IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
OF BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., RAMON MITRA, JR.,
FRANCISCO RODRIGO and NAPOLEON RAMA,
                                                                             Petitioners,

HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE,
GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF
THE PHILIPPINES and GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF,
PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY,
                                                                                     Respondents.

___________________________________________________________
 
 

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
OF JOAQUIN P. ROCES, TEODORO M. LOCSIN, SR.,
ROLANDO FADUL, ROSALINA GALANG, GO ENG GUAN,
MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, RENATO CONSTANTINO
and LUIS R. MAURICIO,
                                                                              Petitioners,

THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE,
THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES,
THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, ET AL.,
                                                                                Respondents.

________________________________________________________
 
 

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
OF JOSE W. DIOKNO and CARMEN I. DIOKNO, *1
                                                                            Petitioner,

JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE,
and ROMEO ESPINO, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
                                                                                    Respondents.

__________________________________________________________
 
 

MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, NAPOLEON G. RAMA
and JOSE MARI VELEZ,
                                                    Petitioners,

HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE,
HON. FRANCISCO TATAD, PRESS SECRETARY
and GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY,
                                                                                        Respondents.

____________________________________________________________
 

ENRIQUE VOLTAIRE GARCIA II,
                                    Petitioner,

BRIG. GEN. FIDEL RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY,
GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES
OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE,
SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE,
                                                                                Respondents.

________________________________________________________
 
 

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
OF VERONICA L. YUYITUNG and TAN CHIN HIAN,
                                                                            Petitioners,

JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE,
LIEUT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF,
ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES,
and BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS,
CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY,
                                                                            Respondents.

_______________________________________________________
 
 

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
OF AMANDO DORONILA, JUAN L. MERCADO,
HERNANDO L. ABAYA, ERNESTO GRANADA,
LUIS D. BELTRAN, TAN CHIN HIAN, BREN GUIAO, RUBEN
CUSIPAG, ROBERTO ORDOÑEZ, MANUEL ALMARIO
and WILLIE BAUN,
                                                                            Petitioners,

HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE,
LIEUT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES
OF THE PHILIPPINES, and BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS,
CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY,
                                                                                    Respondents.

__________________________________________________________
 
 

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
OF BREN Z. GUIAO and TERESITA M. GUIAO,
                                                                            Petitioners,

JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE,
LT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF
OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES
and BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS,
CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY,
                                                                                    Respondents.

__________________________________________________________
 
 

ERNESTO RONDON,
                Petitioner,

HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE,
GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY
and MAJOR RODULFO MIANA,
                                                                                    Respondents.
 
 

At one point during our deliberations on these cases it was suggested that as Chief Justice I should write that opinion. The impracticability of the suggestion shortly became apparent for a number of reasons, only two of which need be mentioned. First, the discussions, as they began to touch on particular issues, revealed a lack of agreement among the Justices as to whether some of those issues should be taken up although it was not necessary to do so, they being merely convenient for the purpose of ventilating vexing questions of public interest, or whether the decision should be limited to those issues which are really material and decisive in these cases. Similarly, there was no agreement as to the manner the issues should be treated and developed. The same destination would be reached, so to speak, but through different routes and by means of different vehicles of approach. The writing of separate opinions by individual Justices was thus unavoidable, and understandably so for still another reason, namely, that although little overt reference to it was made at the time, the future verdict of history was very much a factor in the thinking of the members, no other case of such transcendental significance to the life of the nation having before confronted this Court. Second  and this to me was the insuperable obstacle  I was and am of the opinion, which was shared by six other Justices[1] at the time the question was voted upon, that petitioner Jose W. Diokno's motion of December 28, 1973 to withdraw his petition [G. R. No. L-35539] should be granted, and therefore I was in no position to set down the ruling of the Court on each of the arguments raised by him, except indirectly, insofar as they had been raised likewise in the other cases.

It should be explained at this point that when the Court voted on Diokno's motion to withdraw his petition he was still under detention without charges, and continued to remain so up to the time the separate opinions of the individual Justices were put in final form preparatory to their promulgation on September 12, which was the last day of Justice Zaldivars tenure in the Court.[2] Before they could be promulgated, however, a major development supervened: petitioner Diokno was released by the President in the morning of September 11, 1974. In view thereof all the members of this Court except Justice Castro agreed to dismiss Diokno's petition on the ground that it had become moot, with those who originally voted to grant the motion for withdrawal citing said motion as an additional ground for such dismissal.

The petitioners in the other cases, except Benigno Aquino, Jr. [G. R. No. L-35546], either have been permitted to withdraw their petitions or have been released from detention subject to certain restrictions.[3] In the case of Aquino, formal charges of murder, subversion and illegal possession of firearms were lodged against him with a Military Commission on August 11, 1973; and on the following August 23 he challenged the jurisdiction of said Commission as well as his continued detention by virtue of those charges in a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed in this Court [G. R. No. L-37364]. The question came up as to whether or not Aquino's petition for habeas corpus should be dismissed on the ground that the case as to him should more appropriately be resolved in this new petition. Of the twelve Justices, however, eight voted against such dismissal and chose to consider the case on the merits.[4]

On Diokno's motion to withdraw his petition, I voted in favor of granting it for two reasons. In the first place such withdrawal would not emasculate the decisive and fundamental issues of public interest that demanded to be resolved, for they were also raised in the other cases which still remained pending. Secondly, since it was this petitioner's personal liberty that was at stake, I believed he had the right to renounce the application for habeas corpus he initiated. Even if that right were not absolute I still would respect his choice to remove the case from this Court's cognizance, regardless of the fact that I disagreed with many of his reasons for so doing. I could not escape a sense of irony in this Court's turning down the plea to withdraw on the ground, so he alleges among others, that this is no longer the Court to which he originally applied for relief because its members have taken new oaths of office under the 1973 Constitution, and then ruling adversely to him on the merits of his petition.

It is true that some of the statements in the motion are an affront to the dignity of this Court and therefore should not be allowed to pass unanswered. Any answer, however, would not be foreclosed by allowing the withdrawal. For my part, since most of those statements are of a subjective character, being matters of personal belief and opinion, I see no point in refuting them in these cases. Indeed my impression is that they were beamed less at this Court than at the world outside and designed to make political capital of his personal situation, as the publicity given to them by some segments of the foreign press and by local underground propaganda news sheets subsequently confirmed. It was in fact from that perspective that I deemed it proper to respond in kind, that is, from a non-judicial forum, in an address I delivered on February 19, 1974 before the LAWASIA, the Philippine Bar Association and the Philippine Lawyers' Association. Justice Teehankee, it may be stated, is of the opinion that a simple majority of seven votes out of twelve is legally sufficient to make the withdrawal of Diokno's petition effective, on the theory that the requirement of a majority of eight votes applies only to a decision on the merits.

