G.R. No. 190293 , G.R. No. 190294, G.R. No. 190301, G.R. No. 190302, G.R. No. 190307, G.R. No. 190356 and G.R. No. 190380 EN BANC; March 20, 2012
PHILIP SIGFRID A. FORTUN, et al., Petitioners, vs. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

These consolidated petitions challenged the constitutionality of Presidential Proclamation No. 1959, issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on December 4, 2009, which declared martial law and suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the province of Maguindanao. This proclamation was a response to the infamous Maguindanao massacre on November 23, 2009, where 57 individuals were murdered, and subsequent intelligence indicating that armed groups had risen against the government, seized local government facilities, and deployed significant weaponry. Pursuant to constitutional mandate, President Arroyo submitted a report to Congress within 48 hours detailing the factual basis for her action.
Congress convened in joint session on December 9, 2009, to review the proclamation. However, before Congress could complete its review and vote, President Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 1963 on December 12, 2009, lifting martial law and restoring the privilege of the writ. The petitioners, various citizens and groups, nevertheless pursued their cases before the Supreme Court, arguing that Proclamation No. 1959 lacked sufficient factual basis and constituted a grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should rule on the constitutional challenges to Presidential Proclamation No. 1959, given that it had already been lifted by the President before Congress could act and before the Court could render a decision.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and declared the cases closed and terminated. The Court held that the constitutional issue had been rendered moot and academic by the President’s act of lifting the proclamation. A judicial review of its constitutionality would be the equivalent of “beating a dead horse.” The Court emphasized the doctrine of prudence and respect for co-equal branches of government, cautioning against entertaining actions that assail the acts of the Executive or Legislative when the exigency has ceased.
The legal logic is rooted in the principle of mootness. The Court’s power of judicial review is exercised only over actual cases and controversies. With the revocation of Proclamation No. 1959, there no longer existed any active imposition of martial law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus for the Court to nullify or uphold. Furthermore, the constitutional design provides specific checks: the President’s duty to report to Congress and Congress’s power to revoke. Since Congress was in the process of exercising this review when the proclamation was withdrawn, the political question was resolved by the Executive’s own voluntary cessation. The Court found no compelling reason to formulate controlling principles for future cases, as each exercise of martial law powers must be examined based on the specific factual circumstances prevailing at the time, within the tight timeframes set by the Constitution.