LAGMAN vs.

MEDIALDEA
G.R. No. 231658 | July 4, 2017

FACTS:

On May 23, 2017, President Rodrigo Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216, declaring Martial Law in the whole
island of Mindanao and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus therein. 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 President also explained that on May 23, 2017, a government operation to capture the high-ranking
officers of the Abu Sayyaf IP (ASG) and the Maute Group was conducted. These groups, which have been
unleashing havoc in Mindanao, however, confronted the government operation by intensifying their efforts at
committing violence aimed not only against the government authorities and its facilities but likewise against
civilians and their properties. In particular, the President stated in his report the events which took place on
May 23, 2017 in Marawi City which impelled him to declare a state of martial law and suspend the privilege of
writ of habeas corpus,

The main basis of the declaration was the attack of the Maute terrorist group in Marawi City. According to the
report, the Maute group is an affiliate of ISIS which is aiming to establish an Islamic caliphate in Marawi City
(and might spread its control in all the other parts of Mindanao). It also cited the ongoing rebellion
and lawless violence that has plagued Mindanao for decades.

Invoking the third paragraph of Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, various citizens filed several
petitions, essentially invoking the Court’s specific and special jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the
factual basis of Proclamation No. 216; and seeking to nullify Proclamation No. 216 for being unconstitutional
because it lacks sufficient factual basis.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the petitions docketed as G.R. Nos. 231658, 231771, and 231774 are the "appropriate
proceeding" covered by Paragraph 3, Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution sufficient to invoke the mode
of review required of this Court when a declaration of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus is promulgated;

2. Whether or not there was sufficient factual basis for the proclamation of martial law or suspension of the
writ of habeas corpus.

RULING:

1. YES. The unique features of the third paragraph of Section 18, Article VII clearly indicate that it
should be treated as sui generis separate and different from those enumerated in Article VIII. Under
the third paragraph of Section 18, Article VII, a petition filed pursuant therewith will follow a
different rule on standing as any citizen may file it. Said provision of the Constitution also limits the
issue to the sufficiency of the factual basis of the exercise by the Chief Executive of his emergency
powers. The usual period for filing pleadings in Petition for Certiorari pursuant to Section 1 or
Section 5 of Article VIII is likewise not applicable under the third paragraph of Section 18, Article VII
considering the limited period within which the Court has to promulgate its decision. In fine, the
phrase “in an appropriate proceeding: appearing on the third paragraph of Section 18, Article VII
refers to any action initiated by a citizen for the purpose of questioning the sufficiency of the factual
basis of the exercise of the Chief Executive's emergency powers, as in these cases. It could be
denominated as a complaint, a petition, or a matter to be resolved by the Court.
 2. YES. The President, with the facts available to him, deduced that there was an armed public uprising, the
culpable purpose of which was to remove from the allegiance of the Philippine Government a portion of its
territory and to deprive the Chief Executive of any of his powers and prerogative. This is sufficient to
satisfy the standard of probable cause for a valid declaration of martial law and suspension  of the writ of
habeas corpus.

The factual basis for the declaration of martial law and/or suspension of writ of habeas corpus are “(1)
actual invasion or rebellion, and (2) public safety requires the exercise of such power”. Without the
concurrence of the two conditions, the President's declaration of martial law and/or suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus must be struck down; and 3) there is probable cause for the President
to believe that there is actual rebellion or invasion.

The Court held that a review of the facts leads the Court to conclude that the President, in issuing
Proclamation No. 216, had sufficient factual bases tending to show that actual rebellion exists. The
President satisfactorily discharged his burden of proof.

DOCTRINE:

 Operative fact doctrine: The operative fact doctrine recognizes that an unconstitutional statute can
still have legal consequences before it is declared unconstitutional. It means that acts performed
during the effectivity of the statute are recognized as valid. However, the document emphasizes that
this doctrine is not an absolute shield and does not protect acts performed during martial law if
evidence shows that they were not in furtherance of quelling rebellion, promotion of public safety, or
protection of the country.

