G.R. No. 243522 , February 19, 2019. Separate Concurring Opinion, Gesmundo, J.
FACTS

Several petitions were filed assailing the one-year extension, from January 1 to December 31, 2019, of the proclamation of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao. This extension was granted by Congress upon the request of President Rodrigo Duterte. The President’s request, made via a letter dated December 6, 2018, was based on security assessments from the Department of National Defense, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), and the Philippine National Police (PNP). These assessments indicated that rebellion persisted in Mindanao and that public safety necessitated the continued martial law status.

ISSUE

Whether the extension of the proclamation of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus for the period of January 1 to December 31, 2019, complied with the constitutional requirements and was supported by sufficient factual basis.

RULING

Justice Gesmundo voted to dismiss the petitions, concurring with the majority decision to uphold the extension. The legal logic rests on the constitutional framework and the sufficiency of the factual basis presented. Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution grants Congress the power, upon the President’s initiative, to extend a proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ for a period it determines, provided invasion or rebellion persists and public safety requires it. This extension is subject to judicial review regarding the sufficiency of its factual basis.
Justice Gesmundo found all three constitutional limitations satisfied. First, the extension was upon the President’s initiative, evidenced by his December 6, 2018 letter to Congress. Second, the persistence of rebellion and the requirement of public safety were substantiated by government data detailing ongoing violent incidents and terrorist activities by groups like the Abu Sayyaf Group, the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters, and Daesh-inspired militants. These acts, which included attacks on military and civilian targets, armed engagements, and bombings, constituted the crime of rebellion under the Revised Penal Code. Third, the Court was duly exercising its review power. The factual basis was deemed sufficient, as it demonstrated not merely sporadic lawless violence but a persistent rebellion that collectively threatened public safety in Mindanao, justifying the legislative and executive’s collective judgment for a one-year extension.