b. Declaration of Martial Law

Duty to Report to Congress

Section 18, Article VII, requires the President to report his actions to Congress, in person or in writing, within 48 hours of such proclamation or suspension. In turn, if Congress is not in session, it is required to convene without need of a call within 24 hours following the Presidents proclamation or suspension. Clearly, the Constitution calls for quick action on the part of the Congress. Whatever form that action takes, therefore, should give the Court sufficient time to fulfill its own mandate to review the factual basis of the proclamation or suspension within 30 days of its issuance. (Fortun v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 190293, March 20, 2012)

As to what facts must be stated in the proclamation and the written Report is up to the President. As Commander-in-Chief, he has sole discretion to determine what to include and what not to include in the proclamation and the written Report taking into account the urgency of the situation as well as national security. (Lagman v. Medialdea, G.R. No. 231658, July 4, 2017)

Supreme Court Review

• In an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen
• The SC may review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation or suspension, or the extension thereof
• Its decision must be promulgated within 30 days from filing

Parameters of the Court for Determining the Sufficiency of the Factual Basis for the Declaration of Martial Law and/or the Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus (Sufficiency of the Factual Basis Test)

• Actual rebellion or invasion
• Public safety requires it
• There is probable cause for the President to believe that there is actual rebellion or invasion. (Lagman v. Medialdea, G.R. No. 231658, July 4, 2017)

The scope of the Supreme Court’s power to review the declaration of Martial Law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is limited to a determination of the sufficiency (not accuracy) of the factual basis of such declaration or suspension. (Id.)

The nature of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to determine the sufficiency of the factual basis for the declaration of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus by the President is sui generis and granted by Sec. 18, Art. VII of the Constitution. It does not stem from Sec. 1 or 5 of Art. VIII. (Id.)

Declaration of Martial Law and Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus; Extension

Besides his calling out powers, the President may also:

• Suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
• Proclaim a state of martial law

A state of martial law is peculiar because the President, at such a time, exercises police power, which is normally a function of the Legislature. In particular, the President exercises police power, with the military’s assistance, to ensure public safety and in place of government agencies which for the time being are unable to cope with the condition in a locality, which remains under the control of the State. (Lagman v. Medialdea, G.R. No. 231658, July 4, 2017)

Territorial Coverage

The Constitution grants to the President the discretion to determine the territorial coverage of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. He may put the entire Philippines or only a part thereof under martial law. (Lagman v. Medialdea, G.R. No. 231658, July 4, 2017)

Limiting the proclamation and/or suspension to the place where there is actual rebellion would not only defeat the purpose of declaring martial law, it will make the exercise thereof ineffective and useless. (e.g. martial law over Mindanao as a whole and not merely Marawi where actual rebellion transpired)

• It is difficult, if not impossible, to fix the territorial scope of martial law in direct proportion to the "range" of actual rebellion and public safety simply because rebellion and public safety have no fixed physical dimensions.
• Moreover, the President's duty to maintain peace and public safety is not limited only to the place where there is actual rebellion; it extends to other areas where the present hostilities are in danger of spilling over. (Id.)

The Role of the Supreme Court [See Section 18, par. 3, Article VII, 1987 Constitution]

• The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of:
• The proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ, or
• The extension thereof. It must promulgate its decision thereon within 30 days from its filing.

In reviewing the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation or suspension, the Court considers only the information and data available to the President prior to or at the time of the declaration; it is not allowed to "undertake an independent investigation beyond the pleadings." On the other hand, Congress may take into consideration not only data available prior to, but likewise events supervening the declaration.

Thus, the power to review by the Court and the power to revoke by Congress are not only totally different but likewise independent from each other although concededly, they have the same trajectory, which is, the nullification of the presidential proclamation. Needless to say, the power of the Court to review can be exercised independently from the power of revocation of Congress [Lagman v. Medialdea, supra].

• Petition for Habeas Corpus
• When a person is arrested without a warrant for complicity in the rebellion or invasion, he or someone else on his behalf has the standing to question the validity of the proclamation or suspension.
• A detainee may challenge the legality of his detention. The SC need address the validity of the proclamation or suspension only if resolving that challenge requires it.

Updated: The Court may seek additional information when reviewing the President’s factual basis, while assessing the declaration against facts available when it was made (Lagman v. Medialdea, G.R. No. 231658, 4 July 2017).