CASE DIGEST

G.R. NUMBER 231658

PETITIONER  Edcel C. Lagman
 Tomasito S. Villarin
 Gary C. Alejano
 Emmanuel A. Billones
 Teddy Brawner Baguilar, Jr
*Relationship: Representatives of the Lagman Group,
Cullamat Group and the Mohamad Group
RESPONDENT  Hon. Salvador C. Medialdea
 Executive Secretary; Hon. Delfin N. Lorenzana
 Secretary of the Department of National
Defense and Martial Law Administrator
 Chief of Staff do the Armed Forces of the
Philippines and Martial Law Implementor; Gen.
Eduardo Ano

FACTS:  On May 23, 2017; President Duterte issued Proclamation No.216 which
declares a state of Martial Law and suspends the privilege of the Writ of
Habeas Corpus in the whole of Mindanao
o Martial Law – temporary rule by military authorities of a designated
area in time of emergency when the civil authorities are deemed
unable to function
o Habeas Corpus – writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought
before a judge or into court, especially to secure the person’s
release unless unlawful grounds are shown for their detention
 Within the timeline set by Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution
o The president submitted to the Congress, a written report on the
factual basis of Proclamation No.216
o This says that for decades, Mindanao has been plagued with
rebellion and lawless violence which only escalated and worsened
with the passing of time
o A government operation was conducted to capture the high-
ranking officers of the Abu Sayyaf and the Maute group
 These are the groups which have been unleashing havoc in
Mindanao
 They however, confronted the government operation by
intensifying their efforts at sowing violence aimed at the
government, its facilities, the civilians and their properties
o The President chronicles the events which prompted him to declare
Martial Law and to suspend the Write of Habeas Corpus
 “While the government is presently conducting legitimate operations to
address the on-going rebellion, if not the seeds of invasion, public safety
necessitates the continued implementation of martial law and the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of
Mindanao until such time that the rebellion is completely quelled”
o After the submission of the report and the briefings, the Senate
issued a resolution expressing full support to the martial law
 The petitioners petitioned the Supreme Court, questioning the factual
 basis of President’ Duterte’s Proclamation of Martial Law
 The Office of the Solicitor General sided with the president
 This is an MOR
ISSUE/S:  Whether or not there is factual basis in President Duterte’s declaration of
Martial Law and suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
RULING:  NO. The motion of reconsideration is granted and the declaration of the
proclamation of Martial Law is without sufficient factual basis

ARGUMENTS MADE
PETITIONERS
 There is no rebellion or invasion in Marawi
City or in any part of Mindanao
o The cases stated by the president
happened quite some time ago and
have already been resolved
o The supposed rebellion relates to
events happening in Marawi City
only and not in the entire region of
Mindanao
o The petition says, “other rebel
groups” this is vague as it failed to
identity these rebel groups and
specify their acts of rebellion
o Martial law is a measure of last
resort and should be invoked by the
President only after exhaustion of
less severe remedies
o cause that rebellion exists. It must also be
 The president’s report contained “false,
inaccurate, contrived and hyperbolic
accounts”
 The president acted alone and did not
consult the military establishment
CONTENTION
 The parameters for determining the sufficiency
of factual basis are as follows: l) actual rebellion
or invasion; 2) public safety requires it; the first
two requirements must concur; and 3) there is
probable cause for the President to believe that
there is actual rebellion or invasion.
 There is sufficient factual basis for the
declaration of martial law and the suspension of
the writ of habeas corpus.
 At this juncture, it bears to emphasize that the
purpose of judicial review is not the
determination of accuracy or veracity of the
facts upon which the President anchored his
declaration of martial law or suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; rather,
only the sufficiency of the factual basis as to
convince the President that there is probable
reiterated that martial law is a matter of
urgency and much leeway and flexibility should
be accorded the President As such, he is not
expected to completely validate all the
information he has received before declaring
martial law or suspending the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus.
 There is no vagueness because the whereas
clauses of the Proclamation explain the meaning
of "other rebel groups." Also, the vagueness
doctrine is an analytical tool developed for
testing "on their faces" statutes in free speech
cases or, as they are called in American law, First
Amendment cases. Vagueness doctrine applies
only in free speech cases.

 The Constitution has provided sufficient
safeguards against possible abuses of
Commander-in Chief's powers; further
curtailment of Presidential powers should not
only be discouraged but also avoided.
 The Court can only act within the confines of its
power. For the Court to overreach is to infringe
upon another's territory. Clearly, the power to
determine the scope of territorial application
belongs to the President. "The Court cannot
indulge in judicial legislation without violating
the principle of separation of powers, and,
hence, undermining the foundation of our
republican system.