In any event, as it turned out, after petitioner Diokno was released by the President on September 11 all the members of this Court except Justice Castro were agreed that his petition had become moot and therefore should no longer be considered on the merits. This notwithstanding, some of the opinions of the individual members, particularly Justices Castro and Teehankee, should be taken in the time setting in which they were prepared, that is, before the order for the release of Diokno was issued.

The Cases.

The events which form the background of these nine petitions are related, either briefly or in great detail, in the separate opinions filed by the individual Justices. The petitioners were arrested and held pursuant to General Order No. 2 of the President [September 22, 1972], "for being participants or for having given aid and comfort in the conspiracy to seize political and state power in the country and to take over the Government by force."

General Order No. 2 was issued by the President in the exercise of the powers he assumed by virtue of Proclamation No. 1081 [September 21, 1972] placing the entire country under martial law. The portions of the proclamation immediately in point read as follows:

xxx   xxx   xxx

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines by virtue of the powers vested upon me by Article VII, Section 10, Paragraph (2) of the Constitution, do hereby place the entire Philippines as defined in Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution under martial law and, in my capacity as their Commander-in-Chief, do hereby command the Armed Forces of the Philippines, to maintain law and order throughout the Philippines, prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence as well as any act of insurrection or rebellion and to enforce obedience to all the laws and decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction.

The provision of the 1935 Constitution referred to in the proclamation reads: "the President shall be 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, insurrection, or rebellion. In case of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, or imminent danger thereof, when the public safety requires it, he may suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law."

1. The first major issue raised by the parties is whether this Court may inquire into the validity of Proclamation No. 1081. Stated more concretely, is the existence of conditions claimed to justify the exercise of the power to declare martial law subject to judicial inquiry? Is the question political or justiciable in character?

Justices Makasiar, Antonio, Esguerra, Fernandez and Aquino hold that the question is political and therefore its determination is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. The reasons are given at length in the separate opinions they have respectively signed. Justice Fernandez adds that as a member of the Convention that drafted the 1973 Constitution he believes that "the Convention put an imprimatur on the proposition that the validity of a martial law proclamation and its continuation is political and non-justiciable in character."

Justice Barredo, on the other hand, believes that political questions are not per se beyond the Court's jurisdiction, the judicial power vested in it by the Constitution being plenary and all-embracing, but that as a matter of policy implicit in the Constitution itself the Court should abstain from interfering with the Executive's Proclamation, dealing as it does with national security, for which the responsibility is vested by the charter in him alone. But the Court should act, Justice Barredo opines, when its abstention from acting would result in manifest and palpable transgression of the Constitution proven by facts of judicial notice, no reception of evidence being contemplated for purposes of such judicial action.

It may be noted that the postulate of non-justiciability as discussed in those opinions involves disparate methods of approach. Justice Esguerra maintains that the findings of the President on the existence of the grounds for the declaration of martial law are final and conclusive upon the Courts. He disagrees vehemently with the ruling in Lansang vs. Garcia, 42 SCRA 448, December 11, 1971, and advocates a return to Barcelon vs. Baker, 5 Phil. 87 [1905], and Montenegro vs. Castañeda, 91 Phil. 882 [1952]. Justice Barredo, for his part, holds that Lansang need not be overturned, indeed does not control in these cases. He draws a distinction between the power of the President to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, which was the issue in Lansang, and his power to proclaim martial law, calling attention to the fact that while the Bill of Rights prohibits suspension of the privilege except in the instances specified therein, it places no such prohibition or qualification with respect to the declaration of martial law.

Justice Antonio, with whom Justices Makasiar, Fernandez and Aquino concur, finds that there is no dispute as to the existence of a state of rebellion in the country, and on that premise emphasizes the factor of necessity for the exercise by the President of his power under the Constitution to declare martial law, holding that the decision as to whether or not there is such necessity is wholly confided to him and therefore is not subject to judicial inquiry, his responsibility being directly to the people.

Arrayed on the side of justiciability are Justices Castro, Fernando, Teehankee and Muñoz Palma. They hold that the constitutional sufficiency of the proclamation may be inquired into by the Court, and would thus apply the principle laid down in Lansang although that case refers to the power of the President to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The recognition of justiciability accorded to the question in Lansang, it should be emphasized, is there expressly distinguished from the power of judicial review in ordinary civil or criminal cases, and is limited to ascertaining "merely whether he [the President] has gone beyond the constitutional limits of his jurisdiction, not to exercise the power vested in him or to determine the wisdom of his act." The test is not whether the President's decision is correct but whether, in suspending the writ, he did or did not act arbitrarily. Applying this test, the finding by the Justices just mentioned is that there was no arbitrariness in the President's proclamation of martial law pursuant to the 1935 Constitution; and I concur with them in that finding. The factual bases for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, particularly in regard to the existence of a state of rebellion in the country, had not disappeared, indeed had been exacerbated, as events shortly before said proclamation clearly demonstrated. On this Point the Court is practically unanimous; Justice Teehankee merely refrained from discussing it.

Insofar as my own opinion is concerned the cleavage in the Court on the issue of justiciability is of not much more than academic interest for purposes of arriving at a judgment. I am not unduly exercised by Americas decisions on the subject written in another age and political clime, or by theories of foreign authors in political science. The present state of martial law in the Philippines is peculiarly Filipino and fits into no traditional patterns or judicial precedents.

In the first place I am convinced [as are the other Justices], without need of receiving evidence as in an ordinary adversary court proceeding, that a state of rebellion existed in the country when Proclamation No. 1081 was issued. It was a matter of contemporary history within the cognizance not only of the courts but of all observant people residing here at the time. Many of the facts and events recited in detail in the different "Whereases" of the proclamation are of common knowledge. The state of rebellion continues up to the present. The argument that while armed hostilities go on in several provinces in Mindanao there are none in other regions except in isolated pockets in Luzon, and that therefore there is no need to maintain martial law all over the country, ignores the sophisticated nature and ramifications of rebellion in a modern setting. It does not consist simply of armed clashes between organized and identifiable groups on fields of their own choosing. It includes subversion of the most subtle kind, necessarily clandestine and operating precisely where there is no actual fighting. Underground propaganda, through printed news sheets or rumors disseminated in whispers; recruitment of armed and ideological adherents, raising of funds, procurement of arms and material, fifth-column activities including sabotage and intelligence  all these are part of the rebellion which by their nature are usually conducted far from the battle fronts. They cannot be counteracted effectively unless recognized and dealt with in that context.