 Void-for-vagueness doctrine: This doctrine holds that a law is facially invalid if it lacks
comprehensible standards that would allow individuals to understand its meaning and application. It
violates due process by failing to provide fair notice of the conduct to avoid and by granting law
enforcers too much discretion. The document explains that the void-for-vagueness doctrine applies
specifically in free speech cases and cannot be used to challenge Proclamation No. 216 on the
grounds of vagueness.
Follow up questions:

Abstract:

The main topic of the document is the declaration of a state of martial law in Mindanao, Philippines, by
President Rodrigo Duterte in response to the violent acts committed by terrorist groups such as the Maute
Group and the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG). The document includes the Proclamation No. 216, which
declares a state of martial law and suspends the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao for a
period not exceeding 60 days. The President's Report explains the reasons for the declaration, including
the history of rebellion and lawless violence in Mindanao, as well as recent acts of violence carried out by
the Maute Group and ASG. The report also describes the events that occurred in Marawi City on May 23,
2017, which prompted the declaration of martial law, such as the attack on various government and
private facilities and the taking of hostages. The document emphasizes the intent of these groups to
establish an Islamic State in Mindanao and their efforts to remove Marawi City and eventually the rest of
Mindanao from allegiance to the Philippine Government. The table of contents includes sections on
rebellion, public safety, the court's role, and the formation of linkages between local armed groups.

1. What is the definition of rebellion and how does it relate to the declaration of martial law?

- Rebellion, as stated in the document, has two elements: (a) a public uprising, and (b) taking up arms
against the Government [9a]. It refers to an armed movement or uprising with the intention of removing
territories from the allegiance to the Philippine Government or depriving the Chief Executive or Congress
of their powers or prerogatives [9b].

- In the context of martial law, the declaration of martial law is closely related to the presence of rebellion.
The President has the authority to declare martial law when there is probable cause that rebellion exists
[9c]. Martial law is a measure taken in response to an urgent situation involving rebellion or public safety
[12a]. It allows the President to exercise expanded powers and temporarily suspend certain constitutional
rights in order to address the threat posed by rebels or insurgent groups [12b].

- The document emphasizes that the determination of rebellion and the sufficiency of its factual basis is
within the discretion of the President [9c]. The territorial scope of martial law is also determined by the
President, and it is not necessarily confined to the specific place where the armed uprising is taking place
[12c]. The President's duty to maintain peace and public safety extends to areas where the present
hostilities may spill over or where enemy reinforcements or supply lines are located [12c].

- Overall, rebellion is the main justification for the declaration of martial law, allowing the President to take
immediate and decisive action to address the threat to public safety and the stability of the government.
2. Can the territorial coverage of martial law be expanded beyond the location of the armed public
uprising and why?

- Yes, the territorial coverage of martial law can be expanded beyond the location of the armed public
uprising. According to Proclamation No. 216, the President has the discretion to determine the territorial
scope of martial law, and there is no constitutional requirement for it to be confined only to the particular
place where the armed public uprising actually transpired [12].

- There are several reasons why the territorial coverage of martial law can be expanded. First, rebellion
as a crime consists of many acts and is a vast movement of men with complex plots and intrigues. Acts
committed in furtherance of rebellion, even if they are separate crimes in themselves, are absorbed into
the crime of rebellion. Therefore, the territorial scope of martial law cannot simply be confined to the
specific location of the armed public uprising because rebellion can spread and involve multiple areas
[12].

- Second, public safety, which is a necessary component for the declaration of martial law, involves the
prevention and protection from events that can endanger the safety of the general public. Since public
safety does not have fixed physical dimensions, the territorial coverage of martial law cannot be based on
precise measurements. The President's duty to maintain peace and public safety extends to areas where
hostilities are in danger of spilling over, and limiting martial law to the location of the armed public uprising
would defeat its purpose [12].

