Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1974 > September 1974 Decisions > MUŅOZ PALMA, J., Dissenting : Separate Opinion : G.R. Nos. L-35546, L-35538, L-35539, L-35540, L-35547, L-35556, L-35567, L-35571 and L-35573 September 17, 1974 - G.R. No. L-35546. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., RAMON MITRA, JR., FRANCISCO RODRIGO, AND NAPOLEON RAMA, Petitioners, v. 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, Repondents : G.R. No. L-35538. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOAQUIN P. ROCES, TEODORO M. LOCSIN, SR., ROLANDO FADUL, ROSALIND GALANG, GO ENG GUAN, MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, RENATO CONSTANTINO, AND LUIS R. MAURICIO, Petitioners, v. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Et Al. : G.R. No. L-35539. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOSE W. DIOKNO, CARMEN I. DIOKNO, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; ROMEO ESPINO, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES : G.R. No. L-35540. September 17, 1974. _ MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, NAPOLEON G. RAMA, AND JOSE MARI VELEZ, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; HON. FRANCISCO TATAD, PRESS SECRETARY; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35547. September 17, 1974. - ENRIQUE VOLTAIRE GARCIA II, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35556. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF VERONICA L. YUYITUNG AND TAN CHIN HIAN, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35567. September 17, 1974 - 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 ORDOŅEZ, MANUEL ALMARIO AND WILLIE BAUN, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35571. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BREN Z. GUIAO, TERESITA M. GUIAO, Petitioner, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35573. September 17, 1974 - ERNESTO RONDON, Petitioner, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; AND MAJOR RODULFO MIANA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-35546. September 17, 1974.]

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

[G.R. No. L-35538. September 17, 1974.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOAQUIN P. ROCES, TEODORO M. LOCSIN, SR., ROLANDO FADUL, ROSALIND GALANG, GO ENG GUAN, MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, RENATO CONSTANTINO, AND LUIS R. MAURICIO, Petitioners, v. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Et Al., Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-35539. September 17, 1974.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOSE W. DIOKNO, CARMEN I. DIOKNO, 1 petitioner, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; ROMEO ESPINO, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-35540. September 17, 1974.]

MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, NAPOLEON G. RAMA, AND JOSE MARI VELEZ, Petitioners, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; HON. FRANCISCO TATAD, PRESS SECRETARY; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-35547. September 17, 1974.] 2

ENRIQUE VOLTAIRE GARCIA II, Petitioner, v. 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.

[G.R. No. L-35556. September 17, 1974.]

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

[G.R. No. L-35567. September 17, 1974.]

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, v. 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.

[G.R. No. L-35571. September 17, 1974.] 3

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BREN Z. GUIAO, TERESITA M. GUIAO, Petitioner, v. 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.

[G.R. No. L-35573. September 17, 1974.]

ERNESTO RONDON, Petitioner, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; AND MAJOR RODULFO MIANA, Respondents.


SEPARATE OPINION


MUÑOZ PALMA, J., dissenting:
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

2. In G.R. L-35539, Carmen I. Diokno, in behalf of her husband, Jose W. Diokno, petitioner:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Re "Motion to Withdraw Petition" dated

December 29, 1973:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I shall explain why I voted to grant the motion. I believe that a petition for habeas corpusbasically involves the life and liberty of the petitioner, and, if for reasons of his own — the wisdom and/or correctness of which are best left to him to determine — he desires to withdraw the same and leave his present condition of indefinite detention as it is, such is his right which I as a fellow-human being and as a magistrate of the law should not deny him. My distinguished colleagues who opted to deny said "Motion to Withdraw" argue mainly that to grant the motion of petitioner Diokno is for the Court to accept the truth of his allegations and deny itself the opportunity to act on and resolve the basic issues raised in the Petition for habeas corpuswhich issues are of "utmost public importance" and involve the very life and existence of the present Government under the new Constitution." What I can say is that the other Petitions for habeas corpusnow being decided jointly in this Decision afford a forum where the legal and constitutional questions presented in Diokno’s petition can very well be discussed, dissected to their minutes details, and decided by the Court. What concerns this writer most is that the thrust of Diokno’s motion to withdraw is his belief that he "cannot reasonably expect either right or reason, law or justice" from this Court it being a new Court under the new Constitution, a different Court from the Supreme Court to which he originally applied for his release. 1 In plain and simple language, petitioner Diokno is bereft of faith in this Court and prefers that his fate be left undecided; who are we then to impose our will on him and force him to litigate under a cloud of distrust where his life and liberty are inextricably involved? Just as love is an emotion which springs spontaneously from the heart and never coerced into existence, so also is faith, trust, born and nurtured in freedom and never under compulsion. Thus, to deny petitioner Diokno’s motion is to compel him to have faith in this Court; can we do so when faith has to be earned, and cannot be forced into being? Hence, my vote.

On the Merits of the Petition

Because petitioner Diokno’s "Motion to Withdraw Petition" was considered denied as only seven Justices voted to grant it, 2 and his Petition for habeas corpuswas to be decided on its merits, and at the time of the writing of this Opinion Diokno was in custody for almost two years without charges having been filed against him, I resolved to treat his Petition differently from that of the other petitioners who, during the pendency of these cases, were conditionally released from the prison camps of respondents. However, after completion of my Opinion but before the Decision in these cases could be promulgated on September 12, 1974, as scheduled, President Ferdinand E. Marcos ordered the release of petitioner, Jose W. Diokno, on September 11, 1974. * This development led the Court to dismiss the Petition of Jose W. Diokno for having become moot and academic, and forced me to revise my Opinion as it became unnecessary to discuss the issue of Diokno’s continued detention.

THE FACTS


On September 21, 1972, President Ferdinand E. Marcos signed what is now known as Proclamation No. 1081 proclaiming a state of martial law in the Philippines, based inter alia on the following consideration:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . the rebellion and armed action undertaken by these lawless elements of the communist and other armed aggrupations organized to overthrow the Republic of the Philippines by armed violence and force have assumed the magnitude of an actual state of war against our people and the Republic of the Philippines;"

The Proclamation thus concluded:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"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.

In addition, I do hereby order that all persons presently detained, as well as all others mho may hereafter be similarly detained for the crimes of insurrection or rebellion, and all other crimes and offenses committed in furtherance or on the occasion thereof, or incident thereto, or in connection therewith, for crimes against national security and the law of nations, crimes against public order, crimes involving usurpation of authority, rank, title and improper use of names, uniforms and insignia, crimes committed by public officers, and for such other crimes as will be enumerated in Orders that I shall subsequently promulgate, as well as crimes as a consequence of any violation of any decree, order or regulation promulgated by me personally or promulgated upon my direction shall be kept under detention until otherwise ordered released by me or by my duly designated representative." (emphasis Ours)

On September 22, General Order No. 1 was issued from which we quote:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREAS, martial law has been declared under Proclamation No. 1081 dated Sept. 21, 1972 and is now in effect throughout the land;

x       x       x


"NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ferdinand E. Marcos, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, do hereby proclaim that I shall govern the nation and direct the operation of the entire Government, including all its agencies and instrumentalities, in my capacity and shall exercise all the powers and prerogatives appurtenant and incident to my position as such Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces of the Philippines."cralaw virtua1aw library

Also on September 22, General Order No. 2 was signed by the President which provided: 3

"Pursuant to Proclamation Order No. 1081, dated September 21, 1972, and in my capacity as Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces of the Philippines, I hereby order you as Secretary of National Defense to forthwith arrest and take into your custody the individuals named in the attached lists for being participants or 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, the extent of which has now assumed the proportion of an actual war against our people and our legitimate government and in order to prevent them from further committing acts that are inimical or injurious to our people, the government and our national interest, and to hold said individuals until otherwise so ordered by me or by my duly designated representative." (Emphasis Ours)

Implementing General Order No. 2, respondent Secretary of National Defense, Hon. Juan Ponce Enrile, immediately effected the arrest of a good number of individuals among whom were the herein petitioners who, by reason of their arrest without charges having been filed against them, came to this Court to seek relief through their respective Petitions for habeas corpus, the earliest of which, L-35538, was filed in the morning of September 23, 1972. 4 The Court in the respective Petitions promptly issued the Writ returnable to it, and required respondents to answer. With equal dispatch respondents filed their "Return to Writ and Answer to the Petition" in all the cases which contained a common "Special and Affirmative Defenses" reading as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"4. On September 21, 1972, the President of the Philippines, in the exercise of the powers vested in him by Article VII, section 10, paragraph 2 of the Constitution, issued Proclamation No. 1081 placing the entire Philippines under martial law;

"5. Pursuant to said proclamation, the President issued General Orders Nos. 1, 2, 3, 3-A, 4, 5, 6, and 7 and Letters of Instructions Nos. 1, 2 and 3. True copies of these documents are hereto attached and made integral parts hereof as Annexes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. A copy of the President’s statement to the country on September 23, 1972 is also attached as Annex 12;

"6. Finally, the petition states no cause of action." (p. 21, rollo L-35546)

The Answer prayed that the petition be dismissed.

Pending resolution of these Petitions, petitioners, except for two, were released from custody on different dates under a "Conditional Release" Order of the same tenor as the following: **

"5 December 1972

SUBJECT: Conditional Release

TO: Francisco Soc Rodrigo

1. After having been arrested and detained for subversion pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081 of the President of the Philippines in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, dated 21 September 1972, you are hereby conditionally released.

2. You are advised to abide strictly with the provisions of Proclamation No. 1081 and the ensuing LOIs. Any violation of these provisions would subject you to immediate(ly) arrest and confinement.