Secondly, my view, which coincides with that of other members of the Court as stated in their opinions, is that the question of validity of Proclamation No. 1081 has been foreclosed by the transitory provision of the 1973 Constitution [Art. XVII, Sec. 3(2)] that "all proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions, and acts promulgated, issued, or done by the incumbent President shall be part of the law of the land and shall remain valid, legal, binding and effective even after the ratification of this Constitution." To be sure, there is an attempt in these cases to resuscitate the issue of the effectivity of the new Constitution. All that, however, is behind us now. The question has been laid to rest by our decision in Javellana vs. Executive Secretary [L-36142, 50 SCRA 30, March 31, 1973], and of course by the existing political realities both in the conduct of national affairs and in our relations with other countries.

On the effect of the transitory provision Justice Muñoz Palma withholds her assent to any sweeping statement that the same in effect validated, in the constitutional sense, all "such proclamations, decrees, instructions, and acts promulgated, issued, or done by the incumbent President." All that she concedes is that the transitory provision merely gives them "the imprimatur of a law but not of a constitutional mandate," and as such therefore "are subject to judicial review when proper under the Constitution.

Finally, the political-or-justiciable question controversy indeed, any inquiry by this Court in the present cases into the constitutional sufficiency of the factual bases for the proclamation of martial law  has become moot and purposeless as a consequence of the general referendum of July 27-28, 1973. The question propounded to the voters was: "Under the [1973] Constitution, the President, if he so desires, can continue in office beyond 1973. Do you want President Marcos to continue beyond 1973 and finish the reforms he initiated under Martial Law?" The overwhelming majority of those who cast their ballots, including citizens between 15 and 18 years, voted affirmatively on the proposal. The question was thereby removed from the area of presidential power under the Constitution and transferred to the seat of sovereignty itself. Whatever may be the nature of the exercise of that power by the President in the beginning  whether or not purely political and therefore non-justiciable  this Court is precluded from applying its judicial yardstick to the act of the sovereign.

2. With respect to the petitioners who have been released from detention but have not withdrawn their petitions because they are still subject to certain restrictions,[5] the ruling of the Court is that the petitions should be dismissed. The power to detain persons even without charges for acts related to the situation which justifies the proclamation of martial law, such as the existence of a state of rebellion, necessarily implies the power [subject, in the opinion of the Justices who consider Lansang applicable, to the same test of arbitrariness laid down therein], to impose upon the released detainees conditions or restrictions which are germane to and necessary to carry out the purposes of the proclamation. Justice Fernando, however, "is for easing the restrictions on the right to travel of petitioner Rodrigo" and others similarly situated and so to this extent dissents from the ruling of the majority; while Justice Teehankee believes that those restrictions do not constitute deprivation of physical liberty within the meaning of the constitutional provision on the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

It need only be added that, to my mind, implicit in a state of martial law is the suspension of the said privilege with respect to persons arrested or detained for acts related to the basic objective of the proclamation, which is to suppress invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, or to safeguard public safety against imminent danger thereof. The preservation of society and national survival take precedence. On this particular point, that is, that the proclamation of martial law automatically suspends the privilege of the writ as to the persons referred to, the Court is practically unanimous. Justice Fernando, however, says that to him that is still an open question; and Justice Muñoz Palma qualifiedly dissents from the majority in her separate opinion, but for the reasons she discusses therein votes for the dismissal of the petitions.

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING AND FOR THE REASONS STATED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT IN THEIR SEPARATE OPINIONS, JUDGMENT IS HEREBY RENDERED DISMISSING ALL THE PETITIONS, EXCEPT THOSE WHICH HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY WITHDRAWN BY THE RESPECTIVE PETITIONERS WITH THE APPROVAL OF THIS COURT, AS HEREINABOVE MENTIONED. NO COSTS.

Makasiar, Esguerra, Fernandez, Muñoz Palma, and Aquino, JJ., concur.
 

My separate opinion below in the nine cases at bar was handed to Chief Justice Querube C. Makalintal on Monday, September 9, 1974, for promulgation [together with the individual opinions of the Chief Justice and the other Justices] on September 12 [today] as agreed upon by the Court.

On September 11 the petitioner Jose W. Diokno was released from military custody. The implications of this supervening event were lengthily discussed by the Court in its deliberations in the afternoon. Eleven members thereafter voted to dismiss Diokno's petition as being "moot and academic;" I cast the lone dissenting vote. Although perhaps in the strictest technical sense that accords with conventional legal wisdom, the petition has become "moot" because Diokno has been freed from physical confinement, I am nonetheless persuaded that the grave issues of law he has posed and the highly insulting and derogatory imputations made by him against the Court and its members constitute an inescapable residue of questions of transcendental dimension to the entire nation and its destiny and to the future of the Court  questions that cannot and should not be allowed to remain unresolved and unanswered.

I have thus not found it needful nor even advisable to recast my separate opinion or change a word of it.

I invite the reader to assess my 38-page separate opinion which immediately follows, in the light of the foregoing context and factual setting.

These nine cases are applications for writs of habeas corpus. The petitions aver in substance that on September 21, 1972 the President of the Philippines placed the country under martial law [Proclamation 1081]; that on various dates from September 22 to September 30, 1972, the petitioners or the persons in whose behalf the applications were made were arrested by the military authorities and detained, some at Fort Bonifacio in Makati, Rizal, others at Camp Aguinaldo and still others at Camp Crame, both in Quezon City; and that the arrest and detention of the petitioners were illegal, having been effected without a valid order of a competent court of justice.

Writs of habeas corpus were issued by the Court directing the respondents Secretary of National Defense, Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and Chief of the Philippine Constabulary, to produce the bodies of the petitioners in Court on designated dates and to make returns to the writs. In due time the respondents, through the Solicitor General, filed their returns to the writs and answers to the petitions. Admitting that the petitioners had been arrested and detained, the respondents nevertheless justified such arrest and detention as having been legally ordered by the President of the Philippines pursuant to his proclamation of martial law, the petitioners being regarded as participants or as having given aid and comfort "in the conspiracy to seize political and state power and to take over the government by force." The respondents traversed the petitioners' contention that their arrest and detention were unconstitutional.

