Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1981 > January 1981 Decisions > G.R. No. L-49579 January 15, 1981 - JOSE MA. SISON, ET AL. v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-49579. January 15, 1981.]

JOSE MA. SISON, JULIET SISON, BERNABE BUSCAYNO, MILA BUSCAYNO, PETER MUTUC, EDGAR PILAPIL, EDUARDO LINGAT, JOAQUIN RIVERA, LEONILA LUMBANG and JUANITO CANLAS, Petitioners, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Minister of National Defense; Gen. ROMEO G. ESPINO, Chief of Staff, AFP; GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, Chief of the Philippine Constabulary; SPECIAL MILITARY COMMISSION NO. 1; COL. MANUEL CASACLANG, Military Trial Counsel for Special Military Commission No. 1; COL. MIGUEL V. AURE, Officer-In-Charge, 5th CSU; MAJOR MARIO S. HIDALGO, Commanding Officer, Bicutan Rehabilitation Center; and CAPT. MELCHOR I. ACOSTA, Officer-In-Charge, Military Security Unit, Respondents.

Juan T. David, Rodrigo H. Melchor, Nemesio Garcia, Jr. and Julie David-Feliciano, for Petitioners.

Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor General Vicente V. Mendoza and Solicitor Roberto A. Abad for Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


Petitioner are civilians who have been arrested and detained pursuant to arrest, search and seizure orders, and who have been accused of rebellion before the military tribunal. In this petition for habeas corpus, prohibition, and mandamus, they claim that they are being illegally detained since the Military Commission have no jurisdiction over civilians inasmuch as General Order No. 8 and Presidential Decree No. 39 implementing it are unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court held that the issues raised by petitioners have become moot and academic because the Supreme Court has previously upheld the constitutionality of Proclamation No. 1081 and the General Order No. 2 by virtue of which the arrest, search and seizure orders against petitioners have been issued, as well as of the continued existence of military tribunals and the exercise by them of jurisdiction over civilians during the period of martial law; and because the President has announced that the military tribunals are being phased out and it is reported that the Ministry of Justice is not taking steps to transfer cases pending before the military tribunals to the civil courts.

Petition dismissed for lack of merit.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; EXECUTIVE POWER; MARTIAL LAW; AUTHORITY TO ARREST OR DETAIN THOSE INVOLVED IN CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY HELD CONSTITUTIONAL. — The arrest, search and seizure orders against the petitioners were issued by virtue of Proclamation No. 1081 and General Order No. 2, both of which have been declared valid and constitutional. The authority of the President and persons acting under his authority to cause the arrest or detention of those involved in crimes against national security has been upheld.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; CONSTITUTIONALITY OF EXISTENCE OF MILITARY COURTS AND THEIR JURISDICTION OVER CIVILIANS UPHELD. — In Aquino v. Military Commission No. 2, G.R. No. L-37364, May 9, 1975, the Supreme Court held that the continued existence of these military tribunals and the exercise by them of jurisdiction over civilians during the period of martial law are within the contemplation and intendment of Section 3, paragraph 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution. These are tribunals of special and restricted jurisdiction created under the stress of an emergency and national security. The procedure before the military commissions as prescribed in Presidential Decree No. 39, assures observance of the fundamental requirements of procedural due process, due notice, an essentially fair and impartial trial and reasonable opportunity for the preparation of the defense.

3. REMEDIAL LAW; PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS; DISMISSAL THEREOF WHERE ISSUES RAISED HAVE BECOME MOOT AND ACADEMIC; CASE AT BAR. — The issues raised by petitioners in their petition for habeas corpus, prohibition on mandamus have become moot and academic because, said issues involved the legality of their detention and the jurisdiction of the military tribunals over them as civilians and these issues have already been previously ruled upon by the Supreme Court; and because the President of the Philippines has announced that the military tribunals are being phased out and it is reported that the Ministry of Justice is now taking steps to transfer cases pending before the military tribunals to the civil courts.

TEEHANKEE, J., concurring and dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

REMEDIAL LAW; PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS; ISSUES RENDERED MOOT AND ACADEMIC DUE TO PHASE OUT OF MILITARY TRIBUNALS; DISSENT ON DISMISSAL OF CASE AT BAR BASED ON RULING IN AQUINO VS. MILITARY COMMISSION NO. 2 (63 SCRA 546). — Justice Teehankee concurs with the Court’s judgment insofar as it holds that "the issues raised by the petitioners have become moot and academic" because of the phase out of the military tribunals and the transfer of cases pending therein to the civil courts. Insofar as the main opinion reiterates the ruling in Aquino v. Military Commission No. 2 (63 SCRA 546) and dismisses the petition for lack of merit, he reiterates by reference his dissents in said case and in Buscayno v. Enrile, L-47185, resolved by the court on this same date.


