You are on page 1of 8

October 5, 2017 satisfactory in accordance with the law.

So it
found no compelling reason to revoke the same.
Lagman vs Medialdea
The house of representatives on the other hand,
Sir G: So what happened? also express their full support to the president
and found no ways not to revoke the
Hannah: It is about the Proclamation of proclamation 216. And now because of this
President Duterte of Martial Law. petitions by several petitioners, Lagman,
Sir G: Proclamation Number? Mohammad, etc

H: 216 sir. S: What were the allegations of these petitioners

against the proclamations?
S: Martial law lang?
H: Lagman said that the declaration of martial
H: And suspending the privilege of writ of law has no sufficient factual basis because there
habeas corpus of Mindanao. is no rebellion or invasion in Minadanao. It
S: what -- the president declare martial law and argues that acts of terrorism in Mindanao do not
suspend the privilege of writ of habeas corpus in constitute rebellion since there is no proof that
the entire Mindanao? its purpose is to remove Mindanao or any part
thereof from allegiance to the Philippines, its
H: It was stated in the report, that Mindanao has laws or its territory.
been plagued with rebellion and lawless
violence which only escalated and worsened S: Take note, there is no sufficient factual basis,
with the passing of time. There was a gibutang ni sa Lagman petition. Because, this
Zamboanga Siege, there was davao market petition was filed before the SC. And the job of
bombing, the Mamasapano carnage and other the SC is to determine if there is factual basis for
bombing incidents in Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, declaration of Martial Law.
and Basilan as additional factual bases of They argued that the declaration of Martial law
martial law. Recently, there was a government has no factual basis because, there is no
operation in… rebellion or invasion. Only Terrorism. There is
S: All that historical arguments, had lay sieged no need to declare martial law if terrorism lang.
to these cities, hospital Also, they argued that there is no factual basis
S: Was he able to submit on time the report on because, the president’s report contained false,
Congress? As required by the Constitution? inaccurate, contrieved and hyperbolic accounts.

S: The Congress allowed its extension in the What did they present to counter the facts
whole Mindanao the declaration of Martial Law gathered by the executive department through
or Suspension of Writ of Privilege. its own intelligence?

H: Yes. *Facebook accounts or online accounts, articles

stating wala man gi-overrun ning hospital, wala
S: What did the Congress do with this report? may nangamatay na mga tao, etc. Should that
H: It can either extend or allow the suspension counter insofar as sufficient factual basis is
of privilege of writ concerned?
S: What did the Congress do here? H: The supposed rebellion described in the
H: it allowed its extension to the whole proclamation of president Duterte -- but he said
Mindanao. that it is not applicable.