Hearings were held on September 26 and 29 and October 6, 1972, at which the petitioners were produced in Court. Thereafter the parties filed memoranda.  Meanwhile, some of the petitioners, with leave of Court, withdrew their petitions;[1] others, without doing so, were subsequently released from custody under certain restrictive conditions.[2] Enrique Voltaire Garcia II, the sole petitioner in L-35547 and one of those released, having died shortly after his release, the action was deemed abated as to him.

As of this date only Jose W. Diokno, in whose behalf the petition in L-35539 was filed, and Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. in L35546, are still in military custody.

On August 23, 1973 the petitioner Aquino filed an action for certiorari and prohibition with this Court alleging that on August 11, 1973 charges of murder, subversion and illegal possession of firearms were filed against him with a military commission; that his trial by the military court which was to be held on August 27, 29 and 31, 1973 was illegal because the proclamation of martial law was unconstitutional; and that he could not expect a fair trial because the President of the Philippines, having prejudged his case, could reverse any judgment of acquittal by the military court and sentence him to death. That action, docketed as L-37364 and entitled "Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. vs. Military Commission No. 2," is still pending consideration and decision.

On the other hand, Jose W. Diokno, on December 28, 1973, filed a motion to withdraw the petition filed in his behalf, imputing delay in the disposition of his case, and asseverating that because of the decision of the Court in the Ratification Cases[3] and the action of the members of the Court in taking an oath to support the new Constitution, he cannot "reasonably expect to get justice in this case." The respondents oppose the motion on the grounds that there is a public interest in the decision of these cases and that the reasons given for the motion to withdraw are untrue, unfair and contemptuous.
 

The threshold question is whether to allow the withdrawal of the petition in L-35539 filed in behalf of Diokno. In his letter to his counsel, which is the basis of the motion to withdraw, Diokno states the following considerations: first, the delay in the disposition of his case; second, the dismissal of the petitions in the Ratification Cases, contrary to the Court's ruling that the 1973 Constitution was not validly ratified; and third, the action of the members of the Court in taking an oath of allegiance to the new Constitution. Diokno asserts that "a conscience that allows a man to rot behind bars for more than one year and three months without trial  of course, without any charges at all  is a conscience that has become stunted, if not stultified" and that "in swearing to support the new 'Constitution', the five members of the Court who had held that it had not been validly ratified, have not fulfilled our expectations." He goes on to say: "I do not blame them. I do not know what I would have done in their place. But, at the same time, I can not continue to entrust my case to them; and I have become thoroughly convinced that our quest for justice in my case is futile."

As already noted, the Solicitor General, in behalf of the respondents, opposes the withdrawal of the petition on the ground of public interest, adding that the motion to withdraw cannot be granted by the Court without in effect admitting the "unfair, untrue and contemptuous" statements contained therein.
Without passing on the liability of any party in this case for contemptuous statements made, the Court [by a vote of 5 to 7] denied the motion.

I voted for the denial of the motion to withdraw for inescapable reasons that I now proceed to expound.

The general rule is that in the absence of a statute expressly or impliedly prohibiting the withdrawal of an action, the party bringing such action may dismiss it even without the consent of the defendant or respondent where the latter will not be prejudiced, although it may be necessary to obtain leave of court.[4] But there are recognized exceptions: when the public interest or questions of public importance are involved.[5] For example, the fact that a final determination of a question involved in an action is needed or will be useful as a guide for the conduct of public officers or tribunals is a sufficient reason for retaining an action which would or should otherwise be dismissed. Likewise, appeals may be retained if the questions involved are likely to arise frequently in the future unless they are settled by a court of last resort.

Thus, in Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections,[6] an action for declaratory judgment impugning the validity of Republic Act No. 4880 which prohibits the early nomination of candidates for elective offices and early election campaigns or partisan political activities became moot by reason of the holding of the 1967 elections before decision could be rendered. Nonetheless the Court treated the petition as one for prohibition and rendered judgment in view of "the paramount public interest and the undeniable necessity for a ruling, the national elections [of 1969] being barely six months away.

In Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds,[7] the Court denied the petition to withdraw, an appeal in view of the public importance of the questions involved, and lest "the constitutional mandate [proscribing the sale of lands to aliens] be ignored or misconceived with all the harmful consequences upon the national economy."

The petitioner Diokno has made allegations to the effect that the President has "arrogated" unto himself the powers of government by "usurping" the powers of Congress and "ousting" the courts of their jurisdiction, thus establishing in this country a "virtual dictatorship." Diokno and his Counsel have in fact stressed that the present trend of events in this country since the proclamation of martial law bears a resemblance to the trend of events that led to the establishment of a dictatorship in Germany under Hitler. There is thus a profound public interest in the resolution of the questions raised in the cases at bar, questions that, in the phrase of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury vs. Madison,[8] are "deeply interesting to the nation." I apprehend that in view of the import of the allegations made by Diokno and his counsel, incalculable harm or, in the very least, great disservice may be caused to the national interest if these cases are not decided on the merits. As the Solicitor General has observed," petitioner's [Diokno's] arrest and detention have been so exploited in the hate campaign that the only way to protect the integrity of the government is to insist on a decision of this case in the forum in which the petitioner had chosen to bring them. Otherwise, like festering sores, the issues stirred up by this litigation will continue to agitate the nation."

Prescinding from the policy considerations just discussed, I am gladdened that the Court has not shunted aside what I regard as the inescapable moral constraints in the petitioner Diokno's motion to withdraw his petition for habeas corpus.[9] The Court repudiated the facile recourse of avoiding resolution of the issues on the pretext that Diokno insists on withdrawing his petition. It is thus not a mere happenstance that, notwithstanding that seven members of the Court are of the view that Diokno has an absolute right to withdraw his petition, the Court has confronted the issues posed by him, and now resolves them squarely, definitively and courageously. No respectable legal historian or responsible chronicler of the nation's destiny will therefore have any reason to level the indictment that once upon a grave national crisis the Court abdicated its constitutional prerogative of adjudication and forswore the sacred trust reposed in it as the nation's ultimate arbiter on transcendental, far-reaching justiciable questions.

With respect to the reasons given for the motion to withdraw, the Court is mindful that it has taken some time to resolve these cases. In explanation let it be said that the issues presented for resolution in these cases are of the utmost gravity and delicateness. No question of the awesome magnitude of those here presented has ever confronted the Court in all its history. I am not aware that any other court, except possibly the Circuit Court in Ex parte Merryman,[10] has decided like questions during the period of the emergency that called for the proclamation of martial law.

