LAGMAN VS.

MEDIALDEA
GR NO. 231658
JULY 4, 2017

FACTS:
Effective May 23, 2017, and for a period not exceeding 60 days, President Duterte issued
Proclamation No. 216 declaring a state of martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao. Within the timeline set by Section 18, Article VII of
the Constitution, the President submitted to Congress on May 25, 2017, a written Report on the
factual basis of Proclamation No. 216. The Report pointed out that for decades, Mindanao has
been plagued with rebellion and lawless violence which only escalated and worsened with the
passing of time. After the submission of the Report and the briefings, the Senate issued P.S.
Resolution No. 390 expressing full support to the martial law proclamation and finding
Proclamation No. 216 "to be satisfactory, constitutional and in accordance with the law". In the
same Resolution, the Senate declared that it found "no compelling reason to revoke the same".
The Lagman Group, the Cullamat Group and the Mohamad Group petitioned (Petitions) the
Supreme Court, questioning the factual basis of President Duterte's Proclamation of martial law.
The OSG sided with President Duterte.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the power of this Court to review the sufficiency of the factual basis [of]
the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
independent of the actual actions that have been taken by Congress jointly or separately.
Whether or not the power of judicial review by this Court involves the calibration of
graduated powers granted the President as Commander-in-Chief, namely (1) calling out powers,
(2) suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and (3) declaration of martial law.
Whether or not there were sufficient factual [basis] for the proclamation of martial law or
the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
RULING:
YES. A plain reading of Section 18, Article VII reveals that it specifically grants
authority to the Court to determine the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of
martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. This is completely
independent from Congress’ duty to review. It is meant to provide an additional safeguard
against possible abuse by the President in the exercise of his power to declare martial law or
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The court held that it can simultaneously
exercise its power of review with, and independently from, the power to revoke by Congress.
Corollary, any perceived inaction or default on the part of Congress does not deprive or deny the
Court of its power to review.
 NO. The power of judicial review does not extend to calibrating the President’s decision
pertaining to which extraordinary power should he use to avail in a given set of facts or
conditions. To do so would be tantamount to an incursion into the exclusive domain of the
Executive and an infringement on the prerogative that solely, at least initially, lies with the
President.
YES. In reviewing the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation or suspension,
the Court considers only the information and data available to the President prior to or at the time
of the declaration. The Court held that the President, in issuing Proclamation No. 216, had
sufficient factual bases tending to show that actual rebellion exists. The President only has to
ascertain if there is probable cause for a declaration of Martial Law and the suspension of the
writ of habeas corpus. The alleged false and/or inaccurate statements are just pieces and parcels
of the Report; along with these alleged false data is an arsenal of other independent facts
showing that more likely than not, actual rebellion exists.