EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-61388. April 20, 1983.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR DR.
AURORA PARONG, NORBERTO PORTUGUESE, SABINO PADILLA, FRANCIS DIVINAGRACIA,
IMELDA DE LOS SANTOS, BENJAMIN PINEDA, ZENAIDA MALLARI, MARIANO SORIANO, TITO
TANGUILIG, LETTY BALLOGAN, BIENVENIDA GARCIA, EUFRONIO ORTIZ, JR., JUANITO GRANADA
and TOM VASQUEZ. JOSEFINA GARCIA-PADILLA, Petitioner, v. MINISTER JUAN PONCE ENRILE,
GEN. FABIAN C. VER, GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, and LT. COL. MIGUEL CORONEL, Respondents.

Lorenzo M. Tañada, Jose W. Diokno, Joker P. Arroyo, Efren M. Mercado and Alexander A. Padilla
for Petitioner.

The Solicitor General for Respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; ARREST; WHEN LAWFUL WITHOUT A JUDICIAL WARRANT; A
CASE OF; ARREST OF THE ACCUSED IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO; CASE AT BAR. — Where prior to the arrest of
the nine (9) of the fourteen (14) detainees, the latter were under surveillance as they were then identified
as members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CCP) engaging in subversive activities and using the
house of detainee Dra. Aurora Parong in Bayombong, Nueva Viscaya, as their headquarters and when
caught in flagrante delicto, the nine (9) detainees mentioned scampered towards different directions leaving
on top of their conference table numerous subversive documents, periodicals, pamphlets, books,
correspondence, stationaries, and other papers, (code-named YORK), including one (1) .38 cal. revolver
with eight (8) live bullets, nineteen (19) rounds of ammunition of M16 armalite, CPP/NPA funds, assorted
medicines packed and ready for distribution, 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.

2. ID; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ARREST FOR CONTINUING OFFENSES. — 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 without a judicial warrant was well within the bounds of the law and existing
jurisprudence in our jurisdiction.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ARREST OF PERSONS COMMITTING OVERT ACTS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST
GOVERNMENT FORCES. — The absence of judicial warrant is no legal impediment to arresting or capturing
persons committing over acts of violence against government forces, or any other milder acts but equally in
pursuance of the rebellious movement. The arrest or capture is thus impelled by the exigencies of the
situation that involves the very survival of society and its government and duly constituted authorities.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ARREST OF PERSONS INVOLVED IN REBELLION; USUAL PROCEDURE IN PROSECUTION OF
OFFENSES; NOT REQUIRED. — The arrest of persons involved in the rebellion whether as its fighting
armned elements, or for committing non-violent acts but in furtherance of the rebellion, is more an act of
capturing them in the course of an armed conflict, to quell the rebellion, than for the purpose of immediately
prosecuting them in court for a statutory offense. The arrest, therefore, need not follow the usual procedure
in the prosecution of offenses which requires the determination by a judge of the existence of probable
cause before the issuance of a judicial warrant of arrest and the granting of bail if the offense is bailable.

5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; EXECUTIVE POWER; ISSUANCE OF PRESIDENTIAL COMMITMENT ORDER;

MERELY PREVENTIVE AND NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL INQUIRY. — The arrest and detention of persons
ordered by the President through the issuance of Presidential Commitment Order (PCO) is merely
preventive. "When it comes to a decision by the head of the State upon a matter involving its life, the
ordinary rights of individuals must yield to what he deems the necessities of the moment. Public danger
warrants the substitution of executive process for judicial process." (Mover v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78, citing
Keely v. Sanders, 99 U.S. 441, 446, 25 L. Ed. 327, 328) What should be underscored is that if the greater
violation against life itself such as killing, will not be the subject of judicial inquiry, as it cannot be raised as
transgressing against the due process clause that protects life, liberty and property, lesser violations against
liberty such as arrest and detention, may not be insisted upon as reviewable by the courts.