- Third, the Constitution grants the President flexibility and wide leeway in determining the territorial scope
of martial law. The President's prerogative allows for the quick response to rebellion and the protection of
the nation's territorial sovereignty and survival. The imminent threat posed by rebel groups necessitates a
swift and proactive approach, which may require expanding the territorial coverage of martial law beyond
the specific location of the armed public uprising [12].

- In summary, the territorial coverage of martial law can be expanded beyond the location of the armed
public uprising due to the nature of rebellion as a crime, the abstract nature of public safety, and the
President's prerogative to determine the territorial scope in order to effectively maintain peace and protect
the nation's security [12].

3. What factual basis is required for the declaration of martial law and how is it determined?

- The factual basis required for the declaration of martial law is determined by two conditions as specified
in Section 18, Article VII of the Philippine Constitution: actual invasion or rebellion, and public safety
requiring the exercise of such power [9a]. The President must possess sufficient facts before and at the
time of the declaration or suspension to establish that there is probable cause that rebellion exists [9b].
The purpose of judicial review is not to determine the accuracy or veracity of the facts, but rather the
sufficiency of the factual basis to convince the President of the existence of probable cause [9b]. The
determination of the sufficiency of the factual basis revolves around these parameters, and without the
concurrence of both conditions, the declaration of martial law must be struck down [9c].

4. How accurate do the facts presented in the proclamation and written report need to be for the
declaration of martial law to be valid?

- The accuracy of the facts presented in the proclamation and written report does not need to be absolute
for the declaration of martial law to be valid. The President, as the Commander-in-Chief, has the sole
discretion to determine what facts are included in the proclamation and written report based on the
situation and national security concerns [8a]. The President cannot be expected to verify the accuracy of
all the facts reported to him due to the urgency of the situation. Requiring precision in the President's
appreciation of facts would unduly burden him and impede the decision-making process [8b]. The
Constitution does not require precision in establishing the fact of rebellion, and the President is called to
act as public safety requires [8b].

- In reviewing the sufficiency of the factual basis for the declaration, the Court does not concern itself with
the absolute correctness, accuracy, or precision of the facts [10]. The Court looks into the totality of the
facts and events presented in the proclamation and written report to determine whether there is probable
cause that actual rebellion exists and public safety warrants the declaration of martial law [11]. Falsities or
inaccuracies in some of the facts stated in the proclamation and written report are not enough reasons to
invalidate the declaration as long as there are other supporting facts that demonstrate the existence of an
actual invasion or rebellion and the necessity for the declaration [8b].

5. What safeguards are in place to ensure the validity and review of the declaration and/or suspension of
martial law?

- The safeguards in place to ensure the validity and review of the declaration and/or suspension of martial
law are outlined in the Constitution of the Philippines. According to the document, the exercise of such
powers can only be done in the case of an actual invasion or rebellion, and when public safety requires it
[5]. Furthermore, there are specific limits imposed on the duration, review, and possible revocation of
martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus [5].

- One of the safeguards is that the President is required to declare martial law based on a factual basis
[3a]. The President's appreciation of the facts should be not arbitrary, and the factual basis does not need
to be factually correct, but it should not be arbitrary [3a]. The President also needs to obtain the favorable
recommendation of the Secretary of National Defense [3b]. Additionally, the President should take into
account the situation only at the time of the proclamation, even if subsequent events prove the situation to
have not been accurately reported [3c].

- The Supreme Court has the power to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the declaration or
suspension [3d]. This power of review is independent of the actions taken by Congress [3d]. The Court
may review the sufficiency of the factual basis based on parameters such as whether there is an actual
invasion or rebellion and whether public safety requires the exercise of martial law [9a]. The Court also
has the power to nullify the declaration or suspension if the evidence shows that the actions taken during
martial law do not align with the claim of quelling rebellion or invasion and promoting public safety [8].

- Furthermore, Congress has the authority to review and possibly revoke the declaration or suspension
[5]. The Court's power of review is limited to determining whether the President acted within the bounds
set by the Constitution and whether the facts in his possession were sufficient to justify the declaration or
suspension [9b].