3. Your investigation will continue following a schedule which you will later on be informed. You are advised to follow this schedule strictly.

4. You are not allowed to leave the confines of Greater Manila Area unless specifically authorized by this Office indicating the provincial address and expected duration of stay thereat. Contact this office through telephone No. 97-17-56 when necessary.

5. You are prohibited from giving or participating in any interview conducted by any local or foreign mass media representative for purpose of publication and/or radio/TV broadcast.

6. Be guided accordingly.

(SGD.) MARIANO G. MIRANDA
Lt. Colonel PA
Group Commander

P L E D G E


THIS IS TO CERTIFY that I have read and understood the foregoing conditional release.

I HEREBY PLEDGE to conduct myself accordingly and will not engage in any subversive activity. I will immediately report any subversive activity that will come to my knowledge.

(SGD.) F. RODRIGO
Address: 60 Juana Rodriguez
Quezon City
Tel. No.: 70-25-66; 70-49-20; 70-27-55"

(p. 621, rollo L-35546)

Notwithstanding their release from detention, petitioners concerned did not withdraw their respective Petitions for habeas corpus, while petitioner Francisco Rodrigo filed a Manifestation dated November 27, 1973 stating that his release did not render his Petition moot and academic. (p. 620, rollo L-35546) The two petitioners who have not been released up to the present are Senator Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. against whom in the meantime certain criminal charges have been filed with Military Commission No. 2 and Senator Jose W. Diokno who has not been charged neither before a civil court nor a military tribunal or commission. ***

THE ISSUES


These petitions being essentially for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, the fundamental issue is the legality of the detention of petitioners, and when we say detention, that includes the state of those petitioners who have been conditionally released from the prison camps of respondent for it is claimed that their conditional release still constitutes a restraint on their personal liberty.

The purpose of the writ of habeas corpusis to inquire into the cause or reason why a person is being restrained of his liberty against his will, and if there is no legal and/or valid justification shown for such restraint the writ will forthwith issue to restore to that person his liberty or freedom. It "exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom . . . whose principal purpose is to set the individual at liberty." 5 Noted authors have eloquently described the writ as "the writ of liberty." 6 as "the most important and most immediately available safeguard of that liberty’’ 7 as "the greatest of the safeguards erected by the civil law against arbitrary and illegal imprisonment by whomsoever detention may be exercised or ordered", 8 and as "the great bulwark of personal liberty." 9 These concepts of the writ of habeas corpusbring out the blessed sacred truth that personal liberty is one of the basic freedoms of man jealously protected by any civilized society by a fundamental law, written or unwritten, and any deprivation or curtailment of that personal liberty must find a basis in law, substantive or procedural. 10

In the petitions under consideration respondents justify the arrest and detention of petitioners by virtue of the proclamation of martial law in the country. Respondents aver (1) that the exercise of the power granted to the President of the Republic by Sec. 10 (2), Art. VII of the 1935 Philippine Constitution, to place the country or any part thereof under martial law, is not subject to judicial review; (2) that even if said executive power may be inquired into, there is factual bases for the President’s action; and (3) that the proclamation of martial law carries with it the automatic suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, and consequently these petitions should be dismissed. 11 With the new Constitution having been adopted in the meantime, respondents pose in subsequent pleadings additional grounds for dismissal, and these are (1) that Art. IX, Sec. 12, of the 1973 Constitution adopted in toto the Commander-in-Chief clause of the 1935 Constitution, and (2) that Art. XVII, section 3 (2) expressly and categorically declares that "the proclamations, orders, and decrees, instructions and acts issued or done by the incumbent President are to form "part of the law of the land " and are to "remain valid, legal, binding, and effective even after the lifting of martial law or the ratification of this Constitution" and that means the present martial law regime and all the measures taken under it, particularly Proclamation No. 1081 and General Orders 1 and 2, as amended. 12

On the other hand, petitioners vigorously assert (1) a martial law proclamation is justiciable; (2) conditions in the country as of September 21, 1972, did not justify a proclamation of martial law; (3) assuming that Proclamation No. 1081 is valid, General Orders Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 3-A are violative of the Constitution and are void; and (4) the return is palpably insufficient to justify continued detention of petitioners.13 For petitioner Diokno, additional arguments were submitted, viz: (a) existing conditions today do not warrant the continuance of martial law, assuming that the proclamation was initially justified; and (b) the uncertainty of petitioner’s fate renders his executive imprisonment oppressive and lawless. 14

I


We shall first dispose of the issue of the alleged insufficiency of the Return.

Petitioners contend that respondents’ "Return to Writ" which is quoted in page 6 of this Opinion is fatally insufficient because a return must assert facts and not conclusions as to the basis of the detention, and must be supplemented by affidavits or with evidence at the habeas corpushearing, citing Carlson v. Landon, 186 F. 2d. 183.

The pertinent provision of Sec. 10, Rule 102, Rules of Court, on the contents of the return requires that it must state plainly and unequivocably whether the officer to whom the writ is addressed has or has not the party in his custody or power or under restraint, and if he has the party in his custody or power or under restraint, the authority and the true and whole cause thereof, set forth at large, with a copy of the writ, order, execution, or other process, if any, upon which the party is held. (pars. a and b) All that this provision of the Rules of Court requires therefore is that the return must state if the subject of the writ is in custody or under restraint and if so, the authority for such restraint and the cause thereof. It is not necessary for or indispensable to the validity of the return that the evidentiary facts supporting the cause for the restraint be given or enumerated therein. In the petitions at bar the return sufficiently complies with the requirements of the aforementioned provision of the Rules of Court because it states the authority and the cause for the detention of petitioners which after all is the purpose or object of a return. The authority for the detention lies in the statement in the return that the President exercising his powers under Art. VII, Sec. 10 (2) of the Philippine Constitution 15 proclaimed martial law in the country and pursuant to such proclamation issued General Orders 1 to 7 inclusive and Letters of Instruction 1 to 3, copies of which are all attached to the return as annexes 1 to 11, while the cause for the arrest of petitioners is given in General Order No. 2 (Annex 3) wherein it is stated that said petitioners are participants or have given aid and comfort in the conspiracy to seize political and state power in the country, etc. At any rate, any deficiency in the aforesaid return constitutes a mere technical violation which is to be disregarded in view of the substantial issues involved in the cases under consideration. Imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure are to be disregarded unless substantial rights would otherwise be prejudiced, 16 and in the instant cases there is no such prejudice as petitioners are sufficiently informed of the authority and cause of their detention.

II


The next issue is — is this Court with jurisdiction to inquire into the constitutional sufficiency of the proclamation of martial law?

Petitioners assert the authority of this Court to inquire into the necessity of placing the country under martial law in the same manner that it inquired into the constitutional sufficiency of the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpusin Lansang v. Garcia.16* Respondents affirm, however, that the determination of the existence of invasion, insurrection, rebellion, or imminent danger thereof, when the public safety requires it is lodged with the President under Art. VII, Sec. 10 (2), 1935 Constitution, and the President’s determination is conclusive on all persons, including the courts; hence, this Court is without jurisdiction to resolve on the constitutional sufficiency of the basis for the exercise of that presidential power, it being a purely political question.

The Constitutional provision referred to reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"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, 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." 17

Respondents cite a host of American authorities and principally fall back on the rulings of this Court in Barcelon v. Baker, 5 Phil. 87, (1905) and Montenegro v. Castañeda, 91 Phil. 882, (1952) 18 which held that the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen requiring the suspension of the writ of habeas corpusbelongs to the President and his declaration is final and conclusive upon the courts and upon all other persons.

The opinions of my colleagues lengthily discuss this issue of justiciability or non-justiciability of the exercise of executive power to proclaim martial law and I will not repeat the arguments for one or the other. I adopt by reference their dissertation on the leading American jurisprudence and Constitutional Law authorities on the matter, but I conclude for my part that the decision of this Court in Lansang v. Garcia is the better rule to adopt. In Lansang, the Court held that it has the authority under the Constitution to inquire into the existence of a factual basis for the issuance of a presidential proclamation suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpusfor the purpose of determining the constitutional sufficiency thereof. 19 If this Court can make that inquiry in the event of suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, a fortiori, the Court can inquire into the factual basis for the proclamation of martial law considering the more extensive effects of the latter on the individual rights of the citizenry, for it cannot be denied that martial law carries with it curtailment and infringement not only of one’s liberty but also of property rights, rights of free expression and assembly, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, privacy of communication and correspondence, liberty of abode and of travel, etc., which justify judicial intervention to protect and uphold these liberties guaranteed under the Constitution.19*

In Lansang, the Court said in the words of Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Indeed, the grant of power to suspend the privilege is neither absolute nor unqualified. The authority conferred by the Constitution, both under the Bill of Rights and under the Executive Department, is limited and conditional. The precept in the Bill of Rights establishes a general rule, as well as an exception thereto. What is more, it postulates the former in the negative, evidently to stress its importance, by providing that ‘(t)he privilege of the writ of habeas corpusshall not be suspended . . .’ It is only by way of execution that it permits the suspension of the privilege in cases of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion’ — or, under Art. VII of the Constitution, ‘imminent danger thereof’ — ‘when the public safety requires it, in any of which events the same may be suspended wherever during such period the necessity for such suspension shall exist.’ 13 For from being full and plenary, the authority to suspend the privilege of the writ is thus circumscribed, confined and restricted, not only by the prescribed setting or the conditions essential to its existence, but, also, as regards the time when and the place where it may be exercised. These factors and the aforementioned setting or conditions mark, establish and define the extent, the confines and the limits of said power, beyond which it does not exist. And, like the limitations and restrictions imposed by the Fundamental Law upon the legislative department, adherence thereto and compliance therewith may, within proper bounds, be inquired into by courts of justice. Otherwise, the explicit constitutional provisions thereon would be meaningless. Surely, the framers of our Constitution could not have intended to engage in such a wasteful exercise in futility . . .

