Whichever position one takes on the declaration of martial law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao, the following neutral pronouncements of the Supreme Court are opportune and relevant as they set the standards and parameters in the exercise of the President’s extraordinary emergency power:

1. A petition for the Supreme Court to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of a martial law declaration and suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is justiciable and must perforce be resolved by the Supreme Court since it is outside the ambit of a political question.

2. A petition filed by a citizen under Section 18 of Article VII granting the specific and special jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to review and determine the sufficiency of the factual basis of such declaration and suspension is sui generis or a class by itself. It does not fall under the expanded power of judicial review of the Supreme Court under Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution and the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court where in both instances the respondent is charged with grave abuse of discretion or arbitrariness.

3. There are two indispensable concurrent requirements to warrant the declaration of martial law and suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, namely, (a) actual rebellion or invasion; and (b) necessity to safeguard public safety.

4. The burden of proof is on the President or his subalterns to show sufficiency of the factual basis because it is the Executive who has the monopoly of supposed intelligence information which may warrant such declaration or suspension.

5. The quantum of evidence is “probable cause”. This is the level of evidence required in preliminary investigation which refers to a set of facts or circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and the person accused is the culprit sought to be arrested.

6. The multiple safeguards enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, including the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to determine the sufficiency of the factual basis of the declaration of martial law and suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, delimits the power of the President to make such declaration and suspension in order to prevent the recurrence of the abuses and excesses of the Marcos martial law. It is in this context that the Supreme Court should exercise its power to determine the sufficiency of the factual basis of the declaration of martial law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.

The justices who concurred with the majority decision and those who dissented are basically in agreement on the foregoing rulings.

EDCEL C. LAGMAN