S: The senate, the Congress, expressed its full S: Nganong gicover sa entire president ang
support to the express declaration found it to be Mindanao when the terroristic attacks are only
limited on an isolated place of Marawi. So, the not the yardstick of correctness of facts.
proclamation should have been limited to the Arbitrariness should be the standard in
area alone. Mohammad on the other hand, reviewing the sufficiency of factual basis.
argues that this petition, that the president
Also, SOLGEN argued here that the facts that
should have exhausted his extraordinary
the courts would be limited to review are only
powers. Gusto niya before the president could
those which are available to the president at the
declare martial law, dapat giexercise niya ang
time that decision is made.
calling out powers, and then suspension of
It should not be based on the facts after the
privilege then martial law.
decision has made. President has no power of
There has to be graduation of the exercise of foresight.
those powers dili pwede nang diretso. Though,
The SOLGEN countered against the evidence
he argues that the president has no discretion to
that mere citation of reports, articles are not
choose which extraordinary power to use.
sufficient evidence because these cannot be
Now, on behalf of the government, it is the office verified.
of the Solicitor-General arguing that there is
Are the appropriate proceedings under Article
sufficient factual basis for the declaration of
VII, Section 18, tama ba ning ilahang gihimo? Or
martial law.
should they have followed the requirements for
One of the arguments of SOLGEN is that petition for certiorari as arguments? Also,
Section 18, Article VII, lays the basis on the whether the president declaring martial law and
exercise of the powers of the president. This suspending the privilege is factually correct?
provision failed to specify, the vehicle, mode or
Now, also was there a sufficient factual basis for
remedy which the appropriate proceeding
the proclamation of martial law or suspension of
mentioned there it may be resorted to.
In an appropriate proceeding, insofar as the SC
Before the conclusion, what is the parameter for
is concerned, when it is silent, it must refer to a
review? Unsa ang requirement na mag-guide,
specific remedy.
or evidence in determining whether or not tama
SOLGEN here argued that the remedy here is ba na magdeclare siya ug martial law.
not a mere complaint that was issued and filed
So, gidiscuss sa SC. Does the exercise of the
before the SC and that it must follow the
power of judicial review of SC involved the
proceedings for petition for certiorari.
calibration of powers granted the president as
Petition for certiorari determines if there is grave Commander-in-Chief, namely calling out
abuse of discretion and that is what the powers, suspension of privilege.., and
SOLGEN wants to impress upon the SC. This is declaration of martial law.
the standard SC -- must be used.
WON it was warranted that the martial law
When you say grave abuse of discretion, it is declaration covered the entire island of
more difficult to prove that there is grave abuse Mindanao.
of discretion than to prove that there is or no
The court said as to the issue on the
factual basis. That is higher standard of proof
appropriate proceedings, it was not agreed with
when we follow petition for certiorari. That’s
the position of the SOLGEN. The court said, that
what the SOLGEN wants. Mas taas ang
what petitioners did, mao ni siya ang
standard, mas maglisud ang SC, mamaintain
appropriate proceeding under Section 18,
ang validity sa martial law.
Article VII. This provides that the SC may review
SOLGEN argues that the review, courts should in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen.
use the lengths of grave abuse of discretion and What is the basis? It was the argument na kining
mga petitioners that jurisdiction of this court, it is The court emphasize na gibutang ning mga
a sui generis. It has no reference to any other conditions sa constitution insofar as the SC is
kind of remedy. It is different from the rest. It is concerned to review, for safeguarding from
a special and specific jurisdiction of the abuses of the president and to pertain that by
Supreme Court different from that iterated in the subjecting to a different standard from that
Articles of the Constitution. under the Constitution. Mawala ang purpose na
maging safeguard siya.
The court said that they are correct. Why?
Jurisdiction on the power of court of the tribunal The most important objective of the review
here decided on this matter that is --- of the power here is the curtailment of the extent of the
Constitution or by the law. Here, the jurisdiction powers of the Commander in chief.
was granted by the SC and that is the power to
The court declared, this proceeding is a sui
review in appropriate proceeding, sufficiency in
generis proceeding. The unique features of
factual basis in proclamation of martial law.
the 3rd paragraph of Section 18 Article VII would
Following the basis on jurisdiction sa SC. There be subsumed under Section 1 of Article VIII. It is
is no reference on this article whatsoever as to Separate and different from that enumerated.
dapat certiorari ang gamiton, etc.
There is no reference as to old law review.
It reveals that it grants to the court the power to
What about argument by the SOLGEN? But
determine the sufficiency of the factual basis of
before SC should act on the matter, it should
the martial law.
differ the action on the acts on the executive and
Nganong mali man na petition for certiorari as Congress.
asserted by the SOLGEN? The court said, that
As stated before that declaration of martial law
the phrase, “in an appropriate proceeding”
and suspension of privilege of writ, it is a joint
does not refer to the petition for certiorari. It
act made by the president and the congress.
could not have been the intention of the framers
The president declares it, the congress may
of the Constitution to interpret the phrase, under
hold or extend it.
Article VII of the Constitution. The standard
review for certiorari is whether the respondent According to the SOLGEN dapat mag differ ka
has acted or committed any grave abuse of SC kung mao ning nakita sa President and as
discretion or lack or excess of jurisdiction. That supported by the congress then you should
(petition for certiorari) is not the proper tool to support that. The court said that is not correct, it
review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the has its own independent review mechanism or
proclamation. powers under the SC. He may not defer as we
also stated before in IBP vs ZAMORA that the
The court did not pass to determine WON the
court would only act after or if the congress has
abuse through this proceeding ang iyang
finished** on its duty to examine the report of the
discretion in doing so.
president. That Doctrine is no longer controlling.
If the court applies to the standard review and
The court did not suppose to stand by the
use the petition for certiorari, it would
moment that a petition or complaint is filed
emasculate its constitutional task under Section
before any citizen questioning the factual basis
18, Article VII. It would be more difficult for the
of the martial law -- it can already do its job, The
Supreme Court because, lahi sya na standard.
power to review by the court and congress
Dili na facts. Now, we are talking about abuse of
therefore are not totally different but are likewise
discretion which is more extensive or more
independent of each other. The power of the
review and exercise are independent on
revocation of the Congress. So the court here
re-examined, reconsidered and set aside its news and media, etc. That is during the time of
pronouncement in Fortun vs GMA - in that MARCOS.
pronouncement, maghulat daw ang SC sa
Under 1987 Constitution it is NOT allowed,
action sa Congress. The court willingly but --- its
restricted na ang power. As the provision states,
own power to surrender the same congress, as
It will not supplant the operation of the civil
well as -- from its bounden duty to review. It set
courts and legislative assemblies and will not
itself as the entity which is only constant by. The
stop the functioning.
court said it is acted aberration.
Rights are preserved during martial law.