6. ID.; ID.; SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; LEGAL BASIS FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF PRESIDENTIAL COMMITMENT ORDER TO VALIDATE ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT AND
CONTINUED DETENTION THEREUNDER. — The function of the PCO is to validate, on constitutional ground,
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.

7. ID.; ID.; ID.; SIGNIFICANCE OF CONFERNMENT OF POWER UPON THE PRESIDENT AS COMMANDER-IN-
CHIEF; NOT SUBJECT OF JUDICIAL INQUIRY AS TO LEGALITY UNDER THE BILL OF RIGHTS. — The
significance of the confernment of this power, constitutionality upon the President as Commander-in-Chief,
is that the exercise thereof is not subject of judicial inquiry, with a view to determining its legality in the
light of the bill of rights guarantee to individual freedom. This must be so because the suspension of the
privilege is a military measure the necessity of which the President alone may determine as an incident of
his grave responsibility as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, of protecting not only public safety
but the very life of the State, the government and duly constituted authorities.

8. ID.; ID.; ID.; CONTINGENCIES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION THAT JUSTIFY NON-INTERFERENCE. — It
should be clear beyond doubt in the case of "invasion" along which "rebellion" or "insurrection" is mentioned
by the Constitution, is a contingency which does not present a legal question on whether there is a violation
of the right to personal liberty when any member of the invading force is captured and detained. 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.

9. ID.; ID.; ID.; APPLICATION ON SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS; WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE AND SOUND
JUDGMENT OF THE PRESIDENT. — To be effective, the occasion for the application of the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus on specific individuals should be left to the exclusive and sound
judgment of the President, at least while the exigencies of invasion, rebellion or insurrection persist, and the
public safety requires it, a matter, likewise, which should be left for the sole determination of the President
as Commander-in-Chief of the Nation’s armed forces. The need for a unified command in such contingencies
is imperative-even axiomatic as a basic military concept in the art of warfare.

10. ID.; ID.; ID.; FUNCTION OF THE COURT AS INTERPRETED IN THE LANSANG CASE. — "The function of
the Court is merely to check--not to supplant--the Executive, or to ascertain merely whether he has gone
beyond the constitutional limits of his jurisdiction, not to exercise the power vested in him or to determine
wisdom of his act." (Lansang v. Garcia, 42 SCRA 488).

11. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; GRANT OF RIGHT TO BAIL; EFFECT. — If, the constitutional right to ball is granted,
through the procedure laid down under Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, what inevitably results is the
supplanting of the decision of the President to detain pursuant to Proclamation No. 2045, of persons who
come under its coverage.

12. ID.; ID.; ID.; "PREVENTIVE DETENTION" ; FACTORS THAT DETERMINE ITS LEGALITY. — The specific
mention in the Constitution of rebellion and insurrection along with invasion and imminent danger thereof,
shows that the terms "rebellion and insurrection" are used therein in the sense of a state or condition of the
Nation, not in the concept of a statutory offense. What, therefore, should determine the legality of imposing
what is commonly referred to as "preventive detention" resulting from the suspension of the privilege
of habeas corpus, is the necessity of its adoption as a measure to suppress or quell the rebellion, or beat off
an invasion. The necessity of such measure as a means of defense for national survival quite clearly
transcends in importance and urgency the claim of those detained to the right to bail to obtain their
freedom. To hold otherwise would defeat the purpose of the constitutional grant of the power to suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus on the occasions expressly mentioned in the charter.

13. ID.; ID.; ID.; COVERAGE UNDER PROCLAMATION NO. 2045; JUSTIFICATION. — Proclamation No. 2045
mentions not only rebellion or insurrection as coming within the suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus, but also other offenses, including subversion which is not mentioned in the Constitution,
committed by reason or on the occasion of the rebellion, or in connection therewith, or in the furtherance
thereof. The constitutional guarantee of individual freedom is intact in all its plenitude and sanctity, save
only a few, in relation to the entire population, as the Constitution itself permits in case of overwhelming
and imperious necessity.

