SUBJECT TOPIC DIGEST MAKER
Consti 1 Delegation of Emergency Powers David edited by Real
Lagman vs. Hon. Medialdea
Del Castillo, J.
G.R. Nos. 231658 | July 4, 2017
REPRESENTATIVES EDCEL C. LAGMAN, TOMASITO S. VILLARIN, GARY C.
ALEJANO, EMMANUEL A. BILLONES AND TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT,
JR., Petitioners,
vs.
HON. SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; HON. DELFIN
N. LORENZANA, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL
DEFENSE AND MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR; AND GEN. EDUARDO
ANO, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES AND
MARTIAL LAW IMPLEMENTOR, Respondents.
EMERGENCY DIGEST: (recit ready digest)
FACTS. On May 23, 2017, President Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216, declaring martial law and
suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao for 60 days, as a response to the
Marawi siege by terrorist group Maute. After the President submitted a report to Congress, the Senate and the
Lower House found the proclamation constitutional and did not revoke it. Petitioners (Lagman et al.) assailed
said proclamation for lack of sufficient factual basis to declare martial law, there being merely a threat and not
an actual rebellion.
ISSUE. (1) Whether or not there is sufficient basis for the declaration of martial law
(2) Whether or not public safety requires the declaration of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao.
RULING. (1) YES. The President’s declaration of martial law is in accordance with the extraordinary powers
granted to him by the Constitution. The Court finds that the President had sufficient factual basis to declare
martial law. Notable among these are the damage caused by Maute in certain establishments, the hoisting of the
ISIS flag in several areas, the capability and extensive network of Maute Group to cause damage to other parts
of Mindanao, and the aim of establishing a DAESH wilayat in Mindanao. As mentioned in Proclamation No.
216, the President arrived at the conclusion that the Maute group is “openly attempting to remove from
allegiance to the Philippine government” Marawi City and that “lawless armed groups” have constituted against
the government “for the purpose of removing Mindanao” to establish an “Islamic state”. The President’s
proclamation met the parameters for sufficiency of factual basis namely: parameters for sufficiency of factual
basis of the proclamation are: 1) actual invasion or rebellion, and 2) public safety requires the exercise of
such power. From the Report submitted to Congress, the requisite of rebellion was met because Maute had a
public uprising seeking to remove from the allegiance of the Philippine government a portion of its territory
(i.e. Marawi City). The requisite of public safety requiring martial law was also met because Maute not only
directed hostility to government forces but also, to civilians and property.
(2) YES. The President noted that acts of violence perpetrated by the Abu Sayyaf group (ASG) and Maute
group were directed not only against government forces and establishments but also against civilians and their
properties. Martial law guarantees the security of the country and promotes public safety. The President’s duty
to maintain peace and public safety is not limited only to place of actual rebellion, the nerve center. It is not
limited to not letting lawless elements escape Marawi City, but also to avoid enemy reinforcements and to cut
their supply lines coming from different parts of Mindanao.
FACTS
On May 23, 2017, President Rodrigo Duterte (Duterte) issued Proclamation No. 216, declaring martial
law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao for 60 days, as a response
to the Marawi siege by terrorist group Maute.
Following the timeline set by Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, the President submitted a written Report
on the factual basis of the proclamation. The Report stated that for decades, Mindanao has been plagued with
rebellion and lawless violence which escalated through time.
The Report narrated events which took place on May 23 in Marawi City which impelled Duterte to issue
the proclamation. It stated that the unfolding of these events lays the groundwork for the establishment of a
DAESH wilayat or province in Mindanao and highlighted Marawi’s strategic importance.
After the submission of the Report, the Senate issued P.S. Resolution No. 388, finding the proclamation “to be
satisfactory, constitutional, and in accordance with the law”. The Senate found no reason to revoke the
proclamation. The House of Representatives shared the same sentiments in their issued House Resolution No.
1050.
Unmoved by the proclamation, three different parties filed petitions for review of the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the declaration of Martial Law and the Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus under Section
VII, Article 18 of the Constitution. They argued, among others, that Martial Law declaration had no sufficient
factual basis since it was based on “false, inaccurate, contrived and hyperbolic accounts” and that the Marawi
siege was merely a threat of rebellion, not actual rebellion. The actions of Maute group did not necessarily
preclude rebellion in the entire Mindanao and was contained at Marawi. Furthermore, the petitions assailed the
capability of Maute to launch such a rebellion, enough to deprive authorities their powers and prerogatives in the
whole of Mindanao.
