Rep. Edcel C. Lagman, et al.

versus
Hon. Salvador C. Medialdea, Executive Secretary, et al.
Promulgated: July 4, 2017
En Banc
Penned by: Justice Del Castillo
Digested by: Keysie Gomez, 4B
FACTS - Pres. Duterte issued PN 216, effective May 23, 2017, declaring a state of ML and suspending the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus (SPWHC) in the whole of Mindanao, for a period of not exceeding 60 days.

- He submitted to Congress on May 25, 2017, a written Report on the factual basis of PN 216. He chronicled the events which
took place on May 23, 2017 in Marawi City which impelled him to DML and SPWHC
LAGMAN Petition CULLAMAT Petition MOHAMAD Petition Respondents’ Consolidated Comment (OSG)
G.R. NO. 231658 G.R.NO. 231771 G.R. NO. 231774
ARGUMENTS 1. Declaration of ML Based its petition on ML is a measure of last Although Sec.18, Art VII lays the basis for the
has NO sufficient Sec. 18, Article VII of the resort, and should be exercise of the authority or power to review the
factual basis Consti for being invoked by the Pres. sufficiency of the factual basis, the same consti
unconstitutional for lack Only after exhaustion of prov failed to specify the mode or remedy thru
 There is NO rebellion of sufficient factual less severe remedies w/c the appropriate proceeding may be
or invasion in basis that there is resorted to.
Marawi City or in any rebellion in Mindanao 1. The -the “appropriate proceeding” in Sec. 18 of Art.
part of Mindanao. and that public safety extraordinary VII is a certiorari petition under Sec.1 or 5 of
 The acts of terrorism warrants its declaration powers of the Art. VIII/
in Mindanao do not Pres. Should be -The review power is NOT mandatory on the
constitute rebellion  The supposed dispensed part of the Court
(since there is NO rebellion relates sequentially;
PROOF that its to events Pres. has no -The sufficiency of the factual basis should be
purpose is to happening in discretion to reviewed “under the lens of Grave Abuse of
REMOVE Mindanao Marawi City choose w/c Discretion”, and not the yardstick of
or any part thereof ONLY, not in the extraordinary “correctness of facts”
from allegiance to entire Mindanao power to use (thus, ARBITRARINESS, not CORRECTNESS,
the PH) region. 2. The factual should be the standard)
 Flying of ISIS flags is  It failed to show situation in
mere propaganda any factual basis Marawi is NOT -Pets. Have to prove that PN 216 id bereft of
 Maute Group is a on its imposition SO GRAVE as to factual basis. (He who alleges must prove, govt
mere private army in the entire require ML actions are presumed valid and constitutional)
 During the briefing, Mindanao 3. Pres. Report
reps of military and  The capability of (e.g. hostilities -The sufficiency of the factual basis must be
defense did not the Maute group is a mere assessed FROM THE TRAJECTORY or Point of
prelude to a View of the Pres. and based on the facts
 CATEGORICALLY and other rebel plan of taking AVAILABLE TO HIM AT THE TIME THE DECISION
ADMIT nor DENY the groups to sow over the whole WAS MADE.
presence of ISIS terror does not of Mindanao, -The assessment of post-proclamation facts is
threat in the rise to the level etc.), contains with the Congress and Pres, for the purpose of
country. They merely of rebellion conclusions w/c determining WON to revoke or extend ML
said that “there is  The phrase are bereft of
ISIS in PH” “other rebel substantiation -Pets did not validly refute the facts in PN 2016
 There is only a groups” in PN. and his report to Congress
THREAT of Rebellion 216 is vague for *This Petition
in Marawi City, w/c failure to posits that -BURDEN TO PROVE that PN 216 has factual
is akin to “imminent identify these IMMEDIATELY basis rests with Pets.
danger” of rebellion groups and AFTER the -However, OSG still endeavors to lay out the
specify their acts declaration of factual basis “if only to remove any doubt as to
2. President’s Report of rebellion ML, and w/o the constitutionality of PN 216”
contained ‘false,  There are waiting for
inaccurate, inaccuracies, congressional
contrived, and exaggerations, action, a suit
hyperbolic accounts’ and falsities in may already be
the Report of brought before
 There was no the President to the Court TO
overrunning of the Congress ASSAIL THE
hospital nor SUFFICIENCY OF
harassment of FACTUAL ABSIS
hospital personnel FOR PN 216
 No ransacking of
bank, nor was there *Court may
a burning schools look into the
 No beheading of wisdom of the
Malabang police Pres’s actions,
chief nor occupation not just the
of the City Hall and presence of
MSU Marawi arbitrariness