14. ID.; ID.; ID.; DELIBERATELY VESTED ON THE PRESIDENT. — Worthy of profound notice and keen
appreciation is the fact that the authority to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus has been
deliberately vested on the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, together with the
related power to call out the armed forces to suppress lawless violence and impose martial law. (Section 9,
Article VII, Constitution). The choice could not have been more wise and sound, for no other official may,
with equal capability and fitness, be entrusted with the grave responsibility that goes with the grant of the
authority.

15. ID.; ID.; ID.; CARRIES WITH IT THE SUSPENSION OF THE RIGHT TO BAIL. — 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 jeoparding the success of government efforts to bring to an end the invasion, rebellion or
insurrection. The recent case of Buscayno v. Military Commission (109 SCRA 273), decided after
Proclamation No. 2045 was issued, which in terms clear and categorical, held that the constitutional right to
bail is unavailing when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended with respect to certain crimes
as enumerated or described in above-mentioned Proclamation.

16. ID.; ID.; ID.; AVAILABILITY OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN INDIVIDUAL CASES AFTER
SUSPENSION, NOT INTENDED IN THE LANSANG CASE. — In Lansang v. Garcia (42 SCRA 488), the Court
went no further than to pronounce the suspension of the writ of the privilege of habeas corpus on August
21, 1971, valid and constitutional, on a finding that there was no arbitrariness attendant to the suspension.
It never intended to suggest that for every individual case of arrest and detention, the writ of habeas
corpus is available, even after the suspension of this privilege, to question the legality of the arrest and
detention on ground of arbitrariness.

17. ID.; ID.; ID.; FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE NOT IMMEDIATELY REVIEWABLE BY THE SUPREME COURT
ON CLAIM OF ARBITRARINESS. — When a person is charged in court for an ordinary offense, the law does
not authorize the filing of a petition for habeas corpus based on the ground that there is absolutely no
evidence to hold him for trial, which, in effect constitutes an allegation of arbitrariness in the filing of the
case against him. The law had afforded him adequate safeguards against arbitrariness, such as the
requirement of determining the existence of a probable cause by the judge before the issuance of the
warrant of arrest. The finding of such probable cause may not be immediately brought for review by this
Court in a habeas corpus proceeding, on the claim of arbitrariness. The matter is to be decided on the basis
of evidence, and this Court is not the proper forum for the review sought, not being a trial of facts.
Moreover, arbitrariness, while so easy to allege, is hard to prove, in the face of the formidable obstacle built
up by the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.

18. ID.; ID.; ID.; ISSUANCE OF PRESIDENTIAL COMMITMENT ORDER; LETTER OF INSTRUCTION NO. 1211;
MERE GUIDELINES FOR THE ARREST AND DETENTION OF PERSONS COVERED BY PRESIDENTIAL
PROCLAMATION NO. 2045. — LOI 1211, by its very nature, and clearly by its language, is a mere directive
of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines to his subordinates or
implementing officers for the ultimate objective of providing guidelines in the arrest and detention of the
persons covered by Presidential Proclamation No. 2045.

19. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PURPOSE. — The purpose is "to insure protection to individual liberties without
sacrifying the requirements of public order and safety and the effectiveness of the campaign against those
seeking the forcible overthrow of the government and duly constituted authorities." cralaw virtua1aw library

20. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; DOES NOT LIMIT OR CURTAIL THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT IN FAVOR OF THE
JUDICIARY. — LOI 1211 does not, in any mane, limit the authority of the President to cause the arrest and
detention of persons engaged in, or charged with the crimes or offenses mentioned in said Proclamation in
that he (President) would subject himself to the superior authority of the judge, who under normal judicial
processes in the prosecution of the common offenses, is the one authorized to issue a judicial warrant after
a preliminary investigation is conducted with a finding of probable cause. In the event that the judge
believes no warrant shall issue, the President, under Presidential Proclamation No. 2045 and Letter of
Instruction No. 1211, is not bound by such finding, as explicitly provided in paragraph 2 of LOI 1211. VOL.
206 p. 398.

21. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE LAW OF THE LAND. — To form part of the law of
the land, the decree, order or LOI must be issued by the President in the exercise of his extraordinary power
of legislation as contemplated in Section 6 of the 1976 amendments to the Constitution, whenever in his
judgment. there exists a grave emergency or a threat or imminence thereof, or whenever the interim
Batasan Pambansa or the regular National Assembly fails or is unable to act adequately on any matter for
any reason that in his judgment requires immediate action. There can be no pretense, much less a showing,
that these conditions prompted the President to issue LOI 1211.

22. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CONSTITUTES A FINDING THAT THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN LETTER, OF
INSTRUCTION NO. 1211 HAVE BEEN MET. — The issuance of the PCO by the President necessarily
constitutes a finding that the conditions he has prescribed in LOI 1211 for the issuance of the PCO have
been met, and intends that the detention would be pursuant to the executive process incident to the
government campaign against the rebels, subversives and dissidents waging a rebellion or insurrection.

23. ID.; ID.; ID.; RULING IN LANSANG CASE COMPARED WITH RULING OF BARCELON VS, BAKER AND
MONTENEGRO VS. CASTAÑEDA. — in Barcelon v. Baker (5 Phil. 87, a 1905 decision, and Montenegro v.
Castañeda (91 Phil. 882, 1952), the President’s decision to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus is "final and conclusive upon the courts, and all other persons." This well-settled ruling was diluted in
the Lansang case which declared that the "function of the Court is merely to check-not to supplant — the
Executive, or ascertain merely whether he has gone beyond the constitutional limits of his jurisdiction not to
exercise the power vested in him to determine the wisdom of his act." Judicial interference was thus held as
permissible, and the test as laid down therein is not whether the President acted correctly but whether he
acted arbitrarily.

24. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NEED FOR REVERSION TO THE RULINGS OF BARCELON VS. BAKER AND
MONTENEGRO v. CASTAÑEDA, SHOWN. — The ruling in the Lansang case would seem to be pure
semanticism if the Supreme Court would consider that with particular reference to the nature of the actions
the President would take on the occasion of the grave emergency he has to deal with, which, as clearly
indicated in Section 9, Art, VII of the Constitution partakes of military measures, the judicial can, with
becoming modesty, ill afford to assume the authority to check or reverse or supplant the presidential
actions. On these occasions, the President takes absolute command, for the very life of the Nation and its
government, which, incidentally, includes the courts, is in grave peril, In his separate opinion in the Lansang
case, then Justice Fernando, now our owned Chief Justice, went along with the proposition that the decision
of the Executive in the exercise of his power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is not
alone, and in his own language, is "ordinarily beyond the ken of the Courts." Amendment No. 6 of the 1973
Constitution, affords further reason for the re-examination of the Lansang doctrine and reversion to that of
Barcelon v. Baker and Montenegro vs, Castañeda.

25. ID.; ID.; ID.; "POLITICAL QUESTION" ; CONCEPT. — The Founding Fathers must have felt that in the
particular situations at hand, the Executive and the Judiciary should maintain a mutually deferential attitude.
This is the very essence of the doctrine of "political question," as determining the justiciability of a case. The
wisdom of this concept remains well-recognized in advanced constitutional systems. To erase it from our
own system as seems to be what was done in the Lansang case, may neither be proper nor prudent. A good
example could be given in the exercise of the presidential power of pardon which is beyond judicial review
specially under the new Constitution where the condition that it may be granted only after final conviction
has been done away with.