The following petitioners assailed the proclamation:
1. Edcel Lagman, et al., as legislators;
2. Eufemia Campos Cullamat, et al. as citizens of the Republic;
3. Norkaya S. Mohamad, et al., as Filipino citizens, women of legal age, and citizens of Marawi City.
ISSUE and RATIONALE
A. PROCEDURAL
1. Whether or not petitioners have locus standi to file the petitions. YES.
As citizens: Per Section 18 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, any citizen may file the appropriate
proceeding to assail the sufficiency of the factual basis of martial law or suspension of privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus. That is the only requisite. The citizens don’t even need to be taxpayers.
As legislators: Lagman, et. al. do not need to declare themselves as such since they are citizens of the
Republic. Philippine citizenship is a requirement for them to be elected as representatives. Hence, they have locus
standi.
2. Whether or not the petitions are the “appropriate proceeding” covered by Paragraph 3, Section 18, Article VII
of the Constitution sufficient to invoke the Court’s review when martial law or suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus is declared. YES.
 SUBJECT TOPIC DIGEST MAKER
Consti 1 Delegation of Emergency Powers David edited by Real
It is settled that the SC has jurisdiction and authority 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 found in Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
Respondents allege that the proper mode of the petition should be certiorari, pursuant to Sections 1 and 5
of Article VIII. However, this would contradict the intention of the framers of the Constitution. Section 18, Article
VII was meant to be a safeguard to prevent the President from abusing the exercise of his extraordinary powers.
Thus, the third paragraph of Section 18, Article VII should be treated as sui generis (unique) from the
aforementioned modes in Article VIII and not under the rules governing the filing of certiorari pleadings.
B. SUBSTANTIVE
1. Whether the power of the 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 under Section 18, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution is independent of the actions taken by Congress. YES.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) urged the Court to defer to the actons of the two co-equal
branches of government: on the part of the President, in exercising his extraordinary powers; and on the part of
Congress, in approving Duterte’s proclamation and not revoking the same.
The power of the Court to review and the power of Congress to revoke, as provided in Section 18,
Article VII, are meant to be exercised independently. These powers may also be done simultaneously.
2. Whether or not the judicial power to review the sufficiency of factual basis of the declaration of the declaration
of martial law or suspension of privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not extend to the calibration of the
President’s decision of which among his graduated powers he will avail of in a given situation. YES.
The extraordinary powers (calling out, suspension of privilege of writ of habeas corpus, and declaration
of martial law) are conferred by the Constitution with the President as Commander-in-Chief. These powers are
broad enough to include his prerogative to address threats which endanger the government and the integrity of the
State. Thus, it is beyond doubt that judicial review does not extend to calibrating the President’s decision as to
which extraordinary power he must avail given a set of facts and conditions. To do so would infringe on the
prerogative solely lying on the President.
In any case, Duterte exercised the most benign extraordinary power (calling out) BEFORE declaring
martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. On Sept. 4, 2016, Duterte issued
Proclamation No. 55 declaring national emergency on account of lawless violence in Mindanao. However, after
using the calling out power, the situation still worsened. Thus, Duterte used the latter extraordinary powers.
3. Whether or not Proclamation No. 216 may be considered vague and void because of a) its inclusion of “other
rebel groups”; and b) the absence of any guideline specifying its actual operational parameters within the entire
Mindanao region. NO.
The void-for-vagueness doctrine, which holds that a law is facially invalid if men of common
intelligence have to guess the meaning and differ as to its application, only applies to free speech cases.
Proclamation No. 216 does not regulate speech, religious freedom, and other fundamental rights that
may be facially challenged. It only seeks to penalize conduct, NOT speech.
The inclusion of the phrase “other rebel groups” does not leave the proclamation open to broad
interpretation, misinterpretation, and confusion. The term is not at all vague when viewed in context of the words
accompanying it. Furthermore, it was used in Proclamation No. 55, which is cited in the Whereas clauses.
The absence of any operational guidelines could not make the Proclamation No. 216 vague. Operational
guidelines are mere tools for implementation of the proclamation. Judicial review only covers the sufficiency of
information known by the President at the time of the declaration. Thus, acts committed under orders in violation
of the Constitution, such as criminal acts or human rights violations, should be resolved in a separate proceeding.
4. Whether or not nullifying Proclamation No. 216 will a) have effect of recalling Proclamation No. 55; or b)
nullify acts of President in calling out armed forces to quell lawless violence in Marawi and other parts of the
Mindanao region. NO.
The Court’s ruling will NOT affect Duterte’s declaration of a state of national emergency in
Proclamation No. 55. The President may exercise the power to call out the Armed Forces independently of power
to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and declare martial law. Separate proceedings have to be
done to review calling out and President’s declaration of martial law.
