ALEXANDER A. PADILLA v. CONGRESS OF PHILIPPINES, GR No.

231671, 2017-07-25
Facts:
Resolutions separately passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives, which express support as well
as the intent not to revoke President Duterte's Proclamation No. 216, injure their rights "to a proper [and]
mandatory legislative review of the declaration of martial law" and that the continuing failure of the Congress
to convene in joint session similarly causes a continuing injury to their rights.
Senator De Lima adds that she, together with the other senators who voted in favor of the resolution to convene
the Congress jointly, were even effectively denied the opportunity to perform their constitutionally-mandated
duty, under Article VII, Section 18 of the Constitution, to deliberate on the said proclamation of the President in
a joint session of the Congress
Congress is required to convene in joint session to review Proclamation No. 216 and vote as a single deliberative
body.
may revoke such proclamation or suspension" under Article VII, Section 18 of the Constitution allegedly pertain
to the power of the Congress to revoke but not to its obligation to jointly convene and vote which, they stress, is
mandatory.
the convening of the Congress in joint session, whenever the President declares martial law or suspends the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, is a public right and duty mandated by the Constitution.
Issues:
Whether or not under Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution, it is mandatory for the Congress 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:
The Court acknowledges that the main relief prayed for in the present petitions (i.e., that the Congress be directed
to convene in joint session and therein deliberate whether to affirm or revoke Proclamation No. 216) may
arguably have been rendered moot by: (a) the lapse of the original sixty (60) days that the President's martial
law declaration and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus were effective under Proclamation
No. 216; (b) the subsequent extension by the Congress of the proclamation of martial law and the suspension
of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus over the whole of Mindanao after convening in joint session on July
22, 2017; and (c) the Court's own decision in Lagman v. Medialdea,[64] wherein we ruled on the sufficiency of
the factual bases for Proclamation No. 216 under the original period stated therein.
these cases involve a constitutional issue of transcendental significance and novelty... first provision was
complied with, as within forty-eight (48) hours from the issuance on May 23, 2017 by President Duterte of
Proclamation No. 216, declaring a state of martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
in Mindanao, copies of President Duterte's Report relative to Proclamation No. 216 was transmitted to and
received by the Senate and the House of Representatives on May 25, 2017.
I quite realize that that is the practice and, precisely, in proposing this, I am consciously proposing this as an
exception to this practice because of the tremendous effect on the nation when the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus is suspended and then martial law is imposed. Since we have allowed the President to impose martial
law and suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus unilaterally, we should make it a little easier for
Congress to reverse such actions for the sake of protecting the rights of the people.
Madam President, we need the wisdom of the Senators
Principles:
The Congress is not constitutionally mandated to convene in joint session except to vote jointly to revoke the
President's declaration or suspension.
. In its literal and ordinary meaning, the provision grants the Congress the power to revoke the President's
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus 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 use of the word "may" in the provision... is to be construed as permissive and operating to confer discretion
on the Congress on whether or not to revoke,[71] but in order to revoke, the same provision sets the requirement
that at least a majority of the Members of the Congress, voting jointly, favor revocation.
the provision does not actually refer to a "joint session."... he requirement that "[t]he Congress, voting
jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, x x x" explicitly
applies only to the situation when the Congress revokes the President's proclamation of martial law
and/or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
s the result of the foregoing, the 1987 Constitution does not provide at all for the manner of
determination and expression of concurrence (whether prior or subsequent) by the Congress in the
President's proclamation of martial law and/or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus.
the underlying reason for the requirement that the two Houses of the Congress will vote jointly is to
avoid the possibility of a deadlock and to facilitate the process of revocation of the President's
proclamation of martial law and/or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus: