Lagman Vs Medialdea

CONSTI II TOPIC: Judicial Review
G.R. NO. G.R. No. 231658

Lagman vs Medialdea DATE OF PROMULGATION: July 4, 2017
PONENTE: Justice Del Castillo
FACTS
Effective May 23, 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.
In accordance with Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, the President, on May 25, 2017,
submitted to Congress a written Report on the factual basis of Proclamation No. 216.
The 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.
On May 23, 2017, as the President stated in his Report, the Maute terrorist group took over a hospital
in Marawi City; established several checkpoints within the city; burned down certain government and
private facilities and inflicted casualties on the part of Government forces; and started flying the flag
of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in several areas, thereby indicating a removal of allegiance
from the Philippine Government and their capability to deprive the duly constituted authorities – the
President, foremost – of their powers and prerogatives.
The Report also highlighted the strategic location of Marawi City; the role it plays in Mindanao, and
the Philippines as a whole; and the possible tragic repercussions once it falls under the control of the
lawless groups.
After the submission of the Report and the briefings, the Senate declared that it found “no compelling
reason to revoke Proclamation 216.
The Lagman Group, the Cullamat Group and the Mohamad Group petitioned the Supreme Court,
questioning the factual basis of President Duterte’s Proclamation of martial law.
ISSUE/S
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?
RULING
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 must 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.
DOCTRINE
The Supreme Court is the reviewing tribunal to examine, in an appropriate proceeding, the sufficiency
of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus. Likewise, any action commenced by any citizen to demand the factual basis of the said
proclamation should be denominated as a petition to be resolved by the Supreme Court.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

Lagman Vs Medialdea

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lagman Vs Medialdea

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lagman Vs Medialdea

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTI II TOPIC: Judicial Review

G.R. NO. G.R. No. 231658

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

You might also like