But then in Merryman the Court there held that under the U.S. Federal Constitution the President did not have power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Otherwise, where the question involved not power but rather the exercise of power, courts have declined to rule against the duly lasted. As Court Glendon Schubert noted, the U.S. Supreme Court "was unwilling to [do so] until the war was over and Lincoln was dead."

Thus, in Ex parte Milligan,[11] the decision voiding the petitioner's trial by a military court was not announced until December 14, 1866, after the Civil War was over. The Civil War began on May 3, 1861 with the capture of Fort Sumter by Confederate forces. Lambdin Milligan was charged before a military commission with aiding rebels, inciting insurrection, disloyal practices and violation of the laws of war. His trial ran from September to December 1862; he was convicted on October 21, 1864 and ordered executed on May 19, 1865. On May 10, 1865 he applied for a writ of habeas corpus from the Circuit Court of Indianapolis. On May 11, Justice Davis and Judge McDonald certified that they differed in opinion and, therefore, pursuant to the statute of 1802, elevated their questions to the Supreme Court. On June 3, 1865 the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by President Johnson who had succeeded to the Presidency after the assassination of Lincoln. The Supreme Court heard the parties' arguments for eight days, on March 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13, and April 3, 1866. On December 14, 1866 the decision of the Supreme Court voiding Milligans trial was announced.

In In Re Moyer,[12] martial rule was proclaimed in Colorado on March 23, 1904. Application for a writ of habeas corpus was filed with the State Supreme Court on April 14, 1904, seeking the release of Moyer who had been detained under the Colorado governor's proclamation. On June 6, 1904 the complaint was dismissed and the petitioner was remanded to the custody of the military authorities. The Court held that as an incident to the proclamation of martial law, the petitioner's arrest and detention were lawful. Moyer subsequently brought an action for damages for his imprisonment from March 30 to June 15, 1904. The complaint was dismissed by the Circuit Court. On writ of error, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, holding that "So long as such arrests are made in good faith and in the honest belief that they are needed in order to head the insurrection off, the governor is the final judge and cannot be subjected to an action after he is out of office, on the ground that he had no reasonable ground for his belief."[13]

Finally, in Duncan vs. Kahanamoku,[14] Hawaii was placed under martial rule on December 7, 1941, after the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. The petitioner Duncan was tried by a provost court on March 2, 1944, and found guilty on April 13 of assault on two marine sentries. The other petitioner, White, was charged on August 25, 1942, also before a provost court, with embezzling stocks belonging to another civilian. White and Duncan questioned the power of the military tribunals in petitions for habeas corpus filed with the District Court of Hawaii on March 14 and April 14, 1944, respectively. Writs were granted on May 2, 1944, and after trial the District Court held the military trials void and ordered the release of Duncan and White. On October 24, 1944 the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was restored and martial law was terminated in Hawaii. On appeal, the decision of the District Court was reversed.[15] Certiorari was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court on February 12, 1945.[16] On February 25, 1946 the Court held that the trials of White and Duncan by the military tribunals were void.

In truth, as the Court in Milligan recognized, its decision could not have been made while the Civil War lasted. Justice Davis wrote:

During the Wicked Rebellion, the temper of the times did not allow that calmness in deliberation and discussion so necessary to a correct conclusion of a purely judicial question. Then, considerations of safety were mingled with the exercise of power; and feelings and interests prevailed which are happily terminated. Now that the public safety is assured, this question as well as all others, can be discussed and decided without passion or the admixture of an clement not required to form a legal judgment. We approached the investigation of this case fully sensible of the magnitude of the inquiry and the of full and cautious deliberation.[17]

No doubt there is a point, although controversial, in the observation that in the instances just examined a successful challenge was possible only retroactively, after the cessation of the hostilities which would under any circumstances have justified the judgment of the military.[18]

Nor did it offend against principle or ethics for the members of this Court to take an oath to support the 1973 Constitution. After this Court declared that, with the dismissal of the petitions questioning the validity of the ratification of the new Constitution, there was "no longer any judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect,"[19] it became the duty of the members of the Court, let alone all other government functionaries, to take an oath to support the new Constitution. While it is true that a majority of six justices declared that the 1973 Constitution was not validly ratified, it is equally true that a majority of six justices held that the issue of its effectivity was a political question, which the Court was not equipped to determine, depending as it did on factors for which the judicial process was not fit to resolve. Resolution of this question was dispositive of all the issues presented in the Ratification Cases. It thus became untenable for the members of the Court who held contrary opinions to press their opposition beyond the decision of those cases. Fundamental respect for the rule of law dictated that the members of the Court take an oath to uphold the new Constitution. There is nothing in that solemn oath that debases their individual personal integrity or renders them unworthy or incapable of doing justice in these cases. Nor did the environmental milieu of their adjuration in any manner demean their high offices or detract from the legitimacy of the Court as the highest judicial collegium of the land.
 

From its Anglo-Saxon origin and throughout its slow evolution, the concept, scope and boundaries, application, limitations and other facets of martial law have been the subject of misunderstanding, controversy and debate.[20] To the legal scholar interested in set legal principles and precise distinctions, martial law could be a frustrating subject. On the matter of its definition alone, it is known to have as many definitions as there are numerous authors and court decisions [not to discount the dissenting opinions] on the subject. The doctrinal development of martial law has relied mainly on case law,[21] and there have been relatively few truly distinctive types of occasions where martial law, being the extraordinary remedy that it is, has been resorted to.

In the Philippines, the only other notable instance when martial law was declared was on September 22, 1944, per Proclamation No. 29 promulgated by President Jose P. Laurel. But this was pursuant to the constitution of the short-lived Japanese Occupation Republic, and the event has not been known to be productive of any jurisprudential pronouncements emanating from the high court of the land.
Notwithstanding the confused state of jurisprudence on the subject of martial law in England and in the United States, and, consequently, in the Philippines, a useful knowledge of the law on the subject can fairly be had from a study of its historical background and its rationale, its doctrinal development, applicable constitutional and statutory provisions, and authoritative court decisions and commentaries.

Legal scholars trace the genesis of martial law to England starting from the age of the Tudors and the Stuarts in the 14th century when it was first utilized for the suppression of rebellions and disorders. It later came to be employed in the British colonies and dominions where its frequent exercise against British subjects gave rise to the criticism that it was being exploited as a weapon to enhance British imperialism.[22]

In the United States, martial law was declared on numerous occasions from the revolutionary period to the Civil War, and after the turn of the century. One of the earliest instances in American history was the declaration of martial law by Gen. Andrew Jackson before the Battle of New Orleans in 1814. Fearing that the New Orleans legislature might capitulate to the British, he placed the State under "strict martial law" and forbade the State legislature to convene. Martial law was lifted after the American victory over British arms. The Civil War period saw the declaration of martial law on many occasions by both the Confederate and the Union authorities. It has also been resorted to in cases of insurrection and rebellion, as exemplified by the Whiskey rebellion (1794 in Pennsylvania and Virginia) and the Dorr's rebellion (1842 in Rhode Island). Martial law has also been utilized during periods of disaster, such as the San Francisco earthquake and fire of 1906, and in industrial disputes involving violence and disorder. It has likewise been variously instituted to police elections, to take charge of ticket sales at a football game, to prevent the foreclosure of mortgages to close a race track. In an extreme case, the governor of Georgia proclaimed martial law around a government building to exclude from its premises a public official whom he was enjoined from removing.[23]

At the close of the World War I, the term "martial law" was erroneously employed to refer to the law administered in enemy territory occupied by the allied forces pending the armistice.[24] William Winthrop states that the earlier confusion regarding the concept of martial law, resulting partly from the wrong definition of the term by the Duke of Wellington who had said that "it is nothing more nor less than the will of the general," had misled even the Supreme Court of the United States.[25] In the leading case of Ex Parte Milligan,[26] however, Chief Justice Chase, in his dissenting opinion, clarified and laid down the classic distinctions between the types of military jurisdiction in relation to the terms "martial law," "military law" and "military government," which to a great extent cleared the confusion in the application of these terms.

These distinctions were later incorporated in the Manual for Courts-Martial of the United States Army,[27] after which the Manual for Courts-Martial of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, promulgated on December 17, 1938 pursuant to Executive Order No. 178, was patterned. In essence, these distinctions are as follows:

a. Military jurisdiction in relation to the term military law is that exercised by a government "in the execution of that branch of its municipal law which regulates its military establishment." [In the U.S. and the Philippines, this refers principally to the statutes which embody the rules of conduct and discipline of members of their respective armed forces. In the Philippines we have for this purpose Commonwealth Act No. 408, as amended, otherwise known as "The Article of War"].

b. Military jurisdiction in relation to the term martial law is that exercised in time of rebellion and civil war by a government temporarily governing the civil population of a locality through its military forces, without the authority of written law, as necessity may require.[28]

c. Military jurisdiction in relation to the term military government is that "exercised by a belligerent occupying an enemy's territory."[29] [A familiar example of a military government was, of course, that established and administered by the Japanese armed forces in the Philippines from 1942 to 1945].

What is the universally accepted fundamental justification of martial law? Wiener in A Practical Manual Martial Law,[30] ventures this justification: "Martial Law is the public law of necessity. Necessity calls it forth, necessity justifies its existence, and necessity measures the extent and degree to which it may be employed."

Martial law is founded upon the principle that the state has a right to protect itself against those who would destroy it, and has therefore been likened to the right of the individual to self-defense.[31] It is invoked as an extreme measure, and rests upon the basic principle that every state has the power of self-preservation, a power inherent in all states, because neither the state nor society would exist without it.[32]
 

In Proclamation 1081, dated September 21, 1972, the President of the Philippines declared that lawless elements, supported by a foreign power, were in "armed insurrection and rebellion against the Government of the Philippines in order to forcibly seize political and state power, overthrow the duly constituted government and supplant our existing political, social, economic and legal order with an entirely new one based on the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist teachings and beliefs." He enumerated many and varied acts of violence committed in pursuance of the insurrection and rebellion. He therefore placed the Philippines under martial law, commanded the armed forces to suppress the insurrection and rebellion, enforce obedience to his decrees, orders and regulations, and arrest and detain those engaged in the insurrection and rebellion or in other crimes "in furtherance or on the occasion thereof, or incident thereto or in connection therewith." The President invoked his powers under article VII section 10(2) of the 1935 Constitution "to save the Republic and reform our society."[33]

By General Order No. 2 the President directed the Secretary of National Defense to "forthwith arrest or cause the arrest the individuals named in the attached lists for being participants or for having given aid and comfort in the conspiracy to seize political and state power in the country and to take over the government by force in order to prevent them from further committing acts that are inimical or injurious." The Secretary was directed to hold in custody the individuals so arrested "until otherwise so ordered by me or by my duly designated representative." The arrest and detention of the petitioners in these cases appear to have been made pursuant to this order.

I cannot blink away the stark fact of a continuing Communist rebellion in the Philippines. The Court has repeatedly taken cognizance of this fact in several eases decided by it. In 1971, in Lansang vs. Garcia,[34] the Court, after reviewing the history of the Communist movement in the country since the 1930s, concluded: "We entertain, therefore, no doubts about the existence of a sizeable group of men who have publicly risen in arms to overthrow the government and have thus been and still are engaged in rebellion against the Government of the Philippines." It affirmed this finding in 1972[35] in sustaining the validity of the Anti-Subversion Act [Republic Act 1700]. The Act is itself a congressional recognition and acute awareness of the continuing threat of Communist subversion to democratic institutions in this country. Enacted in 1957, it has remained in the statute books despite periodic agitation in many quarters for its total excision.

At times the rebellion required no more than ordinary police action, coupled with criminal prosecutions. Thus the 1932 Communist trials resulted in the conviction of the well-known Communists of the day: Crisanto Evangelista, Jacinto G. Manahan, Dominador J. Ambrosio, Guillermo Capadocia, Ignacio Nabong and Juan Feleo, among others, for crimes ranging from illegal association to rebellion and sedition.[36]

The end of World War II saw the resurgence of the Communist rebellion. Now with an army forged out of the former Hukbalahaps [the armed resistance against the Japanese] and renamed Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan or HMB, the threat to the security of the state became so malevolent that on October 22, 1950, President Elpidio Quirino was impelled to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. This enabled the Government to effect the apprehension of top Communist Party leaders Guillermo Capadocia, Flavio Nava, Amado V. Hernandez, Jesus Lava, Jose Lava, Angel Baking and Simeon Rodriguez, among others.[37] When challenged by one of those detained under the Presidential proclamation the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was sustained by the Court.[38]

The beginning of the 1970s was marked by the rise of student activism. This phenomenon swept around the globe, and did not spare our own colleges and universities. Soon the campuses became staging grounds for student demonstrations that generally ended in bloody and not infrequently lethal street riots.

