Case Summary (G.R. No. 138516-17)
Procedural History
– Padilla et al. filed a petition for mandamus (docketed G.R. No. 231671) on June 6, 2017, seeking to compel Congress to convene in joint session and vote on Proclamation 216.
– Taáda et al. filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus (G.R. No. 231694) on June 7, 2017, alleging grave abuse of discretion by Congress for refusing joint session.
– Both petitions were consolidated. Congress, the Senate, and the House filed comments opposing any mandamus or certiorari relief.
– On July 22, 2017—after the original 60-day period—Congress convened jointly and extended martial law and the suspension of habeas corpus until December 31, 2017.
Issues Presented
- Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to entertain these petitions?
- Have petitioners satisfied standing and justiciability requirements?
- Under Article VII, Section 18, does Congress have a mandatory duty to convene in joint session to deliberate and vote on a martial‐law proclamation or suspension of habeas corpus?
- Is mandamus or certiorari an available remedy?
Parties’ Contentions
• Petitioners contend that Article VII, Section 18’s plain text, framers’ intent, legislative practice, and Fortun v. Macapagal-Arroyo establish a mandatory duty on Congress to convene jointly and vote as a single deliberative body upon any proclamation or suspension. They argue that mandamus is appropriate to compel an obligatory, ministerial act.
• Respondents maintain that Congress may only vote jointly when it seeks to revoke or extend the President’s proclamation or suspension. No constitutional provision mandates a joint session merely to deliberate; separate resolutions by each House suffice. The petitions raise political questions, lack standing, and cite no ministerial duty.
Court’s Analysis on Jurisdiction and Justiciability
– Separation of powers does not bar judicial interpretation of the Constitution. The Court’s power to declare “what the law is” encompasses review of Article VII, Section 18.
– The political-question doctrine does not apply as the core issue is one of constitutional interpretation, not policy.
– Petitioners have standing as citizens asserting a public right; Senator De Lima has additional standing as a legislator protecting her constitutional prerogatives.
– An actual controversy exists: petitioners seek to compel or reverse legislative inaction. Mandamus and expanded certiorari jurisdiction may lie where a coordinate branch is alleged to have neglected a clear duty or to have gravely abused discretion.
Interpretation of Article VII, Section 18
Article VII, Section 18 provides, in relevant part:
– President must report within 48 hours.
– “The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension…”
– On the President’s initiative, Congress “may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension…”
– If not in session, Congress shall convene within 24 hours in accordance with its rules.
By the plain‐meaning rule (verba legis non est recedendum), the Constitution grants Congress discretion (“may revoke”) and prescribes the mode of voting (“voting jointly by a majority of all Members”). The phrase “voting jointly” implies a joint session for the specific purpose of revocation or extension. No textual provision or clear framers’ intent mandates a joint session simply to deliberate or to exercise a nonrevocatory review. Deliberation, even if done separately by each House under its rules, satisfies constitutional requirements unless and until Congress
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 138516-17)
Antecedent Facts
- On May 23, 2017, President Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216 declaring martial law and suspending the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao for up to 60 days.
- Within 48 hours (May 25), the President’s Report was transmitted to the Senate (via Senate President Pimentel) and the House (via Speaker Alvarez).
- May 29: Senate held a four-hour closed briefing by Defense Secretary Lorenzana, NSA Esperon, and AFP Chief of Staff Año.
- May 30: Senate deliberated on two resolutions—P.S. Res. 388 (support Proclamation 216) passed 17-5 and adopted as Senate Res. 49; P.S. Res. 390 (call joint session) defeated 9-12.
- May 31: House, as Committee of the Whole, conducted a six-hour briefing by Executive Secretary Medialdea, Secretary Lorenzana, and security officials; then passed House Res. 1050 supporting Proclamation 216 and rejected the proposal for a joint session.
- June 6 (G.R. 231671): Padilla et al. sought mandamus to compel Congress to convene in joint session to deliberate and vote on Proclamation 216.
- June 7 (G.R. 231694): Taáda et al. sought certiorari and mandamus to declare Congress’s refusal to convene in joint session as grave abuse of discretion and to compel it.
- July 22: Despite lapse of the initial 60 days, Congress convened jointly and extended martial law and the suspension of the writ until December 31, 2017.
Issues
- Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction or does the case present a non-justiciable political question?
- Do petitioners have standing and is there an actual case or controversy?
- Does Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution impose a mandatory duty on Congress to convene in joint session immediately upon proclamation of martial law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus?
- Is a writ of mandamus or certiorari the appropriate remedy to compel Congress to convene or to review its inaction?
Petitioners’ Arguments
- Article VII, Section 18’s text, framing history, and Fortun v