26. ID.; ID.; ID.; "MILITARY POWER" OF THE PRESIDENT IS INTENDED AS A LIMITATION TO THE RIGHT TO
LIBERTY. — The Constitution is the law "equally in war and in peace," as Chief Justice Fernando cited in his
brilliant separate opinion in the same Lansang case. Precisely, it is the Constitution that gives the President
specific "military power" in times of warlike conditions as exist on the occasion of invasion, insurrection or
rebellion. Boot power and right are constitutionally granted, with the difference that the guarantee of the
right to liberty is for personal benefit, while the grant of the presidential power is for public safety. Which of
the two enjoys primacy over the other is all too obvious. For the power is intended as a limitation of the
right, in much the same way as individual freedom yields to the exercise of the police power of the State in
the interest of general welfare. The difference again is that the power comes into being during extreme
emergencies the exercise of which, for complete effectiveness for the purpose it was granted should not
permit interference, while individual freedom is obviously for full enjoyment in time of peace, but in time of
war or grave peril to the nation, should be limited or restricted. In a true sense then, our Constitution is for
both peacetime and in time of war; it is not that in time of war the Constitution is silenced.

27. ID.; ID.; IN TIME OF WAR OR SIMILAR EMERGENCIES; PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT
JUSTIFIES LIMITATION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. — The Founding Fathers, with admirable foresight and
vision, inserted provisions therein that comes into play and application in time of war or similar
emergencies. So it is that, as proclaimed by the Constitution, the defense of the State is a prime duty of
government. Compulsory military service may be imposed, certainly a mandate that derogates on the right
to personal liberty. It, therefore. becomes self-evident that the duty of the judiciary to protect individual
rights must yield to the power of the Executive to protect the State, for if the State perishes, the
Constitution with the Bill of Rights that guarantees the right to personal liberty perishes with it.

28. ID.; ID.; ID.; PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION OF EXISTENCE OF EMERGENCIES AND EXERCISE OF THE
POWER TO SUSPEND THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; BEYOND JUDICIAL REVIEW. — In times of war or
national emergency, the legislature may surrender a part of its power of legislation to the President,
(Section 15, Article VIII, 1973 Constitution). Would it not be as proper and wholly acceptable to lay down
the principle that during such crises, the judiciary should be less jealous of its power and more trusting of
the Executive in the exercise of its emergency powers in recognition of the same necessity? Verily, the
existence of the emergencies should be left to President’s sole and unfettered determination. His exercise of
the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus on the occasion thereof, should also be
beyond judicial review. Arbitrariness, as a ground for judicial inquiry of presidential acts and decisions,
sounds good in theory but impractical and unrealistic, considering how well-nigh impossible it is for the
courts to contradict the finding of the President on the existence of the emergency that gives occasion for
the exercise of the power to suspend the privilege of the writ. For the Court to insist on reviewing
Presidential action on the ground of arbitrariness may only result in a violent collision of two jealous powers
with tragic consequences, by all means to be avoided, in favor of adhering to the more desirable and long-
tested doctrine of "political question" in reference to the power of judicial review. (Tañada, Et. Al. v. Cuenco,
Et Al., 103 Phil. 1051).

29. ID.; ID.; ID.; POWER OF SUSPENSION OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS INCLUDES POWER TO DEFER
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES UNDER PROCLAMATION NO. 2045 AND TO WITHHOLD THE RIGHT TO BAIL. —
In times of war and similar emergency as expressly provided in the Constitution, the President may suspend
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, which has the effect of allowing the Executive to defer the
prosecution of any of the offenses covered by Proclamation No. 2045, including, as a necessary
consequence, the withholding for the duration of the suspension of the privilege, of the right to bail.

30. ID.; ID.; ID.; ISSUANCE OF A PRESIDENTIAL COMMITMENT ORDER; AN EXCLUSIVE PREROGATIVE OF
THE PRESIDENT; NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF "POLITICAL QUESTION" ;
CASE AT BAR. — Under LOI 1211, a Presidential Commitment Order, the issuance of which is the exclusive
prerogative of the President under the Constitution, may not be declared void by the courts, under the
doctrine of "political question" as has been applied in the Baker and Castañeda cases, on any ground, let
alone its supposed violation of the provision of LOI 1211, thus diluting, if not abandoning, the doctrine of the
Lansang case. The supreme mandate received by the President from the people and his oath to do justice to
every man should be sufficient guarantee, without need of judicial overseeing, against commission by him of
an act of arbitrariness in the discharge particularly of those duties imposed upon him for the protection of
public safety which in itself includes the protection of life, liberty and property. This Court is not possessed
with the attribute of infallibility that when it reviews the acts of the President in the exercise of his exclusive
power, for possible fault of arbitrariness, it would not itself go so far as to commit the self-same fault.
Hence, in the case at bar, the issuance of the Presidential Commitment Order against herein petitioners,
their continued detention is rendered valid and legal, and their right to be released even after the filing of
charges against them in court, to depend on the President, who may order the release of a detainee or his
being placed under house arrest, as he has done in meritorious cases.