In Navarro vs. Villegas,[39] in upholding the power of the Mayor of Manila to determine the place and time for the holding of public assemblies, this Court noted:

That experiences in connection with present assemblies and demonstrations do not warrant the Court's disbelieving respondent Mayor's appraisal that a public rally at Plaza Miranda, as compared to one at the Sunken Gardens as he suggested, poses a clearer and more imminent danger of public disorders, breaches of the peace, criminal acts, and even bloodshed as an aftermath of such assemblies, and petitioner has manifested that it has no means of preventing such disorders;

That, consequently, every time that such assemblies are announced, the community is placed in such a state of fear and tension that offices are closed early and employees dismissed storefronts boarded up, classes suspended, and transportation disrupted to the general detriment of the public.

Riding on the crest of student unrest, the Communist rebellion gained momentum. As the Court noted in Lansang vs. Garcia.[40]

The reorganized Communist Party of the Philippines has, moreover, adopted Mao's concept of protracted people's war, aimed at the paralyzation of the will to resist of the government, of the political, economic and intellectual leadership, and of the people themselves; that conformably to such concept the Party has placed special emphasis upon most extensive and intensive program of subversion by the establishment of front organizations in urban centers, the organization of armed city partisans and the infiltration in student groups, labor unions, and farmer and professional groups; that the CPP has managed to infiltrate or establish and control nine (9) major labor organizations; that it has exploited the youth movement and succeeded in making Communist fronts of eleven (11) major student or youth organizations; that there are, accordingly, about thirty (30) mass organizations actively advancing the CPP interests, among which are the Malayang Samahan ng Magsasaka (MASAKA) the Kabataang Makabayan (KM), the Movement for the Advancement of Nationalism (MAN), the Samahang Demokratiko ng Kabataan (SDK), the Samahang Molave (SM), and the Malayang Pagkakaisa ng Kabataang Pilipino (MPKP); that, as of August, 1971, the KM had two hundred forty-five (245) operational chapters throughout the Philippines, of which seventy-three (73) were in the Greater Manila Area, sixty (60) in Northern Luzon, forty-nine (49) in Central Luzon, forty-two (42) in the Visayas and twenty-one (21) in Mindanao and Sulu; that in 1970, the Party had recorded two hundred fifty-eight (258) major demonstrations, of which about thirty-three i33) ended in violence, resulting in fifteen (15) killed and over five hundred (500) injured; that most of these actions were organized, coordinated or led by the aforementioned front organizations; that the violent demonstrations were generally instigated by a small, but well-trained group of armed agitators; that the number of demonstrations heretofore staked in 1971 has already exceeded those in 1970; and that twenty-four (24) of these demonstrations were violent, and resulted in the death of fifteen (15) persons and the injury of many more.

The mounting level of violence necessitated the suspension, for the second time, of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus on August 21, 1971. The Government's action was questioned in Lansang vs. Garcia. This Court found that the intensification and spread of Communist insurgency imperiled the state. The events after the suspension of the privilege of the writ confirmed the alarming extent of the danger to public safety:

Subsequent events  as reported  have also proven that petitioner's counsel have underestimated the threat to public safety posed by the New People's Army. Indeed, it appears that, since August 21, 1971, it had in Northern Luzon six (6) encounters and staged one (1) raid, in consequence of which seven (7) soldiers lost their lives and two (2) others were wounded, whereas the insurgents suffered five (5) casualties; that on August 26, 1971, a well-armed group of NPA, trained by defector Lt. Victor Corpus, attacked the very command post of TF LAWIN in Isabela, destroying two (2) helicopters and one (1) plane, and wounding one (1) soldier; that the NPA had in Central Luzon a total of four (4) encounters, with two (2) killed and three (3) wounded on the side of the Government, one (1) KM-SDK leader, an unidentified dissident, and Commander Panchito, leader of dissident group, were killed; that on August 26, 1971, there was an encounter in the Barrio of San Pedro, Iriga City, Camarines Sur, between the PC and the NPA, in which a PC and two (2) KM members were killed; that the current disturbances in Cotabato and the Lanao provinces have been rendered more complex by the involvement of the CPP/NPA for, in mid-1971, a KM group headed by Jovencio Esparagoza, contacted the Higa-onan tribes, in their settlement in Magsaysay, Misamis Oriental, and offered them books, pamphlets and brochures of Mao Tse Tung, as well as conducted teach-ins in the reservation; that Esparagoza was reportedly killed on September 22, 1971, in an operation of the PC in said reservation; and that there are now two (2) NPA cadres in Mindanao.

It should, also, be noted that adherents of the CPP and its front organization are accordingly to intelligence findings, definitely capable of preparing powerful explosives out of locally available materials; that the bomb used in the Constitutional Convention Hall was a 'clay more' mine, a powerful explosive device used by the U.S. Arm believed to have been one of many pilfered from the Subic Naval Base a few days before; that the President had received intelligence information to the effect that there was a July-August Plan involving a wave of assassinations, kidnappings, terrorism and miss destruction of property and that an extraordinary occurrence would signal the beginning of said event; that the rather serious condition of peace and order in Mindanao, particularly in Cotabato and Lanao, demanded the presence therein of forces sufficient to cope with the situation; that a sizeable part of our armed forces discharges other functions; and that the expansion of the CPP activities from Central Luzon to other parts of the country particularly Manila and its suburbs the Cagayan Valley, Ifugao, Zambales, Laguna, Quezon and Bicol Region, required that the rest of our armed forces be spread thin over a wide area.[41]

By virtue of these findings, the Court, led by Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, unanimously upheld the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The Court said:

Considering that the President was in possession of the above data  except those related to events that happened after August 21, 1971  when the Plaza Miranda prompting, took place, the Court is not prepared to held that the Executive had acted arbitrarily or gravely abused his discretion when he then concluded that public safety and national security required the suspension of the privilege of the writ, particularly if the NPA were to strike simultaneously with violent demonstrations staged by the two hundred forty-five (245) KM chapters, all over the Philippines, with the assistance and cooperation of the dozens of CPP front organizations, and the bombing of water mains and conduits, as well as electric power plants and installations  a possibility which, no matter how remote, he was bound to forestall, and a danger he was under obligation to anticipate and at rest.

He had consulted his advisers and sought their views. He had reason to feel that the situation was critical  as, indeed, it was  and demanded immediate action. This he took believing in good faith that public safety required it. And, in the light of the circumstances adverted to above, he had substantial grounds to entertain such belief."[42]

The suspension of the privilege of the writ was lifted on January 7, 1972, but soon thereafter chaos engulfed the nation again. A large area of the country was in open rebellion. The authority of the Government was frontally challenged by a coalition of forces. It was against this backdrop of violence and anarchy that martial law was proclaimed on September 21, 1972.

