NESTOR JEREMY B.

MORENO LLB 4A
REPRESENTATIVES EDCEL C. LAGMAN, et al vs. HON. SALVADOR MEDIALDEA,
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, et al.
G.R. NO. 231658, 04 JULY 2017, JUSTICE LEONEN’S DISSENTING OPINION
Facts:
Effective May 23rd of 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 a timeline set by Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, the President
submitted to Congress on May 25, 2017, his President’s Report on the factual basis of the
declaration of Martial Law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under
Proclamation No. 216. The said President’s 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. The Report also highlighted the strategic location of Marawi City and the crucial
significant role it plays in Mindanao the entire Philippines. The Report also pointed out the possible
tragic repercussions once Marawi City falls under the control of the lawless groups.
After submission of such Report and briefings, the Senate of the Philippines 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. The House of
Representatives likewise issued a resolution expressing its full support to the President, as it finds
no reasons to revoke Proclamation No. 216.
Invoking the third paragraph 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 the Proclamation No. 216 and seeking to nullify Proclamation
No. 216 for being unconstitutional because it lacks sufficient factual basis.
Issues:
a. Were there sufficient factual basis for the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus?
b. Are the instant petitions the “appropriate proceedings” covered by Paragraph 3,
Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution?
Ruling:
As to the first issue, NO.
The Constitution does not only require that government alleges facts, it must show that the
facts are sufficient. The facts are sufficient when (a) it is based on credible intelligence and (b)
taken collectively establishes that there is actual rebellion and that public safety requires the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus and the exercise of defined powers within
the rubric of martial law.
We cannot use the quantum of evidence that is used by a prosecutor or a judge. We have
to assume what a reasonable President would do given the circumstances. The facts presented are
not sufficient to reasonably conclude that the armed hostilities and lawless violence happening in
Marawi City is "for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws,
the territory of the Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed
forces, or of depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their
powers or prerogatives." Based on the facts inferred by the respondents from their intelligence
sources, the perpetrators of the atrocities are not numerous or have sufficient resources or even
community support to hold any territory. Extremist beliefs by those who adhere to Salafist
Jihadism are alien to most cultures in Mindanao. It is a bastardization of Islam as this is understood.
Neither do the facts show convincingly that "public safety" requires martial law. Respondents did
not show how the available legal tools magnified by the call out of the armed forces would not be
sufficient.
 Elevating the acts of a lawless criminal group which uses terrorism as tactic to the
constitutional concept of rebellion acknowledges them as a political group. Rebellion is a political
crime. We have acknowledged that if rebels are able to capture government, their rebellion, no
matter how brutal, will be justified. Hostilities and lawless violence and their consequences can be
addressed by many of the prerogatives of the President as Chief Executive and Commander-in-
Chief. There is no showing that martial law has become necessary for the safety of entire
Mindanao.
As to the second issue, YES.
The present petitions are justiciable. The petitions are the "appropriate proceedings" filed
by "any citizen" which appropriately invokes sui generis judicial review contained in the
Constitution. However, in addition to the remedy available in Article VII, Section 18 of the
Constitution, any proper party may also file a Petition invoking Article VIII, section 1. The
remedies are not exclusive of each other. Neither does one subsume the other.
"Appropriate proceeding" under the martial law provision is a sui generis proceeding or in
a class by itself, as seen by how it is treated by the 1987 Constitution and the special mandate
handed down to the Supreme Court in response to the President's declaration of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
Traditionally, the Court is not a trier of facts. However, under Article VII, Section 18, the
Court is tasked to review the sufficiency of the factual basis for the President's proclamation of
martial law within thirty (30) days from the time the petition is filed. The rule on standing is also
significantly relaxed when the provision allows "any citizen" to question the proclamation of
martial law. This is in stark contrast with the requirement under the Rules of Court that "every
action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.
However, the enumeration in Article VIII Section 5 is far from exclusive as the Court was
also endowed with original jurisdiction under Section 1 of the same article and over the sui generis
proceeding under Article VII, Section 18. Notwithstanding the sui generis proceeding, a resort to
a petition for certiorari pursuant to the Court's jurisdiction under Article VIII, Section 1 or Rule 65
is also proper to question the propriety of any declaration or implementation of the suspension of
the writ of Habeas Corpus or martial law. The jurisdiction of the Court in Article VIII, section 1
was meant "to ensure the potency of the power of judicial review to curb grave abuse of discretion
by 'any branch or instrumentalities of government." It was a reaction to the abuses of martial law
under President Marcos, ensuring that the courts will not evade their duty on the ground. of non-
justiciability for being a political question.
ACCORDINGLY, petitions granted. Proclamation No.216 of May 23, 2017, General
Order No. 1 of 2017, and all the issuances related to these Presidential Issuances are
unconstitutional.