Nullification of Proclamation No. 216 would not result in nullification of acts of the President under said
proclamation because of the “operative fact doctrine”. Under the aforesaid doctrine, an unconstitutional statute is
recognized as an “operative fact” before it is declared unconstitutional.
5. Whether or not there were sufficient factual basis for the proclamation of martial law or suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. YES.
While petitioners concede that there is an armed public uprising in Marawi City, they insist that the
uprising does not constitution rebellion in the absence of the requisite of removal from allegiance to the Philippine
government of a territory of the Philippines. This contention lacks merit.
Since the President signed Proclamation No. 216 on May 23, 2017 at 10 pm, the Court shall only review
facts and events considered by the President in issuing out the proclamation. Notable among these are the damage
caused by Maute in certain establishments, the hoisting of the ISIS flag in several areas, the capability and
extensive network of Maute Group to cause damage to other parts of Mindanao, and the aim of establishing a
DAESH wilayat in Mindanao.
As mentioned in Proclamation No. 216, the President arrived at the conclusion that the Maute group is
“openly attempting to remove from allegiance to the Philippine government” Marawi City and that “lawless armed
groups” have constituted against the government “for the purpose of removing Mindanao” to establish an “Islamic
state”. Furthermore, the taking up of arms of lawless groups throughout Mindanao was emboldened by the
deterioration of public safety and order in Mindanao.
As a result, the President deduced from the facts available to him that there was an armed public
uprising, the culpable purpose of which was to remove from the allegiance to the Philippine government a
portion of its territory. The President believed that there is probable cause that a rebellion is being
committed and public safety requires the imposition of martial law and suspension of the writ of habeas
corpus.
Thus, the Lagman petition stating that there is counter-evidence to show that the declaration is
predicated on false facts does not persuade. After all, the counter-evidence were derived solely from unverified
news articles, which are ruled by the Court as hearsay twice removed.
 SUBJECT TOPIC DIGEST MAKER
Consti 1 Delegation of Emergency Powers David edited by Real
a. What are the parameters for review?
The parameters for sufficiency of factual basis of the proclamation are:
1) actual invasion or rebellion; and
2) public safety requires the exercise of such power.
Per Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, for a crime of rebellion to be committed, there must be:
1) (a) public uprising and (b) taking arms against Government;
2) purpose of uprising or movement is either (a) to remove from the allegiance to the Government or
its laws: (i) the territory of Philippine Islands or any part thereof; or (ii) any body of land, naval or
other armed forces; or (b) depriving Chief Executive or Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of
their powers and prerogatives.
b. Who has the burden of proof?
The President has the burden of proof that there is probable cause in declaring martial law.
c. What is the threshold of evidence?
Probable cause is the standard of proof for the President. There only needs to be probable cause
showing that more likely than not, a rebellion was or is being committed. Probable cause necessitates
only common sense and needs to rest on evidence showing, more likely than not, a crime has been
committed by the accused. Asking for a higher quantum of evidence would tie the hands of the President
in responding an urgent situation.
6. Whether or not public safety requires the declaration of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao. YES.
In his Report, the President noted that acts of violence perpetrated by the Abu Sayyaf group (ASG) and
Maute group were directed not only against government forces and establishments but also against civilians and
their properties. Thus, this requisite of declaration of martial law has been complied with. Martial law guarantees
the security of the country and promotes public safety.
As for the whole of Mindanao, Section 18, Article VII states that the President may place the
Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.
One of the requisites of declaration of martial law is actual rebellion, which is a “crime of masses or
multitudes, involving crowd action, that cannot be confined a priori, within predetermined bounds.”
Rebellion involves “many acts…a vast movement of men and a complex net of intrigues and plots.” Rebellion
absorbs “other acts done in its pursuance.
The President’s duty to maintain peace and public safety is not limited only to place of actual rebellion,
the nerve center. It is not limited to not letting lawless elements escape Marawi City, but also to avoid enemy
reinforcements and to cut their supply lines coming from different parts of Mindanao.
Intelligence reports from the military also add that there were offensives committed by ASG and other local rebel
groups in Mindanao. These suggest that the rebellion in Marawi has spilled over to other parts of Mindanao.
7. Whether or not terrorism negates or absorbs rebellion. NO.
As long as the President complies with the requirements of Section 18, Article VII, the existence of
terrorism cannot prevent him from exercising his extraordinary powers to declare martial law or suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
DISPOSITION
The Court finds sufficient factual bases for the issuance of Proclamation No. 216 and declares it as Constitutional.