- Overall, these safeguards, including the requirement of a factual basis, review by the Supreme Court,
and possible revocation by Congress, aim to ensure the validity and accountability of the declaration
and/or suspension of martial law in the Philippines.

6. WHAT ARE THE FACTS?

- The document does not explicitly list or summarize the specific facts mentioned in Proclamation No. 216
or the President's Report. However, it emphasizes that the President relied on a wide array of information,
including intelligence reports and classified documents, to arrive at the conclusion that there is probable
cause that actual rebellion exists and public safety warrants the declaration of martial law[11a]. It also
mentions that the Proclamation and the Report are not exhaustive in terms of the facts included, and that
the President has access to documents and information classified as "confidential" for reasons of national
security[11b]. Overall, it can be inferred that the specific facts mentioned in the Proclamation and Report
are related to the history of rebellion and lawless violence in Mindanao, recent acts of violence carried out
by terrorist groups such as the Maute Group and Abu Sayyaf Group, and the events that occurred in
Marawi City on May 23, 2017, which prompted the declaration of martial law.

7. WHAT ARE THE ISSUES?

The issues raised in the document are as follows:

 Whether or not the petitions (G.R. Nos. 231658, 231771, and 231774) are the "appropriate
proceeding" covered by Paragraph 3, Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution sufficient to invoke
the mode of review required by the Court. [3a]
 Whether or not Proclamation No. 216 of 23 May 2017 may be considered vague and thus null
and void, specifically with its inclusion of "other rebel groups" or without guidelines specifying its
operational parameters within the entire Mindanao region. [3b][3c][3d]
 Whether or not the armed hostilities mentioned in Proclamation No. 216 and the President's
Report are sufficient bases for the existence of actual rebellion, or for a declaration of martial law
or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao region. [3e]
[3f][3g]
 Whether or not terrorism or acts attributable to terrorism are equivalent to actual rebellion and the
requirements of public safety sufficient to declare martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus. [3h]
 Whether or not nullifying Proclamation No. 216 would have the effect of recalling Proclamation
No. 55 s. 2016, or nullify the acts of the President in calling out the armed forces to quell lawless
violence in Marawi and other parts of the Mindanao region. [3i]
- Please note that there may be additional issues discussed in further parts of the document
beyond the provided snippets.

8. WHAT ARE THE RULINGS AND DECISIONS?

The rulings and decisions in the document are as follows:

 The document includes Proclamation No. 216, which declares a state of martial law and
suspends the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao for a period not exceeding 60
days. This is the ruling made by President Rodrigo Duterte in response to the violent acts
committed by terrorist groups such as the Maute Group and the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG). [1]
 The President's Report in the document explains the reasons for the declaration, including the
history of rebellion and lawless violence in Mindanao, as well as recent acts of violence carried
out by the mentioned terrorist groups. The report also describes the events that occurred in
Marawi City on May 23, 2017, which prompted the declaration of martial law. It emphasizes the
intent of these groups to establish an Islamic State in Mindanao and their efforts to remove
Marawi City and eventually the rest of Mindanao from allegiance to the Philippine Government.
[1]
 The document clarifies the scope of the power to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The
Supreme Court's ruling states that the power of review under the 1987 Constitution is limited to
determining the sufficiency of the factual bases. The Court's role is not to determine the wisdom
of the President's action, but to ensure that in suspending the writ, the President did not act
arbitrarily. The Court relies on the facts and information mentioned in the Report and
Proclamation, and the President's determination is given considerable weight due to the classified
and relevant information available to the President in his role as Commander-in-Chief. [8a][8b]
[11a][11b][11c]
 The document discusses the requirement for the President's declaration of martial law and
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus to have a factual basis. It clarifies that the
President is not required to be factually correct in his appreciation of facts, but he must not act
arbitrarily. The sufficiency of the factual basis is based on the totality of facts and events available
 to the President, and he must have probable cause to believe that actual rebellion exists and that
public safety warrants the declaration and suspension. The Court's role is to determine the
sufficiency of factual basis within the limits of the information presented in the Report and
Proclamation. [3a][3b][3c][11b][11c]
 The document mentions the principle of the "operative fact doctrine," which recognizes that an act
performed during the effectivity of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus may have legal consequences even if later declared null and void. However, it also states
that this doctrine does not protect acts that were performed purportedly in furtherance of quelling
rebellion or promoting public safety if evidence shows otherwise. [8c][8d][8e]
 The document explains that Proclamation No. 216 cannot be considered vague and void due to
the lack of guidelines or operational parameters within the entire Mindanao region. The Court
clarifies that operational guidelines serve only as tools for the implementation of the proclamation,
and judicial review is limited to the sufficiency of information or data available to or known to the
President at the time of the declaration or suspension. The Court's review is confined to the
proclamation itself and the Report submitted to Congress. [7a][7b]
 The document states that the 1987 Constitution has done away with the test of arbitrariness in
determining the sufficiency of the factual bases as provided in previous rulings. The Court's
power of review is based on the determination of the sufficiency of the factual bases, and it relies
on the fact-finding capabilities of the Executive Department. The Court is cautioned not to
undertake an independent investigation beyond the pleadings and must rely on the resources
available in the Executive Department. [8f][8g][11c]
- It is important to note that the document contains various citations that refer to specific snippets
within the document. These citations are denoted by numbers in square brackets, followed by the
corresponding URL.

9. WHAT ARE THE PROVISIONS?

The provisions mentioned in the document are related to the declaration of martial law in Mindanao,
Philippines. These provisions include:

 Proclamation No. 216, which declares a state of martial law in Mindanao and suspends the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus. This proclamation is valid for a maximum of 60 days. [3]
 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, which is independent of the actions taken by Congress. [5a][5b]
 The President's Report, which provides the reasons for the declaration of martial law, including the history
of rebellion and lawless violence in Mindanao and the recent acts of violence committed by terrorist
groups such as the Maute Group and the Abu Sayyaf Group. The report also describes the events that
occurred in Marawi City, which prompted the declaration of martial law. [3]
 The Court's role in reviewing the sufficiency of the factual basis of the declaration of martial law or
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The court has the authority to review such a
declaration and render a decision within a limited period of 30 days from the filing of the petition. [4]

10. WHAT ARE THE DOCTRINES?

The document discusses three specific doctrines: the void-for-vagueness doctrine, the overbreadth
doctrine, and the operative fact doctrine.

 Void-for-vagueness doctrine [7a]: This doctrine holds that a law is facially invalid if it lacks
comprehensible standards that would allow individuals to understand its meaning and application.
It violates due process by failing to provide fair notice of the conduct to avoid and by granting law
enforcers too much discretion. The document explains that the void-for-vagueness doctrine
 applies specifically in free speech cases and cannot be used to challenge Proclamation No. 216
on the grounds of vagueness.
 Overbreadth doctrine [7b]: The overbreadth doctrine is another analytical tool used to test the
validity of statutes in free speech cases. It states that a law is invalid if it prohibits a substantial
amount of protected speech in relation to its legitimate purpose. However, this doctrine is not
applicable to criminal statutes. The document explains that this doctrine is not applicable to the
facial challenge of Proclamation No. 216.
 Operative fact doctrine [8]: The operative fact doctrine recognizes that an unconstitutional statute
can still have legal consequences before it is declared unconstitutional. It means that acts
performed during the effectivity of the statute are recognized as valid. However, the document
emphasizes that this doctrine is not an absolute shield and does not protect acts performed
during martial law if evidence shows that they were not in furtherance of quelling rebellion,
promotion of public safety, or protection of the country.
- Overall, these three doctrines provide legal frameworks for analyzing the constitutionality and
validity of laws and actions.