Constitutional Law

Presidential Proclamation of Martial Law and Suspension of the Privilege of Habeas Corpus.

Prudence and respect for the co-equal departments of the government dictate that the Court should be cautious in entertaining actions that assail the constitutionality of the acts of the Executive or the Legislative department. Under the 1987 Constitution the President and the Congress act in tandem in exercising the power to proclaim martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. They exercise the power, not sequentially, but in a sense jointly since, after the President has initiated the proclamation or the suspension, only Congress can maintain the same based on its own evaluation of the situation on the ground, a power that the President does not have. Consequently, although the Constitution reserves to the Supreme Court the power to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation or suspension in a proper suit, it is implicit that the Court must allow Congress to exercise its own review powers, which is automatic rather than initiated. Only when Congress defaults in its express duty to defend the Constitution through such review should the Supreme Court step in as its final rampart. The constitutional validity of the President's proclamation of martial law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is first a political question in the hands of Congress before it becomes a justiciable one in the hands of the Court (see decision on consolidated cases, re: Constitutionality of Presidential Proclamation of Martial Law and the Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Province of Maguindanao. March 20, 2012).