G.R. No. 231658/G.R. No. 231771/G.R. No. 231774. July 4, 2017

**G.R. No. 231658/G.R. No. 231771/G.R. No. 231774. July 4, 2017** is a decision 2017 **landmark ruling** or **leading case** by the Supreme Court.

Rep. Edcel C. Lagman, et al. Vs. Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, et al./Eufemia C. Cullamat, et al. Vs. President Rodrigo Duterter, et al./Norkaya S. Mohamad, et al. Vs. Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, et al.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/july2017/231658.pdf

Mariano del Castillo

**Dissenting Opinion**

* Maria Lourdes Sereno
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/july2017/231658\_sereno.pdf
* Antonio Carpio
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/july2017/231658\_carpio.pdf
* Marvic Leonen
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/july2017/231658\_leonen.pdf
* Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/july2017/231658\_caguioa.pdf

**Separate Concurring Opinion**

* Presbitero Velasco Jr.
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/july2017/231658\_velasco.pdf
* Teresita Leonardo-de Castro
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/july2017/231658\_decastro.pdf
* Diosdado Peralta
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/july2017/231658\_peralta.pdf
* Jose Catral Mendoza
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/july2017/231658\_mendoza.pdf
* Bienvenido Reyes
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/july2017/231658\_reyes.pdf
* Noel Tijam
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/july2017/231658\_tijam.pdf

**Separate Opinion**

* Lucas Bersamin
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/july2017/231658\_bersamin.pdf
* Estela Perlas-Bernabe
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/july2017/231658\_bernabe.pdf
* Francis Jardeleza
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/july2017/231658\_jardeleza.pdf
* Samuel Martires
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/july2017/231658\_martires.pdf

## Issues

1. Whether or not 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. Whether or not the President in declaring martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus:a. is required to be factually correct or only not arbitrary in his appreciation of facts;b. is required to obtain the favorable recommendation thereon of the Secretary of National Defense;c. is required to take into account only the situation at the time of the proclamation, even if subsequent events prove the situation to have not been accurately reported;
3. Whether or not the power of this Court to review the sufficiency of the factual basis [of] the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is independent of the actual actions that have been taken by Congress jointly or separately;
4. 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;a. What are the parameters for review?b. Who has the burden of proof?c. What is the threshold of evidence?
5. 5. Whether the exercise of the power of judicial review by this Court involves the calibration of graduated powers granted the President as Commander-in-Chief, namely calling out powers, suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and declaration of martial law;
6. 6. Whether or not Proclamation No. 216 of 23 May 2017 may be considered, vague and thus null and void:a. with its inclusion of "other rebel groups;" orb. since it has no guidelines specifying its actual operational parameters within the entire Mindanao region;
7. Whether or not the armed hostilities mentioned in Proclamation No. 216 and in the Report of the President to Congress are sufficient [bases]:a. for the existence of actual rebellion; orb. for a declaration of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao 1 region;
8. Whether or not terrorism or acts attributable to terrorism are equivalent to actual rebellion and the requirements of public safety sufficient to declare martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; and
9. Whether or not nullifying Proclamation No. 216 of 23 May 2017 will:a. have the effect of recalling Proclamation No. 55 s. 2016; orb. also nullify the acts of the President in calling out the armed forces to quell lawless violence in Marawi and other parts of the Mindanao region.

After the oral argument, the parties submitted their respective memoranda and supplemental memoranda.

## Info

Considering the nation's and its people's traumatic experience martial law under the Marcos regime, one would expect the framers of the 1987 Constitution to stop at nothing from *not* resuscitating the law. Yet it would appear that the constitutional writers entertained *no* doubt about the necessity and practicality of such specie of extraordinary power and thus, once again, bestowed on the Commander-in-Chief the power to declare martial law albeit in its diluted form.

To reiterate, the Court is not equipped with the competence and logistical machinery to determine the strategical value of other places in the military's efforts to quell the rebellion and restore peace. It would be engaging in an act of adventurism if it dares to embark on a mission of deciphering the territorial metes and bounds of martial law.

Thus, there is reasonable basis to believe that Marawi is only the staging point of the rebellion, both for symbolic and strategic reasons. Marawi may not be the target but the whole of Mindanao. As mentioned in the Report, "[l]awless armed groups have historically used provinces adjoining Marawi City as escape routes, supply lines, and backdoor passages;" there is also the plan to establish a wilayat in Mindanao by staging the siege of Marawi. The report that prior to May 23, 2017, Abdullah Maute had already dispatched some of his men to various places in Mindanao, such as Marawi, Iligan, and Cagayan de Oro for bombing operations, carnapping, and the murder of military and police personnel, must also be considered. Indeed, there is some semblance of truth to the contention that Marawi is only the start, and Mindanao the end.

## Decision

**WHEREFORE,** the Court **FINDS** sufficient factual bases for the issuance of Proclamation No. 216 and **DECLARES** it as **CONSTITUTIONAL.** Accordingly, the consolidated Petitions are hereby **DISMISSED.**

## Trivia

* *En Banc*
* Martial Law