3. The President’s *Since it is

Report has no making a
sufficient factual NEGATIVE
basis since it ASSERTION,
included attacks and then the
events which either BURDEN TO
PROVE the
 took place long sufficiency of
before the conflict in the factual basis
Marawi began or is shifted to and
had long been lies on the
resolved respondents
4. Pres. Acted alone
and DID NOT
CONSULT the
military
establishment or
any ranking official
before the
proclamation
5. The military was
preempting the plan
of ASG and Maute
Group to take over
Marawi City;
absence of hostile
plan of MILF; the
number of foreign
fighters allied w/
ISIS was
“undetermined”
PETITIONS THE 1. Review sufficiency of 1. Declare PN 216 1. Compel
COURT TO: the factual basis of as respondents to
PN. 216 and unconstitutional, divulge relevant
2. Nullify PN. 216 for or, in the info in order for
lack of sufficient alternative, it to review the
factual basis should the Court sufficiency of
find justification the factual basis
for the 2. Compel resps to
declaration of present proof
ML and on factual basis
suspension of of ML
the PWHC in Declaration and
Marawi City, Suspension of
2. To declare the PWHC and
same as 3. Declare PN 216
unconstitutional unconstitutional
 insofar as its for lack of
inclusion of the sufficient
other parts of factual basis
Mindanao
ISSUES 1. WON the petitions are the “appropriate proceeding” covered by Par. 3, sec. 18, Art. VII of the Consti, sufficient to invoke the
mode of review of the SC when a declaration of ML or suspension of the PWHC is promulgated;
2. WON the Pres., in declaring ML and SPWHC:
a. Is required to be factually correct in his appreciation of facts;
b. Is required to obtain favorable recommendation of Sec. of Nat’l Defense;
c. Is required to take into account only those situations existing act the time of his proclamation;
3. WON there were basis for the proclamation or the SPWHC
a. What are the parameters for review
b. Burden of proof
c. Threshold of evidence
4. WON the Power of Judicial Review involves the calibration of graduated powers of Pres as Commander-in-Chief
5. WON the nullifying of PN 216 will
a. Have the effect of recalling PN 55 s.2016; or
b. Also nullify the acts of the Pres. in calling out the armed forces
RULING 1. LOCUS STANDI of Pets.
Despite the Lagman Petitioners referring to themselves as duly elected Representatives, which runs contrary to the issuance
of HR 1050 expressing full support to PN 216, the Court will exercise JUDICIAL SELF-RESTRAINT, or acknowledges their locus
standi as citizens of the Philippines
2. “APPROPRIATE PROCEEDING”
-does not refer to a pet. For certiorari filed under Sec. 1 or 5 of ART. VII
-the purpose of Sec. 18, Art. VII is to constitutionalize the pre-Marcos ML ruling in the Lansang case. It reverted to the Lansang
doctrine
-the purpose of Sec. 18 Art.VII is to provide additional safeguard against possible abuse by Pres. on his exercise of
extraordinary powers
-Par. 3 , Sec. 18, Art. VII is sui generis; any citizen may file it; it limits the issue to the sufficiency of factual basis of the
exercise of the Chief Exec of his EMERGENCY POWERS.

