G.R. No. 231658, July 4, 2017
REPRESENTATIVES EDCEL C. LAGMAN, TOMASITO S. VILLARIN, GARY C. ALEJANO, EMMANUEL A. BILLONES, AND TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT, JR., Petitioners
vs.
HON. SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; HON. DELFIN N. LORENZANA, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEF'ENSE AND MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR; AND GEN. EDUARDO ANO, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES AND MARTIAL LAW IMPLEMENTOR, Respondents
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
G.R. No. 231771
EUFEMIA CAMPOS CULLAMAT, VIRGILIO T. LIN CUNA, ATELIANA U. HIJOS, ROLAND A. COBRADO, CARL ANTHONY D. OLALO, ROY JIM BALANGIDG, RENATO REYES, JR., CRISTIN A E. PALABAY, AMARYLLIS H. ENRIQUEZ, ACT TEACHERS' REPRESENTATIVE ANTONIO L. TINIO, GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY REPRESENTATIVE i\RLENED.BROSAS,KABATAAN PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE SARAH JANE I. ELAGO, MAE PANER, GABRIELA KRISTA DALENA, ANNA ISABELLE ESTEIN, MARK VINCENT D. LIM, VENCER MARI CRISOSTOMO, JOVITA MONTES, Petitioners,
vs.
PRESIDENT RODRIGO DUTERTE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR MEDIALDEA, DEFENSE SECRETARY DELFIN LORENZANA, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES CHIEF OF STAFF LT. GENERAL EDUARDO ANO, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE DIRECTOR-GENERAL RONALD DELA ROSA, Respondents
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
G.R. No. 231774
NORKAYA S. MOHAMAD, SITTIE NUR DYHANNA S. MOHAMAD, NORAISAH S. SANI, ZAHRIA P. MUTI-MAPANDI, Petitioners,
vs.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE (DND) SECRETARY DELFIN N. LORENZANA, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DILG) SECRETARY (OFFICER-INCHARGE) CATALINO S. CUY, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES (AFP) CHEF OF STAFF GEN. EDUARDO M. AÑO, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE (PNP) CHIEF DIRECTOR GENERAL RONALD M. DELA ROSA, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER HERMOGENES C. ESPERON, JR.,Respondents.
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
FACTS:
1. On 04 September 2016, a state of national emergency was declared on account of lawless violence caused by the Maute Group in Mindanao. Consequently, Proclamation No. 216 was issued and took effect on 23 May 2017 declaring a state of martial law and suspending the writ of habeas corpus for a period not exceeding 60 days in the entire Mindanao in accordance with Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution.
2. 3 petitions were filed to oppose this proclamation, to wit:
LAGMAN PETITION
a. There is no factual basis to the declaration of martial law and suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. It was the government, as admitted by Lt.Gen. Salvador Mison Jr., who instigated the battle in its attempt to capture Hapilon. The Maute group acted to defend Hapilon and their Maute brothers and not the siege Marawi and remove allegiance to the Philippines.
b. The president's false, inaccurate, contrived, and hyperbolic Marawi accounts render no sufficient factual basis on the martial law declaration. Amai Pakpak medical center was not overrun and hospital personnel wasn't attacked. That Landbank was not ransacked and the armored vehicle was empty when it was commandeered. That Senator Ninoy Aquino College Foundation is intact as of May 24, 2017 and was not burned; same with the Marawi Central Elementary Pilot School. No police chief beheading happened, neither is there occupation of the Marawi City Hall and part of Mindanao State University.
c. It has no sufficient factual basis since the report mistakenly included previous attacks in 2016 in other Mindanao areas which have been resolved prior to the present attacks in Marawi. (Butig Lanao del Sur, Zamboanga Siege, Davao market bombing, Mamasapano carnage, other bombings in Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, and Basilan.)
d. The President acted on his own without the military's consultation.
e The presented victory in pre-empting the ASG and Maute Group's plan to lay siege over Marawi and other Mindanao areas.
This petition seeks for the SC to exercise its sui generis jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of Proclamation No. 216 and render a decision voiding and nullifying Proclamation No. 216 for lack of sufficient factual basis.
CULAMAT PETITION
a. seeks nullification of Proclamation No. 216 for being unconstitutional because it lacks sufficient factual basis that there is rebellion in Mindanao and that public safety warrants its declaration;
b. Maute and other rebel groups' ability to sow terror, cause death, and damage to property does not amount to the level of rebellion enough to declare martial law in the entire Mindanao. There is no lawless violence in other parts of Mindanao similar to that in Marawi;
c. the phrase "other rebel groups" is vague and it failed to identify these rebel groups and their specific acts of rebellion;
d. alleges inaccuracies, exaggerations, and falsities in the President's report to the Congress;
Prays that the court declare Proclamation No. 216 as unconstitutional or to declare the same as unconstitutional insofar as its inclusion of other Mindanao areas.
