following the detention of alleged rebels, deemed to be members of the Communist Party of the Philippines. The Supreme Court in bothinstances denied the issuance of the writ, saying that the arrests werevalid. The Supreme Court also upheld the president's decision tosuspend the privilege of the writ with respect to “persons at presentdetained as well as others who may hereafter be similarly detained forthe crimes of insurrection or rebellion, subversion, conspiracy orproposals to commit such crimes, and for all other crimes andoffenses committed by them in furthereance or on the occasionthereof, or incident thereto, or in connection therewith.”
In otherwords, the Court upheld the arrest and detention of the petitionerseven after the lifting of martial law because their arrest was forrebellion, a continuing offense. However, in an article by AttorneysRoberto Dio and Teofilo Pilando
, the continued suspension of theprivilege of the writ despite the lifting of martial law “appears to betainted with two defects touching on its validity and effectivity.” The rule under the Constitution is that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended
incases of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, or imminentdanger thereof, when the public safety requires it [...] Theexercise of the president of this authority requires factualdetermination [...] such that an absence of suchdetermination vitiates the suspension as invalid for lack of any Constitutional basis.[...] The enactment, in fact, declares the termination
Proc. No. 2045 (1981).
Dio and Pilando, Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile: An Assault on Individual Liberty. 59 P.L.J. 59.