3. THE POWER OF THE COURT TO REVIEW SUFF. OF FACT. BASIS OF ML/SPWHC is INDEPENDENT OF THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY
CONGRESS

Judicial Power to Review Congressional Power to Revoke

- Court may strike down the proclamation in an - May revoke proclamation/suspension, w/c shall not
appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen on the be set aside by the President.
ground of lack of sufficient factual basis
 - In reviewing the sufficiency of the factual basis of
the proc/suspension, the Court considers ONLY the
info and data available to the Pres PRIOR TO or AT
THE TIME of declaration
- Court’s review power is passive; it is only initiated
by the filing of petition
- In reviewing the sufficiency of the factual basis of
the proc/suspension: It may take into consideration
NOT ONLY data available prior to, but also events
supervening the declaration
- review power is automatic; any time after the
proc/suspension was made

NOTE:
- Both are not totally different but likewise independent from each other
- They have the same trajectory: Nullification of the Presidential Proc
- Power to Review by Court can be exercised independently from Revocation Power of Congress

4. JUDICIAL POWER TO REVIEW SUFFICIENCY OF FACTUAL BASIS DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE CALIBRATION OF THE PRES’S
DECISION
- What really happens during ML? A state of ML is peculiar bec. the Pres. at such a time, exercises police power, w/c is normally
a function of the legislature. The guarantees of the Bill of Rights remain in place; suspension applies only to those JUDICIALLY
CHARGED w/ rebellion or offenses connected invasion
- The power to choose, initially, which among these extraordinary powers to wield is a judgment call on the part of the
President
- Recommendation by Sec of Natl Defense not a condition to declare ML/SPWHC
- Pres. nevertheless exercised his choice of using the most benign of the extraordinary powers, which is the calling out power in
his PN 55 on Sept. 4, 2016

5. WON INCLUSION OF “OTHER REBEL GROUPS” and ABSENCE OF ACTUAL OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS WITHIN MINDANAO
REGION make PN 216 VAGUE AND VOID
-PN 216 cannot be facially challenged using the vagueness doctrine because it does not regulate speech, religious freedom,
and other fundamental rights that may be facially challenged. What it seeks to penalize is conduct, not speech.
-The term “OTHER REBEL GROUPS” is not vague in the context of the words that accompany it/ The text refers to “other rebel
groups” found in PN 55. Which it cited by way of reference in its Whereas clauses
-Lack of parameters does not make it vague. Operational guidelines will serve only as mere tools for the implementation of
the proc.

6. THE COURT’S RULING IN THESE CASES WILL NOT, IN ANY WAY, AFFECT THE PRESIDENT’S DECLARATION OF A STATE OF
NATIONAL EMERGENCY ON ACCOUNT OF LAWLESS VIOLENCE IN MINDANAO THROUGH PN 55.
- Pres. may exercise the power to call out Armed Forces INDEPENDENTLY of the power to suspend the PWHC and to declare
ML, although, of course, it may also be a prelude to a possible future exercise of the latter powers, as in this case.
- The Court’s review of the President’s declaration of ML and his calling out of AF necessarily entails SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS
instituted for that particular purpose.
7. SCOPE OF THE POWER TO REVIEW
A. It refers only to the determination of the sufficiency of factual basis of the declaration and SPWHC. Lansang case
provides that: the Court can inquire into, WITHIN PROPER BOUNDS, whether there has been adherence w/ the
constitutionally-imposed limitations of the Presidential Power to SPWHC. Lansang limited the review function of the
Court to VERY PRUDENTIALLY NARROW TEST OF ARBITRARINESS.

BUT---Lansang was ruled under the 1935 Consti. The 1987 Consti provides only for JR based on determination of
sufficiency of factual basis. It had done away w/ the test of arbitrariness in Lansang.

