BVR & ASSOCIATES
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • BUSINESS REGISTRATION
    • BACK OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES
    • BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING
    • PAYROLL SERVICES
    • VIRTUAL ASSISTANT
    • FINANCIAL PLANNING
    • ASSET MANAGEMENT
    • HUMAN RESOURCES
  • About
  • ARTICLES
    • TESTIMONIALS
    • BLOG
  • CONTACT US
  • SERVICES

a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer


Case Digest: Lagman vs Medialdea

6/26/2020

0 Comments

 
 Lagman vs Medialdea 

ISSUE:  Whether or not there is a sufficient factual basis for the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privelege of writ of habeas corpus 

FACTS: 
On May 23, 2017, President Rodrigo Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216, declaring Martial Law in the whole island of Mindanao and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus therein. On May 25, the president submitted a written report to Congress on the factual basis of the Martial Law declaration (as required by the Constitution).  The main basis of the declaration was the attack of the Maute terrorist group in Marawi City. According to the report, the Maute group is an affiliate of ISIS which is aiming to establish an Islamic caliphate in Marawi City (and might spread its control in all the other parts of Mindanao). It also cited the ongoing rebellion and lawless violence that has plagued Mindanao for decades. 
DECISION:  Yes 
​
RATIO DECIDENDI:  In reviewing the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation or suspension, the Court considers only the information and data available to the President prior to or at the time of the declaration.    The determination by the Court of the sufficiency of factual basis must be limited only to the facts and information mentioned in the Report and Proclamation.    The Court held that the President, in issuing Proclamation No. 216, had sufficient factual bases tending to show that actual rebellion exists. The President only has to ascertain if there is probable cause for a declaration of Martial Law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.    The petitioners’ counter-evidence were derived solely from unverified news articles on the internet, with neither the authors nor the sources shown to have affirmed the contents thereof.    As the Court has consistently ruled, news articles are hearsay evidence, twice removed, and are thus without any probative value, unless offered for a purpose other than proving the truth of the matter asserted.    The alleged false and/or inaccurate statements are just pieces and parcels of the Report; along with these alleged false data is an arsenal of other independent facts showing that more likely than not, actual rebellion exists.  
​ISSUE:  Whether or not there is a sufficient factual basis for the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privelege of writ of habeas corpus 

FACTS:  On May 23, 2017, President Rodrigo Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216, declaring Martial Law in the whole island of Mindanao and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus therein. On May 25, the president submitted a written report to Congress on the factual basis of the Martial Law declaration (as required by the Constitution).  The main basis of the declaration was the attack of the Maute terrorist group in Marawi City. According to the report, the Maute group is an affiliate of ISIS which is aiming to establish an Islamic caliphate in Marawi City (and might spread its control in all the other parts of Mindanao). It also cited the ongoing rebellion and lawless violence that has plagued Mindanao for decades. 

DECISION:  Yes 

RATIO DECIDENDI:  In reviewing the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation or suspension, the Court considers only the information and data available to the President prior to or at the time of the declaration.    The determination by the Court of the sufficiency of factual basis must be limited only to the facts and information mentioned in the Report and Proclamation.    The Court held that the President, in issuing Proclamation No. 216, had sufficient factual bases tending to show that actual rebellion exists. The President only has to ascertain if there is probable cause for a declaration of Martial Law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.    The petitioners’ counter-evidence were derived solely from unverified news articles on the internet, with neither the authors nor the sources shown to have affirmed the contents thereof.    As the Court has consistently ruled, news articles are hearsay evidence, twice removed, and are thus without any probative value, unless offered for a purpose other than proving the truth of the matter asserted.    The alleged false and/or inaccurate statements are just pieces and parcels of the Report; along with these alleged false data is an arsenal of other independent facts showing that more likely than not, actual rebellion exists.  
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    March 2018

    Categories

    All
    Agrarian Law
    Articles-of-incorporation
    By-laws
    Constitutional Law
    Criminal Law
    Law
    Persons And Family Relations

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • BUSINESS REGISTRATION
    • BACK OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES
    • BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING
    • PAYROLL SERVICES
    • VIRTUAL ASSISTANT
    • FINANCIAL PLANNING
    • ASSET MANAGEMENT
    • HUMAN RESOURCES
  • About
  • ARTICLES
    • TESTIMONIALS
    • BLOG
  • CONTACT US
  • SERVICES