CASE 2017-0038: REPR. EDCEL C. LAGMAN ET AL. VS. HON. SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA ET AL. (G.R. NO. 231658)- EUFEMIA CAMPOS CULLAMAT, ET AL. VS. HON. SALVADOR MEDIALDEA, ET AL (G.R. NO. 231771) – NORKAYA S. MOHAMAD, ET AL. VS. HON. SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, ET AL (G.R. NO. 231774) (05 DEC 2017, DEL CASTILLO J.) (DENIAL OF MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION AFFIRMING MARTIAL LAW DECLARATION) (BRIEF TITLE: LAGMAN ET AL VS. MEDIALDIA ET AL.)
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, petitioners’ l\1otions for Reconsideration are hereby DENIED WITH FINALITY for mootness and lack of merit.
No further pleadings shall be entertained.
Let entry of judgment be made immediately.
SO ORDERED.
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
MUST THE PRESIDENT FIRST VALIDATE ALL INFORMATION HE RECEIVES BEFORE DECLARING MARTIAL LAW?
NO.
This is consistent with our ruling that “the President only needs to convince himself that there is probable cause or evidence showing that more likely than not a rebellion was committed or is being committed.”7 The standard of proof of probable cause does not require absolute truth. Since “martial law is a matter of urgency xx x the President xx x is not expected to completely validate all the information he received before declaring martial law or suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.”8
Notably, out of the several facts advanced by the President as basis for Proclamation No. 216, only five of them were being questioned by the petitioners. However, they were not even successful in their refutation since their “counterevidence were derived solely from unverified news articles on the internet, with neither the authors nor the sources shown to have affirmed the contents thereof. It was not even shown that efforts were made to secure such affirmation albeit the circumstances proved futile.”9 Even granting that the petitioners were successful in their attempt to refute the aforesaid five incidents, there are other facts sufficient to serve as factual basis for the declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
DID THE COURT ABDICATE ITS POWER TO REVIEW WHEN IT UPHOLD THE PRESIDENT’S PROCLAMATION OF MARTIAL LAW?
There is absolutely no basis to petitioners’ claim that the Court abdicated its power to review. To be sure, our findings that there was sufficient factual basis for the issuance of Proclamation No. 216 and that there was probable cause, that is, that more likely than not, rebellion exists and that public safety requires the declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, were reached after due consideration of the facts, events, and information enumerated in the proclamation and report to Congress. The Court did not content itself with the examination only of the pleadings/documents submitted by the parties. In addition, it conducted a closed-door session where it tried to ferret additional information, confirmation and clarification from the resource persons particularly Secretary ofNational Defense Delfin Lorenzana and Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief of Staff Eduardo Afio. At this juncture, it must be stated that the Court is not even obliged to summon witnesses as long as it satisfies itself with the sufficiency of the factual basis; it is purely discretionary on its part whether to call additional witnesses. In any event,_ rel~ance on so-called intelligence reports, even without presentation of its author, is proper and allowed by law.
The Court’s acknowledgment of the President’s superior data gathering apparatus, and the fact that it has given the Executive much leeway and flexibility, should never be understood as a prelude to surrendering the judicial power to review. The Court never intended to concede its power to verify the sufficiency of factual basis for the declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The leeway and flexibility accorded to the Executive must be construed in the context of the present set up wherein the declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus are grounded on actual invasion or rebellion, not on imminent threat or danger thereof; as such, time is of the essence for the President to act quickly to protect the country. It is also a recognition of the unassailable fact that as Commander-inChief, the President has access to confidential information. In fact, Fr. Joaquin Bernas even opined that the Court might have to rely on the fact-finding capabilities of the Executive; in tum, the Executive should share its findings with the Court if it wants to convince the latter of the propriety of its action.10 Moreover, it is based on the understanding that martial law is a flexible concept; that “the precise extent or range of the rebellion [cannot] be measured by exact metes and bounds;”11 that public safety requirement cannot be quantified or measured by metes and bounds; that the Constitution does not provide that the territorial scope or coverage of martial law should be confined only to those areas where the armed public uprising actually transpired; that it will be impractical to expand the territorial application of martial law each time the coverage of actual rebellion expands and in direct proportion therewith; and, that there is always a possibility that the rebellion and other accompanying hostilities will spill over.
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.
NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 