SOMOLLO, DEANNE MITZI A.

LLB 4A

LAGMAN V. MEDIALDEA ET. AL. GR. NO. 231568/231771/231774

Facts: This is a consolidated case on proclamation no. 216 issued by President Duterte which
effectively placed the entire Mindanao in the state of martial law with the suspension of the
privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Within the time provided for by Article VII Section 18,
the President presented a report to Congress specifying the factual basis for the Proc. No. 216.
The report cites among other things that Mindanao is a hotbed of rebellion and lawless violence
which has only escalated through the years. In the same report, the President discussed the
strategic importance of Marawi. Congress, both House of Representatives and the House of
Senate found no cogent reason to revoke the proclamation. Both Houses issued a resolution
assenting to the effect that they found the president to have the factual basis in placing Mindanao
under Martial law.

Invoking the Constitutional right to question the factual basis for the declaration of martial law,
various citizens filed a petition questioning the factual basis of the proclamation and seeking out
its nullification.

Issues: 1. WON there is the factual basis to declare martial law and suspend the privilege of the
Writ of Habeas Corpus in the entire Mindanao area.
2. WON in reviewing the proclamation, the Court has to define limits of the three
powers vested by Article VII Sec. 18.

Held:

1. Yes,there is sufficient factual basis for declaring martial law and suspend the privilege of the
Writ of Habeas Corpus in the entire Mindanao area. The Court elucidated its ruling in this
manner, what Article VII Section 18 grants to the President is his power as a commander in
chief. Among which include the calling out power, the power to suspend the privilege of the
Writ of Habeas Corpus and the power to declare martial law.

Due to the historical experience of the Philippines with respect to Martial law the present
Constitution provided sufficient standards to ensure that the Marcos Martial Law will not be
repeated this includes: the duty of Congress to convene within 24 hours, after the declaration, if
not in session to determine whether or not there is sufficient factual basis for the declaration, the
President is also required to appear before Congress to report on the basis of the said declaration
and as the last protection- any citizen may question the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
declaration of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus or the
extension thereof.

Furthermore, in the determination of what is sufficient factual basis, the President merely has to
satisfy the quantum of probable cause. In this instant case, the President used facts which were
available to him to determine whether or not there is indeed a necessity to declare martial law
and suspend the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. He can rely on reports given to him by
his military commanders. The Court cannot expect that there be a 100% accuracy on the report
made by the President to Congress. If precision is required prior to action then the power to act
of the President in cases of extreme urgency such as this will be rendered inutile. Whether to
declare martial law or not is based on the judgment call of the President. Subsequent events
should not be used to determine whether at the time Martial Law was declared there was already
sufficient factual basis. The Court also clarified that it cannot conduct a separate investigation on
the facts which the President reported as the Courts will rely only on the facts used prior to and
during the declaration.
The Court cannot compel the president to include in his report subsequent events because what
the Constitution requires is that at the time the declaration of Martial Law was made the
president has satisfied himself with the facts available to him. His decision must be given
credence as it was derived from tactical information available to him by nature of his position.
Verily, the president is not required to exercise the powers vested in him by Article VII Sec. 18
in a consequential manner.

The Court also found that there is indeed sufficient factual basis as there is rebellion in Marawi
and not terrorism. There was indeed an armed group, they were clear in their purpose of an
uprising against the Government of the Philippines and sought to remove sovereignty from the
Government by establishing a DAESH wilayat and consequently removing from the President
the ability to exercise his powers. It is well within the judgment call of the president as to how
far of the past event he is going to base his decisions.

2. No, The Courts cannot, in determining whether there is sufficient factual basis for the
declaration of martial law, calibrate the powers given by Article VII Section 18 nor can they
compel the President to exercise the powers in a gradual order without violating the principle of
separation of powers. When the Constitution gave the President these powers as commander in
chief it was not envisioned to be exercised in a particular order nor was it given to the President
on the condition that the Supreme Court define and calibrate the same.

It must be noted that the powers given are specifically designed to address emergency situations.
The calling out power is considered as the most benign while the power to declare martial law
and suspend the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is the most aggressive power that can be
exercised. It is not for the Court to define which of the three powers must be exercised first
because the President has been given much leeway by the Constitution to respond as he deems
necessary.

For the Court to define the calibrate these powers will amount to necessary interference with the
Executive Branch, another co-equal branch of the Philippine Government. The Court is a passive
guardian which can only act when invoked and as such it will not delve into the wisdom of
whether or not the President should have first exercised a more benign power prior to declaring
martial law and suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
SOMOLLO, DEANNE MITZI A. LLB 4A

LAGMAN V. MEDIALDEA ET. AL. GR. NO. 231568/231771/231774

(DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE ANTONIO CARPIO)

Facts: President Rodrigo Roa Duterte (President Duterte) issued Proclamation No. 216,
declaring a state of martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ in the whole of
Mindanao. Within the timeline set by Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, the President
submitted to Congress, a written Report on the factual basis of Proclamation No. 216. According
to the Report, the government undertook an operation to capture Isnilon Hapilon, the leader ot
the MAUTE group. Government forces where however met with arms and were besieged when
they tried to capture Hapilon. Later on, the MAUTE group proceeded to capture local areas in
Marawi and declared their intention to establish a DAESH wilayat. Vital lines of communication
were then cut along with capturing local police, hospital and educational institutions.

Based on this and other verified information, the President issued Proclamation No. 216.

Issues: 1. WON there is the factual basis to declare martial law and suspend the privilege of the
Writ of Habeas Corpus in the entire Mindanao area.

2. WON "appropriate proceeding" under paragraph 3, Section 18, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution refers to a Petition for Certiorari.