Katong giargue sa mga petitioners that the
President should not exercise the lesser powers The Supreme Court cannot decide for the
instead of going directly to martial law. The court president himself. Kung unsang power ang gi-
said that is beyond the SC to do. It cannot direct exercise, it is under his discretion. The court
the president to calibrate his action. Their power cannot force him to use the power, etc.
to judicial review insofar as the factual basis is
concerned, the issuances does not extend the Another question presented here is that
calibration of the president’s decision which nagdeclare si president before ug Proclamation
among these powers he will avail of. Dili pwede No. 55- calling out of forces. Proclamation 216-
ang SC ang magbuot sa president because the declaring martial law. What happens if P 216,
power is given to the president. Take note that, would be nullified by the SC? Will it effect or
Before the president declared martial law. recall P55? The court said it will not effect
because they are distinct from each other.
Gideclare sa niya or gi-Exercise calling out
powers in Marawi and later on Martial law. And Now we go to the power of SC to review.
either way, he did use first lesser damaging
powers and he did not resort directly to martial What is the SC asked to review? Is it required to
law. check WON the facts upon which the president
used to declare martial law would be absolutely
What happens in Martial Law? Why are we so correct?
afraid with the Martial Law?
The court said, that the phrase, “sufficiency of
In the Marcos regime, the president was given factual basis” under Section 18 Article VII
legislative powers so that he had control on should be understood only test for judicial
legislative, executive and congress. Imagine review.
you are the one creating the law, you are the
one going to implement that law. You just issue It does not aid to satisfy itself that the president’s
a law. The police can confiscate ipHone 7 or 8, decision is correct. Rather, it only needs to
then iexecute niya by directing the police to determine whether the decision had sufficient
execute this law. So that is why, it was so fearful factual basis. The court said here that is what’s
during that time. The SC said what happens in required in the Constitution, sufficiency of the
martial law, the president exercises police factual basis not absolute correctness basis.
power, which is normally the function of the Sufficient ba ang facts na gigamit ni president?
legislature. He exercises police power with the Because the president has the sole discretion to
military assistance to ensure public safety. exercise these powers and this involves the
He can ask AFP to aid the policemen. judgment on which only he can exercise. And
relating to the argument of SOLGEN, the court
Under a valid declaration Martial Law, the would be limited to the facts stated in the
president may order the arrest and seizures of pleadings as well as the facts happened only
citizens without judicial declaration or without before the declaration of martial law in order to
warrants, ban public assemblies, take over determine whether or not there is sufficient
factual basis for it. Now, what about the So the court made reference to the provisions of
petitioner’s point na mali daw ang report na the Revised Penal Code insofar as rebellion is
gihatag ni president sa congress. concerned. Article 134 -- what are the elements
of rebellion?
The court said that it is not required to look
piecemeal. It has to look on the totality, Elements of Rebellion:
correctness, or rather the totality of facts
1.) There is a public uprising and taking arms
presented to the president.
against the government.
Now, there should have to inspect the absolute
2.) The purpose of an uprising is either to
correctness of the facts stated in the
remove from the allegiance to the
proclamation and in the written report aas the
government from its laws, the territory of the
president has not expected to verify the
Philippines or in any part thereof, any body
accuracy and truthfulness of the facts according
of land, naval or other armed forces or to
to him due to the accuracy of the situation.
deprive the chief executive or congress,
To require the precision and the president’s wholly or partially, of any of their powers and
appreciation of facts would have duly burden prerogatives
him and it could require him to be on the line of
Since there is a necessity for the chief executive
fire, etc.
here to determine whether or not actual
So, maybe, absolute correctness is not the rebellion exists, what is the standard that he
standard and that only -- sufficient factual basis. should use to determine that actual rebellion
exist? What is the legal proof? PROBABLE
If we require him that such report to be
absolutely correct, it would practically or truly
burden the president and impede the process of Probable cause is the analogous standard of
his decision-making. proof for the president that there is actual
Take note: Dili pwede na absolute correctness
Take note as we discussed before, there are
four quanta of evidence:
Therefore, the maxim, “falsus in uno, falsus in
omnibus” finds no application in this case. Substantial evidence
As long as the proclamation to support the Clear and convincing evidence
conclusion that there is an actual invasion or Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt.
rebellion, and it requires him that’s the standard.
Probable cause is below substantial evidence
so it is the lowest in the hierarchy.
-Actual Rebellion or invasion It necessitates an average mind to weigh the
-Public Safety that requires it. facts and circumstances without resorting to the
- PROBABLE CAUSE calibration on rules of evidence of which it is on
technical knowledge. It relies on common-
In this case, what is your reference to the term sense and it needs only to rest on evidence
“rebellion” because this is what the president showing that more likely than not, a crime
is claiming. has been committed.
To subject the president that emergency proclamation with sufficient factual basis that
situation, it would defeat that power to require actual rebellion exists.
him, to satisfy the higher standard of proof will
After all, the president was satisfied that only the
restrict his exercise of emergency powers.
standard probable cause. The court found out
The correctness in determining the sufficiency that the president, using that standard saw that
of factual basis insofar as sui generis is there is probable cause that rebellion actually
concerned: Actual Rebellion or invasion, existed, or being committed in Marawi.
Public Safety that requires it, There is
The argument of petitioners na mali mali daw
PROBABLE CAUSE that president will prove
ang reports, the court said again that it is not
that there is actual rebellion or invasion.
concerned with the absolute correctness.
So, based on those parameters, was there The document presented by these petitioners
factual basis for the president to declare martial were from unverified news articles on the
law and suspend the privilege of writ? internet, with neither the authors nor the sources
shown to have affirmed the contents thereof and
The courts said, THERE IS SUFFICIENT these have No Probative Value.
Even Lagman admitted that he was not aware
The SC deferred to the executive the factual or that he had no personal knowledge of the
findings. It was stated that the intelligence incidents happened and were written in the
reports of the executive are much wider than petition.
Supreme Court. Executives are more capable
than SC. The SC is limited on the findings, Why entire Mindanao ang gi-cover? Why not
pleading, oral arguments and executive marawi alone?
sessions. The court said that:
In any case, the courts said, that Judicial 1. The overriding and paramount of concern of
Review, is not the determination of accuracy or martial law is the protection of the security of the
veracity of the facts upon which the President nation and the good and safety of the public.
anchored his declaration of martial law and
suspension, rather, only sufficiency of the The president is not limited to declaring martial
factual basis as to convince the president that law in a specific area, he can cover the entire
there is probable cause that rebellion exists. Philippines.