B. “sufficiency of factual basis test”

- The Court does not need to satisfy itself that the President’s decision is correct, rather, it only needs to determine WON the
President’s decision had sufficient factual bases.
- SC concludes that Sec. 18, Art. VII limits the scope of JR by the introduction of the “Sufficiency of the Factual Basis” Test.
- As to what facts must be stated in the proclamation and the written Report is up to the President. He cannot be forced to
divulge information that may prejudice military ops. Events that happened after the issuance of the proc which are included in
the report, cannot be considered in determining the sufficiency of factual basis.
- In determining the sufficiency, the Court should look into the FULL COMPLEMENT or TOTALITY OF THE FACTUAL BASIS, and
not piecemeal.
- “To require the precision in the President’s appreciation of facts would unduly burden him and therefore impede the process
of his decision-making”.
- The maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” finds no application in this case. Falsities of and/or inaccuracies in some of the
facts stated in the proclamation and the report are not enough reasons for the Court to invalidate the declaration and/or
suspension as long as THERE IS AN ACTUAL INVASION or REBELLION and THAT THE PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES the
declaration/suspension.

*In sum, the Court’s power to review is limited to the: Determination of WON the President in declaring ML and SPWHC had
SUFFICIENT FACTUAL BASIS.

*Thus, the review would be limited to: AN EXAMINATION ON WON the President acted WITHIN THE BOUNDS set by the
Constitution (whether the facts in his possession prior to and at the time of declaration/SPWHC are SUFFICIENT FOR HIM to
declare ML/SPWHC).

8. PARAMETERS FOR DETERMINING SUFF.OF FACTUAL BASIS

- In determining the existence of rebellion, the Pres only needs to : CONCINCE HIMSELF THAT THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE or
EVIDENCE showing that MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, A REBELLION WAS COMMITTED or is BENING COMMITTED.

The parameters for determining the sufficiency of factual basis are:

1. Actual rebellion or invasion;
2. Public safety requires it;
(the first 2 reqs must concur);
 3. There is probable cause for the Pres to believe that there is actual rebellion or invasion

9. THERE IS SUFFICIENT FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE DECLARATION OF ML AND THE SUSPENSION OF THE PWHC
-The Pres deduced from the facts available to him that there was an armed public uprising, the culpable purpose of w/c was
to remove from the allegiance to the PH Government a portion of its territory and to deprive the Chief Executive of any of his
powers and prerogatives, leading him to believe that there was probable cause that the crime of rebellion was and is being
committed and that the public safety requires the imposition of ML and SPWHC.

10. PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES DML AND SPWHC in the WHOLE OF MINDANAO

11. WHOLE OF MINDANAO

-The Constitution grants to the Pres the discretion to determine the territorial coverage of ML and SPWHC. It is an acknowledgment
that it is the President who is the repository of vital, classified, and live info necessary for and relevant in calibrating the territorial
application of ML and SPWHC.
-The Pres’ duty to maintain peace and public safety is not limited only to the place where there is actual rebellion; it extends to other
areas where the present hostilities are in danger of spilling over.
-Thus, limiting the proc to the place where there is actual rebellion would not only defeat the purpose of declaring ML, it will make
the exercise thereof ineffective and useless.
-Marawi is the only Islamic City of the South. There is reasonable basis that it is only the staging point of rebellion, both for symbolic
and strategic reasons.
-Marawi may not be the target but the whole of Mindanao.

“LET US FACE UP TO THE FACT THAT THE SIEGE IN MARAWI CITY HAS ENTERED THE 2ND MONTH… AND ONLY GOD OR ALLAH
KNOWS WHEN IT WOULD END”.

“Can we not sheathe our swords and pause for a while to bury our dead, including our differences and prejudices?”

WHEREFORE, the COURT FINDS SUFFICIENT FACTUAL BASES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PN 216 AND DECLARES IT AS CONSTITUTIONAL.
Petitions are hereby dismissed.