Case Digest: Lagman v. Medialdea (G.R. No. 231658)

Lagman v. Medialdea | G.R. No. 231658 | July 4, 2017 | Del Castillo, J. | Topic: Executive Calling Out Power

FACTS: 

• Effective May 23, 2017, and for a period not exceeding 60 days, Pres. Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216 declaring a state of martial law (ML) and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao.
• Sec. 18, article VII of the Constitution provides that ML may be declared in case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.
• Proc. No. 55 was issued on Sept. 4, 2016 declaring a state of national emergency on account of lawless violence in Mindanao, caused by several Maute terrorists attacked a military outpost in Butig, Lanao del Sur in February 2016; there was a mass jailbreak in Marawi City
• On May 23, 2017, the same Maute terrorist held a hospital in Marawi, established checkpoints around the city and burned down gov’t and private facilities with casualties on part of the gov’t. Maute started flying the flag of ISIS , thereby openly attempting to remove allegiance to the Phil. Government and the Pres., thus depriving the Chief Executive his prerogatives to enforce laws of the land—this constitutes the crime of rebellion.
• Within the timetable set by Sec. 18, Art. VII of the Const, the Pres. Submitted to Congress, a written Report on the facts of Proc. No. 216. 
• Pres. Explains that on May 23, 2017, a gov’t operation to capture Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) and Maute officers occurred. However, said groups confronted the operation by intensifying their efforts not only against the government authorities but against civilians and properties.
• They were trying to capture Isnilon Hapilon, Abdullah and Omarkhayam Maute. Said operation escalated into a full armed siege and hostility against the city. Terrorists groups aimed to established a “DAESH wilayat” or province in Mindanao.
• Based on verified reports, the Maute Group consisted of 263 members
• The Report highlighted the strategic location of Marawi City and the crucial  and significant role it plays in Mindanao, and the Philippines as a whole.
• Both the Senate and the House of Representatives eventually issued their respective Resolutions supporting the Proclamation No. 216
• Case at bar is a consolidated petition by: (1) Rep. Lagman, (2) Cullamat, (3) Mohamad,
• Lagman petition claims that the issuance of ML has no factual basis—there is no rebellion or invasion. Terrorism does not constitute rebellion. Flying of ISIS flag is merely propaganda. Lagman also points out many “irregularities” in the President’s Report as reports in hospitals, Landbank, and certain schools as blown out of proportion. Lagman posits that the military knew ahead of the attack and that the use of prior events for declaration of ML is unwarranted as they have already resolved said events. The Pres. did not consult with military.
• Lagman’s asks the court to exercise its  specific and special jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of Proc. No. 216 and render a Decision voiding and nullying said  Proc. for lack of factual basis.
• Cullamat Petition seeks to nullify the Proc. as well for lack of factual basis and that the supposed rebellion relates to events in Marawi City only not in the entire region of Mindanao. Martial Law declaration does not rise to the level sufficient, due to inaccuracies of the Reports. Said petition prays for the Court to deem the Proc. unconstitutional.
• Mohamad petition posits that ML is a measure of last resort. It  contents that the extraordinary powers of Pres should be dispense sequentially: (1) power to call out the armed forces, (2) suspend privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, then (3)  declare martial law. Said petition claims that the situation is not so grave as to require ML and do not equate to existence of a public necessity. Said petition prays for the Court to deem the Proc. unconstitutional.
• Respondents’ consolidated comment: The court shall look into this case by the correctness of the facts but under the lens of grave abuse of discretion. They point out that “he who alleges must prove “and that governmental actions are presumed to “be valid and constitutional.”
• SG posits that the sufficiency of the factual basis must be assessed from the trajectory or point of view of the President and based on the facts available to him at the time the decision was made.

ISSUES and HELD

A. Whether or Not the President is required to be factually correct in his appreciation of facts? No.

The purpose of judicial review is not the determination of accuracy or veracity of the facts of the President anchored his declaration rather, only the sufficiency of the factual basis as to convince the President that there is probable cause that rebellion exists.  

It must also be reiterated that martial law is  a matter of  urgency and much leeway and flexibility should be accorded the President

The President is not required to validate all the information he received before declaring martial law or suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

Since the President supposedly signed Proclamation No. 216 on May 23, 2017 at 10:00 PM, the Court will consider only those facts and/or events which were known to or have transpired on or before that time, consistent with the scope of judicial review

What transpired prior: a) Attack on the military outpost in Butig, Lanao del Sur m February 2016; b) Mass jailbreak in Marawi City in August 2016 of the arrested comrades of the Maute Group and other detainees

What transpired earlier that day (May 23, 2017): a) Takeover of a hospital in Marawi; b) Establishment of several checkpoints within Marawi; c) Burning of certain government and private faciJities; d) Mounting casualties on the part of the government; e) Hoisting the flag of lSIS in several areas; and f) Capability of the Maute Group and other rebel groups to sow terror, and cause death and damage to property not only in Lanao del Sur but also in other parts of Mindanao

"These activities constitute not simply a display of force, but a clear attempt to establish the groups' seat of power in Marawi City for their planned establishment of a DAESH wilayat or province covering the entire Mindanao. “

Court concludes that the President had sufficient factual bases tending to show that actual rebellion exists and that the culpable purpose of which was the removal from the allegiance of the Philippine Government a portion of its territory and the deprivation of the President from performing his powers and prerogatives.

B. WoN the Courts have to recalibrate the graduated powers granted to the President, namely calling out powers, declaration of ML, and suspension of habeas corpus? No.

Among the three extraordinary powers, the calling out power is the most benign and involves ordinary police action.

• Pres. has the power to call out the Armed Forces independently of the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and to declare martial law, although, of course, it may also be a prelude to a possible future exercise of the latter powers, as in this case.

In fact, "the actual use to which the President puts the armed forces is not subject to judicial review."

• The Court does not need to satisfy itself that the President's decision is correct, rather it  only needs to  determine whether the  President's decision had sufficient factual bases
• Thus, our review would be limited to an examination of 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.
• As long as there are other facts in the proclamation and the written Report that support the conclusion that there is an actual invasion or rebellion and that public safety requires the declaration and/or suspension, then the Court finds no contention.

Nevertheless, there are safeguards for the issuance of ML under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution.

• These limitations are: (1) a time limit of 60days; (2) review and possible revocation by Congress; [and] (3) review and possible nullification by the Supreme Court.

The President has the sole discretion to declare martial law and/or to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, subject to the revocation of Congress and the review of the Court

• In determining the existence of rebellion, the President only needs is probable cause or evidence showing that more likely than not a rebellion was committed or is being committed
• Since the Constitution did not define the term  "rebellion," it  must be understood to have the same meaning as the crime of "rebellion" in the Art. 134 of Revised Penal Code which states: “Crime of rebellion is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws.”

Rebellion may justify resort to the calling out power but definitely not the declaration of martial law  or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.  For a declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus to be valid, there must be a concurrence of actual rebellion or invasion and the public safety requirement. 

• In his Report, the President noted that the acts of violence were directed not only against the government but likewise against civilians and their properties

The Constitution grants to the President the discretion to determine the territorial coverage of martial law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.

• President's duty to maintain peace and public safety is not limited only to the place where there is actual rebellion, but extends to other areas in danger of rebellion 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 line across Mindanao

DISPOSITION

• Petition DISMISSED.
• Proclamation No. 216 is declared CONSTITUTIONAL