x       x       x


Article VII of the Constitution vests in the Executive the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpusunder specified conditions. Pursuant to the principle of separation of powers underlying our system of government, the Executive is supreme within his own sphere. HOWEVER, THE SEPARATION OF POWERS, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, IS NOT ABSOLUTE, WHAT IS MORE, IT GOES HAND IN HAND WITH THE SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES, UNDER WHICH THE EXECUTIVE IS SUPREME, AS REGARDS THE SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE, BUT ONLY IF AND WHEN HE ACTS WITHIN THE SPHERE ALLOTTED TO HIM BY THE BASIC LAW, AND THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT HE HAS SO ACTED IS VESTED IN THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, WHICH, IN THIS RESPECT, IS, IN TURN, CONSTITUTIONALLY SUPREME" (42 SCRA, pp. 473-474, 479-480, capitalization Ours)

We are now called upon by respondents to re-examine the above-quoted ruling, abandon it, and return to the principle laid down in Baker and Montenegro. 20 To do that, however, would be to retrogress, to surrender a momentous gain achieved in judicial history in this country. With Lansang, the highest Court of the land takes upon itself the grave responsibility of checking executive action and saving the nation from an arbitrary and despotic exercise of the presidential power granted under the Constitution to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpusand/or proclaim martial law; that responsibility and duty of the Court must be preserved and fulfilled at all costs if We want to maintain its role as the last bulwark of democracy in this country. To some, the Court could have gone further in delineating its function in the determination of the constitutional sufficiency of a proclamation suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; while that may be true, as it is, the Lansang decision is a "giant leap" in the interest of judicial supremacy in upholding fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and for that reason I cannot agree that We discard said decision or emasculate it so as to render its ruling a farce. The test of arbitrariness of executive action adopted in the decision is a sufficient safeguard; what is vital to the people is the manner by which the test is applied by the Court in both instances, i.e., suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpusand/or proclamation of martial law.

III


We come to the third issue — the validity of Proclamation 1081. Respondents contend that there is factual basis for the President to proclaim martial law in the country, while petitioners assert otherwise.

On this point, I agree with respondents that the extreme measure taken by the President to place the entire country under martial law was necessary. The President’s action was neither capricious nor arbitrary. An arbitrary act is one that arises from an unrestrained exercise of the will, caprice, or personal preference of the actor (Webster’s 3rd New International Dictionary, p. 110), one which is not founded on a fair or substantial reason (Bedford Inv. Co. v. Folb, 180 P. 2d 361, 362, cited in Words & Phrases, Permanent Ed., Vol. 3-A, p. 573), is without adequate determining principle, non-rational, and solely dependent on the actor’s will. (Sweig v. U.S., D.C. Tex., 60 F. Supp. 785, Words & Phrases, supra, p. 562) Such is not the case with the act of the President, because the proclamation of martial law was the result of conditions and events, not of his own making, which undoubtedly endangered the public safety and led him to conclude that the situation was critical enough to warrant the exercise of his power under the Constitution to proclaim martial law.

As found by this Court in Lansang v. Garcia: the communist activities in the country aimed principally at incitement to sedition or rebellion became quite evident in the late twenties to the early thirties with the first convictions dating October 26, 1932, in People v. Evangelista, Et Al. 57 Phil. 375, and People v. Guillermo Capadocia, Et Al. 57 Phil. 364; while there was a lull in such communist activities upon the establishment of the Commonwealth of the Philippines there was a resurgence of the communist threat in the late forties and on June 20, 1957. Congress approved Republic Act 1700 otherwise known as the Anti-Subversion Act which in effect outlawed the so called Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP); in 1969, the Communist Party was reorganized and split into two groups, one of which, composed mainly of young radicals constituting the Maoist faction, established a New People’s Army; the CPP managed to infiltrate or control nine major labor organizations, exploited the youth movement and succeeded in making communist fronts of eleven major student or youth organizations, in that there are about thirty 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). 21

A recital of contemporary events from 1969 to 1972 taken from reports of leading newspapers in the country will give the factual background of the proclamation of martial law and, with the indulgence of the reader, I am giving it hereunder:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1969


January 3, Evening News: Huks ambushed five persons including a former mayor of Bagac, Bataan, along the national road in the province and investigation of the Philippine Constabulary revealed that the ambushers were members of a Huk liquidation squad 22 January 4, ibid: Army Intelligence sources disclosed that the Huks were regrouping and steadily building up strength through a vigorous recruitment and training program. January 10, ibid: An encounter occurred in Sitio Bilaong, Sibul, Orani, Bataan, which was considered the biggest encounter between the Armed Forces and Huks in recent years resulting in the killing of a number of dissidents. January 24, 25, 29, and 31, ibid: In the City of Manila school campuses were not spared from clashes during riotous demonstrations held by more than 1,500 students of the Far Eastern University, the number increasing to about 10,000 of them, and at the Lyceum of the Philippines classes were suspended because of a bloody students’ demonstration resulting in the wounding of at least one student. February 1, ibid: The night before, scores of students were injured during a demonstration at the Mapua Institute of Technology initiated by radical elements. February 24 and 28, ibid: Huks continued to strike at government forces in San Fernando, Pampanga, and Tarlac, Tarlac. April 19, Manila Chronicle: A demonstration of about 5,000 farmers from Tarlac reinforced by Kabataang Makabayan members clashed with riot policemen after they had stoned the US Embassy on Roxas Boulevard, Manila, shattered glass windows of the building, and put to torch an American flag. May 19, Philippines Herald: The church was not spared from the onslaught of student activism when a march of activists was held to Manila’s prominent Catholic churches. June 12, and 14, Manila Chronicle: Assaults were intensified by government troops on Huk liars in the provinces of Pampanga and Tarlac. July 4, Philippines Herald: The Huks practically were in control of six towns in the province of Tarlac. July 27, ibid: The Kabataang Makabayan which according to the Armed Forces Intelligence sources had a tie-up with the Huks staged a tumultuous demonstration during a state dinner at Malacañang in honor of US President Richard Nixon which resulted in a free-for-all fight and injuries to several demonstrators. September 2, 9, and 10, Manila Daily Bulletin: Violent student demonstrations were staged including a one-day noisy siege of Malacañang Palace. October 7, and 11, Manila Chronicle: Bloody demonstrations continued near the gates of the US Embassy on Roxas Boulevard during which at least 20 persons including 6 policemen, 3 newsmen and several bystanders were injured. November 18, Manila Daily Bulletin: 3 jeeploads of Huks raided the poblacion of Porac, Pampanga, killing seven and wounding sixteen. November 20, ibid: More persons were killed in the continuing carnage in Pampanga. November 25, ibid: Huks killed two more persons in Pampanga and Tarlac even after constabulary soldiers saturated the provinces on orders of President Marcos. December 5, ibid: Five persons were massacred by Huks in Pampanga.

1970


January 19, Philippines Herald: 400 students demonstrated at Malacañang Palace against power groups in the country. January 22, ibid: A bomb exploded at the Joint US Military Advisory Group Headquarters in Quezon City injuring a Philippine Army enlisted man. January 23, ibid: Student demonstrators mauled a palace guard. January 24, ibid: Some 3,000 students demonstrated at Malacañang for the second day and the National Students League announced a nationwide boycott of classes. January 27, ibid: Opening session of the Seventh Congress was marred by riotous demonstrations by thousands of students and workers in front of the Legislative building during which President and Mrs. Marcos were the target of stones and missiles as they walked to their car and 72 persons were injured in that demonstration. January 31, ibid: Mob attacked Malacañang Palace with ignited bottles and fought with military and police troops until early morning. June 12 and 14, Manila Times: Nilo Tayag, Chairman of the Kabataang Makabayan was arrested for subversion and a submachinegun and documents concerning Communism were confiscated from him. July 5, 6, 7, 13, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, and 31, ibid: Continued demonstrations were held in front of the US Embassy building, in the campus of the Far Eastern University and the University of the East, while violent encounters between the army and the Huks in Central Luzon continued unabated. September 15, 18, 20, 25, 26, 27 and 29, ibid: Violent strikes and student demonstrations were reported. October 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 13, 23 and 24, ibid: Demonstrations continued with explosions of pillboxes in at least two schools. The University of the Philippines was not spared when its 18,0Q0 students boycotted their classes to demand academic and non-academic reforms in the State University resulting in the "occupation" of the office of the President of the University by student leaders. Other schools which were scenes of violent demonstrations were San Sebastian College, University of the East, Letran College, Mapua Institute of Technology, University of Sto. Tomas and Feati University. Student demonstrators even succeeded in occupying ‘the office of the Secretary of Justice Vicente Abad Santos for at least seven hours." November 6, 7, 8 and 18, ibid; The Armed Forces continued its encounters with the Huks in Central Luzon and with the leaders of the New People’s Army. December 5, 9 and 10, ibid: More instances of violent student demonstrations in the City were reported, the most violent of which occurred after an indignation rally at Plaza Lawton where pillboxes and other explosives were thrown resulting in the wounding of several students, policemen and bystanders. Two Catholic schools and two government building in Calbayog City were blasted with dynamite. December 14, 15, 18, 23 and 28, ibid: Fighting was reported in the province of Cotabato between well-armed tribesmen and the local police forces, as well as in Ilocos Sur, while in Cavite the Police Chief and two of his men were shot to death in front of the Hall of Justice building. December 31, ibid: In Baguio City, Lt. Victor N. Corpus joined the New People’s Army and effected a raid on the Philippine Military Academy and fled with 35 high-powered guns with ammunition.

