Shane Marie K.

Canono JD 1 July 26, 2019

Lagman vs. Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III case digest

G.R. No. 235935, February 06, 2018

FACTS: For many years, rebellion seemed to be non-stop in the Philippines. Rebel groups such
as Maute rebels, NPA rebels, ASG rebels are just some of the rebel groups who are involved in
armed conflict with the forces of the Philippine government. This case, in connection with the said
rebellion, consists of several petitions. These petitions question the constitutionality of the
extension of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and declaration of martial law in the whole
Mindanao for one year from January 1 to December 31, 2018.

President Rodrigo Roa Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216 on May 23, 2017. Proclamation No.
216 provides a declaration of a state of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao for not more than sixty days. The purpose of which is to
resolve the rebellion brought by the members of the Abu Sayyaf Group and Maute Group.

After forty-eight hours, which is the fixed period stipulated in Section 18, Article VII of the
Philippine Constitution, the President gave to the House of Representatives and the Senate his
written Report, stating the circumstances and explanations on why he issued Proclamation No.
216. Subsequently, the House of Representatives released House Resolution No. 1050 while the
Senate took on P.S. Resolution No. 388. Both of which expressed complete support to
Proclamation No. 216. They found no compelling reason to annul the said Proclamation.

The President asked the Congress for an extension of the effectivity of Proclamation No. 216 on
July 18, 2017. On July 22, 2017, a special joint session occurred. The Congress then accepted the
Resolution of Both Houses No. 2 which extend Proclamation No. 216 until December 31, 2017.
AFP Chief of Staff General Guerrero and Secretary Lorenzana, through a letter to the President,
recommend the extension of the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and martial
law in the whole Mindanao for one year, starting January 1, 2018. For Guerrero, it is due to reasons
grounded on present security valuation.
In a letter dated December 8, 2017, the President, taking action on the recommendations, requested
the House of Representatives and the Senate to extend the suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus and the declaration of martial law in the whole Mindanao for one year, from
January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018, or in any period determined by the Congress. Thus, on
December 13, 2017, the House of Representatives and the Senate conducted a joint session, and
took on the Resolution of Both Houses No. 4 which extend the period of the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and martial law in the whole Mindanao for one year, from
January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the reasons of the Congress and the President in extending Proclamation
No. 216 are based on facts
2. Whether or not the Congress is vested with power to extend the suspension of the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus and martial law
3. Whether or not the petitioners cannot invoke the Court’s expanded jurisdiction of the under
Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution in seeking review of the extension of
martial law and privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
4. Whether or not it is necessary to conduct examination on how the President is exercising
his military powers.
5. Whether or not the Court is banned in investigating the continuing rebellion in Mindanao
pursuant to the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment
6. Whether or not the President cannot be a party respondent in the case and thus should be
dropped therein

HELD:

1.) Yes, the Congress and the President have sufficient factual basis in extending Proclamation
No. 216. Under Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, there are two requisites
in which extension of the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the
 declaration of martial law can occur. First, the rebellion continues; and second, the
extension is required for the sake of public safety

The President, in his appeal to extend martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus, cited that the rebellion in Mindanao hasn’t completely stopped yet. The
remnants of which have been firm in creating a DAESH/ISIS territory in Mindanao. It
continues the recruitment and exercising of new members. AFP General Guerrero also stated
about the unrelenting armed opposition of the said rebel groups. The data of the AFP indicated
that the Foreign Terrorist Fighters are now instructing the new members of the Dawlah
Islamiyah.

Therefore, the facts shown by the Executive ascertains that rebellion is still existing in
Mindanao and the Court thus ruled that the circumstances in which the extension was grounded
presented a threat to public safety.

2.) Yes, the Congress is vested with power to extend the suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus and martial law pursuant to Section 18, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution
Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution specifically provides that “The President shall
be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes
necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion
or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a
period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the
Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the
President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting
jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may
revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the
President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend
such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion
or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
 The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or
suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.” 1

Under the said provision, there are limitations to the exercise of the congressional authority to
such extension and these are the following:
a.) the extension must be upon the initiative of the President
b.) it must be based on the continuing rebellion and necessity for the sake of public safety
c.) Upon petition of any Filipino, it has to be reviewed by the Court in terms of the adequacy
of factual basis

Furthermore, the provision is also clear in providing the Congress the power to decide on the
duration with regards to said extension.

3.) No, the petitioners have no right to invoke the Court’s expanded jurisdiction under Section
1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution in seeking review of the extension of martial law
and privilege of the writ of habeas corpus

Under Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, the Court has the judicial power to settle
actual controversies which involves rights that are legally enforceable and demandable,
and also to determine whether or not there is grave abuse of discretion. The said abuse must
amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government.2 The power of the courts to examine the actions of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government whether they’re stained with grave abuse of discretion
or not is called the court’s expanded jurisdiction.

1- Sec. XVIII, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution

2- Sec.1, Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution
 The Court repeated their previous ruling in Lagman case wherein they stated that the
Court’s jurisdiction under Section 1 of Article VIII is different from the third paragraph of
Section 18, Article VII. Section 1 of Article VIII provides a standard of review in a petition
for certiorari and the mandate to examine whether the respondent has executed any grave
abuse of discretion. Meanwhile, in Section 18, Article VII, the Court is mandated to
scrutinize the adequacy of the factual basis of the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus and the declaration of martial law.

With that, the Court held that a petition for certiorari under Section 1 of Article VIII is not the
appropriate tool to review the adequacy of the factual basis of the suspension of the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus and the declaration of martial law.

4.) No, it is not necessary to conduct examination on how the President is exercising his
military powers. As what the Court mentioned in their previous ruling in the earlier Lagman
case, the manner of choosing which military powers must be exercised based on the present
circumstances is a privilege given to the President. This means that the president has his
own discretion on how he exercises his military powers.
The power of the Court to scrutinize the adequacy of the factual basis of the suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the declaration of martial law as stated in
Section 18, Article VII does not include the power of the Court to dictate or advise the
President on how he/she should be using his military powers.

5.) No, the Court is not banned in investigating the continuing rebellion in Mindanao pursuant
to the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment.

Conclusiveness of judgment, being a class of the principle of res judicata, prohibits the
repeating litigation of any fact or right in issue that has become part of the determination of a
legal action and the decision of which is on the positive. For the the doctrine of conclusiveness
of judgment to apply in the next litigation, the issues and parties should be identical.
The issue in the already previously settled Lagman case is about the presence of the lawless
violence in Mindanao which prompted the earlier declaration of martial law by the President.
Meanwhile, the present case raises the issue of the insistence of rebellion in Mindanao which
validates the need to extend the martial law.
Therefore, since the issues in both cases are not alike, the Court can still examine the case at
bar.

6.) Yes, the President cannot be a party respondent in the case and thus should be dropped
since the President is immune from suit unless the State give its consent. In this case, the
State didn’t give any consent to be sued.