The court said, THERE IS REBELLION. The court had an illustration here, nganong
required man nga entire Philippines? To
There is an extensive listing of the acts which illustrate:
convinced the president that there is actual
rebellion in that locality to declare martial law. A contingent armed with a high-powered
firearms, publicly assembled in Padre Fauna,
The court said, that it will only consider those Ermita, Manila where the court’s compound is
facts and events which have aspired on or situated. They overpowered the guards, entered
before the time of the declaration of the martial the Court’s premises and hoisted the ISIS flag.
law. DILI PWEDE AFTER. Their only request is political: Wanting to
The courts are satisfied as well na, ang factual remove the allegiance to the Philippine
findings ang gibasehan enough or sufficient for government a part of the territory of the
him to declare the martial law. It similarly led the Philippines, particularly the Court’s compound
court to uphold the president in issuing the and establish it as an ISIS-territory. Now can we
say that rebellion is only confined to the court’s
The court said, NO. The possibility that there are the Republic of the Philippines, with the prior
other rebels positioned nearby buildings or the concurrence of the Monetary Board, and subject
compound of Hospitals or the Manila Science to such limitations as may be provided by law.
High School, could not be discounted. There is The Monetary Board shall, within 30 days from
no way of knowing that all participants in the the end of every quarter of the calendar year,
rebellion went and stayed inside the Court’s submit to the Congress a complete report of its
compound. decision on applications for loans to be
contracted or guaranteed by the Government or
The court said that it was proper for the
government-owned and controlled corporations
president to cover the entire Mindanao for the
which would have the effect of increasing the
coverage of Martial Law. In this event, it is in
foreign debt, and containing other matters as
the president’s discretion to declare martial law.
may be provided by law.
The court in conclusion, declared that indeed
Article XII, Section 21: Foreign loans may only
there was sufficient factual basis for the
be incurred in accordance with law and the
declaration of martial law in the entire
regulation of the monetary authority. Information
Mindanao. So the proclamations were valid.
on foreign loans obtained or guaranteed by the
What are the other powers of the President? Government shall be made available to the
Emergency Powers-Article VI, Section 23,
Also in Article XII:
This involves the entering of the President to
The Congress, in running times of war or other loan contract to a certain republic.
national emergency, The Congress made by
law, authorizing the President for an indefinite And because of that, Naa tay utang.
period and subject to some restrictions that he
Now there is this financing program and there
may prescribe. Exercise powers necessary or
has to be some sort of restructuring.
proper to carry out and declare its national policy
So, there was formulation of the Philippine debt
The president has the power to contract or
negotiating team to restructure the loan. And in
guarantee foreign loans.
the course thereof, naay mga loan agreements,
Going back to the emergency powers, what are transforming the loan from this form to another
the requirements before the president can take form and that was being questioned by the
over private enterprises? petitioners.

