separate cases against the petitioners seeking to be restored and maintained in the
possession and cultivation of salt beds owned by Teodoro Chavez. Parties agreed on several stipulations
of facts during the pre-trial conference, including ownership of the salt beds by Teodoro Chavez and the
employment of the respondents by Chavez.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondents are agricultural tenants of Teodoro Chavez on the salt beds in question,
and if so, whether they are entitled to reinstatement and damages.

Ruling:

The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring them as share tenants of Teodoro Chavez on
the salt beds and ordering the other defendants to vacate the salt beds and surrender possession. The
court also ordered Teodoro Chavez to reinstate the respondents as share tenants and maintain them in
the peaceful possession and cultivation of the salt beds during the salt-making season. The court
dismissed the other claims of the respondents and counterclaim of the defendants. The Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court upheld the findings of fact of the trial court and
the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding no
reversible error in its appreciation of the facts.

The court ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring them as share tenants of Teodoro Chavez on the
salt beds and ordering the other defendants to vacate the salt beds and surrender possession.