Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

REPRESENTATIVES EDCEL LAGMAN, TOMASITO S. VILLARIN, EDGAR R.

ERICE,
TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT, JR., GARY C. ALEJANO, AND EMMANUEL
A.BILLONES, Petitioners, vs. SENATE PRESIDENT AQUILINO PIMENTEL III, SPEAKER
PANTALEON D. ALVAREZ, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA,
DEFENSE SECRETARY DELFIN N. LORENZANA, BUDGET
SECRETARY BENJAMIN E. DIOKNO ANDARMED FORCES OF THE
PHILIPPINESCHIEF OF STAFF GENERAL REY LEONARDO GUERRERO, Respondents.
GR Nos. 235935, 236061, 236145, 236155
February 6, 2018
FACTS:
These are consolidated petitions assailing the constitutionality of the extension of the
proclamation of martial law and suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao
for one year from January 1 to December 31, 2018.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the President and the Congress had sufficient factual basis to extend
Proclamation No. 216.

RULING:
YES. Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution requires two factual bases for the
extension of the proclamation of martial law or of the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus: (a) the invasion or rebellion persists; and (b) public safety requires the extension.
Rebellion persists as to satisfy the first condition for the extension of martial law or of the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The reasons cited by the President in his
request for further extension indicate that the rebellion, which caused him to issue Proclamation
No. 216, continues to exist and its “remnants” have been resolute in establishing a DAESH/ISIS
territory in Mindanao, carrying on through the recruitment and training of new members,
financial and logistical build-up, consolidation of forces and continued attacks.
The Court also ruled that the acts, circumstances and events upon which the extension
was based posed a significant danger, injury or harm to the general public.
The Court added that the information upon which the extension of martial law or of the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall be based principally emanate from
and are in the possession of the Executive Department. Thus, “the Court will have to rely on the
fact-finding capabilities of the Executive Department; in tum, the Executive Department will
have to open its findings to the scrutiny of the Court.”
The Executive Department did open its findings to the Court when the· AFP gave its
“briefing” or “presentation” during the oral arguments, presenting data, which had been vetted
by the NICA, “based on intelligence reports gathered on the ground,” from personalities they
were able to capture and residents in affected areas, declassified official documents, and
intelligence obtained by the PNP. According to the AFP, the same presentation, save for updates,
was given to the Congress. As it stands, the information thus presented has not been challenged
or questioned as regards its reliability.
The facts as provided by the Executive and considered by Congress amply establish that
rebellion persists in Mindanao and public safety is significantly endangered by it. The Court,
thus, holds that there exists sufficient factual basis for the further extension sought by the
President and approved by the Congress in its Resolution of Both Houses No. 4.