OUR RULING:

We find the declaration of Martial Law as UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and the petitions

are partially granted.

DISCUSSION
1. Article VII, Sec 18 states that the President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all
armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call
out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he
may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.
2. The President, after declaring Proclamation No. 216 which places the entire island
of Mindanao under Martial Law submitted his report to the Congress which stated
that:
 WHEREAS, today 23 May 2017, the same Maute terrorist group has taken over a hospital
in Marawi City, Lanao del Sur, established several checkpoints within the City, burned
down certain government and private facilities and inflicted casualties on the part of
Government forces, and started flying the flag of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
in several areas, thereby openly attempting to remove from the allegiance to the
Philippine Government this part of Mindanao and deprive the Chief Executive of his
powers and prerogatives to enforce the laws of the land and to maintain public order and
safety in Mindanao, constituting the crime of rebellion; and
 WHEREAS, this recent attack shows the capability of the Maute group and other rebel
groups to sow terror, and cause death and damage to property not only in Lanao del Sur
but also in other parts of Mindanao.
3. Cullamat Petition contends that the declaration must be nullified for being
unconstitutional since it concludes that Proclamation No 216 "failed to show any
factual basis for the imposition of martial law in that it failed to allege any act of
rebellion outside Marawi City, much less allege that public safety requires the
imposition of martial law in the whole of Mindanao.”
The Court ruled that, it is difficult to confine the application of martial law only to the place
where the armed public uprising is actually taking place. n fine, 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. It is not intended merely to prevent the escape of lawless elements from Marawi
City, but also to avoid enemy reinforcements and to cut their supply lines coming from different
parts of Mindanao. Thus, 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.
4. But we beg to disagree.
Although we agree with the ponencia that there is a sufficient factual basis in the
declaration of Martial law in Marawi City as proved by the President from his
report, he also failed to prove that rebellion exists in other parts of Mindanao,
outside Marawi City. The provision in the constitution clearly states that in
declaring martial law, there must be a presence of the 2 requisites which are 1)
When there is actual invasion or rebellion; and, 2) When public safety requires—
which are inseparable from each other. Let us first take notice of the first requisite
which is rebellion or invasion.
Rebellion, as defined by RPC must have the following elements:
1) there is a public uprising and taking arms against the government; 2) and the purpose of the
uprising is either to remove from the allegiance to the government of its laws; 3) the territory of
the Phils or any part; 4) or any body of land, naval, or other armed forces; 5) to deprive the Chief
Executive or Congress wholly or partially of any of their powers and prerogatives .
In the case of Marawi as directed to the first requisite, the Maute group conducted
massive threat and killing to the innocent civilians and military forces, coupled
with the burning and destroying of several government institutions. They even
displayed the flag of the international terrorist group, ISIS in some areas of the
city. According to Abu Hafs, the official spokesperson of the Maute group, the
group’s aim is the full implementation of Shariah Law in Marawi City. It should be
noted that the full implementation of Shariah law is aimed to be imposed only in
Marawi City and not in the whole Mindanao. Also, it must be taken into account
that full implementation of Shariah law would result to neglecting the laws
imposed by the Philippine government towards the city, paving the way for
Shariah law to govern it. Hence, would deprive the Chief Executive or Congress
wholly or partially of any of their powers and prerogatives over the city under its
jurisdiction. The disturbance of peace and order that the Maute group conducted,
instilling threat to the innocent civilians, endangers public safety. This crippled
the people from accessing basic necessities and services. It even disrupted the
power supply of the city which hindered the President to acquire and transfer
intelligence reports on the current situation.
However, this actual rebellion which endanger public safety is only present and
visible in the area of Marawi City, and not in any other parts of Mindanao. This is
where the unconstitutionality of the proclamation enters. The President contends that
declaring martial law in the whole island of Mindanao is a preemptive action to prevent the spill
over of the lawless elements all over the island, cut their lines of supply, and even to avoid its
reinforcement of troops. But then, the Constitution explicitly provided that an ACTUAL
INVASION OR REBELLION, or WHEN PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES must be present
to be able to validly declare Martial law in any parts thereof. The President’s
reasoning in wanting to declare ML in the entire island is based only in an
IMMINENT DANGER which was impliedly struck down by the 1987 Constitution
specifically in Art VII, Section 18 for the danger of being abused in its
interpretation as what happened during Marcos’s time. Thus, the 1987
Constitution now expressly states that declaring martial law must be grounded on
having an ACTUAL INVASION OR REBELLION AND WHEN PUBLIC SAFETY
REQUIRES, and not just based on suspicion or speculations of the President. The
new provision is basically a protection for the possible abuse of declaring Martial
Law by giving also the courts judicial power of review with regards to the
sufficiency of the declaration, and the congress, with the power to revoke the
same, checking and balancing each other’s powers. No matter how good the
 intention it seeks to establish, the first duty of the judge is always to apply the
law—whether it is wise or not, provided that the law is clear, and there is no doubt.
The law may be hard, but it is the law (sed lex, dura lex). Hence, we must not
disregard this intention of the framers of the constitution and must stick to what
it purports.
5. The declaration also is violative to the vagueness doctrine for it did not specified
what composes or constitutes the ENTIRE ISLAND OF MINDANAO. The void for
vagueness doctrine holds that a law is facially invalid if men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.
In this case, the entire island of Mindanao that the.
6.