CASE NO.: G.R. No.

L-35546
CASE TITLE: 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.
DATE: September 17, 1974

PARTIES:
BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., RAMON MITRA, JR., FRANCISCO RODRIGO, AND
NAPOLEON RAMA 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

CASE BRIEF:

Facts
1. “The petitioners (9 petitioners including Aquino) were arrested and held pursuant to
General Order No. 2 of the President (September 22, 1972), "for being participants or for
having given aid and comfort in the conspiracy to seize political and state power in the
country and to take over the Government by force ..."

Case Overview:

Rule/Principle Involved:
In the 1935 Constitution, Article VII, Section 11, Paragraph 2 which states that:
“The President shall be commander-in-chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and,
whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress
lawless violence, invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, or imminent danger thereof, when the
public safety requires it, he may suspend the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus, or
place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.”

In relation to Proclamation no. 1081 (September 21, 1972) which President Ferdinand
Marcos placed the entire country under martial law due to the state of rebellion at that time.

As well as in the Amended 1973 Constitution, Article XVII (note: Transitory Provision),
Section 3, Paragraph 2 which states that: “All proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions,
and acts promulgated, issued, or done by the incumbent President shall be part of the law of
the land, and shall remain valid, legal, binding, and effective even after the lifting of the
Martial Law or the ratification of this Constitution unless modified, revoked, or superseded
by subsequent proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions, or unless expressly or implicitly
modified or repealed by the regular National Assembly.”

Issues
“The first major issue raised by the parties is whether this Court may inquire into the validity
of Proclamation No. 1081. Stated more concretely, is the existence of conditions claimed to
justify the exercise of the power to declare martial law subject to judicial inquiry?”
Ruling
NO. The existing conditions justify the exercise of the power of President Ferdinand Marcos
to declare martial law and the decision should not be subject to judicial inquiry. For reasons
stated below by the Court;
“the Court should abstain from interfering with the Executive's Proclamation, dealing as it
does with national security, for which the responsibility is vested by the charter in him
alone.”
“[…] on that premise emphasizes the factor of necessity for the exercise by the President of
his power under the Constitution to declare martial law, holding that the decision as to
whether or not there is such necessity is wholly confided to him and therefore is not subject
to judicial inquiry, his responsibility being directly to the people.”
“the question of validity of Proclamation No. 1081 has been foreclosed by the transitory
provision of the 1973 Constitution (Article XVII, Section 3, Paragraph 2).”