G.R. No. 231658 – 812 Phil. 179 – 822 Phil. 181 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – The Executive Department – Powers of the President – Military Powers – Martial Law Powers – Martial Law in Mindanao – Judicial Review; Sufficiency of the Factual Basis
In May 2017, the Maute Group which has links to ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), attacked and took over Marawi City. As a result, President Rodrigo Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216 which declared martial law and suspended the writ of the privilege of habeas corpus in Mindanao. Thereafter, he submitted a Report to Congress which laid down the basis of the declaration / suspension. Both houses of Congress issued their respective Resolutions recognizing the validity of Duterte’s declaration / suspension.
Edcel Lagman and several others filed a petition questioning the validity of the declaration / suspension. According to them, what took place was a terrorist attack which is not a basis to declare martial law nor to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. They reiterated that the Constitution requires that there must be actual rebellion or invasion for martial law to be declared and that public safety requires it.
For Lagman et al, there is no rebellion because the following culpable political purpose were not met: a) there is removal from the allegiance to the Philippine Government or its laws: (i) the territory of the Philippines or any part thereof; or (ii) any body of land, naval, or other armed forces; or (b) to deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, wholly or partially, of any of their powers and prerogatives.
Lagman et al also questioned the accuracy of the factual bases indicated in the Report of the President to Congress. It appears that some of the factual bases were acts that happened in 2016 which were events not immediately preceding the declaration / suspension.
It was also argued that the declaration / suspension should not have covered the entire Mindanao.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is factual basis for the President to declare martial law or suspend the writ of the privilege of habeas corpus in Mindanao.
HELD: Yes.
In determining the sufficiency of the factual basis of the declaration and/or the suspension, the Court should look into the full complement or totality of the factual basis, and not piecemeal or individually. Neither should the Court expect absolute correctness of the facts stated in the proclamation and in the written Report as the President could not be expected to verify the accuracy and veracity of all facts reported to him due to the urgency of the situation. To require precision in the President’s appreciation of facts would unduly burden him and therefore impede the process of his decision-making. Such a requirement will practically necessitate the President to be on the ground to confirm the correctness of the reports submitted to him within a period that only the circumstances obtaining would be able to dictate. Such a scenario, of course, would not only place the President in peril but would also defeat the very purpose of the grant of emergency powers upon him, that is to “immediately put an end to the root cause of the emergency.” (Atty. Chan: Shoot now ask questions later?)
In sum, the Court’s power to review is limited to the determination of whether the President in declaring martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus had sufficient factual basis. Thus, the SC’s review would be limited to an examination on whether the President acted within the bounds set by the Constitution, i.e., whether the facts in his possession prior to and at the time of the declaration or suspension are sufficient for him to declare martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
Section 18, Article VII provides that martial law may be declared if there must is a) actual invasion/rebellion and b) public safety requires it.
In determining the existence of rebellion, the President only needs to convince himself that there is probable cause or evidence showing that more likely than not a rebellion was committed or is being committed. To require him to satisfy a higher standard of proof would restrict the exercise of his emergency powers.
In this case, the atrocities (burning of government and private facilities, hoisting the flag of the ISIS, escalation of armed hostility against government troops and civilians, paralysis of Marawi, assault on Marawi City jail which led to the escape of inmates, ambush on the Marawi police station, etc.) committed by the Maute Group are sufficient to convince the president that there was an armed public uprising, the culpable purpose of which was to remove from the allegiance to the Philippine Government a portion of its territory and to deprive the Chief Executive of any of his powers and prerogatives, leading the President to believe that there was probable cause that the crime of rebellion was and is being committed and that public safety requires the imposition of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
It was also proven that public safety required the declaration of martial law. The atrocities had already escalated to a level that risked public safety and thus impelled him to declare martial law and suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Public safety necessitates the continued implementation of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao until such time that the rebellion is completely quelled.
Declaration in Mindanao is valid even though the siege took place only in Marawi. Indeed, martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus are necessary for the protection of the security of the nation; suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is “precautionary, and although it might curtail certain rights of individuals, it is for the purpose of defending and protecting the security of the state or the entire country and our sovereign people”. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus as a “form of immobilization” or “as a means of immobilizing potential internal enemies” “especially in areas like Mindanao.” The SC trusts in the President’s intel as to the need to impose martial law in entire Mindanao. This is both an acknowledgement and a recognition that it is the President who is the repository of vital, classified, and live information necessary for and relevant in calibrating the territorial application of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. It, too, is a concession that the President has the tactical and military support, and thus has a more informed understanding of what is happening on the ground. The President is not precluded from expanding the coverage of martial law. After all, rebellion is not confined within predetermined bounds.
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.
Read full text: July 2017 Decision; December 2017 Resolution
