REPRESENTATIVES EDCEL C. LAGMAN, TOMASITO S. VILLARIN, GARY C.

ALEJANO, EMMANUEL A. BILLONES, AND TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT, JR. VS.

HON. SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; HON. DELFIN N.
LORENZANA, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEF’ENSE AND
MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR; AND GEN. EDUARDO ANO, CHIEF OF STAFF
OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES AND MARTIAL LAW
IMPLEMENTOR
G.R.NO.231658
JULY 4, 2017
FACTS: On May 23, 2017, President Rodrigo Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216,
declaring Martial Law in the whole island of Mindanao and the suspension of the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus therein. On May 25, the president submitted a written report
to Congress on the factual basis of the Martial Law declaration (as required by the
Constitution).
The main basis of the declaration was the attack of the Maute terrorist group in Marawi
City. According to the report, the Maute group is an affiliate of ISIS which is aiming to
establish an Islamic caliphate in Marawi City (and might spread its control in all the other
parts of Mindanao). It also cited the ongoing rebellion and lawless violence that has
plagued Mindanao for decades.

Proclamation 216 is now assailed by several petitioners:

LAGMAN PETITION
Representatives Edcel C. Lagman, Tomasito s. Villarin, Gary C. Alejano, Emmanuel A.
Billones, and Teddy Brawner Baguilat, Jr. filed this petition to assail the President’s
declaration of Martial Law.

Its main contention is that, the president’s declaration has no sufficient and factual basis
– arguing that acts of terrorism are not equated with rebellion or invasion. Lagman also
contends that the seeming affiliation with ISIS is only mere propaganda, designed to
create an appearance of capability for the Maute group.

The petition also cited several facts in the president’s report which was refuted by several
media networks and news articles because they turned out to be false or untrue. Among
these was the report about the attack on Amai Pakpak Hospital, the ransack of the
Landbank of the Philippines, and the burning of several schools.

CULLAMAT PETITION
The Cullamat Petition on the other hand avers that the president fails to show any acts
of rebellion and invasion outside Marawi City. Hence, the declaration of Martial Law for
the whole island of Mindanao has no sufficient basis. Cullamat also reiterated the false
facts in the president’s report, as pointed out in the Lagman petition.

MOHAMAD PETITION
The Mohamad Petition also avers that the power to declare Martial Law is a remedy of
last resort. It contends that the extraordinary powers of the President should be
dispensed sequentially, i.e., first, the power to call out the armed forces; second, the
power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; and finally, the power to
declare martial law.

OSG’S CONSOLIDATED COMMENT

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contends that the court should only review
Proclamation 216 under the lens of grave abuse of discretion, and not on the correctness
of facts.
The OSG also further argues that the sufficiency of the factual basis should be examined
based on the facts/information that were available to the president at the time he made
the determination. Doing otherwise will impose an impossible standard on the president’s
exercise of discretion.

ISSUES:

1. WON the petition is reviewable by the court under Section 18, Article VII.
2. WON 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.
3. WON the power of judicial review by this Court involves the calibration of
graduated powers granted the President as Commander-in-Chief, namely (1)
calling out powers, (2) suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus,
and (3) declaration of martial law.
4. WON there were sufficient factual [basis] for the proclamation of martial law or
the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
HELD:

1.) YES. The only requisite to challenge the validity of the suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus and declaration of martial law is that the petitioner should be
a citizen. He need not even be a taxpayer.
2.) YES. A plain reading of Section 18, Article VII reveals that it specifically grants
authority to the Court to determine the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation
of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. This is
completely independent from Congress’ duty to review.
It is meant to provide an additional safeguard against possible abuse by the President in
the exercise of his power to declare martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus.

The Court may strike down the presidential proclamation in an appropriate proceeding
filed by any citizen on the ground of lack of sufficient factual basis. On the other hand,
Congress may revoke the proclamation or suspension, such a revocation shall not be set
aside by the President.

The Court is not allowed to “undertake an independent investigation beyond the

pleadings.” On the other hand, Congress may take into consideration not only data
available prior to, but likewise events supervening the declaration. Unlike the Court,
Congress could probe deeper and further; it can delve into the accuracy of the facts
presented before it.

The Court’s review power is only passive; it is only initiated by the filing of a petition “in
an appropriate proceeding” by a citizen. On the other hand, Congress’ review mechanism
is automatic in the sense that it may be activated by Congress itself at any time after the
proclamation or suspension was made.

The court held that it can simultaneously exercise its power of review with, and
independently from, the power to revoke by Congress. Corollary, any perceived inaction
or default on the part of Congress does not deprive or deny the Court of its power to
review.

3.) NO. The power of judicial review does not extend to calibrating the President’s
decision pertaining to which extraordinary power should he use to avail in a given set of
facts or conditions. To do so would be tantamount to an incursion into the exclusive
domain of the Executive and an infringement on the prerogative that solely, at least
initially, lies with the President.
The sequence of “graduated powers” does not refer to a sequence, arrangement, or order
which the Commander-in-Chief must follow. This so-called “graduation of powers” does
not dictate or restrict the manner by which the President decides which power to choose.

4.) YES. In reviewing the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation or
suspension, the Court considers only the information and data available to the President
prior to or at the time of the declaration.
The determination by the Court of the sufficiency of factual basis must be limited only to
the facts and information mentioned in the Report and Proclamation.

The Court held that the President, in issuing Proclamation No. 216, had sufficient factual
bases tending to show that actual rebellion exists. The President only has to ascertain if
there is probable cause for a declaration of Martial Law and the suspension of the writ of
habeas corpus.

The petitioners’ counter-evidence were derived solely from unverified news articles on
the internet, with neither the authors nor the sources shown to have affirmed the
contents thereof.

As the Court has consistently ruled, news articles are hearsay evidence, twice removed,
and are thus without any probative value, unless offered for a purpose other than proving
the truth of the matter asserted.

The alleged false and/or inaccurate statements are just pieces and parcels of the Report;
along with these alleged false data is an arsenal of other independent facts showing that
more likely than not, actual rebellion exists.