G.R. No. 231658/G.R. No. 231771/G.R. No. 231774, July 4, 2017
REPRESENTATIVES EDCEL C. LAGMAN, ET AL., EUFEMIA CAMPOS CULLAMAT, ET AL., and NORKAYA S. MOHAMAD, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. HON. SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL., Respondents.

FACTS

On May 23, 2017, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216, declaring a state of martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao for a period not exceeding sixty days. The Proclamation cited the armed hostilities in Marawi City, Lanao del Sur, led by the Maute Group and the Abu Sayyaf Group, which involved the takeover of a hospital, establishment of checkpoints, burning of facilities, and the hoisting of ISIS flags. The President stated these acts constituted the crime of rebellion, aimed at removing allegiance from the government and depriving the Chief Executive of his powers. Within the constitutional timeline, the President submitted a written Report to Congress detailing the factual basis for the proclamation, outlining the history of violent extremism in Mindanao and the escalation of the armed conflict on May 23rd.
Several petitions were filed before the Supreme Court challenging the proclamation’s factual basis and constitutionality. The petitioners, including members of the House of Representatives, activists, and residents of Mindanao, argued that the factual circumstances in Marawi did not constitute rebellion or invasion sufficient to justify martial law, that the acts were merely terrorism or lawless violence, and that the declaration over the whole of Mindanao was geographically overbroad. They contended the President committed a grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether President Rodrigo R. Duterte committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Proclamation No. 216 declaring martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao.

RULING

The Supreme Court, voting 11-3-1, dismissed the petitions and upheld the validity of Proclamation No. 216. The Court ruled that the President did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centered on the standard of judicial review for presidential martial law declarations under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution. The Court held that its power of review is limited to determining whether the declaration was based on a factual basis, and it is not a de novo review where the Court substitutes its own judgment for that of the President. The factual basis need only show that an actual rebellion exists and that public safety requires the declaration.
Applying this standard, the Court found sufficient factual basis in the President’s Report and the allegations in the Proclamation itself. The acts of the Maute Group and Abu Sayyaf Group—taking up arms, seizing territory, attacking government forces, and aiming to establish an independent territory under ISIS—fell within the definition of rebellion under the Revised Penal Code. The Court rejected the argument that these were mere acts of terrorism, noting that rebellion can be committed simultaneously with other crimes like terrorism. Furthermore, the geographical scope over Mindanao was not overbroad, as the President’s intelligence reports indicated the capability of the rebel groups to sow terror beyond Marawi, and the determination of the necessary area is a prerogative entitled to great respect.