FERNANDO, C.J., concurring: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; JUDICIARY; POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW; COURTS TO INQUIRE INTO

COMPLAINTS FOR DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY. — An inquiry into the validity of executive or legislative acts
has been fitly characterized as both awesome and delicate. Nonetheless, for the judiciary, there is no choice.
This is so especially where the writ of habeas corpus has been invoked. It is then incumbent on a court to
pass on the legality of the detention. As I had occasion to state in my scoarate opinion in Aquino, Jr. v.
Enrile: (L-35546, September 17, 1974, 39 SCRA 183) "This Court has to act then. The liberty enshrined in
the Constitution, for the protection of which habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy, imposes that
obligation. Its task is clear. It must be performed. That is a trust to which it cannot be recreant. Whenever
the grievance complained of is deprivation of liberty, it is its responsibility to inquire into the matter and to
render the decision appropriate under the circumstances. Precisely, a habeas corpus petition calls for that
response." cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; RIGHT TO LIBERTY; WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; THE PRINCIPAL SAFEGUARD TO PERSONAL
LIBERTY. — It cannot be overemphasized that the writ of habeas corpus, as a constitutional right, is, for
eminent commentators, protean in scope. A reference to the opinion of the Court in Gumaben v. Director of
Bureau of Prisons, (L-30026, January 30, 1971, 37 SCRA 420), may not be amiss. Thus: "The writ imposes
on judges the grave responsibility of ascertaining whether there is any legal justification for a deprivation of
physical freedom. Unless there be such a showing, the confinement must thereby cease." It continues:
"Rightly then could Chafee refer to the writ as ‘the most important human rights provision’ in the
fundamental law. Nor is such praise unique. Cooley spoke of it as `one of the principal safeguards to
personal liberty.’ For Willoughby, it is `the greatest of the safeguards erected by the civil law against
arbitrary and illegal imprisonment by whomsoever detention may be exercised or ordered.’ Burdick echoed a
similar sentiment, referring to it as `one of the most important bulwarks of liberty.’ Fraenkel made it
unanimous, for to him, `without it much else would he of no avail,’ thereby the rule of law is assured. A full
awareness of the potentialities of the writ of habeas corpus in the defense of liberty coupled with its
limitations may be detected in the opinions of former Chief Justices Arellano, Avanceña, Abad Santos, Paras,
Bengson and (Chief Justice Concepcion). It fell to Justice Malcolm’s lot, however to emphasize quite a few
times the breadth of its amplitude and of its reach." cralaw virtua1aw library

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PREVENTIVE DETENTION BY PRESIDENTIAL COMMITMENT ORDER (PCO) WHEN PRIVILEGE
OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS SUSPENDED, RECOGNIZED. — It is the ruling of this Court that an
issuance of a presidential commitment order imparts validity to a detention and the right to be released of
the person detained even after the filing of charges being dependent on the President who may order such
release or his being placed under house arrest. The Chief Justice yields a qualified concurrence. The power
of preventive detention where the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended has been recognized.
Cf. Lansang v. Garcia,

L-33964, December 11, 1971, 42 SCRA 448; Barcelon v. Baker. 5 Phil. 87 (1905); Montenegro v.
Castañeda, 91 Phil. 882 (1952)

