Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 559 views

    Lagman Vs Pimentel III

    Uploaded by

    zane
    The petitioners questioned the manner in which Congress approved the extension of martial law in Mindanao, arguing it was done with undue haste. They asserted the Supreme Court should review not just the sufficiency of the factual basis for the extension but also its accuracy. However, the respondent argued the Court's expanded jurisdiction was misplaced for reviewing the extension. The Court reiterated its previous ruling that its jurisdiction under the Constitution is specific for reviewing the sufficiency of factual basis, not whether there was grave abuse of discretion. It held a certiorari petition is not the proper tool to review the sufficiency of factual basis for extending martial law or suspending habeas corpus.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lagman Vs Pimentel III

    Uploaded by

    zane
    559 views2 pages
    The petitioners questioned the manner in which Congress approved the extension of martial law in Mindanao, arguing it was done with undue haste. They asserted the Supreme Court should review not just the sufficiency of the factual basis for the extension but also its accuracy. However, the respondent argued the Court's expanded jurisdiction was misplaced for reviewing the extension. The Court reiterated its previous ruling that its jurisdiction under the Constitution is specific for reviewing the sufficiency of factual basis, not whether there was grave abuse of discretion. It held a certiorari petition is not the proper tool to review the sufficiency of factual basis for extending martial law or suspending habeas corpus.

    Original Description:

    sc

    Original Title

    14. Lagman vs Pimentel III

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners questioned the manner in which Congress approved the extension of martial law in Mindanao, arguing it was done with undue haste. They asserted the Supreme Court should review not just the sufficiency of the factual basis for the extension but also its accuracy. However, the respondent argued the Court's expanded jurisdiction was misplaced for reviewing the extension. The Court reiterated its previous ruling that its jurisdiction under the Constitution is specific for reviewing the sufficiency of factual basis, not whether there was grave abuse of discretion. It held a certiorari petition is not the proper tool to review the sufficiency of factual basis for extending martial law or suspending habeas corpus.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    559 views2 pages

    Lagman Vs Pimentel III

    Uploaded by

    zane
    The petitioners questioned the manner in which Congress approved the extension of martial law in Mindanao, arguing it was done with undue haste. They asserted the Supreme Court should review not just the sufficiency of the factual basis for the extension but also its accuracy. However, the respondent argued the Court's expanded jurisdiction was misplaced for reviewing the extension. The Court reiterated its previous ruling that its jurisdiction under the Constitution is specific for reviewing the sufficiency of factual basis, not whether there was grave abuse of discretion. It held a certiorari petition is not the proper tool to review the sufficiency of factual basis for extending martial law or suspending habeas corpus.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    LAGMAN vs PIMENTEL III

    GR No. 235935, 236061, 236145

    February 6, 2018

    Ponente: Justice Noel Tijam

    ISSUE:

    Can the Petitioners invoke the expanded jurisdiction of the SC (Sec. 1, Art. VIII of Constitution) in
    seeking review of the extension of Proclamation no. 216.

    Position of Petitioners:

    Petitioners question the manner that the Congress approved the extension of martial law in
    Mindanao and characterized the same as done with undue haste. Petitioners premised their
    argument on the fact that the Joint Rules adopted by both Houses, in regard to the President's
    request for further extension.

    Petitioners argue that given its critical role in the system of checks and balance, the Court should
    review not only the sufficiency of the factual basis of the re-extension but also its accuracy. They
    assert that the standard for scrutiny for the present petitions is sufficiency of factual basis, not grave
    abuse of discretion. The former is, by constitutional design, a stricter scrutiny as opposed to the
    latter. Moreover, the Court is allowed to look into facts presented before it during the pendency of
    the litigation. This includes, for example, admissions made by the Solicitor General and the military
    during oral arguments, as they attempted to show compliance with the constitutional requirements.
    Petitioners insist that clear and convincing evidence is necessary to establish sufficient factual
    basis for the extension of martial law instead of the "probable cause" standard set in Lagman. In
    comparison to the initial exercise of the extraordinary powers of proclamation of martial law and
    the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, their extension must have had the
    benefit of sufficient time to gather additional information not only on the factual situation of an
    actual rebellion, but also the initial exercise of the Executive during its initial implementation.

    Position of the Respondent:

    The invocation of this Court's expanded jurisdiction under Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution is
    misplaced. As held in Lagman, the "appropriate proceeding" in Section 18, Article VII does not refer
    to a petition for certiorari filed under Section 1 or 5 of Article VIII, as it is not the proper tool to
    review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation or extension.

    Ruling of the Court:

    The Court reiterated their earlier ruling in Lagman case where they emphasized that the Court’s
    jurisdiction under the third paragraph of Section 18, Article VII (is special and specific, different from
    those enumerated in Sections 1 and 5 of Article VIII. It was further stressed therein that the standard
    of review in a petition for certiorari is whether the respondent has committed any grave abuse of
    discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the performance of his or her functions,
    whereas under Section 18, Article VII, the Court is tasked to review the sufficiency of the factual
    basis of the President’s exercise of emergency powers.

    Hence, the Court concluded that a petition for certiorari pursuant to Section 1 or Section 5 of Article
    VIII is not the proper tool to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial
    law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

    The Court added that to apply the standard of review in a petition for certiorari will emasculate the
    Court’s constitutional task under Section 18, Article VII, which was precisely meant to provide an
    additional safeguard against possible martial law abuse and limit the extent of the powers of the
    Commander-in-Chief.

    Finally, the Court held that a certiorari petition invoking the Court’s expanded jurisdiction is not the
    proper remedy to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the Congress’ extension of the
    proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy