Scribd
Upload
31 views1 page

Lagman v. Medialdea Supra. A6 S23 2

The document discusses a Supreme Court case regarding the declaration of martial law in Mindanao by President Duterte in 2017. The petitioners questioned the factual basis for the proclamation, arguing there was no rebellion. The Court denied the petition, finding the President's report provided probable cause of rebellion and he is not expected to completely validate information during urgent situations like martial law.

Uploaded by

Jaycee Pia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
31 views1 page

Lagman v. Medialdea Supra. A6 S23 2

The document discusses a Supreme Court case regarding the declaration of martial law in Mindanao by President Duterte in 2017. The petitioners questioned the factual basis for the proclamation, arguing there was no rebellion. The Court denied the petition, finding the President's report provided probable cause of rebellion and he is not expected to completely validate information during urgent situations like martial law.

Uploaded by

Jaycee Pia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

4. Lagman v. Medialdea (Supra.

, A6, S23 (2))


Facts: On May 23, 2017, President Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216 declaring a state of
martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao
for
a period not exceeding 60 days as required by the constitution. Furthermore, In accordance with
Section 18, Article VII, the President submitted a written report on the factual basis of his
proclamation two days later to the congress reasoning that the grounds therefor were the acts
and
hints of rebellion for years already on Marawi City and is going worse.
In his report, he stated that the a certain terrorist group called Maute have done grave acts of
rebellion and waving a foreign flag of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in Marawi City
thereby renouncing the place's allegiance to the country and uphold its constitution alongside
acts endangering public safety and destruction of public property by taking over a hospital and
securing the place.

Thereafter, the senate declared finding “no compelling reason to revoke Proclamation 216". For
the petitioners questioned the factual basis of President Duterte’s Proclamation of martial law.
Stating that

1. there is no rebellion or invasion in Marawi City or in any part of Mindanao;


2. the President's Report contained "false, inaccurate, contrived and hyperbolic accounts".

Issue: WON the factual bases of Proclamation no. 216 is sufficient.

Ruling: The petitioners’ motions for reconsideration are denied with finality. For the
mootness and lack of merit as there must be a probable cause suggesting that a
rebellion was committed or is being committed. Since martial law is a matter of urgency,
the President is not expected to completely validate all the information he received
declaring martial law or suspending the writ of habeas corpus. Moreover, the petitioners
are not successful in their refutation as their counter-evidences were derived solely from
unverified news articles on the internet.

You might also like