PADILLA V.

CONGRESS
25 July 2017

Facts:

 Two consolidated petitions assailing the failure/refusal of respondent Congress to

convene in joint session to deliberate on Proc No. 216 (PDuts placing Mindanao
under Martial Law, suspending privilege of writ of HC).
 Senate and HOR convened separately and issued their respective resolutions
(both of which fully supported the proclamation)
 Pending the resolution of these 2 cases, congress convened in joint session to
vote, still fully supporting the proclamation.

Issue: WON Consti requires that Congress convene in joint session to deliberate and
vote as a single deliberative body on WON declaration of ML and suspension of privilege
of WHC is proper – No.

Ruling:
 By the language of Article VII, Section 18
 of the 1987 Constitution, the Congress
is only required to vote jointly to revoke the President's proclamation of martial
law and/or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
 A cardinal rule in statutory construction is that when the law is clear and free
from any doubt or ambiguity, there is no room for construction or interpretation.
 The provision in question is clear, plain, and unambiguous. In its literal and
ordinary meaning, the provision grants the Congress the power to revoke the
President's proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus and prescribes how the Congress may exercise such
power, i.e., by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members, voting jointly, in a
regular or special session.
 The use of the word "may" in the provision - such that "the Congress may revoke
such proclamation or suspension - is to be construed as permissive and
operating to confer discretion on the Congress on whether or not to revoke, but
in order to revoke, the same provision sets the requirement that at least a
majority of the Members of the Congress, voting jointly, favor revocation.
 Congress is only required to vote jointly on the revocation of the President's
proclamation of martial law and/or suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus. Based on the Civil Liberties Union case, there is already no need
to look beyond the plain language of the provision and decipher the intent of the
framers of the 1987 Constitution.
 In short, if they support it – no need to convene in joint session.
 If they wish to revoke – must convene in joint session.