1971


January 14, Manila Times: Four students died during a rally at Plaza Miranda of this city. January 21, ibid: Students picketed the Philippine Constabulary Camp at Camp Crame to express their protest on the use of the military forces against students, and to demand the impeachment of President Marcos. January 23, ibid: Oil firms in the city were the object of bombings resulting in death to at least two persons and injuries to others. January 27, ibid: A hand grenade was hurled at the tower of the ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation in Quezon City. February 2, ibid: A freshman student of the University of the Philippines was shot and critically wounded, 35 injured, 26 were arrested in violent incidents at the campus which at that time was in barricades, while in downtown Manila more than 2,000 students occupied and barricaded Claro M. Recto Avenue and 16 persons were injured in separate clashes between the police and students. February 3, ibid: A senior engineering student was shot when government forces drove into the heart of the University of the Philippines campus to disperse students who had set up barricades in the area, and at least 30 women students were wounded in the climax of the day-long pitch battle in the University between students and the local police and soldiers. February 4, 5, 6 and 7, ibid: In downtown Manila, fighting continued between the police and student demonstrators resulting in the death of at least two students and wounding of scores of demonstrators and policemen. February 11, ibid: The U.P. Los Baños Armory was blasted by an explosion. February 13, ibid: The United States Embassy was again bombed. February 17, ibid: In the province of Davao student riots erupted in the University of Mindanao killing at least one student. February 27, ibid: At least 18 persons were killed in Cotabato during encounters between government forces and the so-called rebels. March 17, 18, 19 and 25, ibid: Violent demonstrations and indignation rallies were held in Manila as well as in the province of Tarlac. April 23, Evening News: Two Constabulary troopers were ambushed by Huks under Commander Dante in the poblacion of Capas, Tarlac. April 30, ibid: A bomb exploded in Quezon City destroying the statue symbolizing friendship between the Filipinos and the Americans. May 2 and 3, Philippines Herald: The month of May was a bloody one. Labor Day, May 1, was celebrated by the workers and student activists with a demonstration before Congress, and a clash between the demonstrators and the police and Metrocom forces resulted in death to several demonstrators and injuries to many. May 7, ibid: Two army troopers and at least 8 Huks including a Commander were killed during military operations against the communist New People’s Army in Isabela. June 24, 25 and 26, Manila Times: Peace and order situation in Mindanao worsened. Continued clashes between government forces and rebels resulted in the evacuation of thousands of Muslims and Christians alike from several towns in Cotabato and a band of 50 gunmen attacked a party of top government officials led by Defense Secretary Juan Enrile while inspecting a Mosque where 56 Muslims were reportedly massacred in Barrio Manalili, Carmen, Cotabato. June 22, Evening News: Violence continued to be unabated in Manila with a Quezon City activist shot dead and 3 drivers involved in the jeepney strike bombed and injured. August 21, ibid: A public meeting being held at Plaza Miranda, Manila, by the Liberal Party for the presentation of its candidates in the general elections scheduled for November 8, 1971 was marred by what is now known as the brutal Plaza Miranda incident where 8 persons were killed and scores were injured including the candidates of the party, caused by the throwing of two hand grenades at the platform. August 23, ibid: President Marcos issued a proclamation suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

1972


January 12, Manila Times: President Marcos restored the privilege of the writ of habeas corpusin the entire country. January 29, ibid: In the meantime, in Congress a bill was introduced to repeal the anti-subversion law. February 2, 3, 5 and 10, ibid: Violent demonstrations in the school belt resumed. February 4, ibid: In the province of Zambales an encounter between PC troopers and the New People’s Army was reported. March 1, ibid: The province of Cavite was placed under Philippine Constabulary control because of the rash of killings in which local officials were the victims, one of whom was Cavite City Mayor Roxas. March 2, ibid: A raid was conducted by the Philippine Constabulary in a house in Quezon City resulting in the seizure of 36 high-powered firearms, 2 hand grenades and a dismantled machinegun while in the province of Isabela 6 persons including a non-commissioned officer of the 10th Infantry Battalion were killed in a gun battle between government soldiers and the New People’s Army. March 5, ibid: The New People’s Army raided Capas, Tarlac, destroying a portion of the town hall. March 9, ibid: More person died in Cotabato and Lanao due to continued violence. March 14, 16, 18, 21 and 27, ibid: The student demonstration on its way to Congress to agitate for the repeal of the anti-subversion law resulted in injuries to a good number of student demonstrators when they clashed with security guards in front of the University of Sto. Tomas. In another violent demonstration in front of Arellano University at least one student was killed and others were wounded in an encounter between the demonstrators and security guards. Pillbox explosives were hurled at the gate of Malacañang Palace and a mysterious explosion sparked a fire that gutted the northern wind of the Greater Manila Terminal Food Market in Taguig, Rizal, which had been preceded by other mysterious explosions which shattered portions of the Arca building on Taft Avenue, Pasay, during which propaganda leaflets were found showing that radical elements were behind the bombings, while 9 sticks of dynamite were found dumped in front of the Security Bank and Trust Company branch office in España Street. March 23, ibid: Another public official, Mayor Rodolfo Ganzon of Iloilo City was wounded in an ambush and 4 of his companions were killed. March 26, ibid: Six more persons were killed as government troopers clashed with the New People’s Army in the province of Isabela. April 16 and 17, ibid: Clashes continued between the Army troops and the New People’s Army in Isabela which led the government to send more troops to that province. April 20 and 25, ibid: The US Embassy was again bombed while strikes in factories were joined by so-called activists. April 26, ibid: Hand grenades in the town of Cabugao, Ilocos Sur were thrown resulting in the death of 13. April 27, ibid: Clashes continued between government troopers and the New People’s Army in the Ilocos provinces as well as in the provinces of Lanao and Zambales. April 30, ibid: The New People’s Army invaded the provinces of Samar and Leyte. May 4, ibid: Two big shipments of dynamite sticks estimated at 10,000 pieces had already been shipped to Ilocos Sur before a third shipment was intercepted on a bus bound for Cabugao. May 12 and 16, ibid: More pillbox explosions occurred in the US Embassy during which at least 5 persons were hurt while the pickets at the embassy led by the Kabataang Makabayan continued. May 21, ibid: At least 30 persons were wounded when radical vanguards of about 5,000 demonstrators clashed with about 200 Metrocom troopers in the vicinity of the US Embassy. June 13, ibid: The Philippine Independence Day was marred by rallies of youth and worker groups which denounced US imperialism, with demonstrators numbering about 10,000 from Southern Luzon, Central Luzon and the Greater Manila area converging at Plaza Miranda and during the demonstration explosions of pillbox bombs occurred. June 18, ibid: The situation in Mindanao was critical and had worsened. June 24, ibid: A time bomb exploded in one of the rooms in the second floor of the Court of Industrial Relations building in Manila. July 4, ibid: An explosion shattered the western section of the Philamlife building in Ermita, Manila. July 5, ibid: Thirty-five persons were wounded in pillbox explosions when 2 groups of demonstrators clashed with each other at Liwasang Bonifacio, then with policemen near the US Embassy, as the protest rallies against US imperialism held in conjunction with the July 4th celebration came to a bloody end. Deputy Police Chief Col. James Barbers who suffered 40 pellet wounds on the left side of the body was among the victims. July 6, ibid: Raiders killed 53 in Zamboanga; fighting was also going on in Lanao del Norte. Defense Secretary Juan Ponce Enrile yesterday described the Mindanao developments as "grave." July 7, ibid: President Marcos ordered Zamboanga drive; Armed Forces of the Philippines land-sea-air operations were launched while Mayor Diogracias Carmona of Dimataling, Zamboanga del Sur, was killed in a new clash. July 8, ibid: A panel of lawyers have advised President Marcos that it would be perfectly legal for him to declare martial law, suspend elections, and continue in office beyond 1973, if the "proper" situation develops next year. July 9, ibid: President Marcos said that the Communist infiltration of feuding Muslim and Christian groups in Mindanao could be just a ploy to draw away government troops from Central Luzon and thus leave Manila open to a Red attack. President Marcos ordered the PC and the army to counter-attack and recapture Digoyo Point, Palanan, Isabela; upon receipt of reports that outnumbered government troopers battling New People’s Army guerrillas in Palanan were forced to withdraw. He said that the primary target should be the suspected ammunition dump and supply depot of the New People’s Army on Digoyo Point. Sixteen PC officers and enlisted men were rescued from 100 New People’s Army guerrillas who had pinned them down on board a ship during a sea and air operations. They occupied the ship named "Kuya Maru Karagatan" reported to be of North Korean origin. While inspecting the ship, some 100 New People’s Army guerrillas massed on the beach and fired at them. July 10, ibid: President Marcos said that the vessel which landed off Palanan, Isabela, allegedly with military supplies and equipment for the New People’s Army is owned by Filipinos and is registered under Philippine laws. The President also saw in the landing incident evidence of a tie-up between local Communists and foreign suppliers of weapons. July 15, ibid: Camp Crame, National PC headquarters, announced a report from Task Force Saranay that government troopers had found hundreds of weapons of American make, including 467 M-14 rifles, in 2 abandoned camps in Digoyo Point, Palanan, Isabela. August 19, ibid: Rallies were held to mark the first year of the Plaza Miranda bombing and suspension of the writ of habeas corpusby the Movement of Concerned Citizens for Civil Liberties which declared August 21 as a national day of protest against militarization. August 31, ibid: The Department of National Defense at a conference of defense and military officials exposed a plan of the New People’s Army to sow terror and disorder in the major cities of the country before the end of the year 1972, and because of several bombing incidents at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Philamlife building, "The Daily Star Office" a newspaper publication, the IPI building and an armored car of the Philippine Banking Corporation, the Philippine Constabulary declared a red alert in the metropolitan area. September 3, ibid: Six army soldiers were killed when they were ambushed by the New People’s Army in Cawayan, Isabela. September 6, ibid: One woman was killed and 60 others were injured when a time bomb exploded in a department store in Carriedo Street, Quiapo, Manila, at about 8:30 in the evening of September 5 which incident was the most serious in the series of bombings which took place in greater Manila and which according to Army Intelligence sources was the work of "subversive elements out to sow fear, confusion and disorder in the heart of the population." September 10, ibid: Terrorist bombers struck again the night before destroying three vital offices in the ground floor of the City Hall of Manila and wounding 2 telephone operators. September 12, ibid: A gun battle ensued between the New People’s Army and Metrocom soldiers at Pandacan, Manila, near the Oil Refineries which led to the sending of Army troops to guard oil depots. September 13, ibid: President Marcos warned that he has under consideration the necessity for exercising his emergency powers under the Constitution in dealing with intensified activities of local Maoists. September 19, ibid: As if in answer to this warning of the President, two time bombs exploded in the Quezon City Hall which disrupted the plenary session of the Constitutional Convention and a subversion case hearing before Court of First Instance Judge Julian Lustre.

