G.R. No. 231671 – ALEXANDER A. PADILLA, RENE A.V. SAGUISAG, CHRISTIAN S. MONSOD, LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, RENE B. GOROSPE, and SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA, petitioners, vs. CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES, consisting of the SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, as represented by Senate President Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III, and the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, as represented by House Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez, respondents.
G.R. No. 231694 – FORMER SEN. WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA, BISHOP EMERITUS DEOGRACIAS S. IÑIGUEZ, BISHOP BRODERICK PABILLO, BISHOP ANTONIO R. TOBIAS, MO. ADELAIDA YGRUBAY, SHAMAH BULANGIS and CASSANDRA D. DELURIA, petitioners, vs. CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES, CONSISTING OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AQUILINO “KOKO” PIMENTEL III, President, Senate of the Philippines, and PANTALEON D. ALVAREZ, Speaker, House of the Representatives, respondents.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
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 Mindanao group of islands on the grounds of rebellion and necessity of public safety pursuant to Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution.
On May 25, 2017, or within 248 hours from said proclamation, the President submitted a report to the Congress pursuant to aforementioned constitutional provision.
The Senate and the House of Representatives separately conducted conference briefings regarding the circumstances, details, and updates surrounding the President’s proclamation.
Both houses deliberated separately and adopted below resolutions indicating their support of the President’s Proclamation:
- Senate Resolution No. 49: Resolution Expressing the Sense of the Senate Not to Revoke x x x Proclamation No. 216;
- House Resolution No. 1050: Resolution Expressing the Full Support of the House of Representatives to President Rodrigo Duterte as it Finds No Reason to Revoke Proclamation No. 216, x x x.
The House of Representatives also purportedly discussed the proposal calling for a joint session of the Congress to deliberate and vote on the Proclamation but was rejected.
Petitioners contend that the Congress has an obligation to jointly convene and vote in case there is declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ.
Issue
Is it mandatory for the Congress under Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution, to automatically convene in joint session in the event that the President proclaims a state of martial law and/or suspends the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the Philippines or any part thereof?
Ruling and Discussion
No. It is not mandatory for the Congress under Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution, to automatically convene in joint session in the event that the President proclaims a state of martial law and/or suspends the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the Philippines or any part thereof.
The Commander-in-Chief clause of Art. VII, Sec. 18 of the Constitution vests with the President control over the persons and actions of the members of the AFP in recognition of its role as the Chief Executive to promote public peace, and as Commander-in-Chief, the more specific duty to suppress lawless violence and rebellion. Thus, he is granted the power to declare a state of martial law and/or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the Philippines or a portion thereof.
However, in order to safeguard against possible abuse of power, the Constitution instituted checks and balances on the President’s power through the two co-equal branches, the legislative and the judiciary.
- The Constitution requires the President to submit a report to the Congress after his proclamation of martial law and/or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and grants the Congress the power to revoke, as well as extend, the proclamation and/or suspension;
- The Constitution vests upon the Judiciary the power to review the sufficiency of the factual basis for such proclamation and/or suspension.
There are four provision in Art. VII, Sec. XVIII that pertains specifically to the role of the Congress when the President proclaims martial law and/or suspends the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus:
- The requirement for the President to submit a report to the Congress within 48 hours after such declaration;
- The power of the Congress to revoke such declaration by a vote of at least a majority of the all its Members voting jointly;
- The power of the Congress to extend such declaration, for a period to be determined by it, upon the initiative of the President, voting in the same manner provided in No. 2;
- If not in session, to convene within 24 hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of call.
Interpreting the subject provision:
(a) Verba legis. The plain meaning of the provision:
“The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President.”
It grants the Congress the power to revoke the President’s proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ and prescribes how the Congress may exercise such power, i.e., by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members, voting jointly, in a regular or special session.
The provision only requires Congress to vote jointly on the revocation of the President’s proclamation and/or suspension. It is not obligatory for the Congress to convene in joint session following the President’s proclamation of martial law and/or suspension of the privilege of the writ.
(b) Intention of the Framers. The deliberations of ConCom on the relevant constitutional provision does not reveal a manifest intent of the framers to make it mandatory for the Congress to convene in joint session following the President’s proclamation and/or suspension, so it could deliberate as a single body, regardless of whether its Members will concur in or revoke the President’s proclamation and/or suspension.
What is evident in the deliberations of the 1986 ConCom were the framers’ intentions to remove the requirement of prior concurrence by the Congress for the effectivity of the President’s proclamation of martial law and/or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; and grant to the Congress the discretionary power to revoke the President’s proclamation and/or suspension by a vote of at least a majority of its Members, voting jointly.
(c) The provision on revocation under Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution did not even come into operation, thus there is no requirement for the Congress to convene in a joint session. The Senate and House of Representatives already separately adopted resolutions expressing support for President Duterte’s Proclamation No. 216. Given the express support of both Houses of the Congress for Proclamation No. 216, and their already evident lack of intent to revoke the same, the provision in Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution on revocation did not even come into operation and, therefore, there is no obligation on the part of the Congress to convene in joint session.
(d) The Constitution does not regulate the manner by which the Congress may express its concurrence to a Presidential proclamation of martial law and/or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Thus, the Houses of the Congress have the discretion to adopt rules of procedure as they may deem appropriate for that purpose. And the Court is bound to respect the rules of the Congress, a co-equal and independent branch of government.
(e) The precedents cited by the petitioners were inapplicable in the case at bar. On December 4, 2009, then President Macapagal-Arroyo issued Proclamation No. 1959, entitled “Proclaiming a State of Martial Law and Suspending the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Province of Maguindanao, except for Certain Areas.” the two Houses of the Congress in 2009 also initially took separate actions on President Macapagal-Arroyo’s Proclamation No. 1959, with the Senate eventually adopting Resolution No. 217, expressing outright its sense that the proclamation of martial law was unconstitutional and necessarily implying that such proclamation should be revoked.
(f) Petitioners contend that if the Congress is not in session, it is constitutionally mandated to convene within 24 hours from the President’s proclamation of martial law and/or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, then it is with all the more reason required to convene immediately if in session. First, the provision is merely to ensure that the Congress will act swiftly on the matter. Second, there is no requirement to meet in a joint session. Third, the present Congress did act immediately by convening and adopting the concurrent resolutions.
(g) There is no violation of the right of the public to information when the Congress did not convene in joint session. The Congress still conducted deliberations on the subject Proclamation, albeit separately; and the public’s right to information on matters of national security is not absolute. Each House may decide to hold an executive session due to the confidential nature of the subject matter to be discussed and deliberated upon. Matters affecting the security of the state are considered confidential and must be discussed and deliberated upon in an executive session, excluding the public therefrom.
Dispositive
Petitions dismissed.