Back

Padilla vs. Congress of the Philippines [CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION , LEONEN, J.]

ALEXANDER A. PADILLA, RENE A.V. SAGUISAG, CHRISTIAN S. MONSOD, LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, RENE B. GOROSPE, AND SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA, PETITIONERS, VS. CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES, CONSISTING OF THE SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AS REPRESENTED BY SENATE PRESIDENT AQUILINO "KOKO" PIMENTEL III, AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AS REPRESENTED BY HOUSE SPEAKER PANTALEON D. ALVAREZ, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 231694] FORMER SEN. WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA, BISHOP EMERITUS DEOGRACIAS S. IÑIGUEZ, BISHOP BRODERICK PABILLO, BISHOP ANTONIO R. TOBIAS, MO. ADELAIDA YGRUBAY, SHAMAH BULANGIS AND CASSANDRA D. DELURIA, PETITIONERS, VS. CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES, CONSISTING OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AQUILINO "KOKO" PIMENTEL III, PRESIDENT, SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND PANTALEON D. ALVAREZ, SPEAKER, HOUSE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES, RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 231671 | 2017-07-25

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

LEONEN, J.:

I concur only in the result.

The Petitions are moot in that the 60-day period has already lapsed. It is likewise academic considering that both the Senate and the House of Representatives convened jointly to extend the efficacy of the declaration of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

However, I dissent with the majority's attempts to establish doctrine in this case.

In my view, the power to revoke intrinsically and logically includes the duty to deliberate on whether or not to revoke.

Immediately after the President, as Commander in Chief, suspends...