D E C I S I O N


FERNANDEZ, J.:


This is a petition for habeas corpus, prohibition and mandamus, seeking the following relief:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the petitioners respectfully pray this Honorable Court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. To issue a writ of habeas corpus requiring the respondents to produce their bodies before this Honorable Court on a day which it will fix; and for them to show cause why the petitioners should not be released;.

"2. To issue a writ of temporary restraining order enjoining the respondent MILITARY COMMISSION and the respondent TRIAL COUNSEL from proceeding with the trial of the petitioners which it is scheduled in January, 1979, until further orders of this Honorable Court, in the same manner that said anciliary relief was granted by this Honorable Court to their co-accused in Criminal Case No. SMC-1-1, in the latter’s petition for habeas corpus, in the case of Luneta, Et Al., v. SMC-1, Et Al., G.R. No. L-49473;

"3. That the petitioners be ordered released on bail after they have filed their respective bail bonds;

"4. That after due hearing, a writ of prohibition issue, enjoining the respondents and all persons acting in their names, or in their behalf, or under their orders, to desist from proceeding with the trial of the petitioners;.

"5. That, if after due hearing, the remedy of the writ of prohibition is not granted, the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issue, ordering the respondent TRIAL COUNSEL to strike out from the Charge Sheet in Criminal Case SMC-1-1, the allegations that the petitioners are "Officers and/or leaders of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP); and/or its Military Arm, the New Peoples Army (NPA)" ; to order the respondent TRIAL COUNSEL to amend the Charged Sheet, so that the particular participation of each of the accused in the alleged crime of rebellion, is specified; ordering the respondent MINISTER or his subordinates to allow the petitioners to examine; copy, or photograph the items listed in Item (3) of the Prayer, in the petition of Luneta, Et Al., supra;

"6. That, after due hearing, the respondents be ordered to release the petitioners, in the enjoyment of their constitutional right to the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus;

"7. That after due hearing, the writ of temporary restraining order, if issued by this Honorable Court be made permanent; and.

"8. That, the petitioners be granted such other and further reliefs to which they may be entitled in law and equity." 1

The petitioners are civilians originally accused before Military Commission No. 1 of the crime of rebellion under two (2) Charge Sheets docketed as Criminal Case No. MC-1-92 later reduced to one Amended Charge Sheet, accusing said petitioners of rebellion under Article 134, in relation to Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code. The case against the petitioners was transferred to Military Commission No. 24. Later said case was re-assigned to Special Military Commission No. 1. Some of the petitioners were released for humanitarian reasons and the rest are still detained.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

The petitioners contend that they are illegally detained because:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Military Commissions have no jurisdiction inasmuch as G.O. No. 8 and P.D. No. 39 implementing it, are unconstitutional on the ground that in removing the judicial power of civil courts over civilians charged with crimes defined by the municipal penal laws and transferring the same to military commissions, the military was made supreme over civilian authority in gross violation of Section 8, Article II of the Constitution and of Section 1, Article X thereof which vests judicial power exclusively in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts which may be established by law;

2. Petitioners are civilians who are not civilian retainers to the camp of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Hence under the Articles of War, Commonwealth Act No. 408, as amended, the petitioners are not subject to military law and are not under the jurisdiction of military commissions;

3. Granting arguendo that G.O. No. 8 and P.D. No. 39 are parts of the law of the land and not unconstitutional, their enforcement is illegal because they were not published in the Official Gazette as required by Article 2 of the New Civil Code and Section 11 of the Revised administrative Code;

4. There should be adherence to the "open court rule." Inasmuch as Civil courts of the Philippines continue to function normally and without interruption under martial law, the removal of a substantial part of the judicial power of the civil courts by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the transfer thereof to military commissions was in gross violation of Section 1, Article VIII of the 1935 Constitution and of Section 8, Article II of present constitution because the military is placed supreme over the civilian authority; and

5. The law member of Military Commission No. 1 is disqualified to participate in the trial of the petitioners because he violated the constitutional rights of the accused to due process by extracting from some of them confessions through torture. He adversely prejudged the defense of confession extorted through torture.

The main issues raised by the petitioners have been previously ruled upon by this Court. Hence this petition has no merit and should be dismissed.

