Facts:
The facts of the case stem from the issuance of Proclamation No. 216 by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte on May 23, 2017, where he declared martial law and suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao region, following armed hostilities in Marawi City perpetrated by the Maute group and other rebel organizations. The proclamation was reported to Congress as required by the Constitution, and later on was extended upon the President’s request and Congress’ approval.
Petitions questioning the sufficiency of the factual basis of Proclamation No. 216 were filed by several parties including members of the House of Representatives, activists, and private citizens. The procedural steps involved in the Supreme Court proceedings were as follows:
1. Filing of petitions directly to the Supreme Court by various parties requesting judicial review on the sufficiency of factual basis for the issuance of Proclamation No. 216.
2. The Supreme Court’s consolidation of the petitions and setting them for oral arguments.
3. The submission of the Government’s comment through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
4. Oral arguments conducted wherein both petitioners and the government presented their respective positions.
5. The Supreme Court initially decided on July 4, 2017, upholding the sufficiency of the factual bases for the issuance of Proclamation No. 216.
6. The petitioners filed separate Motions for Reconsideration.
7. The government, through the OSG, submitted its comment on the Motions for Reconsideration.
Issues:
The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether or not there were sufficient factual bases for the issuance of Proclamation No. 216 which declared martial law and suspended the writ of habeas corpus in the Mindanao region, and whether these bases continued to exist upon the extension of said Proclamation.
Court’s Decision:
1. The Court denied the Motions for Reconsideration and maintained the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 216, affirming its initial decision.
2. It ruled that the issue concerning the proclamation’s sufficiency had been rendered moot by the expiration of the said Proclamation.
3. Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution was interpreted to mean that the privilege of determining the sufficiency of factual basis is confined to the issuance of the initial proclamation, separate from any extension granted by Congress.
4. The Court highlighted that sufficiency of factual basis is not tantamount to accuracy, and as long as there are sufficient facts supporting the conclusion that there was an actual invasion or rebellion and that public safety requires the proclamation, inaccuracies in the reported facts would not invalidate the declaration.
Doctrine:
1. The Supreme Court has the power to review the sufficiency, but not the accuracy, of the factual basis for the declaration of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus as per Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution.
2. The President requires probable cause, not absolute certainty, to believe that there is actual rebellion or invasion to declare martial law or suspend the habeas corpus privilege.
3. The Court’s review is limited to the facts available up to the time of the declaration or suspension, and does not extend to subsequent events.
Class Notes:
– The case reiterated the doctrine that the Court’s review of the sufficiency of the factual basis for the declaration of martial law is confined to the information available to the President at the time of the declaration.
– The President is given wide discretion in determining the existence of probable cause to declare martial law, but this power is subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court.
– The Constitution does not require accuracy of facts as the basis for the proclamation, focusing instead on sufficiency and probable cause.
– The key statutory provisions involved are embedded in Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Historical Background:
The case arose in the context of insurgency problems in the Philippines, particularly in Mindanao. The President’s issuance of martial law was a response to heightened violence from rebel groups, particularly the siege of Marawi City, which posed significant security concerns. The petitions at the Supreme Court challenged the President’s action, invoking the judicial power to review under the 1987 Constitution – a power borne out of the experience under the Marcos dictatorship, wherein safeguards against martial law abuse were lacking. The review power is a post-dictatorship checkpoint, ensuring that the exercise of emergency military powers is always subject to judicial scrutiny.
Leave a Reply