The foregoing events together with other data in the possession of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces led him to conclude that "there is throughout the land a state of anarchy and lawlessness, chaos and disorder, turmoil and destruction of a magnitude equivalent to an actual war between the forces of our duly constituted government and the New People’s Army and their satellite organizations . . . in addition to the above-described social disorder, there is also the equally serious disorder in Mindanao and Sulu resulting from the unsettled conflict between certain elements of the Christian and Muslim population of Mindanao and Sulu, between the Christian ‘Ilagas’ and the Muslim ‘Barracudas’, and between our government troops, and certain lawless organizations such as the Mindanao Independence Movement . . .", that this state of "rebellion and armed action" caused "serious demoralization among our people and have made the public apprehensive and fearful" and that "public order and safety and the security of the nation demand that immediate, swift, decisive and effective action be taken to protect and insure the peace, order and security of the country and its population and to maintain the authority of the government." (see Proclamation 1081)

Petitioners vigorously dispute all the above conclusions of the President and maintain that the situation in the country as of September 21, 1972, did not warrant a proclamation of martial law; thus, Congress was in session, the courts were open, the Constitutional Convention of 1971 was in progress, etc. Petitioners invoke in their favor the "open court rule" espoused in the American cases of Ex Parte Milligan, 4 Wallace 2,1866, and Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U S. 304, 1945, 90 L. Ed. 688. In Milligan the majority of five Justices of the Supreme Court held among others that "(M)artial rule can never exist where the courts are open and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction", which ruling was re-affirmed in Duncan.

Much has been said and written by my Colleagues on the merits and demerits of the Milligan and Duncan jurisprudence. For my part I shall simply state that I do not view these two cases as controlling authority on what is the test of an "actual and real necessity" for martial law to exist because these two cases were mainly concerned with the jurisdiction of a military commission (Milligan case) and a military tribunal (Duncan case) to try civilians for offenses generally cognizable by civil courts, and the decision in these two cases simply upholds the principle that where courts are open to exercise their jurisdiction, these civilians must not be denied their rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights one of which is trial by jury in a civil court. "In other words, the civil courts must be utterly incapable of trying criminals or dispensing justice in their usual manner before the Bill of Rights may be temporarily suspended." (Duncan v. Kabanamoku, supra, p. 703)

Furthermore, I would answer the arguments of petitioners with the following critical observation of Professor Willoughby on the Milligan ruling based on the dissent of four Justices in the case, and I quote:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . The statement is too absolutely made 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.’ It is correct to say that ‘the necessity must be actual and present,’ but it is not correct to any that this necessity cannot be present except under the courts are closed and deposed from civil administration, for, as the minority justices correctly pointed out, there may be urgent necessity for martial rule even when the courts are open. The better doctrine, then, is, not for the court to attempt to determine in advance with respect to any one element, what does, and what does not create a necessity for martial law, but, as in all other cases of the exercise of official authority, to test the legality of an act by its special circumstances. Certainly the fact that the courts are open and undisturbed will in all cases furnish a powerful presumption that there is no necessity for a resort to martial law, but it should not furnish an irrebuttable presumption." (Willoughby, Constitution of the United States, Vol. 3, 2Ed., p. 1602, emphasis Ours)

To stress his point, Professor Willoughby gave the following example:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The English doctrine of martial law is substantially similar to this, and an excellent illustration of the point under discussion is given by certain events growing out of the late British-Boer war.

During that struggle martial law was proclaimed by the British Government throughout the entire extent of Cape Colony, that is, in districts where no active military operations were being conducted and where the courts were open and undisturbed, but where considerable sympathy with the Boers and disaffection with the English rule existed. Sir Frederick Pollock, discussing the proper law of the subject with reference to the arrest of one Marais, upholds the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (A.C. 109, 1902) in which that court declined to hold that the absence of open disorder, and the undisturbed operation of the courts furnished conclusive evidence that martial law was unjustified. 22* " (ibid, pp. 1602-1603)

Coming back to our present situation, it can be said, that the fact that our courts were open on September 21, 1972, did not preclude the existence of an "actual and present necessity" for the proclamation of martial law. As indicated earlier, the state of communist activities as well as of other dissident movements in this country summarized by this Court in Lansang v. Garcia and manifested in the recital of events given in this Opinion constituted the "actual and present necessity" which led the President to place the entire country under martial law.

IV



Contrary to respondent’s claim, the proclamation of martial law in the country did not carry with it the automatic suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpusfor these reasons: First, from the very nature of the writ of habeas corpuswhich as stressed in the early portion of this Opinion is a "writ of liberty" and the "most important and most immediately available safeguard of that liberty", the privilege of the writ cannot be suspended by mere implication. The Bill of Rights (Art. III, Sec. 1(14) 1935 Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 15, 1973 Constitution) categorically states that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpusshall not be suspended except for causes therein specified, and the proclamation of martial law is not one of those enumerated. 23 Second, the so-called Commander-in-Chief clause, either under Art. VII, Sec. 10(2), 1935 Constitution, or Art. IX, Sec. 12, 1973 Constitution, provides specifically for three different modes of executive action in times of emergency, and one mode does not necessarily encompass the other, viz, (a) calling out the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawlessness, etc., (b) suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and (c) placing the country or a part thereof under martial law. In the latter two instances even if the causes for the executive action are the same, still the exigencies of the situation may warrant the suspension of the privilege of the writ but not a proclamation of martial law and vice versa. Third, there can be an automatic suspension of the privilege of the writ when, with the declaration of martial law, there is a total collapse of the civil authorities, the civil courts are closed, and a military government takes over, in which event the privilege of the writ is necessarily suspended for the simple reason that there is no court to issue the writ; that, however, is not the case with us at present because the martial law proclaimed by the President upholds the supremacy of the civil over the military authority 24 and the courts are open to issue the writ.

V


Respondents argue that with a valid proclamation of martial law, all orders, decrees, and other acts of the President pursuant to said proclamation are likewise valid; that these acts were expressly declared legal and binding in Art. XVII, Sec. 3(2), of the 1973 Constitution which is now in full force and effect, and consequently, the arrest of petitioners is legal, it having been made in accordance with General Order No. 2 of the President.

I cannot give my unqualified assent to respondents’ sweeping statement which in effect upholds the view that whatever defects, substantive or procedural, may have tainted the orders, decrees, or other acts of the President have been cured by the confirmatory vote of the sovereign people manifested through their ratification of the 1973 Constitution. I cannot do so, because I refuse to believe that a people that have embraced the principles of democracy in "blood, sweat, and tears" would thus throw away all their precious liberties, the sacred institutions enshrined in their Constitution, for that would be the result if we say that the people have stamped their approval on all the acts of the President executed after the proclamation of martial law irrespective of any taint of injustice, arbitrariness, oppression, or culpable violation of the Constitution that may characterize such acts. Surely the people acting through their constitutional delegates could not have written a fundamental law which guarantees their rights to life, liberty, and property, and at the same time in the same instrument provided for a weapon that could spell death to these rights. No less than the man concerned, President Ferdinand E. Marcos, has time and again emphasized the fact that notwithstanding the existence of martial law ours is a government run under the Constitution and that the proclamation of martial law is under the Rule of Law. 25 If that is so, and that is how it should be, then all the acts of the President must bow to the mandates of the Constitution.

