Lagman v.

Medialdea
GR No. 231658; 4 July 2017
JUSTICE LEONEN DISSENTING OPINION

1. Justice Leonen dissents from the majority because his position is that the President cannot be
granted “undefined powers over the entire Mindanao region.” His reading of the Constitution is that
the Court should be “stricter, more precise, more vigilant of the fundamental rights of our people.”

He pointed out that unlike previous versions of our Constitution, the 1987 Constitution provides for
limitations for the declaration of martial law and “Therefore, any declaration must clearly articulate
the powers that would be exercised by the President as Commander-in-Chief. It cannot now just be a
declaration of a state of Martial Law. Otherwise, it would be unconstitutionally vague.”

2. Justice Leonen submits that Proclamation No. 216 issued on May 23, 2017 “expands with every
new issuance from its administrators.” Hence, the purpose of the Martial Law ended up becoming a
solution for many other issues in Mindanao, and not just the rebellion and lawless violence in Marawi.
a) General Order No. 1 issued by the President expands Martial Law by instructing the Armed
Forces to “undertake all measures to prevent and suppress all acts of rebellion and lawless
violence in the whole of Mindanao, including any and all acts in relation thereto, in
connection therewith, or in furtherance thereof.” Justice Leonen points out that under GO No.
1, “all acts of lawless violence throughout Mindanao even if unrelated to the ongiong
hostilities in Marawi have been included...” Example: Davao night market bombing.
b) The second paragraph of Art.3 of GO No.1 orders the AFP to cause the “arrest of persons
and/or groups who have committed, are committing, or attempting to commit” both rebellion
and any other kind of lawless violence.
c) The vagueness of Proclamation No. 216 hides its real intent. The Operational Directive for the
Implementation of Martial Law issued by the Chief of Staff of the AFP orders his forces to
“dismantle the NPA, other terror-linked private armed groups, illegal drug syndicates, peace
spoilers, and other lawless armed groups.” Arresting illegal drug syndicates and so-called
“peace spoilers” under Martial Law unduly expands Proclamation No. 216 as the factual basis
for the declaration of the Martial Law do not cover these illegal acts for its proclamation. These
acts do not fall within “rebellion” and cannot serve as justification for arrests but are made
possible because of a vague and overly broad Proclamation.
d) Due to lack of guidance from Proclamation No. 216, the AFP as implementor of Martial Law
defines it as taking over of civilian government. This allows the real possibility of military
governors or installing the military as head of local, provincial, or regional government.

3. Justice Leonen also points out that the facts presented by the respondents were not sufficient to
reasonably conclude that the armed hostilities and lawless violence happening in Marawi City is for
the purpose of removing the area’s allegiance to the government and depriving the President of their
powers or prerogatives on the same area.
a) The armed hostilities in Marawi City are acts of terrorism done to prevent the actual service of
warrants on leaders of local terrorist groups. They are not acts of rebellion.
b) Respondents, who bear the burden of proof, were unable to discharge the burden. Many of
the facts they presented were mere hearsay and they did not even bother to either show their
sources or present logical analysis of the intel that led to the incident.
 c) The facts presented by the parties themselves are not sufficient to justify the conclusion that
Martial Law under Proclamation No. 216, General Order No. 1, and in the Operational
Directives of the Chief of Staff of the AFP should be declared over the entire Mindanao. None
of the directives specify which island or island groups belong to Mindanao. In other words,
their scope of “Mindanao” is not expressly defined.

4. Justice Leonen disagreed with the government’s position to elevate the acts of a lawless criminal
group that uses terrorism as a tactic into the constitutional concept of rebellion because it
acknowledges the lawless criminal group as a political group. Rebellion is a political crime and the
court has acknowledged that if rebels are able to capture government, then rebellion, no matter how
brutal, will then be justified.

Acknowledging the Maute group as rebels elevates their “inhuman barbarism” into an “armed conflict
of non-international character” protected by International Humanitarian Law.

5. According to Justice Leonen, hostilities and lawless violence and their consequences can be
addressed by many of the prerogatives of the President. There is no showing that Martial Law has
become necessary for the safety of the entirety of Mindanao.

“We should temper our fears with reason. Otherwise, we succumb to the effects of the weapons of
terror. We should dissent—even resist—when offered the farce that Martial Law is necessary because
it is only an exclamation point.”