Held: 1. NO. While the President’s declaration of Martial Law and suspension of the Privilege
of the Writ of Habeas Corpus in Marawi has satisfied the threshold requirement. He was not able
to prove that Martial Law should apply to the whole of Mindanao. There is actual rebellion and
that public safety requires the declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the
writ in Marawi City but to apply it to the whole of Mindanao on the pretext that there might be a
spill over effect wherein those who escape capture can go to nearby areas in Mindanao and
cause rebellion to happen there. To do so would be a perversion of the Constitution and the
negation of the Revised Penal Code and the Rules of Court. This is an assumption which the
Government has not proven.

When rebellion is the crime committed is necessitates the presence of armed men who have a
clear and definite purpose of uprising against the government and preventing the President from
exercising his powers. The act of the rebels in fleeing or escaping to other territories outside of
the place of rebellion will certainly not constitute armed public uprising for the purpose of
removing from allegiance to the Philippines the territory where the rebels flee or escape to.

2. Appropriation proceeding referred to in Section 18 Article VII of the Constitution is not a

Petition for Certiorari but a sui generis petition not under the Rules of Court. The "citizen" who
can challenge the declaration of martial law need not be a taxpayer, or a resident of the locality
where martial law is declared, or even directly or personally prejudiced by the declaration. Since
the Constitution used the words any citizen it must be taken to mean any citizen for if the
framers meant to limit the power to question the validity of the declaration of martial law it can
do so by clearly stating the same.
SOMOLLO, DEANNE MITZI A. LLB 4A

LAGMAN V. MEDIALDEA ET. AL. GR. NO. 231568/231771/231774

(DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN)

Facts: President Rodrigo Roa Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216 on May 23 2017, pursuant to
his power under Article VII Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution or his power to declare martial
and suspend the writ of habeas corpus, declared a state of martial law and suspending the
privilege of the writ in the whole of Mindanao. On May 25, 2017, 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 lay down in details that
Mindanao has been plagued with rebellion and lawless violence which only escalated and
worsened with the passing of time. That on May 23, 2017, a government operation to capture
Isnilon Hapilon, a senior leader of the ASG, and Maute Group operational leaders, Abdullah and
Omarkhayam Maute, was confronted with armed resistance which escalated into open hostility
against the government. After the submission of the Report and the briefings, the Senate and the
House of Representatives issued a resolution expressing full support to the martial law
proclamation and finding Proclamation No. 216 to be satisfactory, constitutional and in
accordance with the law. In the same Resolution, the Senate declared that it found no compelling
reason to revoke the same. Invoking the third paragraph of Section 18, Article VII of the
Constitution, various citizens filed several petitions, essentially invoking the Court’s specific and
special jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of Proclamation No. 216; and
seeking to nullify Proclamation No. 216 for being unconstitutional because it lacks sufficient
factual basis.

Issue: 1. WON there is the factual basis to declare martial law and suspend the privilege of the
Writ of Habeas Corpus in the entire Mindanao area.
2. WON the doctrine of Void for Vagueness can be used to challenge the validity of the
declaration of Martial Law.

Held: 1.NO. The Declaration of Martial Law is the final frontier- the last response when all
other powers of the President fail to quell the factual circumstances for which it was granted.
The Government has the burden of proof to prove that under the facts availing the use of the
calling our power was not sufficient to address the situation in Marawi. Any declaration of
Martial Law must clearly articulate the powers that will be exercised by the President. While it
may be conceded that the President has access to reports which ordinary people do not have and
thus leading him to decide that Martial law should be declared the same does not constitute
sufficient factual basis, he must clearly show that there indeed is rebellion. Public safety is
always the aim of the constitutional concept of police power. Martial law is not the
constitutionally allowed solution to terrorism, as what is present in this case. It is an emergency
grant of power in cases where civilian authority has been overrun due to actual hostilities
motivated by a demonstrable purpose of actually seizing government. As an emergency measure,
the capability and commitment of the lawless group must also be shown.

It is repugnant against case law and conscience to agree that the acts of the MAUTE group
constitute rebellion for they do not. They do not have the numbers nor do they have the
sophistication to be able to hold ground. The actual acts of the criminal elements in Marawi are
designed to slow down the advance of government forces and facilitate their escape. They are
not designed to actually control seats of governance. The provincial and city governments are
existing and are operating as best as they could under the circumstances. They are not rendered
inutile such that there is now a necessity for the military to take over all aspects of governance.

By elevating the status of the MAUTE group from acts of terrorism to rebellion, the government
has given them personality as an armed conflict of a non-international character protected by
International Humanitarian Law. By giving them personality, the government acknowledges its
defeat against a band of lawless elements.
2. YES. The doctrine of void for vagueness is a ground for striking down a statute or a
governmental regulation for being vague. Vagueness occurs when, upon reading, an act,
declaration, or resolution men of common knowledge must guess its meaning and differ as to its
application. It is repugnant to the right of a person to due process since a vague statue or
declaration does not allow him to be properly appraised of his right or obligation. It is clear that
what is relevant in the application of the void-for-vagueness doctrine is not whether it is a
freedom of speech case, but rather whether it violates the Due Process Clause of the Constitution
for failure to accord persons a fair notice of which conduct to avoid; and whether it leaves law
enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out their functions.

Indeed, it was so vague that the Proclamation No. 216 and General Order No. 1 had no
guidelines or standards to follow for their implementation, leaving law enforcers unbridled
discretion in carrying out their functions. Furthermore, Operations Directive of the Armed
Forces, for the implementation of martial law in Mindanao, includes as a key task the
dismantling not only of rebel groups, but also illegal drug syndicates, among others. The
dismantling of illegal drug syndicates has no discernible relation to rebellion the vagueness id
exacerbated by General Order No. 1 which prescribes no discernible standard of the actions that
will subject a person to be immediately arrested.