Lagman vs.

Aquilino Pimentel III

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

Facts:
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.

Issue:
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?

Held:
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 involve 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- 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.