G.R. No. 243522 - Lagman vs. Medialdea

Case Summary (G.R. No. 243522)

First and Second Extensions of Martial Law

On July 22, 2017, Congress extended Proclamation No. 216 to December 31, 2017 (RBH No. 2). The AFP and DND recommended extension again, and on December 13, 2017, Congress extended martial law to December 31, 2018 (RBH No. 4). In Lagman v. Pimentel III, this Court affirmed the second extension as well, concluding that rebellion persisted and public safety still required it.

Third Extension: Executive Request and Legislative Approval

On December 6, 2018, Secretary Lorenzana and AFP/PNP chiefs advised President Duterte that rebellion by ASG, BIFF, Daulah Islamiyah, and communist forces persists and endangers public safety. Citing bombings, kidnappings, harassments, arson, armed clashes, and continued recruitment, the President asked Congress to extend martial law to December 31, 2019. On December 12, 2018, Congress, voting jointly, adopted RBH No. 6 approving the third extension.

Core Issues Raised by Petitioners

Whether factual bases (rebellion persists; public safety requires it) for the third extension are sufficient under Art. VII, Sec. 18.
Whether the extension exceeded intended durations or number of renewals.
Whether Proclamation No. 216 became functus officio after Marawi was liberated.
Whether Congress’s procedures in granting the extension were political questions not subject to judicial review.
Whether alleged human-rights violations warrant nullification or injunctive relief.

Constitutional Framework for Reviewing Extensions

Section 18, Art. VII confers upon the President the power to declare martial law for 60 days in case of rebellion or invasion when public safety requires it, subject to: (a) Congressional revocation or extension on the President’s initiative; (b) a majority vote of both Houses; (c) Supreme Court review of the sufficiency of factual basis within 30 days of any petition by a citizen.

Standard of Proof and Scope of Court’s Review

The quantum of proof for existence or persistence of rebellion is probable cause – that a reasonably prudent person would believe rebellion is more likely than not ongoing. The Court’s review is confined to the sufficiency and reasonableness of the factual bases presented by Executive and Legislative Departments. Absolute accuracy is not required due to the urgency, but substantial evidence must support both elements (rebellion persists, public safety requires extension).

Analysis of Rebellion’s Persistence in Mindanao

The Executive’s reports compiled by AFP’s J2 Office summarized for 2018:
• ASG-related incidents: 66 violent events (e.g., ambuscades, bombings, kidnappings) causing 33 killed, 36 wounded.
• BIFF-related incidents: 74 events (harassment, IED attacks) causing 24 killed, 30 wounded.
• DI-related incidents: 10 events (bombings, firefights) causing 7 killed, 91 wounded.
• NPA-related incidents: 193 incidents (ambushes, raids, liquidations, arson) leading to 210 guerrilla operations and 151 terrorist acts.
Despite some incomplete entries and discrepancies, the totality of validated intelligence and battlefield reports demonstrates continuing armed unrest and willingness to challenge government authority, satisfying the persistence requirement.

Analysis of Public Safety Requirement

Public safety demands an extension when the state of rebellion continually endangers lives and property such that law enforcement alone or calling-out powers are insufficient. Recent high-profile bombings, kidnappings for ransom, ambushes of law-enforcement personnel, and continued recruitment/radicalization have led to civilian and military casualties, property damage, and disruption of essential services. These circumstances indicate that public safety remains imperiled, necessitating the extension by the President and Congress.

Congress’s Discretion on Extension Duration and Procedures

The 1987 Constitution grants Congress discretion to determine the period of extension on the President’s initiative while ensuring the rebellion persists and public safety requires it. There is no numerical limit on renewals or fixed maximum duration. Per Congressional Records, the request was debated and approved by a supermajority, consistent with procedural rules; challenges to any alleged haste or procedural inadequacy are political questions outside judicial inquiry.

Functus Officio and Applicability to Third Extension

While the Marawi siege formally ended in October 2017, Section 18’s requirement of persistent rebellion refers to broader ongoing insurgent and terrori

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 243522)

I. Procedural History

May 23, 2017: Proclamation No. 216 issued by President Duterte, declaring martial law and suspending the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao for up to 60 days.
May 25, 2017: President submits written Report to Senate and House within 48 hours.
Senate P.S. Res. 388 & House Res. 1050: Both Houses express support and find no cause to revoke.
July 4, 2017: Supreme Court in Lagman v. Medialdea (829 SCRA 1) upholds Proclamation No. 216.
July 22, 2017: Congress in joint session adopts RBH No. 2 extending Martial Law to Dec. 31, 2017.
Dec. 13, 2017: Congress in joint session adopts RBH No. 4 extending Martial Law to Dec. 31, 2018.
Feb. 6, 2018: In Lagman v. Pimentel III, Supreme Court finds sufficient factual basis for second extension.
Dec. 6, 2018: President asks Congress for third extension (Jan. 1–Dec. 31, 2019).
Dec. 12, 2018: Congress adopts RBH No. 6, further extending Proclamation No. 216.
Jan.–Feb. 2019: Four consolidated petitions filed under Sec. 18, Art. VII of the Constitution, questioning sufficiency of factual basis and seeking TRO/WPI.

II. Relevant Constitutional Provision

Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution grants:

Commander-in-Chief power to call out armed forces against lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.
Power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus or place all or part of the Philippines under martial law for not more than 60 days, if public safety requires it and there is invasion or rebellion.
Duty to report to Congress within 48 hours; Congress may revoke the proclamation; Congress, upon the President’s initiative, may extend it for a period it determines if rebellion persists and public safety requires it.
Supreme Court may review—within 30 days—sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation, the suspension, or any extension.

III. Factual Background

Initial justification: May 2017 Maute-ASG attack on Marawi City, facilities seized, hostages taken, ISIS flag raised.[1]
First and second extensions justified by: continuation of Maute group and allied LTGs (ASG, BIFF, DI), and rise in communist NPA-NDF attacks, kidnappings, bombings, and other atrocities across Mindanao in 2017 and 2018.[2]
Key data (Jan–Nov 2018, AFP reports):
• ASG-initiated incidents: 137 (ambuscades, harassments, IED blasts, kidnappings, murders).[3]
• BIFF-initiated incidents: 177 (ambush, raids, harassment, bombings, arson).[4]
PNP updates confirm ASG and BIFF bombings, kidnappings, murders in Sulu, Basilan, Sultan Kudarat, General Santos City, and NPA ambushes in Eastern Mindanao.[5]
DND/AFP/PNP letters cite ongoing radicalization, recruitment, foreign terrorist fighters, extortion, arson, and violent disruptions of local government function.

IV. Issues Presented

A. Sufficiency of the factual basis for the third extension

Does actual rebellion persist in Mindanao?
Does public safety require the extension?
B. Constitutional limits on the number and duration of extensions
C. Whether Proclamation No. 216 became functus officio after Marawi siege ended
D. Whether congressional procedure in approving the extension raises justic