IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BENIGNO S.

AQUINO, JR., RAMON MITRA, JR., FRANCISCO RODRIGO, AND NAPOLEON

RAMA, petitioners,
vs.
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.
TOPIC: The Martial Law and Habeas Corpus
FACTS:
Enrile (then Minister of National Defense), pursuant to the order of Marcos issued and
ordered the arrest of a number of individuals including Benigno Aquino Jr even without any charge
against them. Hence, Aquino and some others filed for habeas corpus against Juan Ponce Enrile.
Enrile’s answer contained a common and special affirmative defense that the arrest is valid
pursuant to Marcos’ declaration of Martial Law.
*HABEAS CORPUS is a recourse in law through which a person can report an unlawful detention or
imprisonment to a court and request that the court order the custodian of the person, usually a prison
official, to bring the prisoner to court, to determine if the detention is lawful.

CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER:

Petitioner Aquino filed an action for certiorari and prohibition with this Court alleging that
on August 11, 1973 charges of murder, subversion and illegal possession of firearms were filed
against him with a military commission; that his trial by the military court which was to be held
on August 27, 29 and 31, 1973 was illegal because the proclamation of martial law was
unconstitutional; and that he could not expect a fair trial because the President of the Philippines,
having prejudged his case, could reverse any judgment of acquittal by the military court and
sentence him to death.
CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT:
Admitting that the petitioners had been arrested and detained, the respondents nevertheless
justified such arrest and detention as having been legally ordered by the President of the
Philippines pursuant to his proclamation of martial law, the petitioners being regarded as
participants or as having given aid and comfort "in the conspiracy to seize political and state power
and to take over the government by force."
ISSUE:
Whether or not Aquino’s detention is legal in accordance to the declaration of Martial Law.
HELD:
The Constitution provides that in case of invasion, insurrection or rebellion, or imminent
danger against the state, when public safety requires it, the President may suspend the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part therein under Martial Law. In the
case at bar, the state of rebellion plaguing the country has not yet disappeared, therefore, there is
a clear and imminent danger against the state. The arrest is then a valid exercise pursuant to the
President’s order.

FULL CASE: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1974/sep1974/gr_l_35546_1974.html