Lagman v. Medialdea

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 243522. September 3, 2019.]

REPRESENTATIVES EDCEL C. LAGMAN, TOMASITO S. VILLARIN, TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT, JR., EDGAR R. ERICE, GARY C. ALEJANO, JOSE CHRISTOPHER Y. BELMONTE AND ARLENE "KAKA" J. BAG-AO, petitioners, vs.HON. SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; HON. DELFIN N. LORENZANA, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AND MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR; GEN. BENJAMIN R. MADRIGAL, JR., CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES AND MARTIAL LAW IMPLEMENTOR; HON. BENJAMIN E. DIOKNO, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT AND CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

[G.R. No. 243677. September 3, 2019.]

BAYAN MUNA PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE CARLOS ISAGANI T. ZARATE, GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY REPRESENTATIVES EMERENCIANA A. DE JESUS AND ARLENE D. BROSAS, ANAKPAWIS REPRESENTATIVE ARIEL B. CASILAO, ACT TEACHERS REPRESENTATIVES ANTONIO L. TINIO AND FRANCE L. CASTRO, AND KABATAAN PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE SARAH JANE I. ELAGO, petitioners, vs.PRESIDENT RODRIGO DUTERTE, CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY SENATE PRESIDENT VICENTE C. SOTTO III AND HOUSE SPEAKER GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR MEDIALDEA, DEFENSE SECRETARY DELFIN LORENZANA, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES CHIEF-OF-STAFF LIEUTENANT GENERAL BENJAMIN MADRIGAL, JR., AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OSCAR DAVID ALBAYALDE, respondents.

[G.R. No. 243745. September 3, 2019.]

CHRISTIAN S. MONSOD, RAY PAOLO J. SANTIAGO, NOLASCO RITZ LEE B. SANTOS III, MARIE HAZEL E. LAVITORIA, DOMINIC AMON R. LADEZA, XAMANTHA XOFIA A. SANTOS, petitioners, vs.SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY SENATE PRESIDENT VICENTE SOTTO III, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTED BY SPEAKER GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE [DND] SECRETARY DELFIN N. LORENZANA, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT [DILG] SECRETARY EDUARDO M. AÑO, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES [AFP] CHIEF OF STAFF GEN. BENJAMIN R. MADRIGAL, JR., PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE [PNP] CHIEF DIRECTOR GENERAL OSCAR D. ALBAYALDE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER HERMOGENES C. ESPERON, JR., respondents.

[G.R. No. 243797. September 3, 2019.]

RUIS VALLE, JHOSA MAE PALOMO, JEANY ROSE HAYAHAY AND RORELYN MANDACAWAN, petitioners, vs.THE SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE SENATE PRESIDENT VICENTE SOTTO III, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTED BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, AND ALL PERSONS ACTING UNDER THEIR CONTROL, DIRECTION, INSTRUCTION AND/OR SUPERVISION, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedSEPTEMBER 3, 2019, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 243522 (Representatives Edcel C. Lagman, Tomasito S. Villarin, Teddy Brawner Baguilat, Jr., Edgar R. Erice, Gary C. Alejano, Jose Christopher Y. Belmonte and Arlene "Kaka" J. Bag-ao vs. Hon. Salvador C. Medialdea, Executive Secretary; Hon. Delfin N. Lorenzana, Secretary of the Department of National Defense and Martial Law Administrator; Gen. Benjamin R. Madrigal, Jr., Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and Martial Law Implementor; Hon. Benjamin E. Diokno, Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management and Congress of the Philippines); G.R. No. 243677 (Bayan Muna Party-List Representative Carlos Isagani T. Zarate, Gabriela Women's Party Representatives Emerenciana A. De Jesus and Arlene D. Brosas, Anakpawis Representative Ariel B. Casilao, ACT Teachers Representatives Antonio L. Tinio and France L. Castro, and Kabataan Party-List Representative Sarah Jane I. Elago vs. President Rodrigo Duterte, Congress of the Philippines, represented by Senate President Vicente C. Sotto III and House Speaker Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief-of-Staff Lieutenant General Benjamin Madrigal, Jr., and Philippine National Police Director-General Oscar David Albayalde); G.R. No. 243745 (Christian S. Monsod, Ray Paolo J. Santiago, Nolasco Ritz Lee B. Santos III, Marie Hazel E. Lavitoria, Dominic Amon R. Ladeza, Xamantha Xofia A. Santos vs. Senate of the Philippines, represented by Senate President Vicente Sotto III, House of Representatives, represented by Speaker Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Executive Secretary Salvador C. Medialdea, Department of National Defense [DND]Secretary Delfin N. Lorenzana, Department of the Interior and Local Government [DILG]Secretary Eduardo M. Año, Armed Forces of the Philippines[AFP] Chief of Staff Gen. Benjamin R. Madrigal, Jr., Philippine National Police [PNP]Chief Director General Oscar D. Albayalde, National Security Adviser Hermogenes C. Esperon, Jr.); G.R. No. 243797 (Ruis Valle, Jhosa Mae Palomo, Jeany Rose Hayahay and Rorelyn Mandacawan vs. The Senate of the Philippines, represented by the Senate President Vicente Sotto III, The House ofRepresentatives, represented by the Speaker of the House of Representatives Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, The Executive Secretary, The Secretary of National Defense, The Secretary of the Interior and Local Government, The Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines, The Director General, Philippine National Police, and all persons acting under their control, direction, instruction and/or supervision)

RESOLUTION

On February 19, 2019, the Court rendered its Decision 1 finding sufficient factual bases for the issuance of Joint Resolution No. 6, the third extension of the implementation of Proclamation No. 216, and further declaring it as constitutional.

