REPRESENTATIVES EDCEL C. LAGMAN, TOMASITO S. VILLARIN, EDGAR R. ERICE, TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT, JR., GARY C. ALEJANO, AND EMMANUEL A. BILLONES, VS. SENATE PRESIDENT AQUILINO PIMENTEL III, SPEAKER PANTALEON D. ALVAREZ, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA,DEFENSE SECRETARY DELFIN N. LORENZANA, BU

Ruling

Accordingly, in David , the Court ruled that it was improper to implead former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the petitions assailing the constitutionality of Presidential Proclamation No. 1017, where she declared a state of national emergency, and General Order No. 5, where she called upon the AFP and the Philippine National Police (PNP) to prevent and suppress acts of terrorism and lawless violence in the country. It is, thus, clear that petitioners in G.R. Nos. 236061 and 236145 committed a procedural misstep in including the President as a respondent in their petitions. The Congress is an indispensable party to the consolidated petitions. Of the four petitions before the Court, only G.R. No. 236145 impleaded the Congress as party-respondent. Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court requires that "parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined as plaintiffs or defendants." In Marmo, et al. v. Anacay , [81] the Court explained that: [A] party is indispensable, not only if he has an interest in the subject matter of the controversy, but also if his interest is such that a final decree cannot be made without affecting this interest or without placing the controversy in a situation where the final determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience. He is a person whose absence disallows the court from making an effective, complete, or equitable determination of the controversy between or among the contending parties. [82] (Citation omitted) In these consolidated petitions, petitioners are questioning the constitutionality of a congressional act, specifically the approval of the President's request to extend martial law in Mindanao. Petitioners in G.R. No. 235935 and 236155 have also put in issue the manner in which the Congress deliberated upon the President's request for extension. Clearly, therefore, it is the Congress as a body, and not just its leadership, which has interest in the subject matter of these cases. Consequently, it was procedurally incorrect for petitioners in G.R. Nos. 235935, 236061 and 236155 to implead only the Senate President and the House Speaker among the respondents. Arguably, Senator Aquilino Pimentel III and House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez can be said to have an interest in these cases, as representatives of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively. However, considering that one of their main contentions is that the "supermajority" of the Congress gravely abused their discretion when they allegedly railroaded the adoption of Resolution of Both Houses No. 4, it stands to reason and the requirements of due process that petitioners in G.R. Nos. 235935 and 236061 should have impleaded the Congress as a whole. [83] Needless to say, the entire body of Congress, and not merely the respective leaders of its two Houses, will be directly affected should We strike down the extension of martial law. Thus, We hold that in cases impugning th