MOHAMAD PETITION
a. martial law can only be employed by the president after exhausting less severe remedies. the sequence is as follows: 1st. power to call out the armed forces, 2nd. power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, lastly. power to declare martial law. The power to use must only be dictated by the urgency of the situation. Marawi siege is not so grave and perilous to public safety as to warrant martial law declaration;
c. that the intention Maute group's establishment of the Islamic State, their capability to usurp duly constituted authorities of their powers and prerogatives, and that the Marawi siege precludes Mindanao take over.
d. that the court
This petition prays that the Court exercise its power of judicial review to compel the respondents to present proof on the factual basis of martial law declaration and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao and declare Proclamation No. 216 as unconstitutional for lack of sufficient factual basis.
3. In response, The OSG:
a. acknowledges that Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution gives the Court the power to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of martial law declaration. However, the term "appropriate proceeding" was not specifically defined and that it may be availed thru a petition for certiorari and that the power to review is merely optional;
b. the facts must be reviewed under the lens of grave abuse of discretion and not the correctness of facts;
c. that the burden of proof lies with the petitioners to prove that Proclamation No. 216 lacks factual bases.;
d. moves the court to consider facts retrieved after the proclamation should not be considered in reviewing the sufficiency of the factual basis of the martial law declaration since doing so would usurp the Congress' powers to determine whether the declaration be revoked or extended.
e. petitioners basis were news articles that supposedly contradict the facts on the presidential report. These news articles are merely hearsay and therefore inadmissible.
ISSUES:
[1] Whether or not the petitions are the "appropriate proceeding" covered by paragraph 3, Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution sufficient to invoke the mode of review required by the Court.
[2] Whether or not the power of the Court to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution is independent of the actions taken by Congress.
[3] Whether or not the judicial power to review the sufficiency of factual basis of the declaration of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not extend to the calibration of the President's decision of which among his graduated powers he will avail of in a given situation
[4] Whether or not Proclamation No. 216 may be considered vague and thus void because of (a) its inclusion of "other rebel groups"; and (b) the absence of any guideline specifying its actual operational parameters within the entire Mindanao region.
[5] Whether or not nullifying Proclamation No.216 will (a) have the effect of recalling Proclamation No. 55; or (b) also nullify the acts of the President in calling out the armed forces to quell lawless violence in Marawi and other parts of the Mindanao region.
[6] Whether or not it is within the scope of Supreme Court's Power to Review.
[7] What are the parameters for determining the sufficiency of the/actual basis/or the declaration of martial law and/or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
[8] Whether there is sufficient factual basis for the declaration of martial law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
(Main)
Whether or not Proclamation No. 216 declaring martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in all areas of Mindanao be considered UNCONSTITUTIONAL due to insufficient factual bases.
RULING:
[1.] YES. it is the proper proceeding. SC agreed with the petitioners during the oral arguments saying the SC has a sui generis power. As stated in Paragraph 3, Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution which states that the SC may review, in any appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or its extension and must promulgate a decision within 30 days from its filing. The said provision specifically grants the SC to determine the factual basis of the proclamation. Petition for certiorari is not the proper proceeding since such is to determine whether the respondent has committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
[2.] YES. The power to review by the Court and the power to revoke by Congress are not only totally different but likewise independent from each other although concededly, they have the same trajectory, which is, the nullification of the presidential proclamation.
SUPREME COURT:
- may strike down the presidential proclamation in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen on the ground of lack of sufficient factual basis.
- considers only the information and data available to the President prior to or at the time of declaration and it is not allowed to undertake and independent investigation beyond pleadings.
- does not look into the absolute correctness of the factual basis of the declaration,
- its review power is passive; it is only initiated by the filing of a petition "in an appropriate proceeding" by a citizen.
CONGRESS:
- may revoke the proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President.
- may take into consideration not only data available prior to, but likewise events supervening the declaration
- could probe deeper and further; it can delve into the accuracy of the facts presented before it.
- its review mechanism is automatic in the sense that it may be activated by Congress itself at any time after the proclamation or suspension was made.
Needless to say, the power of the Court to review can be exercised independently from the power of revocation of Congress. Also, the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended the judicial power to review to be exercised independently from the congressional power to revoke.
[3.] The President as the Commander-in-Chief wields the extraordinary powers which may be resorted to only under specified conditions:
A.) calling out the armed forces:
The power to call is fully discretionary to the President; the only limitations being that he acts within permissible constitutional boundaries or in a manner not constituting grave abuse of discretion. This power is not subject to judicial review.
B.) suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and C.) declaring martial law:
can only be declared when there is actual invasion or rebellion, and public safety requires it. Subject to limits placed in the 1987 Constitution:
(1) a time limit of sixty days; (2) review and possible revocation by Congress; and (3) review and possible nullification by the Supreme Court.
The declaration of martial law serves as a warning to citizens that the Executive Department has called upon the military to assist in the maintenance of law and order, and while the emergency remains, the citizens must, under pain of arrest and punishment, not act in a manner that will render it more difficult to restore order and enforce the law. During which, the President as Commander-in-Chief may order the "(a) arrests and seizures without judicial warrants; (b) ban on public assemblies; (c) takeover of news media and agencies and press censorship;and (d) issuance of Presidential Decrees. However, this does not give the president the unbridled discretion to infringe on the rights of civilians during martial law. This is because martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, neither does it supplant the operation of civil courts or legislative assemblies.