That this view that we take is the correct one can be seen from the very text of Sec. 3(2), Art. XVII of the 1973 Constitution which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"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 lifting of martial law or the ratification of this Constitution, unless modified, revoked, or superseded by subsequent proclamations, orders decrees, instructions, or other acts of the incumbent President, or unless expressly and explicitly modified or repealed by the regular National Assembly." (Emphasis Ours)

As stated in the above-quoted provision, all the proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions, and acts promulgated, issued, or done by the incumbent President shall be part of the law of the land; the text did not say that they shall be part of the fundamental or basic law — the Constitution. Indeed, the framers of the new Constitution were careful in their choice of phraseology for implicit therein is the Court’s power of judicial review over the acts of the incumbent President in the exercise of his martial law powers during the period of transition from the Presidential to the Parliamentary regime. For the effect of the aforementioned transitory provision is to invest upon said proclamations, orders, decrees, and acts of the President the imprimatur of a law but not a constitutional mandate. Like any other law or statute enacted by the legislative branch of the government, such orders, decrees, etc. are subject to judicial review when proper under the Constitution; to claim the contrary would be incongruous to say the least for while the acts of the regular National Assembly which is the permanent repository of legislative power under the new Constitution are subject to judicial review, the acts of its temporary substitute, that is, the incumbent President, performed during the transitory period are not.

It is contended however that the true intention of the Constitutional Delegates in providing for Section 3(2), Article XVII, in the 1973 Constitution was to foreclose any judicial inquiry on the validity not only of Proclamation 1081 but also of all subsequent orders, decrees issued and acts performed by the incumbent President. If that was the intent, then why did that particular provision not state so in clear and unequivocal terms, especially since the effect would be to restrict if not to deprive the judicial branch of the government of its power of judicial review in these instances? As it is, that is, as presently worded, this particular provision was ratified by the people believing that although the acts of the incumbent President were being made part of the law of the land they still had a recourse to the judicial branch of their government for protection or redress should such acts turn out to be arbitrary, unjust, or oppressive.

Going back to General Order No. 2, its validity is assailed by petitioners on the ground that it ordered their arrest and detention without charges having been filed against them before the competent court nor warrants for their arrest issued by the latter, all in violation of their constitutional right to due process of law.

A state of martial law vests upon the President not only the power to call the military or armed forces to repel an invasion, prevent or suppress an insurrection or rebellion, whenever public safety requires it, but also the authority to take such measures as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of the proclamation of martial law. One such measure is the arrest and detention of persons who are claimed to be participants or suspected on reasonable grounds to be such, in the commission of insurrection or rebellion, or in the case of an invasion, who give aid and comfort to the enemy, the arrest being necessary to insure public safety. It is this element of necessity present in the case which justifies a curtailment of the rights of petitioners and so long as there is no showing of arbitrariness or oppression in the act complained of, the Court is duty bound to sustain it as a valid exercise of the martial law powers of the President. With the foregoing qualification, I agree with the following statement:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"When it comes to a decision by the head of the State upon a matter involving its life, the ordinary rights of individuals must yield to what he deems the necessities of the moment. Public danger warrants the substitution of executive process for judicial process." (Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78, 53 L. Ed, pp. 411, 417)

The issuance of General Order No. 2 therefore was a valid initial step taken by the President to render effective the suppression of armed resistance to our duly constituted government.

Thus, I vote for the dismissal of the petitions for habeas corpusof those who have been conditionally released, because: (1) The arrest of said petitioners was effected by respondents under a valid Order of the President. (2) The petitioners concerned have been ordered released from detention. The prime object of a writ of habeas corpusis to relieve a person from physical restraint and this has been accomplished on respondent Secretary’s initiative (3) While it is true that the release of petitioners is subject to certain conditions such as restrictions on petitioners’ freedom of movement, such restrictions are reasonable precautionary measures in the face of public danger, and I do not see any arbitrariness in the imposition of said restrictions.

With respect to the case of petitioner Aquino, I concur in the dismissal of his petition for reasons that: (1) criminal charges have been filed against him before a military commission and (2) the legal issues posed by him which are germane to this habeas corpusproceeding are disposed of and resolved in the manner indicated in this Opinion. As regards the other issues submitted by Aquino, I agree with my Colleagues that the same are to be resolved in the prohibition and certioraricase filed by him which is now pending before the Court.

C O N C L U S I O N


In closing, may I state that it was necessary for me to write this separate Opinion because I found myself at variance with my Colleagues on certain issues posed by these Petitions for habeas corpus. To recapitulate: (1) Is the constitutional sufficiency of a proclamation of martial law by the President a political question? — I hold that it is not a political, but is a justiciable one. (2) Did the proclamation of martial law automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus? No, is my answer. (3) Did Sec. 3(2), Art. XVII of the Transitory Provisions of the 1973 Constitution foreclose judicial inquiry into the validity of all decrees, orders and acts of the incumbent President executed after the proclamation of martial law and during the Transitory Period? I say: NO, because those acts are still subject to the power of judicial review if and when they are shown to be arbitrary, oppressive, or unjust, in violation of the Constitution and/or the generally accepted principles of International Law, usages and customs.

My conclusions may not be supported by existing jurisprudence or may even be contrary to the multiple authorities cited by my senior Colleagues in the Court; nonetheless, I humbly offer and submit them as the spontaneous reactions of my conscience to the issues which in the words of my distinguished Colleague, Mr. Justice Antonio P. Barredo, affect not the petitioners alone but the whole country and all our people.



Endnotes:



1. Diokno’s petition for habeas corpuswas filed on September 23, 1972, the third day after the signing of Proclamation No. 1081. In Javellana v. The Executive Secretary, L-36142, March 31, 1973, and allied cases, called the Ratification Cases, this Court in its dispositive portion stated: "there is no further judicial obstacle to the New Constitution being considered in force and effect." On October 24, 1973, President Ferdinand E. Marcos swore into office the Hon. Querube C. Makalintal as Chief Justice, and October 29, Associate Justices: Calixto O. Zaldivar, Fred Ruiz Castro, Enrique M. Fernando, Claudio Teehankee, Antonio P. Barredo, Felix V. Makasiar, Felix Q. Antonio, and Salvador V. Esguerra took their Oath under the new Constitution together with new appointees, Justices Estanislao Fernandez, Cecilia Muñoz Palma and Ramon Aquino.

2. Eight votes were considered by the Court necessary to grant the motion, and of the twelve Justices, only seven finally voted to grant2 Eight votes were considered by the Court necessary to grant the motion, and of the twelve Justices, only seven finally voted to grant the withdrawal of the petition, namely: Chief Justice Makalintal, Associate Justices Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Muñoz Palma, and Aquino; the rest voted to deny the motion.

* This news was reported in the Evening Express of September 11, 1974.

3. General Order No. 2 was amended as General Order No. 2-A dated September 26, 1972.

4. There were nine separate Petitions filed, to wit, in chronological order: G.R. Nos. L-35538, 35539, 35540, 35546, 35547, 35556, 35567, 35571, and 35573, the last having been docketed on October 3, 1972. Of the nine petitions, only six are now being decided because L-35547, Voltaire Garcia II, petitioner, became moot upon the death of the petitioner on March 2, 1973, while on conditional release; L-35556, Tan Chin Hian and Veronica L. Yuyitung, petitioners, was withdrawn with the approval of the Court on the ground that petitioners had been released from custody; and L-35571, Bren Guiao, petitioner, was likewise withdrawn with the approval of the Court. Although there were originally 32 petitioners only 18 remain and they are as enumerated in the caption of these six cases under consideration. Of these 18 petitioners, three were members of the Philippine Senate at the time of their arrest, namely: Jose W. Diokno, Benigno S. Aquino, Jr., and Ramon V. Mitra, Jr.; two were delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1971, namely: Jose Mari Velez and Napoleon G. Rama; while the rest are well-known journalists and men of the mass media.

** The Evening Express of September 11, 1974, reported that Jose W. Diokno was released in the morning of that date upon orders of President Ferdinand E. Marcos.

*** The Evening Express of September 11, 1974, reported that Jose W. Diokno was released in the morning of that date upon orders of President Ferdinand E. Marcos.

5. Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778, 790, cited in J. G. Bernas, S.J., Constitutional Rights and Duties, Vol. I, 1974 Ed., p. 262.

6. Justice E. Fernando, The Bill of Rights, 1972 Ed., p. 296.

7. Bernas, supra, p. 262.

8. Willoughby on the Constitution, Vol. 3, p. 1612 (1929) quoted in Fernando, supra.

9. 2 Story, Const. quoted in Black’s Constitutional Law, 2 Ed. p. 599.

10 Art. III, Sec. 1 par. 1, Philippine Constitution of 1935 provides: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws." This provision is adopted verbatim in Art. IV, Sec. 1, Constitution of 1973.

The Preamble of the French Constitution of 1958, Art. 1 provides: "Men are born and remain free and equal in respect of rights " and Art. 7 states "No one shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned, save in the cases determined by law, and according to the forms which it has prescribed." (Taken from Howard and Summers, Law its nature, functions, and limits, p. 257)

The Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; 1936, Art. 127 provides: "Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed inviolability of the person. No person may be placed under arrest except by decision of a court or with the sanction of a procurator." (ibid, p. 259)

Sec. 1, Art. XIV, United States Constitution reads ." No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Black’s, supra, XXIV)

11. see Memorandum of Respondents dated November 17, 1972, pp. 4-5.

12. Answer to Supplemental Petition and Motion for Immediate Release, dated July 26, 1973, p. 23, L-35539.

13. Memorandum for Petitioners dated November 9, 1972, pp. 6, 23, 71, 97.

14. Supplemental Petition and Motion for Immediate Release dated June 29, 1973, pp. 45-51, 63-94.

15. Reference is made to the 1935 Constitution.

16. Moran, Rules of Court, Vol. 3, 1970 Ed. p. 615; Clorox Co. v. Director of Patents, Et Al., L-19531, August 10, 1967, 20 SCRA 965, 970; Palma v. Hon. Oreta, Et Al., 34 SCRA.

