JO VANNE C TRIVILEGIO

JD-4

LAGMAN V PIMENTEL
Second martial law extension
FACTS:
On December 13, 2017, the Senate and the House of Representatives, in a joint session,
adopted Resolution of Both Houses No. 4 further extending the period of martial law and
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao for one year, from
January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the President and the Congress had sufficient factual basis to extend 
YES.
Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution requires two factual bases for the extension
of the proclamation of martial law or of the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus: (a) the invasion or rebellion persists; and (b) public safety requires the extension.
Rebellion persists as to satisfy the first condition for the extension of martial law or of the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.The reasons cited by the President in his
request for further extension indicate that the rebellion, which caused him to issue Proclamation
No. 216, continues to exist and its “remnants” have been resolute in establishing a DAESH/ISIS
territory in Mindanao, carrying on through the recruitment and training of new members,
financial and logistical build-up, consolidation of forces and continued attacks.AFP General
Guerrero also cited, among others, the continued armed resistance of the DAESH-inspired
DIWM and their allies. Moreover, The AFP’s data also showed that Foreign Terrorist Fighters
(FTFs) are now acting as instructors to the new members of the Dawlah Islamiyah.Also, it does
not necessarily follow that with the liberation of Marawi, the DAESH/ISIS-inspired rebellion no
longer exists. Secretary Lorenzana, during the Congress’ Joint Session on December 13, 2017,
explained that while the situation in Marawi has substantially changed, the rebellion has not
ceased but simply moved to other places in Mindanao. Acts upon which extension was based
posed danger to general public The Court also ruled that the acts, circumstances and events upon
which the extension was based posed a significant danger, injury or harm to the general
public.The Court added that the information upon which the extension of martial law or of the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall be based principally emanate from
and are in the possession of the Executive Department. Thus, “the Court will have to rely on the
fact-finding capabilities of the Executive Department; in tum, the Executive Department will
have to open its findings to the scrutiny of the Court.”The Executive Department did open its
findings to the Court when the· AFP gave its “briefing” or “presentation” during the oral
arguments, presenting data, which had been vetted by the NICA, “based on intelligence reports
gathered on the ground,” from personalities they were able to capture and residents in affected
areas, declassified official documents, and intelligence obtained by the PNP. According to the
AFP, the same presentation, save for updates, was given to the Congress. As it stands, the
information thus presented has not been challenged or questioned as regards its reliability.The
facts as provided by the Executive and considered by Congress amply establish that rebellion
persists in Mindanao and public safety is significantly endangered by it. The Court, thus, holds
that there exists sufficient factual basis for the further extension sought by the President and
approved by the Congress in its Resolution of Both Houses No. 4.
2. Whether or not the Congress has the power to extend and determine the period of martial
law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution is indisputably silent as to how many times the
Congress, upon the initiative of the President, may extend the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of habeas corpus. What is clear is that the ONLY limitations to the
exercise of the congressional authority to extend such proclamation or suspension are (1) that the
extension should be upon the President’s initiative; (2) that it should be grounded on the
persistence of the invasion or rebellion and the demands of public safety; and (3) that it is subject
to the Court’s review of the sufficiency of its factual basis upon the petition of any citizen.
Section 18, Article VII did not also fix the period of the extension of the proclamation and
suspension. However, it clearly gave the Congress the authority to decide on its duration; thus,
the provision states that that the extension shall be “for a period to be determined by the
Congress.” “the invasion or rebellion persists and public safety requires” such extension.