Title
Lagman vs. Pimentel III
Case
G.R. No. 235935
Decision Date
Feb 6, 2018
President Duterte declared martial law in Mindanao in 2017 to address rebellion; Congress extended it, upheld by the Court as constitutional.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 235935)

Applicable Law

The case is governed by Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which empowers the President as Commander-in-Chief to place the country or any part thereof under martial law or suspend the writ of habeas corpus in case of invasion or rebellion when public safety requires it, for an initial period not exceeding sixty days. The Congress may, upon the President's initiative, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by Congress, if the invasion or rebellion persists and public safety requires it. The Supreme Court is vested with the authority to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation or its extension upon petition by any citizen.

Summary of the Case and Background Facts

  • On May 23, 2017, President Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216, declaring martial law and suspending the writ of habeas corpus throughout Mindanao for sixty days, citing actual rebellion by groups such as the Maute Group and Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG).
  • Congress extended the proclamation until December 31, 2017.
  • The President, supported by recommendations from Defense Secretary Lorenzana and AFP Chief Guerrero citing ongoing security concerns, requested a one-year extension covering all of 2018.
  • Congress, through a joint session, approved this extension by majority vote.
  • Petitioners filed consolidated petitions challenging the factual sufficiency and constitutionality of this extension, pray for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions to enjoin enforcement.

Petitioners’ Arguments

  • The factual basis for the extension is insufficient, as active rebellion no longer persists following the liberation of Marawi City and the death of key rebel leaders.
  • The existence of “remnants” of rebel groups, allegations of recruitment, or threats of terrorism are insufficient to justify martial law; mere threats or potential dangers do not meet the constitutional criteria.
  • Extension for an entire year is excessive and contrary to the constitutional intent for martial law and its extension to be limited and of short duration.
  • The process by which Congress approved the extension was perfunctory and unduly hasty, severely curtailing debate and interpellation, thus amounting to grave abuse of discretion.
  • The inclusion of the New People’s Army (NPA) rebellion as a factual basis is improper since it was not the basis of the original proclamation and it constitutes a separate insurgency.
  • The suspension of the writ and imposition of martial law have led to human rights violations and suppression of civil liberties.
  • Petitioners assert the Court’s review power under Section 18, Article VII must include a stringent and independent determination of the sufficiency and accuracy of the factual basis.

Respondents’ Arguments

  • The failure to attach Congress’ resolution when filing is not fatal, and the Court can take judicial notice of official acts.
  • The President is immune from suit during his tenure; petitions naming him are procedurally improper.
  • The issue of actual rebellion in Mindanao was settled by the Court in the prior Lagman case affirming the initial proclamation’s sufficiency.
  • The Court’s role is limited to reviewing the sufficiency of the factual basis; Congress has the prerogative and constitutional authority to determine extension and its duration.
  • The brief period allocated in Congress for discussions was reasonable, given the urgent nature of the matter; legislative rules are generally immune from judicial review unless there is clear violation of constitutional rights.
  • The Constitution does not limit the number or length of extensions; Congress has broad discretion subject to Court review.
  • The burden of proof lies with the President and Congress, and they have demonstrated that rebellion persists through ongoing armed encounters, recruitment, and terror acts by various groups including DAESH-inspired factions and NPA.
  • The extension is necessary to ensure public safety and the speedy rehabilitation of areas affected by conflict.
  • Alleged human rights abuses should be addressed in separate proceedings and do not justify enjoining the extension.

Supreme Court’s Ruling and Legal Analysis

Jurisdiction and Procedural Aspects

  • Failure to attach the congressional resolution is not fatal; the Court will take judicial notice of Congress’ official acts.
  • The President, by doctrine of immunity, should be dropped as party respondent.
  • Congress is an indispensable party; the Court’s jurisdiction requires the entire Congress to be impleaded, but since Congress appeared and was heard in one petition, this requirement was substantially complied with.
  • The Court is not precluded by res judicata or conclusiveness of judgment from reviewing persistence of rebellion, as the factual situation is transitory and may change.
  • The Court’s review under Section 18, Article VII is a special, sui generis jurisdiction focused on sufficiency of factual basis, distinct from certiorari or other judicial remedies designed to review grave abuse of discretion.

Constitutional Powers and the Role of Congress

  • Martial law is an extraordinary presidential power limited by constitutional safeguards including Congress’ power to revoke or extend the proclamation.
  • The extension of martial law is a joint executive-legislative act, requiring the President’s initiation and Congress’ approval by majority vote.
  • Congress may determine the period of extension without fixed limit so long as rebellion persists and public safety requires it.
  • The Court’s review extends to sufficiency of the factual basis for the continuation and the reasonableness of the period fixed.

Persistence of Rebellion

  • Rebellion is defined by Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code: (i) public uprising, (ii) taking arms against the government, with the purpose to remove territory from allegiance or to deprive powers of government.
  • Rebellion is a continuing crime consisting of many acts, including recruitment, financing, propaganda, and violent offenses committed to further its purpose.
  • The Court found substantial factual basis that rebellion persists in Mindanao as remnants of rebel groups including DAESH-inspired Dawlah Islamiyah, Abu Sayyaf Group, Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters, Turaifie Group, and the NPA continue recruitment, training, atrocities, and guerrilla warfare.
  • The liberation of Marawi City and death of leaders do not conclusively end the rebellion; instead, the conflict has shifted or spread.
  • Foreign terrorist fighters have joined local terror groups, exacerbating the threat.
  • Inclusion of the NPA as basis for extension is valid given their intensified rebellion during the martial law period and their impact on public safety.

Public Safety Requirement

  • Public safety is interpreted broadly to mean prevention of events that endanger the safety of the general public from significant danger, harm, or damage.
  • Martial law must respond to a threat of sufficient scale that ordinary law enforcement cannot adequately address.
  • The Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the President or Congress but must determine if the factual basis reasonably supports the conclusion that public safety requires continuation.
  • The threat includes terrorism, armed hostilities, bombings, kidnappings, and destruction of properties detailed in government presentations and letters.
  • Congress held extensive briefings with executive officials, defense secretaries, AFP and PNP chiefs, and other relevant agencies, and engaged in debates before approving the extension.

Safeguards Against Abuse

  • Martial law does not suspend the Constitution or supplant civil courts; military jurisdiction over civilians applies only where civil courts cannot function.
  • The suspension of the writ applies only to persons judicially charged with rebellion or offenses related to invasion.
  • Arrests without warrant require probable cause; judicial safeguards continue to apply.
  • Laws protecting human rights remain in force, including the Anti-Torture Act, Human Security Act, and writs of amparo and habeas data.
  • Alleged human rights violations during martial law should be addressed separately and do not justify enjoining the declaration or extension.

Petitioners’ Failure to Prove Injury and to Meet Injunctive Relief Requirements

  • Petitioners failed to show clear and unmistakable legal right, violation thereof, or irreparable harm necessary for injunctive relief.
  • Allegations of potential human rights violations are specula

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms