Issue:

Whether or not petitioners’ detention is legal.

Ruling:
We find that petitioners have not been illegally deprived of their constitutional right to liberty, neither in
the manner of their arrest, nor by their continued detention, and that the circumstances attendant in
the herein case do not warrant their release on a writ of habeas corpus.

The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus raises a political, not a judicial, question and
that the right to bail cannot be invoked during such a period. 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.1

From the facts as above narrated, the claim of the petitioners that they were initially arrested illegally is,
therefore, without basis in law and in fact. 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 herein detainees was well within the bounds of the law and existing
jurisprudence in our jurisdiction.