Making the "appropriate proceeding" appropriate: A proposal on rules of procedure pursuant to the inadequacy of the third paragraph of Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution in light of the ruling and opinions in Lagman v. Medialdea
Date of Publication
5-2018
Document Type
Master's Thesis
Degree Name
Juris Doctor
Subject Categories
Constitutional Law
College
College of Law
Department/Unit
Law
Thesis Adviser
Rigor R. Pascual
Defense Panel Chair
Antonio P. Jamon, Jr.
Defense Panel Member
Anne Perpetual S. Sia
Richard D. Torreja
Abstract/Summary
The President, as the Commander-in-Chief, has the emergency powers found under Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution. In the said provision, the President, in case of invasion or rebellion, when public safety requires, may suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. In relation thereto, Congress, voting jointly, may revoke the proclamation or suspension or shorten the period. Also, Congress may extend the same for as long as rebellion persists and public safety requires it. The Supreme Court is also tasked by the Constitution to 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, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. Rep. Edcel Lagman, et al filed before the Supreme Court a petition questioning the sufficiency of factual basis of the declaration of martial law in Mindanao and the suspension of writ of habeas corpus made by President Rodrigo Duterte through Proclamation No. 216 on May 23, 2017. The said Petition was anchored on the abovementioned Constitutional provision. On July 4, 2017, the Court promulgated the controversial Lagman v. Medialdea decision penned by Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo. The decision was promulgated together with four dissenting opinions by Chief Justice Sereno, and Associate Justices Carpio, Leonen and Caguioa; six separate concurring opinions by Associate Justices Velasco, Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Mendoza, Reyes and Tijam; and four separate opinions by Associate Justices Bersamin, Perlas-Bernabe, Jardeleza and Martires. The eighty-two (82) paged decision exhaustively discussed both procedural and substantive issues surrounding the case. The Justices, however, have different legal opinions regarding several issues that bring about confusion on how the interpretation of the aforementioned provision should be interpreted, particularly on what is meant by appropriate proceeding in the third paragraph of Section 18 of Article VII. In this regard, this thesis shall focus on such procedural question entertained in the Lagman decision. What is, indeed, the coverage of the appropriate proceeding as stated in the third paragraph of Section 18 of Article VII of the Constitution. The researchers will resolve this issue after taking in consideration the arguments proffered by the different Justices of the Supreme Court. The respective opinions will be scrutinized in line with the textual evidence, the constitutional intention of the framers and existing jurisprudence to fill in the gap and inadequacy of the Constitutional provision. The conclusion of the thesis will result into the promulgation of rules that would apply in case Section 18, paragraph 3, Article VII is once again invoked consistent with the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules under Section 5(5) of Article VIII of the Constitution. These rules, as established, will clarify and synthesize the seemingly incongruent legal opinions of the justices concerning the procedural aspect or “appropriate proceeding” found in the provision. Now, the rules governing the petition questioning the sufficiency of factual basis of the proclamation of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus is proposed for future reference of the bench, the Bar and the public.
Abstract Format
html
Language
English
Format
Electronic
Accession Number
CDTG007477; TG07477
Shelf Location
Archives, The Learning Common's, 12F Henry Sy Sr. Hall
Keywords
Martial law—Philippines; Executive power--Philippines; Constitutional law--Philippines
Upload Full Text
wf_no
Recommended Citation
De Guzman, A. R., & Panganiban, P. G. (2018). Making the "appropriate proceeding" appropriate: A proposal on rules of procedure pursuant to the inadequacy of the third paragraph of Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution in light of the ruling and opinions in Lagman v. Medialdea. Retrieved from https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_masteral/7248
Embargo Period
11-21-2024