16* L-33964, December 11, 1971, 42 SCRA 448.

17. Same as Sec. 12, Art. IX, Constitution of 1973, except the term "President" is now "Prime Minister."

18. The Baker case involved the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpusin the provinces of Batangas and Cavite by the Governor-General pursuant to a Resolution of the Philippine Commission dated January 31, 1905, while the Montenegro case involved Proclamation 210 by Pres. Elpidio Quirino on October 22, 1950, suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpuspursuant to Art. VII, Section 10, paragraph 2 of the Constitution.

19. p. 473, supra.

19* see Bill of Rights, Art. III, 1935 Constitution; Bill of Rights, Art. IV, 1973 Constitution.

13. Which were, seemingly, taken from the seventh paragraph of Section 3, and Section 21 of the Jones Law (Act of Congress of the U.S. of August 29, 1916). The only provision thereon in the U.S. Constitution is found in Section 9(2) of Art. 1 thereon — on the Legislative Power — which provides that ‘the privilege of the writ of habeas corpusshall not be suspended, unless in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.’ " (footnote inside quotation)

20. Memorandum of Respondents, supra pp. 36-40.

21. Supra, pp. 476-477, 484.

22. The term "Huks" refers to an army or group of men organized and operating in Central Luzon for communistic activities.

22* (Footnote 22 inside quotation)

Law Quarterly Review, XVIII, 152. For an oppositive view, see Edinburgh Review, January, 1902.

23. Art. III, Sec. 1(14), 1935 Constitution:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpusshall not be suspended except in cases of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, in any of which events the same may be suspended wherever during such period the necessity for such suppression shall exist.

Art. IV, Sec. 15, 1973 Constitution:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpusshall not be suspended except in cases of invasion, insurrection, rebellion, or imminent danger thereof, when the public safety requires it.

24. President Ferdinand E. Marcos, Notes on the New Society of the Philippines, 1973, p. 37.

25. Ibid.



Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





September-1974 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-37919 September 6, 1974 - BIENVENIDO U. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23155 September 9, 1974 - RUFINO G. BARTULATA v. MACARIO PERALTA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30351 September 11, 1974 - AUREA BAÑEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-32733 September 11, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO MANANGAN

  • G.R. No. L-37443 September 11, 1974 - IN RE: CHUA KIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • A.C. No. 533 September 12, 1974 - IN RE: FLORENCIO MALLARE

  • G.R. No. L-25246 September 12, 1974 - BENJAMIN VICTORIANO v. ELIZALDE ROPE WORKERS’ UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26657 September 12, 1974 - VISAYAN STEVEDORE & TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27526 September 12, 1974 - ANGELITA G. VDA. DE VALERA, ET AL. v. MACARIO M. OFILADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28782 September 12, 1974 - AUYONG HIAN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32276 September 12, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE ALVIAR Y TUAZON

  • G.R. No. L-34663 September 12, 1974 - SIMON GENCIANA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-38945-47 September 12, 1974 - DEMOCRITO BARRIDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38565 September 16, 1974 - BAYANI SARMIENTO, ET AL. v. CONSTANTINO NOLASCO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 128-MJ September 18, 1974 - SEGUNDINA CORAL v. JOSE CONSOLACION-SERRANO

  • G.R. No. L-35494 September 18, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO IGNACIO

  • G.R. No. L-27314 September 26, 1974 - TEODOSIA ALFILER, ET AL. v. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33818 September 26, 1973

    LECAR & SONS, INC. v. ARTURO R. TANCO, JR., ETC., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-44 September 30, 1974 - MOISES M. MASPIL, ET AL. v. FERNANDO R. ROMERO

  • A.M. No. 440-CFI September 30, 1974 - REMEDIOS I. JUGUETA v. ALEJANDRO R. BONCAROS

  • G.R. No. L-18717 September 30, 1974 - CASIMIRO ESTANISLAO, ET AL. v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27396 September 30, 1974 - JESUS V. OCCEÑA, ET AL. v. PAULINO S. MARQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-28693 September 30, 1974 - VI VE CHEMICAL PRODUCTS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-30450-51 September 30, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO BODUSO

  • G.R. No. L-30978 September 30, 1974 - FORTUNATO MEDINA v. MANUEL T. YAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32078 September 30, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALTAZAR LACAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32408 September 30, 1974 - IN RE: PO SOON TEK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-33293 September 30, 1974 - DOMINGO FERRER, ET AL. v. FLORENCIO VILLAMOR

  • G.R. No. L-34317 September 30, 1974 - WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34369 September 30, 1974 - ANTONIO VILLASIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-36874-76 September 30, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO REYES

  • G.R. No. L-37949 September 30, 1974 - JUAN ALONZO v. CFI OF CAGAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39059 September 30, 1974 - ANTONIO CABALLERO, ET AL. v. ALMA DEIPARINE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39373 September 30, 1974 - FELIXBERTO W. FERRER v. YANG SEPENG

  • A.M. No. P-227 September 30, 1974 - BENJAMIN N. MUÑASQUE v. ROSALINA CAPE

  • G.R. Nos. L-35546, L-35538, L-35539, L-35540, L-35547, L-35556, L-35567, L-35571 and L-35573 September 17, 1974 - G.R. No. L-35546. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., RAMON MITRA, JR., FRANCISCO RODRIGO, AND NAPOLEON RAMA, Petitioners, v. 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, Repondents : G.R. No. L-35538. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOAQUIN P. ROCES, TEODORO M. LOCSIN, SR., ROLANDO FADUL, ROSALIND GALANG, GO ENG GUAN, MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, RENATO CONSTANTINO, AND LUIS R. MAURICIO, Petitioners, v. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Et Al. : G.R. No. L-35539. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOSE W. DIOKNO, CARMEN I. DIOKNO, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; ROMEO ESPINO, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES : G.R. No. L-35540. September 17, 1974. _ MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, NAPOLEON G. RAMA, AND JOSE MARI VELEZ, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; HON. FRANCISCO TATAD, PRESS SECRETARY; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35547. September 17, 1974. - ENRIQUE VOLTAIRE GARCIA II, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35556. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF VERONICA L. YUYITUNG AND TAN CHIN HIAN, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35567. September 17, 1974 - 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 ORDOŅEZ, MANUEL ALMARIO AND WILLIE BAUN, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35571. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BREN Z. GUIAO, TERESITA M. GUIAO, Petitioner, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35573. September 17, 1974 - ERNESTO RONDON, Petitioner, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; AND MAJOR RODULFO MIANA

  • Antonio, J., Concurring : Separate Opinion : G.R. Nos. L-35546, L-35538, L-35539, L-35540, L-35547, L-35556, L-35567, L-35571 and L-35573 September 17, 1974 - G.R. No. L-35546. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., RAMON MITRA, JR., FRANCISCO RODRIGO, AND NAPOLEON RAMA, Petitioners, v. 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, Repondents : G.R. No. L-35538. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOAQUIN P. ROCES, TEODORO M. LOCSIN, SR., ROLANDO FADUL, ROSALIND GALANG, GO ENG GUAN, MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, RENATO CONSTANTINO, AND LUIS R. MAURICIO, Petitioners, v. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Et Al. : G.R. No. L-35539. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOSE W. DIOKNO, CARMEN I. DIOKNO, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; ROMEO ESPINO, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES : G.R. No. L-35540. September 17, 1974. _ MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, NAPOLEON G. RAMA, AND JOSE MARI VELEZ, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; HON. FRANCISCO TATAD, PRESS SECRETARY; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35547. September 17, 1974. - ENRIQUE VOLTAIRE GARCIA II, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35556. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF VERONICA L. YUYITUNG AND TAN CHIN HIAN, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35567. September 17, 1974 - 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 ORDOŅEZ, MANUEL ALMARIO AND WILLIE BAUN, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35571. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BREN Z. GUIAO, TERESITA M. GUIAO, Petitioner, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35573. September 17, 1974 - ERNESTO RONDON, Petitioner, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; AND MAJOR RODULFO MIANA

  • Barredo, J., Concurring : Separate Opinion : G.R. Nos. L-35546, L-35538, L-35539, L-35540, L-35547, L-35556, L-35567, L-35571 and L-35573 September 17, 1974 - G.R. No. L-35546. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., RAMON MITRA, JR., FRANCISCO RODRIGO, AND NAPOLEON RAMA, Petitioners, v. 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, Repondents : G.R. No. L-35538. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOAQUIN P. ROCES, TEODORO M. LOCSIN, SR., ROLANDO FADUL, ROSALIND GALANG, GO ENG GUAN, MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, RENATO CONSTANTINO, AND LUIS R. MAURICIO, Petitioners, v. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Et Al. : G.R. No. L-35539. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOSE W. DIOKNO, CARMEN I. DIOKNO, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; ROMEO ESPINO, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES : G.R. No. L-35540. September 17, 1974. _ MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, NAPOLEON G. RAMA, AND JOSE MARI VELEZ, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; HON. FRANCISCO TATAD, PRESS SECRETARY; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35547. September 17, 1974. - ENRIQUE VOLTAIRE GARCIA II, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35556. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF VERONICA L. YUYITUNG AND TAN CHIN HIAN, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35567. September 17, 1974 - 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 ORDOŅEZ, MANUEL ALMARIO AND WILLIE BAUN, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35571. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BREN Z. GUIAO, TERESITA M. GUIAO, Petitioner, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35573. September 17, 1974 - ERNESTO RONDON, Petitioner, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; AND MAJOR RODULFO MIANA

