D E C I S
I O N
(En Banc)
ABAD, J.:
I.
THE FACTS
On November 23, 2009, heavily armed men believed led by the ruling
Ampatuan family of Maguindanao gunned down and buried under shoveled dirt 57
innocent civilians. In response to this carnage, President Arroyo
issued on November 24, 2009 PP 1946 declaring a state of emergency in
Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat, and Cotabato City.
On December 4, 2009, President Arroyo issued PP 1959 declaring martial
law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in
Maguindanao except for identified areas of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. On
December 6, 2009, President Arroyo submitted her report to Congress. On
December 9, 2009, Congress convened in joint session to review the validity of
the President’s action. But two days later, or on December 12, 2009,
before Congress could act, the President issued PP 1963, lifting martial law
and restoring the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
II.
THE ISSUES
Did the issuance of PP 1963, lifting martial
law and restoring the [privilege of the] writ in Maguindanao, render the issues
moot and academic?
III.
THE RULING
[The
Court DISMISSED the consolidated
petitions on the ground that they have become MOOT and ACADEMIC.]
YES, the issuance of PP 1963, lifting martial law and restoring the [privilege
of the] writ in Maguindanao, rendered the issues moot and academic
Prudence and respect for the co-equal departments of the government
dictate that the Court should be cautious in entertaining actions that assail
the constitutionality of the acts of the Executive or the Legislative
department. The issue of constitutionality, said the Court in Biraogo
v. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, must be the very issue of the
case, that the resolution of such issue is unavoidable.
The issue of the constitutionality of Proclamation 1959 is not
unavoidable for two reasons:
One. President Arroyo
withdrew her proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus before the joint houses of Congress
could fulfill their automatic duty to review and validate or invalidate the
same. xxx.
xxx xxx xxx
[U]nder the 1987 Constitution the President and the Congress act in tandem in exercising the power to
proclaim martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus. They exercise the power, not only sequentially, but in a
sense jointly since, after the President has initiated the proclamation
or the suspension, only the Congress can maintain the same based on its own
evaluation of the situation on the ground, a power that the President does not
have.
Consequently, although the Constitution reserves to the Supreme Court
the power to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation or
suspension in a proper suit, it is implicit that the Court must allow Congress
to exercise its own review powers, which is automatic rather than
initiated. Only
when Congress defaults in its express duty to defend the Constitution through
such review should the Supreme Court step in as its final rampart. The
constitutional validity of the President’s proclamation of martial law or
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is first a political
question in the hands of Congress before it becomes a justiciable one in the
hands of the Court.
xxx xxx xxx
Here, President Arroyo withdrew Proclamation 1959 before the joint
houses of Congress, which had in fact convened, could act on the same. Consequently,
the petitions in these cases have become moot and the Court has nothing to
review. The
lifting of martial law and restoration of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus in Maguindanao was a supervening event that obliterated any
justiciable controversy.
Two. Since President Arroyo withdrew
her proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus in just eight days, they have not been meaningfully implemented. The
military did not take over the operation and control of local government units
in Maguindanao. The President did not issue any law or decree affecting
Maguindanao that should ordinarily be enacted by Congress. No
indiscriminate mass arrest had been reported. Those who were
arrested during the period were either released or promptly charged in
court. Indeed, no petition for habeas corpus had been
filed with the Court respecting arrests made in those eight days. The
point is that the President intended by her action to address an uprising in a
relatively small and sparsely populated province. In her judgment,
the rebellion was localized and swiftly disintegrated in the face of a
determined and amply armed government presence.
xxx xxx xxx
xxx. In a real
sense, the proclamation and the suspension never took off. The
Congress itself adjourned without touching the matter, it having become moot
and academic.
No comments:
Post a Comment