URBANO, FAYE ANNE F.

JD-4103

Represenative Lagman v. Hon. Salvador C. Medialdea, et al. G.R. No. 243522 February 19,
2019 (Argument to the People)

Facts: On May 23, 2017, President 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 to
address the rebellion mounted by members of the Maute Group and Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG),
for a period not exceeding sixty (60) days.

Both Houses expressed their full support to the Proclamation. Subsequently, three con-
solidated petitions assailing the sufficiency of the factuaI basis of Proclamation No. 216.In a De-
cision dated July 4, 2017, the Court in Representative Edcel C. Lagman, et al. v. Hon. Salvador
C. Medialdea, et al. found sufficient factual bases for the issuance of Proclamation No. 216 and
declared it constitutional.

On July 18, 2017, the President requested Congress to extend the effectivity of Procla-
mation No. 216. On July 22, 2017, the Congress adopted Resolution of Both Houses No. 2 which
extended Proclamation No. 216 until December 31, 2017.Thereafter, four consolidated petitions
were filed assailing the constitutionality of the second extension of Proclamation No. 216.

In a Decision dated February 6, 2018, the Court in Representative Edcel C. Lagman, et

al. v. Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III, et al., found sufficient factual bases for the second
extension of the Proclamation from January 1 to December 31, 2018, and declared it constitu-
tional.

Acting on the recommendations of the AFP and PNP, the President, requested for the
third extension of Proclamation No. 216 from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. On Decem-
ber 12, 2018, the Senate and the House of Representatives, in a joint session, adopted Resolution
No. 6, entitled Declaring a State of Martial Law and Suspending the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas
Corpus in the Whole of Mindanao for another period of one (1) year from January 1, 2019 to
December 31, 2019.

Hence these consolidated petitions.

Issue: Whether there exists sufficient factual basis for the extension of martial law in Mindanao.

Ruling: Yes, there are sufficient factual basis for the extension of martial law in Mindanao.

The requirements of rebellion and public safety are present to uphold the extension of
martial law in Mindanao from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. The factual basis for the
extension of martial law is the continuing rebellion being waged in Mindanao by Local Terrorist
Rebel Groups (LTRG) -identified as the ASG, BIFF, DI, and other groups that have established
affiliation with ISIS/DAESH, and by the Communist Terrorist Rebel Groups (CTRG) - the compo-
nents of which are the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), New People's Army (NPA), and
the National Democratic Front (NDF).
 The Department of National Defense's (DND's) "Reference Material, Joint Session on the
Extension of Martial Law in Mindanao," which was presented during the Joint Session of Con-
gress, and offered in evidence as Slides during this Court's Oral Arguments on January 29, 2019,
shows the following violent incidents from January 1 to November 30, 2018 as part of the contin-
uing rebellion being waged by the LTRGs

Recognising the political realities ini the country, the geography of Mindanao, the increas-
ing number of local! and foreign sympathisers who provide financial support, and the advances in
technology that have emboldened and reinforced the terrorists' and extremists' capabilities
to disturb peace and order, the declaration of martial law cannot be restricted only to areas
where actual fighting continue to occur. As a result, rebels have become more cunning and
instigating rebellion from a distance is now more attainable, perpetrating acts of violence
clandestinely in several areas of Mindanao.

Rebellion in Mindanao still continues, as shown by the violent incidents stated in reports
to the President, and was made basis by the Congress in approving the third extension of martial
law. These violent incidents continuously pose a serious threat to security and the peace
and order situation in Mindanao.

While the Maute uprising was the immediate concern at that time, we must not forget that
the country was confronted with not just one or two rebel bands but several rebel groups
or anti-government entities. The country faced rebellion from several fronts. The extensions
of Proclamation No. 216 are the Chief Executive's decisive response to several existing rebellions
throughout Mindanao. Each of these persisting challenges to the authority of the legitimate gov-
ernment is certainly a basis sufficient to warrant the declaration of martial law. Surely, the Pres-
ident does not want a repeat of the Maute experience and wait until a city is to overrun
before declaring martial law.

Atty. Mane v. Judge Belen, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2119, June 30, 2008 (Argument Against the
Person)

Facts: An alumnus of a particular law school has no monopoly of knowledge of the law.

Petitioner Atty. Melvin D.C. Mane filed a letter-complaint to the Office of the Court Admin-
istrator (OCA) charging respondent Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen of ―demeaning, humilating,
and berating‖ him during a hearing of Rural Bank of Cabuyao, Inc. v. Samue Malabanan, et al.
where Mane was counsel for the plaintiff. During the proceedings, Belen asked Mane about the
latter’s law school. When Mane answered that he came from Manuel L. Quezon University
(MLQU), Belen told him: ―Then you’re not from UP. Then you cannot equate yourself to me
because there is a saying and I know this, not all law students are created equal, not all law
schools are created equal, not all lawyers are created equal despite what the Supreme Being that
we all are created equal in His form and substance.‖

Belen further lambasted Mane and lectured him on the latter’s person, seemingly disre-
garding the case at hand. Subsequently, the OCA, upon evaluation, found that Belen’s insulting
remarks were unwarranted and inexcusable and recommended a reprimand of Belen.
Issue: Whether or not the statements and actions made by Judge Belen during the hearing con-
stitute conduct unbecoming of a judge and a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct

Ruling: Yes, the statements and actions made by Judge Belen during the hearing constitute
conduct unbecoming of a judge and a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

The Court held that an alumnus of a particular law school has no monopoly of knowledge
of the law. By hurdling the Bar Examinations which the Court administers, taking of the Lawyer’s
oath, and signing of the Roll of Attorneys, a lawyer is presumed to be competent to discharge his
functions and duties as, inter alia an officer of the court, irrespective of where he obtained his law
degree. For a judge to determine the fitness or competence of a lawyer primarily on his
alma mater is clearly an engagement in an argumentum ad hominem.

A judge must address the merits of the case and not the person of the counsel. If
Judge Belen felt that his integrity and dignity were being ―assaulted,‖ he acted properly when
he directed complainant to explain why he should not be cited for contempt. He went out of
bounds, however, when he engaged on a supercilious legal and personal discourse.

The Court reminded members of the bench that even on the face of boorish behavior from
those they deal with, they ought to conduct themselves in a manner befitting gentlemen and high
officers of the court.