G.R. No. 231658 /G.R. No. 231771/G.R. No. 231774, July 4, 2017
Case Parties: Various Petitioners vs. President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, et al.

FACTS

The petitions challenged the validity of Proclamation No. 216, which declared martial law and suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus over the entire Mindanao group of islands following the attack by the Maute group in Marawi City. The petitioners argued the declaration lacked sufficient factual basis for its geographic scope. In response, the government submitted sworn statements from Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana and AFP Chief of Staff General Eduardo Año to clarify the factual basis for the proclamation.
The dissent, led by Chief Justice Sereno, contended that the President’s proclamation and subsequent report to Congress established the existence of rebellion and public safety danger only in Marawi City, not across all of Mindanao. The dissent noted this case represented the Court’s first substantive review of martial law under the 1987 Constitution , with no established rules or jurisprudence to guide the procedural and evidentiary standards for such a review.

RULING

The Supreme Court, in its Decision, dismissed the petitions and upheld the declaration of martial law over the whole of Mindanao. The majority ruled that the factual basis provided by the President, including the sworn statements of key officials, was sufficient and that the Court should accord great respect to the President’s discretion in matters of national security. It found that the rebellion was not confined to Marawi City but involved a broader conspiracy with the capability to escalate throughout the region.
In her Dissenting Opinion, Chief Justice Sereno argued for a more limited application, valid only in Marawi City, Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, and Sulu. She reasoned that the respondents failed to meet their burden of proving sufficient facts to justify a Mindanao-wide declaration. However, acknowledging the unique and procedurally nascent nature of the case—the first post-1987 martial law review—she adopted a pro hac vice permissive approach to evidence. This approach considered the subsequently submitted affidavits from Lorenzana and Año to clarify the record, citing principles of fairness and due process, as the President could not have been expected to foresee all evidentiary requirements during the urgent crisis. The dissent ultimately concluded that the majority’s validation of a Mindanao-wide declaration constituted an abdication of the Court’s duty of meaningful judicial review, granting the President excessive leeway contrary to the constitutional intent to curtail executive power.