You are on page 1of 2

LANSANG VS GARCIA

Facts: In the evening of August 21, 1971, at about 9 p.m., while the Liberal Party of the Philippines was holding a
public meeting at Plaza Miranda, Manila, for the presentation of its candidates in the general elections
scheduled for November 8, 1971, two hand grenades were thrown at the platform where said candidates and
other persons were. Eight persons were killed and many more injured. Proclamation 889 was issued by the
President suspending privilege of writ of habeas corpus stating that there is a conspiracy of rebellion and
insurrection in order to forcibly seize political power. Petitions for writ of habeas corpus were filed by persons (13)
who have been arrested without a warrant.

It was stated that one of the safeguards of the proclamation was that it is to be applied to persons caught in
flagrante delicto. Incidentally, Proc. 889-A was issued as an amendment, inserting the word “actually staging”.
Proc. 889-B was also issued lifting the suspension of privilege in 27 provinces, 3 sub-provinces and 26 cities. Proc.
889-C was issued restoring the suspension in 13 provinces and cities(mostly in Mindanao). Proc. 889-D further
lifted the suspension in 7 provinces and 4 cities. Only 18 provinces and sub-provinces and 2 cities whose privilege
was suspended. Petitioners maintained that Proclamation No. 889 did not declare the existence of actual
"invasion insurrection or rebellion or imminent danger thereof, however it became moot and academic since it
was amended. Petitioners further contend that public safety did not require the issuance of proclamations
stating: (a) that there is no rebellion; (b) that, prior to and at the time of the suspension of the privilege, the
Government was functioning normally, as were the courts; (c) that no untoward incident, confirmatory of an
alleged July-August Plan, has actually taken place after August 21, 1971; (d) that the President's alleged
apprehension, because of said plan, is non-existent and unjustified; and (e) that the Communist forces in the
Philippines are too small and weak to jeopardize public safety to such extent as to require the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

A resolution was issued by majority of the Court having tentatively arrived at a consensus that it may inquire in
order to satisfy itself of the existence of the factual bases for the proclamations. Now the Court resolves after
conclusive decision reached by majority.

Issues:

(1) Whether or Not the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen requiring suspension (of the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus) belongs to the President and his decision is final and conclusive upon the courts
and upon all other persons.

(2) Whether or Not public safety require the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus decreed in
Proclamation No. 889-A.

Held: The President has authority however it is subject to judicial review. Two conditions must concur for the
valid exercise of the authority to suspend the privilege to the writ (a) there must be "invasion, insurrection, or
rebellion" or "imminent danger thereof," and (b) "public safety" must require the suspension of the privilege.
President has three (3) courses of action: (a) to call out the armed forces; (b) to suspend the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus; and (c) to place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. He had, already, called
out the armed forces, proved inadequate. Of the two other alternatives, the suspension of the privilege is the
least harsh.

Petitioners contention that CPP-NPA has no ability, is negatived by the killing of 5 mayors, 20 barrio captains
and 3 chiefs of police; that there were fourteen (14) meaningful bombing incidents in the Greater Manila Area in
1970. CPP has managed to infiltrate or establish and control nine major labor organizations; has exploited the
(11) major student or youth organizations; about thirty (30) mass organizations actively advancing the CPP.

LANSANG VS GARCIA

Facts: On the evening of August 21, 1971, two grenades were thrown at the miting the avance of the Liberal
Party killing 8 persons and injuring many. Thus, on August 23 then President Marcos issued proclamation 889,
the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Herein petitioners were apprehended by members of the Philippine
Constabulary having invoked the said proclamation. In effect the proclamation implies that the authority to
decide whether the exigency has arisen requiring suspension of the writ belongs to the President and it expressly
states that such declaration is deemed “final and conclusive upon the courts and all other persons”

・ August 30: the president issued proclamation 889-A, amending the previous proclamation.

・ September 18: proclamation 889-B issued; lifting the suspension on selected provinces/cities.

・ September 25: proclamation 889-C issued; lifting the suspension on selected provinces/cities.

・ October 4: proclamation 889-D issued; same as 889-C on selected areas.

In view thereof, 18 provinces, 2 sub-provinces and 18 cities are still under the suspension of writ of habeas corpus

Issue: Whether the court would adhere to its previous decision in Barcelon vs. Baker and Montenegro vs.
Castaneda?

Held: First, Proclamation 889-A superseded the original proclamation and that flaws attributed thereto are
formal in nature. Which actually emphasize the actuality of the intent to rise in arms. Second, The court
intervention: In Sterling vs. Constantin, Chief Justice Hughes declared that “when there is a substantial showing
that the exertion of state power has overridden private rights secured by the Constitution, the subject is
necessarily one for judicial review”. Thus, the grant of power to suspend the privilege of writ is neither absolute
or unqualified

The declaration of a rebellion as argued by the petitioners need not to be a wide-scale event, it may be declared
even if it only involves a small part of the country. The president decision to suspend the writ was by fact
constitutional hence VALID, as he has three available courses to suppress rebellion. First, to call out the military,
second to suspend the privilege of writ and lastly to declare martial law.

Petitions DENIED; the CFI is directed to conduct preliminary investigations