REPRESENTATIVES EDCEL C. LAGMAN, et al. v. HON.

SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, et al. G.R. No.

231658, 04 July 2017, EN BANC (Del Castillo, J.)

This is a consolidated case filed by several citizens seeking

to nullify the Proclamation No. 216 declaring a state of martial
law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
in the whole of Mindanao.

DOCTRINE
It is difficult, if not impossible, to fix the territorial scope of
martial law in direct proportion to the "range" of actual
rebellion and public safety simply because rebellion and public
safety have no fixed physical dimensions. Their transitory and
abstract nature defies precise measurements; hence, the
determination of the territorial scope of martial law could only
be drawn from arbitrary, not fixed, variables. The Constitution
must have considered these limitations when it granted the
President wide leeway and flexibility in determining the
territorial scope of martial law. Moreover, the President's 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. It is
not intended merely to prevent the escape of lawless elements
from Marawi City, but also to avoid enemy reinforcements and
to cut their supply lines coming from different parts of
Mindanao. Thus, limiting the proclamation and/or suspension to
the place where there is actual rebellion would not only defeat
the purpose of declaring martial law, it will make the exercise
thereof ineffective and useless.
Facts
 On 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. 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
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 President went on to explain that on May 23, 2017, a
government operation to capture the high-ranking officers of
the Abu Sayyaf (ASG) and the Maute Group was conducted.
These groups, which have been unleashing havoc in
Mindanao, however, confronted the government operation by
intensifying their efforts at sowing violence aimed not only
against the government authorities and its facilities but likewise
against civilians and their properties.
The petitioners question the validity of the proclamation
questioning the sufficiency of the factual basis to declare
martial law and further claims that the appropriate proceeding
is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, of the Rules of Court.

Issues

1. Whether or not there is sufficient factual basis for the

proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus

2. Whether or not the proclamation of martial law should

be sustained in all of Mindanao. It is difficult, if not
impossible, to fix the territorial scope of martial law in
 direct proportion to the "range" of actual rebellion and
public safety simply because rebellion and public
safety have no fixed physical dimensions

3. Whether petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the

appropriate proceeding in questioning the sufficiency
of the factual basis for the declaration of martial law.

Ruling

1. Yes. There is sufficient factual basis for the declaration

of martial law. The President was able to show
adequately that there was rebellion in which the
intention of the terror group is to deprive the Chief
Executive the exercise of its powers and remove the
allegiance of such territory from Republic of the
Philippines.

2. Yes. Martial law should be sustained in the entirety of

Mindanao. It is difficult, if not impossible, to fix the
territorial scope of martial law in direct proportion to
the "range" of actual rebellion and public safety simply
because rebellion and public safety have no fixed
physical dimensions

3. No. Petition for Certiari under Rule 65, of the rules of

Court, is a remedy applicable to assail the jurisdiction of
judicial and quasi-judicial bodies performing
adjudicatory function, when there is grave abuse of
discretion. There is no adjudicatory function in the
declaration of martial law, the Court further held that
the proceeding under Section 18, Article VII, of the 1987
Constittution, is a sui generis proceeding.