Petitions DENIED.
REVIEW NOTES
PROVISIONS IN THE CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE VII
Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it
becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding
sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under
martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress,
voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such
proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the
President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be
determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension,
convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual
basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and
must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil
courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over
civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses
inherent in or directly connected with invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged
within three days, otherwise he shall be released.
SUFFICIENCY OF ACTUAL BASIS TEST
Section 18, Article VII provides that “sufficiency of factual basis” is the only test for judicial review of President’s
power to declare martial law and suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The Court does not need to be
satisfied that the President’s decision is correct, but that there is sufficient factual basis.
The President has sole discretion to declare martial law and uses his judgment call based on facts or information
available to him at the time of declaration or suspension. Such facts may be based on the existing situation or past
 SUBJECT TOPIC DIGEST MAKER
Consti 1 Delegation of Emergency Powers David edited by Real
events. Only the President can choose which facts to include in the Report to Congress and can withhold
intelligence and confidential information which may prejudice military operations.
The President need only the totality of factual basis, NOT looking at facts individually. If the President should be
burdened with precision of facts, then it would be too late to curtail invasion or rebellion.
The President could anchor his judgment on intelligence reports of military officers and credible evidence that
President can appraise.
Finally, the President is expected to decide quickly on whether to proclaim martial law or not. Thus, falsity or
inaccuracy of facts are not reasons for Court to invalidate the proclamation.
EXTRAORDINARY POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT (arranged from most to least benign)
1) Calling out – involves ordinary police action; exercised whenever it becomes necessary to prevent or
suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion. The power to call out is fully discretionary to the President;
only limitations being that he acts within permissible constitution boundaries and in a manner not constituting
grave abuse of discretion. This power to call out the armed forces is not subject to judicial review.
2) Suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus – exercised only in cases of actual rebellion,
invasion, and when public safety requires it; involves curtailment and suppression of civil rights and individual
freedom. Suspension only applies to those judicially charged with rebellion or offenses connected to invasion.
3) Declaration of martial law – exercised only in cases of actual rebellion, invasion, and when public safety
requires it; involves curtailment and suppression of civil rights and individual freedom; does not suspend
operation of Constitution; does not suspend civil courts or legislative assemblies. President has power of a
commanding general during martial law, issuing orders which have effect law but strictly in a theater of
war. President can exercise police power, normally a legislative function. Does not give President the power to
infringe on rights of civilians.
DAESH meaning
DAESH = acronym for al-Dawlah al-Islamīyah fī l-ʻIrāq wa-sh-Shām; also known as Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant; also known as Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION
CARPIO, J., Dissenting Opinion
Probable cause exists that there is actual rebellion and public safety requires the declaration of martial law and
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Marawi City, but not elsewhere.
Petitions partially granted. Declaration of Proclamation No. 216 is unconstitutional as to geographic areas of
Mindanao outside Marawi City for failure to comply with Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
Proclamation no. 216 is valid and constitutional only within Marawi City.
No evidence whatsoever of actual rebellion outside Marawi City
There is probable cause for the existence of actual rebellion in Marawi City. The armed and public uprising in
Marawi City by 400 to 500 Maute-Hapilon armed fighters, with the announced intention to impose Shariah Law in
Marawi City and make it an Islamic State, is concrete and indisputable evidence of actual rebellion.
Futhermore, Proclamation No. 216 enumerates belligerent acts committed within Marawi City on May 23, 2017,
including the violent takeover of a hospital, establishment of checkpoints in the city, burning down of government
and private facilities, inflicting casualties on government forces, and waving of ISIS flags in several areas. The
President also included other hostile acts in his Report to Congress such as cutting off supply lines and electricity,
burning down educational institutions, and killing a portion of the population resisting the Maute-Hapilon group.
However, Proclamation No. 216 and the Report contained no evidence whatsoever of actual rebellion outside
Marawi City. The Report stated that based on intelligence reports by military and police, there is a strategic mass
action of lawless armed groups within Marawi City.
Proclamation No. 216 states that the Marawi siege can be the starting point for rebellion to the rest of Mindanao,
to which the Maute-Hapilon group has the capability to accomplish.
Capability to rebel, absent an actual invasion or invasion, is not a ground to declare martial law or suspend the
privilege of the writ under the 1987 Constitution. Allowing the declaration of martial law, based on the “imminent
danger” of invasion or rebellion because of the possible spread of rebellion from Marawi to other parts of
Mindanao, is violative of the Constitution.