Thus, their exercise requires more stringent safeguards by the Congress, and review by the Court.
The "extraordinary / graduation of powers (A,B,C)" however, does not in any manner refer to a sequence, arrangement, or order which the Commander-in-Chief must follow. This so-called "graduation of powers" does not dictate or restrict the manner by which the President decides which power to choose.
[4] a.) NO. IT MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED VOID FOR VAGUENESS. The void-for-vagueness doctrine does not apply. This holds that a law is facially vague if "men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. A statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its application. In such instance, the statute is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects: (1) it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.
b.) This void-for-vagueness doctrine only applies to free speech. For example, a vague statute that is overbroad because of possible "chilling effect' on protected speech that comes from statutes violating free speech. A person who does not know whether his speech constitutes a crime under an overbroad or vague law may simply restrain himself from speaking in order to avoid being charged with a crime. The overbroad or vague law thus chills him into silence.
c) Proclamation No. 216 cannot be facially challenged using the vagueness doctrine. It does not regulate speech, religious freedom, and other fundamental rights that may be facially challenged.148 What it seeks to penalize is conduct, not speech.
[6]
a) The scope of the power of review under the 1987 Constitution refers only to the determination of thesufficiency of the factual basis of the declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege of habeas corpus.
In the case of Lansang, the Court has powers within "proper bounds:"
> 'merely to check - not to supplant - the Executive, or to ascertain merely whether he has gone beyond the constitutional limits of his jurisdiction, not to exercise the power vested in him or to determine the wisdom of his act. The 1987 Constitution, by providing only for judicial review based on the determination of the sufficiency of the factual bases, has in fact done away with the test of arbitrariness as provided in Lansang.
b) The "sufficiency of factual basis test."
Since the exercise of declaration of martial law and suspension of the privelege of the wirt of habeas corpus is a judgment call of the President, the determination of this Court as to whether there is sufficient factual basis for the exercise of such, must be based only on facts or information known by or available to the President at the time he made the declaration or suspension, which facts or information are found in the proclamation as well as the written Report submitted by him to Congress. These may be based on the situation existing at the time the declaration was made or past events. As to how far the past events should be from the present depends on the President.
As to what facts must be stated in the proclamation and the written Report is up to the President.165 As Commander-in-Chief, he has sole discretion to determine what to include and what not to include in the proclamation and the written Report taking into account the urgency of the situation as well as national security. He cannot be forced to divulge intelligence reports and confidential information that may prejudice the operations and the safety of the military.
Similarly, events that happened after the issuance of the proclamation, which are included in the written report, cannot be considered in determining the sufficiency of the factual basis of the declaration of martial law and/or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus since these happened after the President had already issued the proclamation. If at all, they may be used only as tools, guides or reference in the Court's determination of the sufficiency of factual basis, but not as part or component of the portfolio of the factual basis itself.
The written Report as the President could not be expected to verify the accuracy and veracity of all facts reported to him due to the urgency of the situation.
To require precision in the President's appreciation of facts would unduly burden him and therefore impede the process of his decision-making. Such a requirement will practically necessitate the President to be on the ground to confirm the correctness of the reports submitted to him within a period that only the circumstances obtaining would be able to dictate. Such a scenario, of course, would not only place the President in peril but would also defeat the very purpose of the grant of emergency powers upon him, that is, to borrow the words of Justice Antonio T. Carpio in Fortun, to immediately put an end to the root cause of the emergency". Possibly, by the time the President is satisfied with the correctness of the facts in his possession, it would be too late in the day as the invasion or rebellion could have already escalated to a level that is hard, if not impossible, to curtail.
Besides, the framers of the 1987 Constitution considered intelligence reports of military officers as credible evidence that the President can appraise and to which he can anchor his judgment, as appears to be the case here.
[7] The parameters for determining the sufficiency of the/actual basis/or the declaration of martial law and/or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
a) Actual invasion or rebellion, and public safety requirement.
Section 18, Article VII itself sets the parameters for determining the sufficiency of the factual basis for the declaration of martial law and/or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, "namely (1) actual invasion or rebellion, and (2) public safety requires the exercise of such power." Without the concurrence of the two conditions, the President's declaration of martial law and/or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus must be struck down.
The term "rebellion" was not specifically defined by the Constitution. Thus, it can be construed to have the same meaning as defined in Art. 134 of the Revised Penal Code.
Art. 134. Rebellion or insurrection; How committed. - The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of removingfrom the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of the Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, depriving the Chief Executive or theLegislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.
b) Probable cause is the allowable standard of proof for the President.
In determining the existence of rebellion, the President only needs to convince himself that there is probable cause or evidence showing that more likely than not a rebellion was committed or is being committed.176 To require him to satisfy a higher standard of proof would restrict the exercise of his emergency powers.
To summarize, the parameters for determining the sufficiency of factual basis are as follows: l) rebellion or invasion; 2) public safety requires it; the first two requirements must concur; and 3) there is probable cause for the President to believe that there is actual rebellion or invasion.
[8]
Proclamation No. 216 has sufficient factual bases and is CONSTITUTIONAL. Petitions are DISMISSED.
Comments
Post a Comment