Lagman vs.

Senate President

FACTS:

On May 23, 2017, President Rodrigo 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 for a period not exceeding 60 days to address the rebellion mounted by members of
the Maute Group and Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) in Marawi City.

On July 18, 2017, the President requested the Congress to extend the effectivity of
Proclamation No. 216. On July 22, 2017, the Congress adopted Resolution of Both Houses No.
2 extending Proclamation No. 216 until December 31, 2017.

Acting on recommendations and security assessments from the Armed Forces of the
Philippines and the Defense Secretary, the President, in a letter dated December 8, 2017,
asked both chambers of Congress to further extend the proclamation of martial law and the
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, or for such period as the Congress may
determine.

The military recommended the extension "primarily to ensure total eradication of

DAESH-inspired Da'awatul Islamiyah Waliyatul Masriq (DIWM), other like-minded Local/Foreign
Terrorist Groups (L/FTGs) and Armed Lawless Groups (ALGs), and the communist terrorists
(CTs) and their coddlers, supporters and financiers, and to ensure speedy rehabilitation,
recovery and reconstruction efforts in Marawi, and the attainment of lasting peace, stability,
economic development and prosperity in Mindanao."

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.

Four petitions were filed in the Supreme Court assailing the constitutionality of the
extension of the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao for one year from January 1 to December 31, 2018
under the third paragraph, Section 18 of Article VII of the Constitution

ISSUE:

Whether or not was there sufficient factual basis for the extension of the proclamation of
Martial Law in Mindanao and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus?

RULING:

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: The SC held that 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. The President based his request on data and assessments by the military, as also
presented by the military to the court during oral arguments. “While the President himself had
announced the liberation of Marawi City, and armed combat has ceased, such declaration does
not preclude the occurrence of supervening events as the AFP discovered through their
monitoring efforts… Furthermore, it is settled that rebellion is in the nature of a continuing crime.
Thus, members of the Dawlah Islamiyah who evaded capture did not cease to be rebels…The
rebellion has not ceased but simply moved to other places in Mindanao.” Too, “the termination
of armed combat in Marawi does not conclusively indicate that the rebellion has ceased to exist.
As noted in Aquino, Jr. v. Enrile, modern day rebellion has other facets than just the taking up of
arms, including financing, recruitment and propaganda, that may not necessarily be found or
occurring in the place of the armed conflict.”

Meanwhile, the SC also held that the alleged change in identified rebel groups doesn’t
mean the extension is addressing a different rebellion than in Proclamation No. 216 and is
therefore invalid. “While it is true that the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF), the
Turaifie Group and the New People's Army (NPA) were not expressly mentioned either in
Proclamation No. 216 or in the President's Report to Congress after he issued the
Proclamation, the President's Report made express reference to ‘lawless armed groups’ as
perpetrators of the Marawi siege resolved to unseat the duly-constituted government and make
Mindanao a DAESH/ISIS province” and the "extensive networks or linkages of the Maute Group
with foreign and local armed groups" and the "network and alliance-building activities among
terrorist groups, local criminals, and lawless armed men" in Mindanao,” held to be an allusion to
the BIFF and the Turaifie Group. Meanwhile, the NPA’s inclusion was deemed valid because
“they have the shared purpose of overthrowing the duly constituted government. The violence
the NPA has continued to commit in Mindanao, as revealed by the Executive, hardly distinguish
its rebels from the architects of the Marawi siege.”

“Indeed, absolute precision cannot be expected from the President who would have to
act quickly given the urgency of the situation. Under the circumstances, the actual rebellion and
attack, more than the exact identity of all its perpetrators, would be his utmost concern. In the
same vein, to require the President to render a meticulous and comprehensive account in his
Proclamation or Report will be most tedious and will unduly encumber his efforts to immediately
quell the rebellion.”

Public safety requirement: The Supreme Court took the Executive’s word that “the acts,
circumstances and events upon which the extension was based posed a significant danger,
injury or harm to the general public...Not only does the President have a wide array of
information before him, he also has the right, prerogative, and the means to access vital,
relevant, and confidential data, concomitant with his position as Commander-in-Chief of the
Armed Forces...The President's request for further extension had been based on the security
assessment of the AFP and the PNP,” as well as the National Security Adviser and the National
Intelligence Coordinating Agency (NICA), and local government officials and residents of
Mindanao.

“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 [E]xecutive [D]epartment; in turn, the Executive Department will have to open
its findings to the scrutiny of the Court.’

“As it stands, the information thus presented has not been challenged or questioned as
regards its reliability…. The requirement of the Constitution is therefore adequately met when
there is sufficient factual basis to hold that the present and past acts constituting the actual
rebellion are of such character that endanger and will endanger public safety.” This permissive
approach, as opposed to requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, “is sanctioned not only by an
acknowledgment that the Congress is and should be allowed flexibility but also because the
Court is without the luxury of time to determine accuracy and precision.”