LAGMAN, ET AL., vs., MEDIALDEA, et al.

, 04 JULY 2017
FACTS: This is a consolidated Petitions asking the Supreme Court to review
the sufficiency of the factual basis of the declaration of Martial Law by President
Duterte covering the whole Mindanao.
The petitioners contended that there were no sufficient factual bases for the
declaration because the martial law is a measure of last resort and should be invoked
by the President only after exhaustion of less severe remedies and the same
extraordinary powers of the President should be dispensed sequentially based on the
graduation of presidential power as the commander-in-chief, i.e., first, the power to
call out the armed forces; second, the power to suspend the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus; and finally, the power to declare martial law. According to the
Petitioners, the President’s choice must be dictated only by, and commensurate to,
the exigencies of the situation.
ISSUE: Whether or not the graduation of power of the President is subject to
the judicial review of the Supreme Court?
RULING: NO. The Supreme Court ruled that the President has a sequence of
graduated powers such as the calling out power, the power to suspend the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus, and the power to declare martial law. However, it does
not in any manner refer to a sequence, arrangement, or order which the Commander-
in-Chief must follow. This so-called graduation of powers, according to the High
Court, does not dictate or restrict the manner by which the President decides which
power to choose. It therefore necessarily follows that the power and prerogative to
determine whether the situation warrants a mere exercise of the calling out power;
or whether the situation demands suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus; or whether it calls for the declaration of martial law, also lies, at least
initially, with the President. As Commander-in-Chief, his powers are broad enough
to include his prerogative to address exigencies or threats that endanger the
government, and the very integrity of the State. Thus, according to the Supreme
Court, the power of judicial review does not extend to calibrating the President’s
decision pertaining to which extraordinary power to avail because to do so would
be tantamount to an incursion into the exclusive domain of the Executive and an
infringement on the prerogative that solely, at least initially, lies with the President.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are DISMISSED for lack of merit.