Case Summary (G.R. No. 231658)
Applicable Law and Constitutional Provisions
The case hinges primarily on the interpretation and application of Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which empowers the President as Commander-in-Chief to declare martial law or suspend the writ of habeas corpus "in case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it", for no more than 60 days. It also mandates the President to submit a report to Congress within 48 hours of such declaration and grants Congress the power to revoke the proclamation by majority vote. Importantly, the Constitution grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to review, in an appropriate proceeding by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of such declarations, to be decided within thirty days from filing.
Nature of the Proceedings
The Supreme Court declared that petitions under Section 18, Article VII constitute a sui generis or unique proceeding, distinct from ordinary petitions for certiorari or other special civil actions under the 1987 Constitution. This proceeding is specifically designed to permit any citizen to invoke judicial review of the sufficiency of factual basis for martial law declarations or suspension of habeas corpus writs.
Jurisdiction and Justiciability
The Court confirmed its constitutional obligation to review the factual basis as a justiciable matter and rejected the notion that it could defer such review until Congress acts or defaults. The judicial power to review this sufficiency is independent of Congress’s power to revoke or extend the proclamation. The Court’s review is also mandatory upon the filing of a proper petition by a citizen, not discretionary.
Standard and Scope of Review
The Court clarified that its review is confined to determining the sufficiency, not the correctness, of the factual basis known or available to the President at the time of declaration. It cannot substitute its judgment for that of the President’s but must ensure the existence of probable cause that actual invasion or rebellion exists and that public safety requires the proclamation or suspension. The Court emphasized that:
- The President is entitled to rely on intelligence reports, including classified information, and is not required to verify with absolute precision all facts before acting.
- The factual basis includes past and current events that justify the existence of rebellion or invasion.
- The judicial inquiry is limited to the facts contained in the proclamation and the President’s report to Congress.
- Subsequent events may be considered only insofar as they confirm, not form, the basis of the declaration.
- Falsity of some facts, if accompanied by other valid facts supporting the conclusion, does not invalidate the proclamation (“falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” does not apply).
Elements of Rebellion under the Law
The Court relied on the Revised Penal Code’s definition of rebellion — an armed public uprising with the intent to remove part of the Philippine territory from allegiance or to deprive the Chief Executive or Legislature of their powers — as the constitutional standard. Elements required:
- Public uprising and taking up arms against the government;
- The political purpose of severing allegiance or depriving governing powers.
Terrorism, although encompassing rebellion as a predicate crime, is distinct and does not negate the President’s power to declare martial law upon satisfying constitutional requirements.
Factual Basis of Proclamation No. 216
The Court found that the President had sufficient factual basis based on:
- Verified intelligence reports and public events of May 23, 2017, including the Maute Group and Abu Sayyaf Group attacks on government and private facilities, burning of the jail and educational institutions in Marawi, hostage-taking, occupation of strategic points, hoisting of ISIS flags, and killings of both civilians and government personnel.
- Historical and recent bombing and terror-related incidents in Mindanao attributed in part to ISIS-inspired groups.
- The consolidation of local terrorist groups with pledges of allegiance to ISIS and their expressed goal of establishing an Islamic State or wilayah in Mindanao.
- The deterioration of public order and safety not only in Marawi but broadly in Mindanao, necessitating the application of martial law throughout the island group for effective suppression.
The Court rejected petitioners’ reliance on unverified news reports as inadmissible hearsay lacking probative value.
Territorial Scope of Martial Law
The Constitution grants the President discretion to impose martial law either on the entire country or any part thereof. The Court emphasized that:
- The geographic extent need not be limited strictly to the site of actual armed uprising, as rebellion is a movement with a broad, complex scope that might affect neighboring areas.
- Consideration must be given to public safety and strategic military necessity.
- Limiting martial law only to Marawi is impractical and ineffective given the insurgents’ capability to extend operations and escape routes.
- The President’s determination of territorial scope is entitled to due deference provided there is a sufficient factual basis linking the broader area to the rebellion.
Constitutional Safeguards Against Abuse
The Court recognized that the martial law declaration does not suspend the exercise of the Constitution, civil courts continue to function, and fundamental civil rights remain, subject to restrictions imposed strictly by law and consistent with the Bill of Rights and international humanitarian law. The duration is limited to 60 days unless revoked or extended by Congress, and the President’s acts are subject to judicial review as herein exercised.
Rejection of Claims Regarding Vagueness and Overbreadth
The Court held that:
- The “void for vagueness” doctrine, primarily designed to protect freedoms such as speech, does not apply to the proclamation of martial law, which penalizes conduct, not speech.
- Inclusion of the phrase “other rebel groups” in the proclamation is not vague when read in context w
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 231658)
Background and Proclamation of Martial Law
- 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.
- The declaration was prompted by escalating violence in Mindanao, particularly the armed assault and occupation of Marawi City by the ISIS-linked Maute terrorist group alongside the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG).
- The Proclamation cited prior violent incidents, including attacks on a military outpost in Butig, Lanao del Sur (February 2016), and a mass jailbreak in Marawi City (August 2016).
- On the same date, the Maute and ASG groups attacked various government and private facilities, destroyed infrastructures, took hostages, and professed allegiance to ISIS by hoisting its flag, which indicated a political motive aiming to remove part of Mindanao from the Philippine government’s allegiance.
- President Duterte subsequently submitted a Report to Congress documenting detailed factual bases supporting the Proclamation.
Nature and Scope of the Judicial Review
- Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any Filipino citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, with a mandatory decision within 30 days.
- The petitions filed are under this sui generis appropriate proceeding, distinct and supplemental to the Court’s usual powers under Article VIII.
- The Court’s review focuses solely on the sufficiency of the factual bases showing actual invasion or rebellion and the necessity due to public safety concerns.
- The Court is not tasked to adjudicate on the wisdom or correctness of the President’s decision nor calibrate which extraordinary power (calling out armed forces, suspension of writ, declaration of martial law) to use.
- The Court’s review power is independent and simultaneous with Congress’s separate power to revoke or extend the proclamation.
- Petitioners are excused from the usual requirement of legal standing and need only show prima facie insufficiency of the factual bases to trigger judicial scrutiny.
Legal Standards and Burden of Proof
- The relevant constitutional tests involve:
- Existence of actual invasion or rebellion.
- Public safety requiring the exercise of extraordinary powers.
- “Actual” rebellion requires manifestation of overt acts and political or strategic intent to remove a territory from government allegiance or deprive the Chief Executive or Congress of their powers.
- The Court adopts a reasonableness standard for sufficiency of factual basis, entailing the Court’s appraisal if, more likely than not, the facts justify the proclamation.
- The burden of proof chiefly lies with the government to present substantial credible evidence of these conditions in view of its control over pertinent intelligence.
- Petitioners bear the burden of going forward with evidence to disprove sufficiency but only to the extent of rebutting government facts.
- Probable cause suffices for the Executive to justify actual invasion or rebellion.
- The Court’s review is not confined to facts known at proclamation but may also consider subsequent developments relevant to sufficiency.
- Presumption of regularity accorded executive acts does not preclude the Court’s verification; news reports or hearsay evidence offered by petitioners lack probative value.
Factual Basis for Martial Law Declaration
- The President relied on