The Supreme Court can review the declaration of martial law using the power

vested by the constitution. Martial law in strict sense as it may define, it is a law which
has application when military arm does not supersede civil authority but is called upon
aid it in the execution of its vital functions. Under article VII Section 18 of the Philippine
Constitution; The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the
Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to
prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or
rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days,
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part
thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or
the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a
report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of
at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such
proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President.
Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such
proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion
or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it. However, under the same article
and section it is said that the Supreme Court may review the sufficiency of the factual
basis of the of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the
habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and it must promulgate its decision thereon within
thirty days from its filing, any citizen may file the appropriate proceeding questioning the
declaration of martial law otherwise it is tantamount to encroachment of executive powers.

Supreme court or courts enjoys the judicial power which is to interpret the constitution
and even declare any legislative or executive act invalid, if it is not in accordance with the
constitution. This power can be seen in Article VIII, Section 4 paragraphs 2 and 3 and
Section 5, Paragraph 2 a and b of the Constitution. As for Section 4 (2) All cases involving
the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which shall
be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of
Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality,
application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions,
ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of
the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and
voted thereon. While in section 5 that enumerated the powers of the Supreme Court, in
section 5 paragraph 2 Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari,
as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts
in: (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question. (b) All cases involving the legality of any tax,
impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto. Through the power
of judicial review, the judiciary, the Supreme Court particularly is just enforcing the and
upholds the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution. In the consolidated cases
brought to the Supreme Court, mainly the case of David v. Arroyo G.R No. 171396 asking
for certiorari and prohibition claiming that issuing Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 (PP
1017) and General Order No. (G.O. No. 5), President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
committed abuse of discretion. Judicial review was made back then to which court said
that all the petitioners have locus standi or a right of appearance in a court of justice on a
given question. However, the court also finds and said that it is not proper to bring into a
law suit President Arroyo as respondent because of the doctrine that the President may
not be sued in any civil or criminal case during his tenure of office or actual incumbency.
In a sense that the dignity of the high office of the President, the Head of State will be
dragged into court for litigations. In addition, the respondents on this case argued that the
petition should be dismissed for being moot, petitioners in G.R Nos. 171400, 171483,
171485, and 171489 have no legal standing, PP 1017 has constitutional and legal basis
and does not violate the people’s right to free expression and redness of grievance. On
these cases there is no martial law declaration, however there are some views that is
related to the question given, the power used by the Supreme Court is the same power
to review the declaration of martial law, which is the judicial review.
In the case Lagman v. Pimentel III, G.R No. 235935, Consolidated petitions filed
concerning the third paragraph, Section 18 of Article VII of the Constitution, assailing the
constitutionality of the extension of the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the entire Mindanao for one year from January 1
to December 21, 2018. Petitioners in G.R. No. 235935 alternatively, but not mandatorily,
invoke the Court's expanded jurisdiction under Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution.
Petitioners in G.R. Nos. 235935, 236061 and 236155 pray for a temporary restraining
order and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin respondents from implementing the
one-year extension. In the petitions and memoranda and their oral arguments stated that,
that In relation to the Court's power to review the sufficiency of the factual basis for the
proclamation of martial law or any extension thereof, the military cannot withhold
information from the Court on the basis of national security especially since it is the
military itself that classifies what is "secret" and what is not. The Court's power to review
in this case is a specific and extraordinary mandate of the Constitution that cannot be
defeated and limited by merely invoking that the information sought is "classified." As for
the petitioners in G.R. No 236145 as to the scope and standard of judicial review, assert
that the standard for scrutiny for present petitions is sufficiency of factual basis, not grave
abuse of discretion. In addition, the argument given by the petitioners. They said that the
Congress committed grave abuse of discretion for precipitately and perfunctorily
approving the extension of martial law despite the absence of sufficient factual basis.
Furthermore, the petitioners also argued that The one-year extension of the proclamation
of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus lacked sufficient
factual basis because there is no actual rebellion in Mindanao. The Marawi siege and the
other grounds under Proclamation No. 216 that were used as the alleged bases to justify
the extension have already been resolved and no longer persist.31In his letter of request
for further extension, the President admits that the Maute rebellion has already been
quelled and the extension is to prevent the scattered rebels from gathering and
consolidating their strength. Moreover, the President himself had announced the
liberation of Marawi and the cessation of armed combat. In relation to Lagman v. Pimentel
III the Supreme Court ruled that the President should be dropped as party respondent
because of such privilege granted by the Constitution that the President can’t be sued,
and the The following events and circumstances, as disclosed by the President, the
Defense Secretary and the AFP, strongly indicate that the continued implementation of
martial law in Mindanao is necessary to protect public safety: The magnitude of the
atrocities already perpetrated by these rebel groups reveals their capacity to continue
inflicting serious harm and injury, both to life and property. The sinister plans of attack, as
uncovered by the AFP, confirm this real and imminent threat. The manpower and
armaments these groups possess, the continued radicalization and recruitment of new
rebels, the financial and logistical build-up cited by the President, and more importantly,
the groups' manifest determination to overthrow the government through force, violence
and terrorism, present a significant danger to public safety. The facts as provided by the
Executive and considered by Congress amply establish that rebellion persists in
Mindanao and public safety is significantly endangered by it. The Court, thus, holds that
there exists sufficient factual basis for the further extension sought by the President and
approved by the Congress in its Resolution of Both Houses No. 4. As the Supreme Court
ruled that there is a sufficient factual bases for the issuance of Resolution of Both Houses
No. 4 and Declares it as Constitutional. Accordingly, the consolidated petitions are hereby
dismissed.

Therefore, as I mentioned and based on the cases and constitutional provisions

given above, the Supreme Court can review the declaration of martial law in way of judicial
review, based on its constitutionality and in accordance to the power vested upon by the
Constitution. Supreme court may exercise the power if there must be a concurrence of at
least a majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberation on the issues in
the cases and voted thereon, a law must be sustained unless clearly repugnant to the
constitution in view of the presumption of validity, Political questions are generally
addressed to the political branches of the government and are therefore not justiciable,
otherwise it is tantamount to encroachment of executive powers.