-There must be war, or declaration of war or The court emphasized in this case that the
emergency. constitution allows the president to contract and
guarantee foreign loans and it cannot ascribe to
- There must be law, authorizing the president. the Constitution, restrictions that duly burden
(The exercise of the president must be within the the powers of the president.
parameters prescribed by Congress to the law.)
Ginaquestion diri ang form ng loans entered into
-The president must only do so pursuant to a restructuring to ballooning loans. Naay buy-
national interest. back scheme, etc.
Another power is the power to contract or The court said here that it cannot prescribe or
guarantee foreign loans under Article VII, put meanings and restrictions that could have
Section 20 and Article XII, Section 21. duly burden the President. Now, clear that which
Article VII, Section 20: The president may the constitution allowed full exercise of the
contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of powers of the president therein.
What are the RESTRICTIONS stated in the will be controlled or lessen because the
Constitution before the president can president can review and even set aside their
contract foreign loans? acts.
-There must be prior concurrence to Monetary Now, what is the legal basis for restructuring the
Board program. Here, there is RA 245. There is a law
for such program.
-It is subject to limitations as may be provided
by law. The president also has the power for foreign
affairs. He is the head of the Republic. He alone
Here, the limitations were observed, naay prior
represents the country- foreign affairs.
concurrence of the Monetary Board, and there
is a law allowing the president or his Among these power of foreign affairs is the
representative to contract foreign loans in the power in the involvement of treaty-making. What
form of EAR bonds. is the job of the president insofar as the treaty-
making is concerned?
Can the power of the president to enter foreign
loans, restructure loans be delegated? YES. The executive to the president enters into
Qualified Political Agency. agreements, treaties. It is the job of the
president to ratify the treaty. It is the job of the
He could delegate the power. If we do not follow
senate to concur on the treaty.
the doctrine of Qualified Agency, where the alter
egos of the president are more capable of BAYAN vs ZAMORA
representing the country,
This deals with the VFA, questioning its
In this matter, it will negate the very existence of constitutionality.
cabinet positions and even hamper the
So, the court discussed what is VFA, and that it
president’s effectivity in running the
made reference to appropriate constitutional
provision insofar as this agreement is
Who is the president’s alter ego here? concerned.
The court mentioned Article XVIII, Section 25
Because he has the duty pertaining to the sound that foreign military bases and other facilities,
and efficient management of financial resources should not be allowed by the president, except
of the government. under a treaty duly concurred by the Senate.
There are acts however that it cannot be Article VII, Section 21. That for treaties to be
delegated by the President. valid, they must be concurred in by at least two-
thirds of all the members of the Senate.
Personal to it, he cannot delegate the power to
pardon. However, in the power to contract Was the VFA validly concurred by the Senate
foreign debts does not fall in the exceptional here? YES. The 2/3 requirement was met.
class. So, pwede i-delegate.
Now what is the job of the president. Take note
Now, is the power of the Secretary absolute? Of that there is a discussion as to treaty-making
course not. The president can still control the process. The job of the president is to ratify the
actions of the Secretary and set aside. treaty. It is an executive act. The Senate
concurs in a way, a legislative act. The power of
First of all, the president can actually hold
ratifying is vested in the President and not on the
approval or maintain his financial program, etc.
This is because they are operating through the
Doctrine of Qualified Agency. Any form of abuse