Petitioners in G.R. No. 243745 (Monsod, et al.) timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration. 2 The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) also filed its Comment. 3

The Motion for Reconsideration raised the following arguments, to wit:

a.wxwxFurther extension of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao is unconstitutional as the particular state of affairs invoked to impose it no longer exists.

b.wxwxPertinently, Article VII, Section 18 of the Constitution states that "Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it." That the Constitution refers to persistence implies a particular situation that existed before the intended extension, which particular situation continues to exist. Where the situation giving rise to the proclamation ceases to exist, the imposition must perforce cease.

c.wxwxWhere the Constitution, read fairly, should be applied to the facts objectively viewed, the pertinent factual circumstances already brought before the court and reiterated below lead to one inescapable conclusion: further extension of martial law in Mindanao is unconstitutional. 4 [Citation and emphasis omitted]

In essence, in the subject Motion for Reconsideration, Monsod, et al., question the sufficiency of the factual bases of the third extension of martial law in Mindanao and the parameters the Court observed in determining the sufficiency of the factual bases. The OSG asserted in its Comment that the issues raised in the Motion for Reconsideration have been squarely and extensively discussed in the Court's February 19, 2019 Decision.

After a careful review of the arguments raised by Monsod, et al., We find no reason to depart from Our February 19, 2019 Decision. Nonetheless, We deem it prudent to clarify and to discuss further the matters raised in the Motion for Reconsideration.

The Court did not abdicate its power

Monsod, et al., posit that the Court abdicated its power to review the sufficiency of the factual basis for the extension of the proclamation of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

As We have emphasized in Our Decision dated February 19, 2019, viz.:

In finding sufficiency of the factual basis for the third extension, the Court has to give due regard to the military and police reports which are not palpably false, contrived and untrue; consider the full complement or totality of the reports submitted, and not make a piecemeal or individual appreciation of the facts and the incidents reported. The President's decision to extend the declaration and the suspension of the Writ, when it goes through the review of the Legislative branch, must be accorded a weightier and more consequential basis. Under these circumstances, the President's decision or judgment call is affirmed by the representatives of the People. 5

The Court gives due regard to the findings of the military and police force who are equipped with the technical competence, expertise, and experience to assess the conditions on the ground without surrendering its constitutionally granted power to verify the sufficiency of the factual basis for the declaration of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

It must be clarified that the Court does not necessarily have to make its own data gathering in order to arrive at an independent determination of the factual basis for the proclamation or extension of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. As We have already explained, the Court is not a fact-finding body required to make a determination of the correctness of the factual basis for the declaration or extension of martial law and suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. 6 It would be impossible for the Court to conduct an independent investigation or factual inquiry on the ground, since it is not equipped with resources comparable to that of the Commander-in-Chief to ably and properly assess the state of rebellion in Mindanao. 7

More importantly, in finding sufficient factual bases, the Court did not simply accept the Executive's accounts of its purported justifications for the extension without a thorough deliberation. Rather, the information gathered from the ground that were submitted to the Court were painstakingly examined during the oral arguments through the assistance of resource persons, including Major General Pablo Lorenzo, Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), and Lieutenant General Benjamin Madrigal, Jr., Chief of Staff of the AFP. This indicates that the Court did not merely rely on the reports submitted without carefully assessing its contents and scrutinizing the resource persons who appeared during the oral arguments. From these, the Court was able to make its independent determination of the sufficiency of the factual bases for the proclamation or extension of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

Proclamation No. 216 has not

We have highlighted in Our February 19, 2019 Decision that Proclamation No. 216 has not become functus officio with the cessation of the Marawi siege. Although Proclamation No. 216 cited the attack of the Maute group in Marawi City as basis for the declaration of martial law, it cannot be concluded that rebellion in Mindanao has ended. We stressed the fact that rebellion was not necessarily ended by the cessation of the Marawi siege. This fact is manifested in the reported violent incidents that continue to pose a serious threat to security and the peace and order situation in Mindanao. We recognized in Our earlier Decision that, notwithstanding the death of Hapilon and the Maute brothers, the remnants of their groups have continued to rebuild their organization through the recruitment and training of new members and fighters to continue acts of rebellion. Kidnapping, arson, robbery, bombings, murder — crimes which are absorbed in rebellion — have not ended. These crimes are part and parcel of the continuing rebellion in Mindanao. 8 Considering that modern day rebellion has other visible and invisible facets than just the taking up of arms, it will be an imprudent proposition to confine rebellion simply to a resounding clash of arms with government forces. 9

We no longer deem it necessary to discuss the other arguments raised by Monsod, et al., as the same are a mere rehash which have already been judiciously considered and found to have no merit.

WHEREFORE, petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED with FINALITY for lack of merit.

No further pleadings shall be entertained.

Let entry of judgment be made immediately." (adv13oa)

 

Very truly yours,(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETAClerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo (G.R. No. 243522), pp. 1049-1080.

2.Id. at 1345-1367.

3.Id. at 1370-1379.

4.Id. at 1348.

5.Id. at 1064.

6.Id. at 1063.

7.Id.

8.Lagman v. Medialdea, G.R. Nos. 231658, 231771 & 231774, December 5, 2017.

9.Id.