The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the second extension of martial law in Mindanao, finding sufficient factual basis to justify the measure. This decision allows the military to maintain a strong presence in the region, but also emphasizes the importance of adhering to constitutional safeguards and protecting civil liberties during martial law. The ruling underscores the delicate balance between national security and individual rights in times of crisis, a balance that must be carefully navigated to prevent abuse of power and erosion of democratic principles.

Mindanao Under Military Rule: Was There a Real and Present Danger?

The consolidated petitions challenged Resolution of Both Houses No. 4, which extended martial law and the suspension of habeas corpus in Mindanao for another year. Petitioners argued that the factual basis for the extension was insufficient, particularly since the Maute rebellion—the original justification—had been quelled with the liberation of Marawi. They claimed that the extension was therefore unconstitutional. At the heart of the legal question was whether the conditions of actual rebellion and public safety necessitating martial law still persisted. The Court’s decision hinged on its interpretation of these constitutional requirements and its assessment of the evidence presented by the government.

The Court, while acknowledging that martial law is an extraordinary measure, emphasized that Congress has the power to extend it upon the President’s initiative, provided that the invasion or rebellion persists and public safety requires it. The ponencia asserted that this power is subject to judicial review to ensure that both the executive and legislative branches adhere to the Constitution. Several key procedural issues were addressed. The Court deemed that the failure to attach the Resolution of Both Houses was not fatal, as the Court could take judicial notice of official acts of the legislative branch. However, it was found procedurally incorrect to implead only the Senate President and House Speaker, holding that the entire body of Congress must be impleaded as an indispensable party. Despite this, the Court ruled that this requirement was substantially complied with since the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued for all respondents.

The Court also tackled the argument of res judicata. It was determined that while there was substantial identity of parties with the earlier case, the issues were different. The present case concerned the sufficiency of the factual basis of the extension of martial law, a circumstance distinct from the factual basis for the original proclamation. Thus, the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment did not apply.

As to the scope and standard of judicial review, the Court clarified its power under Section 18, Article VII is special and specific, distinct from its expanded jurisdiction under Article VIII. Therefore, the review is limited to determining the sufficiency of the factual basis for the extension and is not a certiorari proceeding involving grave abuse of discretion.

Moving to the substantive issues, the Court upheld Congress’ power to extend martial law, stating that Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution does not limit the period or frequency of extensions. The determinative factor is whether the invasion or rebellion persists and public safety requires the extension, provided it is upon the President’s initiative. However, the Court also emphasized that such extensions should be grounded on the persistence of the invasion or rebellion and the demands of public safety, and subject to judicial review by the Court.

The ponencia stressed the necessity of rebellion. Referencing Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, it stated that there must be a public uprising and taking arms against the government, and the purpose of the uprising must be either to remove territory from the government or to deprive the Chief Executive or Congress of their powers. The Court considered the AFP’s report on the continued armed resistance of the DAESH-inspired DIWM groups and their allies, despite the neutralization of their key leaders in Marawi. It took note of the remnants of the Maute group, able to recruit new members, build financial and logistical resources, and consolidate their forces. It also considered the attacks perpetrated by the NPA.

On the matter of public safety, the Court emphasized that the test is whether the acts, circumstances, and events posed a significant danger, injury, or harm to the general public. It cited the continued presence of 185 persons in Martial Law Arrest Orders, the increased number of rebel group members, their training in terrorism, and the continued influx of Foreign Terrorist Fighters. The Court thus ruled that sufficient factual basis existed for the extension. The allegations of human rights violations were deemed irrelevant in determining the sufficiency of the factual basis for the extension, consistent with the Court’s ruling in Lagman.

In sum, while the court acknowledged the importance of protecting civil liberties and preventing the repetition of past abuses, it determined that the one-year extension of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ in Mindanao was constitutional given the existing circumstances.

FAQs

What was the central question in this case?	The central question was whether there was sufficient factual basis for Congress to extend the proclamation of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao for one year.
What did the Court rule?	The Supreme Court ruled that there was sufficient factual basis to justify the extension, upholding the constitutionality of Resolution of Both Houses No. 4.
What is the test for determining the sufficiency of the factual basis for the extension?	The test involved determining whether actual rebellion persisted, and whether public safety required the extension. The question of public safety meant that such an extreme extension was required in that area and in that point of time.
Did the Court consider the government’s claim that the one-year extension was needed for rehabilitation and economic development?	The Court considered the government’s goal of helping in the speedy rehabilitation of Marawi and overall peace and order in Mindanao, in determining the necessity of extension.
What was the significance of the government citing activities of the New People’s Army (NPA) as a basis for the extension?	The inclusion of the NPA’s activities raised questions because the original martial law declaration focused on DAESH-inspired groups. However, the Court considered it acceptable given the NPA’s intensified insurgence and its impact on security in Mindanao.
What effect does the President’s immunity from suit have on these proceedings?	The President’s immunity from suit meant that he was dropped as a respondent in some of the petitions. However, this did not prevent the Court from reviewing the constitutionality of the extension of martial law itself.
Did the Court give credence to the petitioners’ claim of human rights violations?	The Court ruled that alleged human rights violations should be addressed in a separate proceeding, and did not consider them relevant to the determination of whether Congress had sufficient factual basis to extend martial law.
What were the limitations on Congress in determining its own rules for extending martial law?	The Court held that it cannot review the rules promulgated by Congress in the absence of any constitutional violation or violation of the rights of private individuals. Petitioners failed to show that the Rules of the Joint Session violated any provision or right under the Constitution.

This landmark case illuminates the delicate balance between executive power, legislative oversight, judicial review, and the protection of individual liberties. By upholding the extension while emphasizing the continued importance of constitutional safeguards, the Court has charted a path forward that seeks to preserve security without sacrificing fundamental rights. The ruling serves as a reminder that martial law, though sometimes necessary, must always be approached with caution and restraint, and its implementation must be subject to ongoing scrutiny and accountability.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Lagman v. Pimentel III, G.R. No. 235935, February 06, 2018