A.C. No. 235935/G.R. No. 236061/G.R. No. 236145/G.R. No. 236155. February 6, 2018

**A.C. No. 235935/G.R. No. 236061/G.R. No. 236145/G.R. No. 236155. February 6, 2018**  is a decision 2018 **landmark ruling** or **leading case** by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

## Case Details

* Representatives Edcel C. Lagman, et al. Vs. Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III, et al./Eufemia Campos, et al. Vs. President Rodrigo Duterte, et al./Loretta Ann P. Rosales Vs. President Rodrigo Duterte, et al./Christian S. Monsod, et al. Vs. Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III, et al.
* A.C. No. 235935/G.R. No. 236061/G.R. No. 236145/G.R. No. 236155. February 6, 2018
* http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/63920
* Noel Tijam

## Issues

WHEREAS, on December 13, 2017, after thorough discussion and extensive debate, the Congress of the Philippines in a Joint Session by two hundred forty (240) affirmative votes comprising the majority of all its Members, has determined that rebellion persists, and that public safety indubitably requires the further extension of the Proclamation of Martial Law and the Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of *Habeas Corpus* in the Whole of Mindanao; Now, therefore, be it *Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives in a Joint Session Assembled*, To further extend Proclamation No. 216, Series of 2017, entitled "Declaring a State of Martial Law and Suspending the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Whole of Mindanao" for a period of one (1) year from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018.

**Procedural Issues:**

* ***Failure to attach Resolution of Both Houses No. 4 is not fatal to the petitions.***
* ***The President should be dropped as party respondent***
* ***The Congress is an indispensable party to the consolidated petitions.***
* ***The Court is not barred by the doctrine of  conclusiveness of judgment from examining  the persistence of rebellion in Mindanao***
* ***The Court's power to review the extension of martial law is limited solely to the determination of the sufficiency of the factual basis thereof.***

**Substantive Issues**

* ***Congressional check on the exercise of martial law and suspension powers***
* ***The manner in which Congress deliberated on the President's request for extension is not subject to judicial review***
* ***Congress has the power to extend and determine the period of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus***
* ***The President and the Congress had sufficient factual basis to extend Proclamation No. 216***
* ***A. Rebellion persists***
* ***Other rebel groups***
* ***B. Public safety requires the extension***
* ***No necessity to impose tests on the choice and manner of the President's exercise of military powers***
* ***Safeguards against abuse***
* ***Petitioners failed to comply with the requisites for the issuance of an injunctive writ***

The imperative necessity of Martial Law as a tool of the government for self-preservation is enshrined in the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. It earned a bad reputation during the Marcos era and apprehensions still linger in the minds of doubtful and suspicious individuals. Mindful of its importance and necessity, the Constitution has provided for safeguards against its abuses.

## Decision

**WHEREFORE**, the Court **FINDS** sufficient factual bases for the issuance of Resolution of Both Houses No. 4 and **DECLARES** it as **CONSTITUTIONAL**. Accordingly, the consolidated Petitions are hereby **DISMISSED**.

## Trivia

* *En Banc*
* Martial Law