The arrest, search and seizure orders against the petitioners were issued by virtue of Proclamation No. 1081 and General Order No. 2, both of which have been declared valid and constitutional. The authority of the President and persons acting under his authority to cause the arrest or detention of those involved in crimes against national security has been upheld. 2

In Aquino v. Military Commission No. 2, G.R. No. L-37364, May 9, 1975, 3 the Supreme Court held that the continued existence of these military tribunals and the exercise by them of jurisdiction over civilians during the period of martial law are within the contemplation and intendment of Section 3, paragraph 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution. These are tribunals of special and restricted jurisdiction created under the stress of an emergency and national security. The procedure before the military commissions as prescribed in Presidential Decree No. 39, assures observance of the fundamental requirements of procedural due process, due notice, an essentially fair and impartial trial and reasonable opportunity for the preparation of the defense.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

The President of the Philippine has announced that the military tribunals are being phased out. It is reported that the Ministry of Justice is now taking steps to transfer cases pending before the military tribunals to the civil courts. Hence the issues raised by the petitioners have become moot and academic.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Barredo, Makasiar, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

Aquino, J., concurs in the result.

Concepcion, Jr., J., is on leave.

Separate Opinions


TEEHANKEE, J., concurring and dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I concur with the Court’s judgment insofar as it holds that "the issues raised by the petitioners have become moot and academic" because of the phase out of the military tribunals and the transfer of cases pending therein to the civil courts. Insofar as the main opinion reiterates the ruling in Aquino v. Military Commission No. 2 (63 SCRA 546) and dismisses the petition for lack of merit, I reiterate by reference my dissents in said case and in Buscayno v. Enrile, L-47185, resolved by the Court on this same date.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, pp. 52-54.

2. Aquino v. Enrile, 59 SCRA 183. .

3. 63 SCRA 546.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1981 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-53953 January 5, 1981 - SANDE AGUINALDO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47185 January 15, 1981 - BERNABE BUSCAYNO v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49579 January 15, 1981 - JOSE MA. SISON, ET AL. v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54577 January 15, 1981 - OTHONIEL V. JIMENEZ v. MILITARY COMMISSION NO. 34, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49473 January 16, 1981 - JOSE E. LUNETA, ET AL. v. SPECIAL MILITARY COMMISSION NO. I, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41419 January 19, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLITO GIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47400 January 19, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE S. NOVALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48735 January 19, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO ANDAYA

  • G.R. No. L-21035 January 22, 1981 - IN RE: TAN TEK CHIAN v. REPUBLlC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27600 January 22, 1981 - FAUSTINO RONCESVALLES v. LUIS PATOLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38755 January 22, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PINCALIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38936 January 22, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMUALDO BATTUNG, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51367 January 22, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PHILIP VALDEMORO

  • G.R. No. L-55333 January 22, 1981 - ALICIA V. CABATINGAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • A.M. No. P-208 January 27, 1981 - ISABELO GARCIANO v. WILFREDO OYAO

  • A.M. No. 1892-CFI January 27, 1981 - EDUARDO ESTILLENA v. OSTERVALDO Z. EMILIA

  • G.R. No. L-26193 January 27, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODULFO SABIO

  • G.R. Nos. L-26911 & L-26924 January 27, 1981 - ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEV. CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-32791 January 27, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO YUTILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34332 January 27, 1981 - WINDOR STEEL MFG. CO., INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39310 January 27, 1981 - JOHN A. IMUTAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40531 January 27, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUISITO ARIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42856 January 27, 1981 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43649 January 27, 1981 - BERNARDO CAYABA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44188 January 27, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENIGNO PEREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45141 January 27, 1981 - PETRONILA T. CABALQUINTO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45168 January 27, 1981 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46338 January 27, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERBITO LACSON

  • G.R. No. L-48548 January 27, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO C. HINLO

  • G.R. No. L-49778 January 27, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO A. BAUTISTA

  • A.M. No. 1720 January 31, 1981 - DY TEBAN HARDWARE & AUTO SUPPLY CO. v. LAURO L. TAPUCAR

  • A.M. No. 2035-MJ January 31, 1981 - FRANCISCO CARREON v. MANUEL B. ACOSTA

  • A.M. No. L-2395-CFI January 31, 1981 - PHILIPPINE TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. ENRIQUE A. AGANA SR.

  • G.R. No. L-25168 January 31, 1981 - IN RE: KUMALA SALIM WING v. AHMAD ABUBAKAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-25836-37 January 31, 1981 - PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE v. JOSE M. ARUEGO

  • G.R. No. L-26399 January 31, 1981 - FERNANDO MARTINEZ v. FLORENCIA EVANGELISTA

  • G.R. No. L-30538 January 31, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO TIROL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos L-41022-23 January 31, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CECILIO FAMILGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47553 January 31, 1981 - JANE L. GARCIA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.