Personally I take notice of this condition, in addition to what the Court has found in cases that have come to it for decision, and there is no cogent reason for me to say as a matter of law that the President exceeded his powers in declaring martial law. Nor do I believe that the Solicitor General's manifestation of May 13, 1974 to the effect that while on the whole the military challenge to the Republic has been overcome there are still large areas of conflict which warrant the continued imposition of law, can be satisfactorily controverted by or by any perceptive observer of the national scene.

As I will point out in this opinion, the fact that courts are open be accepted as proof that the rebellion and which compellingly called for the declaration of martial law, no longer imperil the public safety. Nor are the many surface indicia adverted to by the petitioners (the increase in the number of tourists, the choice of Manila as the conferences and of an international beauty contest) to be regarded as evidence that the threat to public safe has abated. There is actual armed combat, attended by the somber panoply war, raging in Sulu and Cotabato, not to not mention the region and Cagayan Valley.[43] I am hard put to say, therefore, that the Government's claim is baseless.

I am not insensitive to the plea made here in the name of individual liberty. But to paraphrase Ex parte Moyer,[44] if it were the liberty alone of the petitioner Diokno that is. in issue we would probably resolve the doubt in his favor and grant his application. But the Solicitor General, who must be deemed to represent the President and the Executive Department in this case,[45] has manifested that in the President's judgment peace and tranquility cannot be speedily restored in the country unless the petitioners and others like them meantime remain in military custody. For, indeed, the central matter involved is not merely the liberty of isolated individuals, but the collective peace, tranquility and security of the entire nation.
 

The 1935 Constitution committed to the President the determination of the public exigency or exigencies requiring the proclamation of martial law. It provided in article VII, section 10(2) that:

The President shall be 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,[46] invasion, insurrection, or rebellion. In case of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, or eminent danger thereof, when the public safety requires it, he may suspend the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus, or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.[47]

In the 1934 Constitutional Convention it was proposed to vest the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the National Assembly. The proposal, sponsored by Delegate Araneta, would give this power to the President only in cases where the Assembly was not in session and then only with the consent of the Supreme Court. But the majority of the delegates entertained the fear that the Government would be powerless in the face of danger.[48] They rejected the Araneta proposal and adopted instead the provisions of the Jones Law of 1916. The framers of the Constitution realized the need for a strong Executive, and therefore chose to retain the provisions of the former organic acts,[49] which, adapted to the exigencies of colonial administration, naturally made the Governor General a strong Executive.

Construing a similar provision of the Philippine Bill of 1902 which authorized the Governor General, with the approval of the Philippine Commission, to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus "when in cases of rebellion, insurrection, or invasion the public safety may require it," this Court held that the Governor General's finding as to the necessity for such action was "conclusive and final" on the judicial department.[50] This ruling was affirmed in 1952 in Montenegro vs. Castañeda,[51] this Court stating that:

the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen requiring, the suspension belongs to the President and 'his decision is final and conclusive' upon the courts and upon all other persons.

It is true that in Lansang vs. Garcia,[52] there is language that appears to detract from the uniform course of judicial construction of the Commander-in-Chief Clause. But a close reading of the opinion in that case shows that in the main there was adherence to precedents. To be sure, the Court there asserted the power to inquire into the "existence of the factual bases [for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus] in order to determine the sufficiency thereof," But this broad assertion of power is qualified by the Court's unambiguous statement that "the function of the Court is, merely to check not to  supplant  the Executive, or to ascertain merely whether he has gone beyond the constitutional limits of his jurisdiction, not to exercise the power vested in him or to determine the wisdom of his act." For this reason this Court announced that the test was not whether the President acted correctly but whether he acted arbitrarily. In fact this Court read Barcelon and Montenegro as authorizing judicial inquiry into "whether or not there really was a rebellion, as stated in the proclamation therein contested."

Of course the judicial department can determine the existence of the conditions for the exercise of the President's powers and is not bound by the recitals of his proclamation. But whether in the circumstances obtaining public safety requires the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the proclamation of martial law is initially for the President to decide. Considerations of commitment of the power to the executive branch of the Government and the lack of accepted standards for dealing with incommensurable factors, suggest the wisdom of considering the President's finding as to necessity persuasive upon the courts. This conclusion results from the nature of the power vested in the President and from the evident object contemplated. For that power is intended to enable the Government to cope with sudden emergencies and meet great occasions of state under circumstances that may be crucial to the life of the nation.[53]

The fact that courts are open and in the unobstructed discharge of their functions is pointed to as proof of the absence of any justification for martial law. The ruling in Milligan[54] and Duncan[55] is invoked. In both cases the U.S. Supreme Court reversed convictions by military commissions. In Milligan the Court stated that "martial law cannot arise from a threatened invasion. The necessity must be actual and present, the invasion real, such as effectually closes the courts and deposes the civil administration." In Duncan a similar expression was made: "The phrase 'martial law' while intended to authorize the military to act vigorously for the maintenance of an orderly civil government and for the defense of the Islands against actual or threatened rebellion or invasion, was not intended to authorize the supplanting of courts by military tribunals."

But Milligan and Duncan were decided on the basis of a widely disparate constitutional provision. What is more, to the extent that they may be regarded as embodying what the petitioners call an "open court" theory, they are of doubtful applicability in the context of present-day subversion.

Unlike the detailed provision of our Constitution, the U.S. Federal Constitution does not explicitly authorize the U.S. President to proclaim martial law. It simply states in its article II, Section 2 that "the President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." On the other hand, our Constitution authorizes the proclamation of martial law in cases not only of actual invasion, insurrection or rebellion but also of "imminent danger" thereof.

It is true that in Duncan the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a U.S. statute that in terms was similar to the Philippine Constitution. Section 67 of the Hawaiian Organic Act provided that "[the Territorial Governor] may, in case of invasion, or imminent danger thereof, when public safety requires it, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or place the Territory, or any part thereof under martial law until communication can be had with the President [of the United States] and his decision thereof made known." In fact the Hawaiian Organic Act, that of Puerto Rico, and the Jones law of 1916, from which latter law, as I have earlier noted, the Commander-in-Chief Clause of our Constitution was adopted, were part of the legislation of the U.S. Congress during the colonial period. But again, unlike the Jones Law, the Hawaiian Organic Act also provided in its Section 5 that the U.S. Federal Constitution "shall have the same force and effect in the territory [of Hawaii] as elsewhere in the United States. For this reason it was held in Duncan that "imminent danger" of invasion or rebellion was not a ground for