  • Castro, J., Concurring : Separate Opinion : G.R. Nos. L-35546, L-35538, L-35539, L-35540, L-35547, L-35556, L-35567, L-35571 and L-35573 September 17, 1974 - G.R. No. L-35546. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., RAMON MITRA, JR., FRANCISCO RODRIGO, AND NAPOLEON RAMA, Petitioners, v. 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, Repondents : G.R. No. L-35538. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOAQUIN P. ROCES, TEODORO M. LOCSIN, SR., ROLANDO FADUL, ROSALIND GALANG, GO ENG GUAN, MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, RENATO CONSTANTINO, AND LUIS R. MAURICIO, Petitioners, v. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Et Al. : G.R. No. L-35539. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOSE W. DIOKNO, CARMEN I. DIOKNO, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; ROMEO ESPINO, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES : G.R. No. L-35540. September 17, 1974. _ MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, NAPOLEON G. RAMA, AND JOSE MARI VELEZ, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; HON. FRANCISCO TATAD, PRESS SECRETARY; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35547. September 17, 1974. - ENRIQUE VOLTAIRE GARCIA II, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35556. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF VERONICA L. YUYITUNG AND TAN CHIN HIAN, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35567. September 17, 1974 - 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 ORDOŅEZ, MANUEL ALMARIO AND WILLIE BAUN, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35571. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BREN Z. GUIAO, TERESITA M. GUIAO, Petitioner, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35573. September 17, 1974 - ERNESTO RONDON, Petitioner, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; AND MAJOR RODULFO MIANA

  • Esguerra, J., Concurring : Separate Opinion : G.R. Nos. L-35546, L-35538, L-35539, L-35540, L-35547, L-35556, L-35567, L-35571 and L-35573 September 17, 1974 - G.R. No. L-35546. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., RAMON MITRA, JR., FRANCISCO RODRIGO, AND NAPOLEON RAMA, Petitioners, v. 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, Repondents : G.R. No. L-35538. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOAQUIN P. ROCES, TEODORO M. LOCSIN, SR., ROLANDO FADUL, ROSALIND GALANG, GO ENG GUAN, MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, RENATO CONSTANTINO, AND LUIS R. MAURICIO, Petitioners, v. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Et Al. : G.R. No. L-35539. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOSE W. DIOKNO, CARMEN I. DIOKNO, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; ROMEO ESPINO, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES : G.R. No. L-35540. September 17, 1974. _ MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, NAPOLEON G. RAMA, AND JOSE MARI VELEZ, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; HON. FRANCISCO TATAD, PRESS SECRETARY; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35547. September 17, 1974. - ENRIQUE VOLTAIRE GARCIA II, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35556. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF VERONICA L. YUYITUNG AND TAN CHIN HIAN, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35567. September 17, 1974 - 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 ORDOŅEZ, MANUEL ALMARIO AND WILLIE BAUN, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35571. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BREN Z. GUIAO, TERESITA M. GUIAO, Petitioner, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35573. September 17, 1974 - ERNESTO RONDON, Petitioner, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; AND MAJOR RODULFO MIANA

  • Fenandez, J., Concurring : Separate Opinion : G.R. Nos. L-35546, L-35538, L-35539, L-35540, L-35547, L-35556, L-35567, L-35571 and L-35573 September 17, 1974 - G.R. No. L-35546. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., RAMON MITRA, JR., FRANCISCO RODRIGO, AND NAPOLEON RAMA, Petitioners, v. 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, Repondents : G.R. No. L-35538. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOAQUIN P. ROCES, TEODORO M. LOCSIN, SR., ROLANDO FADUL, ROSALIND GALANG, GO ENG GUAN, MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, RENATO CONSTANTINO, AND LUIS R. MAURICIO, Petitioners, v. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Et Al. : G.R. No. L-35539. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOSE W. DIOKNO, CARMEN I. DIOKNO, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; ROMEO ESPINO, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES : G.R. No. L-35540. September 17, 1974. _ MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, NAPOLEON G. RAMA, AND JOSE MARI VELEZ, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; HON. FRANCISCO TATAD, PRESS SECRETARY; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35547. September 17, 1974. - ENRIQUE VOLTAIRE GARCIA II, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35556. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF VERONICA L. YUYITUNG AND TAN CHIN HIAN, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35567. September 17, 1974 - 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 ORDOŅEZ, MANUEL ALMARIO AND WILLIE BAUN, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35571. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BREN Z. GUIAO, TERESITA M. GUIAO, Petitioner, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35573. September 17, 1974 - ERNESTO RONDON, Petitioner, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; AND MAJOR RODULFO MIANA

  • Fernando, J., Concurring and Dissenting: Separate Opinion : G.R. Nos. L-35546, L-35538, L-35539, L-35540, L-35547, L-35556, L-35567, L-35571 and L-35573 September 17, 1974 G.R. No. L-35546. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., RAMON MITRA, JR., FRANCISCO RODRIGO, AND NAPOLEON RAMA, Petitioners, v. 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, Repondents : G.R. No. L-35538. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOAQUIN P. ROCES, TEODORO M. LOCSIN, SR., ROLANDO FADUL, ROSALIND GALANG, GO ENG GUAN, MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, RENATO CONSTANTINO, AND LUIS R. MAURICIO, Petitioners, v. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Et Al. : G.R. No. L-35539. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOSE W. DIOKNO, CARMEN I. DIOKNO, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; ROMEO ESPINO, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES : G.R. No. L-35540. September 17, 1974. _ MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, NAPOLEON G. RAMA, AND JOSE MARI VELEZ, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; HON. FRANCISCO TATAD, PRESS SECRETARY; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35547. September 17, 1974. - ENRIQUE VOLTAIRE GARCIA II, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35556. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF VERONICA L. YUYITUNG AND TAN CHIN HIAN, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35567. September 17, 1974 - 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 ORDOŅEZ, MANUEL ALMARIO AND WILLIE BAUN, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35571. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BREN Z. GUIAO, TERESITA M. GUIAO, Petitioner, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35573. September 17, 1974 - ERNESTO RONDON, Petitioner, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; AND MAJOR RODULFO MIANA

  • MUŅOZ PALMA, J., Dissenting : Separate Opinion : G.R. Nos. L-35546, L-35538, L-35539, L-35540, L-35547, L-35556, L-35567, L-35571 and L-35573 September 17, 1974 - G.R. No. L-35546. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., RAMON MITRA, JR., FRANCISCO RODRIGO, AND NAPOLEON RAMA, Petitioners, v. 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, Repondents : G.R. No. L-35538. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOAQUIN P. ROCES, TEODORO M. LOCSIN, SR., ROLANDO FADUL, ROSALIND GALANG, GO ENG GUAN, MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, RENATO CONSTANTINO, AND LUIS R. MAURICIO, Petitioners, v. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Et Al. : G.R. No. L-35539. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOSE W. DIOKNO, CARMEN I. DIOKNO, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; ROMEO ESPINO, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES : G.R. No. L-35540. September 17, 1974. _ MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, NAPOLEON G. RAMA, AND JOSE MARI VELEZ, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; HON. FRANCISCO TATAD, PRESS SECRETARY; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35547. September 17, 1974. - ENRIQUE VOLTAIRE GARCIA II, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35556. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF VERONICA L. YUYITUNG AND TAN CHIN HIAN, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35567. September 17, 1974 - 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 ORDOŅEZ, MANUEL ALMARIO AND WILLIE BAUN, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35571. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BREN Z. GUIAO, TERESITA M. GUIAO, Petitioner, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35573. September 17, 1974 - ERNESTO RONDON, Petitioner, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; AND MAJOR RODULFO MIANA

  • Teehankee, J., Concurring and Dissenting : Separate Opinion : G.R. Nos. L-35546, L-35538, L-35539, L-35540, L-35547, L-35556, L-35567, L-35571 and L-35573 September 17, 1974 G.R. No. L-35546. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., RAMON MITRA, JR., FRANCISCO RODRIGO, AND NAPOLEON RAMA, Petitioners, v. 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, Repondents : G.R. No. L-35538. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOAQUIN P. ROCES, TEODORO M. LOCSIN, SR., ROLANDO FADUL, ROSALIND GALANG, GO ENG GUAN, MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, RENATO CONSTANTINO, AND LUIS R. MAURICIO, Petitioners, v. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, Et Al. : G.R. No. L-35539. September 17, 1974. - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOSE W. DIOKNO, CARMEN I. DIOKNO, v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; ROMEO ESPINO, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES : G.R. No. L-35540. September 17, 1974. _ MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, NAPOLEON G. RAMA, AND JOSE MARI VELEZ, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; HON. FRANCISCO TATAD, PRESS SECRETARY; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY : G.R. No. L-35547. September 17, 1974. - ENRIQUE VOLTAIRE GARCIA II, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35556. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF VERONICA L. YUYITUNG AND TAN CHIN HIAN, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35567. September 17, 1974 - 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 ORDOŅEZ, MANUEL ALMARIO AND WILLIE BAUN, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35571. September 17, 1974 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BREN Z. GUIAO, TERESITA M. GUIAO, Petitioner, v. 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 : G.R. No. L-35573. September 17, 1974 - ERNESTO RONDON, Petitioner, v. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; AND MAJOR RODULFO MIANA