CONSTI II TOPIC

G.R. NO. L-61388

TITLE OF THE CASE: Garcia-Padilla vs. Enrile DATE OF PROMULGATION: April 20, 1983
PONENTE: Justice De Castro
FACTS

Petitioners were arrested on July 6, 1982 when three (3) teams of police officers in Bayombong, Nueva
Vizcaya, securing a Search Warrant, conducted a raid at the residence of Dra. Aurora Parong, one of the
petitioners in the case. Consequently, they were all detained at the PC/INP Command Headquarters,
Nueva Vizcaya from July 6, 1982 until their transfer on the morning of August 10, 1982 to an undisclosed
place reportedly to Camp Crame, Quezon City, to Echague, Isabela, and to Tuguegarao, Cagayan. Hence,
this petition for the writ of habeas corpus and mandamus filed by Josefina Garcia-Padilla, mother of
detained petitioner Sabino G. Padilla, Jr. on August 13, 1982.

It is alleged in the petition that the arrest of petitioners was patently unlawful and illegal since it was
effected without any warrant of arrest; that although the police officers secured a search warrant, it
did not specifically contain specifics and particular places and objects to be searched and accordingly
seized; that no criminal charges have as of yet been filed against any of the detainees; and that the
detainees were initially held at the PC/INP Command in Bayombong, Nueva Viscaya from July 6 up to
August 10, 1982 but were subsequently transferred by helicopter in the morning of August 10, 1982 to
a place or safehouse known only to respondents; that there is no judgment, decree, decision or order
from a court of law which would validate the continued detention of the petitioner. It was further that
there seems to be a deliberate and concerted effort by respondents to conceal from counsel and
relatives the detainees' place of detention, raising the apprehension that respondents are using force,
violence, threat, intimidation and other means which vitiate free will to obtain confession and
statements from the detainees in violation of their constitutional rights.

ISSUE/S
1. Whether or not the arrest is legal during the raid.
2. Whether or not petitioners’ detention is legal.

RULING:

1. YES, the arrest is legal during the raid contemplating warrantless arrest as in flagrante
delicto. At the time of the arrest, records reveal that they were then having conference in the
dining room of Dra. Parong's residence. Prior thereto, all the fourteen (14) detainees were
under surveillance as they were then identified as members of the Communist Party of the
Philippines (CPP) engaging in subversive activities and using the house of detainee Dra. Aurora
Parong in Bayombong, Nueva Viscaya, as their headquarters. Hence, caught in flagrante delicto,
the nine (9) detainees scampered towards different directions leaving in top of their conference
table numerous subversive documents, periodicals, pamphlets, books, correspondence,
stationaries, and other papers, including a plan on how they would infiltrate the youth and
student sector (code-named YORK). Also found were one (1) .38 cal. revolver with eight (8) live
bullets, nineteen (19) rounds of ammunition for M16 armalite, eighteen thousand six hundred
fifty pesos (P18,650.00) cash believed to be CPP/NPA funds, assorted medicine packed and
ready for distribution, as sizeable quantity of printing paraphernalia, which were then seized.
 There is no doubt that circumstances attendant in the arrest of the herein detainees fall under
a situation where arrest is lawful even without a judicial warrant as specifically provided for
under Section 6(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court and allowed under existing jurisprudence on
the matter. As provided therein, a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant,
arrest a person when the person to be arrested has committed or actually committing, or is
about to commit an offense in his presence.

The crimes of insurrection or rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such

crimes, and other crimes and offenses committed in the furtherance on the occasion thereof,
or incident thereto, or in connection therewith under Presidential Proclamation No. 2045, are
all in the nature of continuing offenses which set them apart from the common offenses, aside
from their essentially involving a massive conspiracy of nationwide magnitude. Clearly then,
the arrest of the detainees was well within the bounds of the law.

2. YES, the petitioners’ detention is legal given that there has been a presidential proclamation
to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, hence a political question and within the exclusive
prerogative of the Executive. The detention of a person for any of the offenses covered by
Proclamation No. 2045 which continues in force the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, if the arrest has been made initially without any warrant, its legal effect is to
render the writ unavailing as a means of judicially inquiring into the legality of the detention in
view of the suspension of the privilege of the writ. The grant of the power to suspend the said
privilege provides the basis for continuing with perfect legality the detention as long as the
invasion or rebellion has not been repelled or quelled, and the need therefor in the interest of
public safety continues.

Accordingly, the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus must, indeed, carry
with it the suspension of the right to bail, if the government's campaign to suppress the
rebellion is to be enhanced and rendered effective. If the right to bail may be demanded during
the continuance of the rebellion, and those arrested, captured and detained in the course
thereof will be released, they would, without the least doubt, rejoin their comrades in the field
thereby jeopardizing the success of government efforts to bring to an end the invasion,
rebellion or insurrection.

DOCTRINE
When a political question is involved, the courts are not of duty to address such since it is not within
their prerogative. Consequently, the presidential responsibility is one attended with all urgency when
so grave a peril to the life of the Nation besets the country in times of the contingencies. In the discharge
of this awesome and sacred responsibility, the President should be free from interference. The
existence of warlike conditions as are created by invasion, rebellion or insurrection, the direst of all
emergencies that can possibly confront a nation, argues, beyond dispute, against subjecting his actions
in this regard to judicial inquiry or interference from whatever source. If freedom from judicial review
is conceded in the exercise of his peacetime powers as that of appointment and of granting pardon,
denominated as political powers of the President, it should incontestably be more so with his wartime
power, as it were, to adopt any measure in dealing with situations calling for military action as in case
of invasion, rebellion or insurrection.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.