Furthermore, following the rulings of People v. Geronimo and People v. Lovediro, the reference to non-
confinement to “predetermined bounds” does not refer to geographical limitations, but to the scope of attending
crimes and circumstances.
Moreover, sporadic bombings in other areas of Mindanao outside Marawi City, in the absence of actual uprising
against Government and without intent to remove allegiance to the Government the areas where bombings took
place, do not constitute actual rebellion. Such bombings only constitute terrorism.
Proclamation No. 216 was thus issued without sufficient actual basis, contrary to the requirement under Section
18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, with respect to areas outside of Marawi City.
SERENO, C J., Dissenting Opinion
Petitions partly granted. There is sufficient basis for issuance of Proclamation No. 216 only insofar as the
following provinces: Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, and Sulu. Proclamation No. 216 should be struck down in
other parts of Mindanao.
Points of disagreement with Ponencia
1) The duty of the Court to inquire into the necessity of declaring martial law to protect public safety
logically and inevitably requires determination of proportionality of powers President seeks to exercise.
When the Court deems that the power to be used is disproportional and deemed in excess, it should be
invalidated.
2) Another aspect of proportionality is the definition of the metes and bounds of areas to be validly covered
by martial law. If martial law is not necessary to protect public safety in a certain locality, then that
locality should not be placed under martial law.
3) It is possible to define the territorial boundaries of martial law. Section 18, Article VII provides that the
President can place the entire country “or any part thereof” under martial law. If the province is the
largest administrative unit for law enforcement that covers the area of actual conflict, then that unit can
be used.
4) In determining the areas covered by martial law, the Court does not neither defers to the wisdom of the
President nor to the military’s expertise in strategy or tactical matters. The Court has to rely on the
allegations put forward in the President’s Report and on that basis, apply a trial judge's reasonable mind
 SUBJECT TOPIC DIGEST MAKER
Consti 1 Delegation of Emergency Powers David edited by Real

and common sense on whether the sufficiency and necessity tests are satisfied. Section 18, Article VII
does not allow government a political question defense for declaring martial law.
Discussion
There is sufficient factual basis in the declaration of martial law but only in 3 provinces: Lanao del Sur,
Maguindanao, and Sulu. Analysis of insurgencies by the ASG, the Maute group, and the Bangsamoro Islamic
Freedom Fighters (BIFF) are not only mere disturbances against the government; they constitute criminal acts
punishable under Philippine laws.
The actions of ASG, particularly the killing of 15 soldiers in Patikul, Sulu, are part of continuous perpetration of
attacks by the rebel group in the province. There have numerous assassinations and high-profile hostage takings in
the area. Furthermore, the protracted violence by the ASG have affected civilians. Thus, martial law should be
declared in Sulu.
For Maute, the element of publicly taking arms against the government is satisfied by the ambush of military
elements in Marawi City. The attack on Lanao del Sur Provincial Jail also endangered the community with the
release of prisoners.
Lastly, for BIFF, they originate their operations in Maguindanao. Their use of diversionary tactics and attacks on
military detachments show that they are clearly taking up arms against the government. Their IED attacks on
different cities also show that there is endangerment in public safety.
LEONEN, J., Dissenting Opinion
Petitions fully granted. Proclamation No. 216 of May 23, 2017, General Order No. 1 of 2017, and all the issuances
related to these Presidential Issuances are unconstitutional.
No rebellion in Marawi City, only terrorism
Based on the facts, the number of perpetrators in the atrocities are not numerous or have sufficient resources or
community support to hold any territory. Thus, the armed forces could undoubtedly quell the lawlessness in
Marawi.
Neither do the facts show convincingly that “public safety” requires martial law. Public safety is always the
constitutional aim of police power. Respondents failed to show what martial law would add.
The government’s sufficiency of facts are wanting. The factual bases of the events by respondents are mere
allegations and the sources of information were not presented.
Taken in the proper context, some of the facts should be construed not as acts of rebellion but acts of terrorism.
The facts establish that Maute group are terrorists who committed violent acts to prevent arrest of their leaders.
Terrorists use fear and violence to advance their ideology. While rebellion may fall under terrorism, Maute’s acts
do not constitute rebellion. They are merely local criminals. What happened in Marawi is entirely a law
enforcement situation.
Scope of Proclamation No. 216
Proclamation No. 216 expanded the scope of martial law. It included in the key tasks of the operation the
“dismantling of the New People’s Army (NPA), other terror-linked private armed groups, illegal drug syndicates,
peace spoilers, and other lawless armed groups.” The inclusion of these other elements make the proclamation
unconstitutional and vague.