Fortun v. Arroyo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 23, 2009, a massacre of 57 civilians occurred in Maguindanao, allegedly perpetrated by individuals led by the ruling Ampatuan family. In response to this event, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Presidential Proclamation 1946 on November 24, 2009, declaring a state of emergency in Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat, and Cotabato City to quell lawless violence. Subsequently, on December 4, 2009, believing greater authority was needed to restore order and secure the province, the President issued Presidential Proclamation 1959, declaring martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Maguindanao, with exceptions for certain Moro Islamic Liberation Front areas. Procedural History: Following the issuance of Presidential Proclamation 1959, President Arroyo submitted a report to Congress on December 6, 2009, as required by the Constitution, detailing her findings of lawless men taking up arms and rising against the government in Maguindanao. Congress convened in joint session on December 9, 2009, to review the validity of the President's actions. However, before Congress could act, the President issued Presidential Proclamation 1963 on December 12, 2009, lifting martial law and restoring the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Maguindanao. The consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality of Proclamation 1959 were filed by various individuals and groups. The Petition: The consolidated petitions, filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, sought to challenge the constitutionality of Presidential Proclamation 1959, which declared martial law and suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Maguindanao. The petitioners argued that the proclamation and suspension were unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions on the grounds that they had become moot and academic. This was due to the prompt lifting of the proclamation by the President before Congress could complete its review and before any significant rights or liberties were affected, rendering the issue of constitutionality no longer a justiciable controversy.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitions challenging the constitutionality of Presidential Proclamation 1959 have become moot and academic. Whether the Supreme Court can review the constitutionality of a proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus when it has been withdrawn by the President before congressional review and before any substantial rights were affected.
Ruling
The Court dismissed the consolidated petitions on the ground that the same have become moot and academic.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of mootness and academic nature of the petitions: The Court held that the petitions had become moot and academic because President Arroyo withdrew Presidential Proclamation 1959 before the joint houses of Congress could fulfill their automatic duty to review and validate or invalidate it. The lifting of martial law and restoration of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Maguindanao was a supervening event that obliterated any justiciable controversy. The Court emphasized that prudence and respect for co-equal departments dictate caution in entertaining actions that assail the constitutionality of acts of the Executive or Legislative departments when the issue is no longer unavoidable. On the Court's power of review: The Court reiterated that 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. In this case, President Arroyo withdrew Proclamation 1959 before Congress could act, rendering the petitions moot. The Court also noted that since the proclamation was withdrawn after only eight days and was not meaningfully implemented, no indiscriminate mass arrest was reported, and no petition for habeas corpus was filed, the proclamation appeared more like saber-rattling than an actual deployment and arbitrary use of political power. The Court does not resolve purely academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest, especially when constitutional dimensions are involved, unless avoidance becomes evasion. The Court's duty is to steer clear of declaring unconstitutional the acts of the Executive or Legislative department, given the assumption that they carefully studied those acts and found them consistent with the fundamental law before taking them.
Main Doctrine
The petitions challenging the constitutionality of Presidential Proclamation 1959, declaring martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Maguindanao, were dismissed on the ground that the issues had become moot and academic due to the prompt lifting of the proclamation by the President before Congress could review it and before any serious question affecting the rights and liberties of the inhabitants could arise.