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; LEGALITY OF DETENTION CAN BE INQUIRED INTO. — While preventive detention is a
proper measure to cope with the danger arising from the insurrection or rebellion, it may continue for such
length of time as to make it pursitive in character. If such were the case, I am not prepared to yield
concurrence to the view that this Court is devoid of the power in a habeas corpus proceeding to inquire into
the legality of the detention. As to when such a stage is reached cannot be set forth with precision. The test
would be an appraisal of the environmental facts of each case. This is not to deny that the presumption
must be in favor not only of the good faith characterizing the presidential action but of the absence of any
arbitrary taint in so ordering preventive detention. It is out of excess of caution and due to the belief
that habeas corpus as a writ of liberty should not be unnecessarily curtailed that I feel compelled to qualify
my concurrence in that respect.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; RIGHT TO BAIL CAN BE INVOKED NOT- WITHSTANDING SUSPENSION OF THE
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. — Once a case is filed, the party detained may avail himself
of the right to bail. If there be such a petition, the court has jurisdiction to grant or to deny bail in
accordance with the constitutional provisions (According to Article IV, Sec. 18 of the Constitution: "All
persons, except those charged with capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties. Excessive bail shall not be required.") Inasmuch as the return
to the writ filed by the Solicitor General states that a warrant of arrest against detainee Dra. Aurora Parong
was issued on August 4, 1982, by the Municipal Court of Bayombong, for illegal possession of firearm and
ammunition, then clearly, she has a right to invoke such right, notwithstanding the suspension of the
privilege of the writ. So I did argue as counsel in Hernandez v. Montesa, 90 Phil. 172 (1951), where a
majority of this Court with one vote lacking to make their conclusion doctrinal agreed with such submission.
There was adherence to such a view in my separate opinions in Lansang, (L-7185, 42 SCRA 448), and in
Buscayno v. Enrile, (L-7185, January 15, 1981, 102 SCRA 7), I do so again and to that extent dissent.

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; OVERRULING OF DOCTRINE IN LANSANG V. GARCIA, UNNECESSARY. — The opinion of the
Court, however, did not stop at dismissing the petition on the ground that the issuance of a presidential
commitment order validates the preventive detention of petitioners. It went further by reexamining the
unanimous ruling in Lansang to the effect that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus raises a judicial rather than a political question and holding that it no longer authoritative. With due
respect, I can not agree to such a conclusion. In the first place, there was no need to go that far. For me, at
least, the rationale that this Court must accord deference to a presidential commitment order suffices for the
decision of this case. Nor would I limit my dissent on that ground alone. It is for me, and again I say this
with due respect, deplorable and unjustifiable for this Court to turn its back on a doctrine that has elicited
praise and commendation from eminent scholars and jurists here and abroad.

7. ID.; ID.; ID.; SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHOULD REMAIN A
JUDICIAL QUESTION. — The learned, comprehensive and unanimous Lansang opinion penned by Chief
Justice Concepcion concurred in by all the Justices, to my mind, explains with lucidity and force why the
question is judicial rather than political. Thus: "Indeed, the grant of power to suspend the privilege is neither
absolute nor unqualified. The authority conferred by the Constitution, both under the Bill of Rights and under
the Executive Department, is limited and conditional. The precept in the Bill of Rights establishes a general
rule, as well as an exception thereto. What is more, it postulates the former in the negative, evidently to
stress its importance, by providing that ‘the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended . It
is only by way of exception that it permits the suspension of the privilege ‘in cases of invasion, insurrection,
or rebellion’ — or, under Art. VII of the Constitution, `imminent danger thereof’ — when the public safety
requires it, in any of which events the same may be suspended wherever during such period the necessity
for such suspension shall exist.’ Far from being full and plenary, the authority to suspend the privilege of the
writ is thus circumscribed, confined and restricted, not only by the prescribed setting or the conditions
essential to its existence, but, also, as regards the time when and the place where it may be exercised.
These factors and the aforementioned setting or conditions mark, establish and define the extent, the
confines and the limits of said power, beyond which it does not exist. And, like the limitations and
restrictions imposed by the Fundamental Law upon the legislative department, adherence thereto and
compliance therewith may, within proper bounds, be inquired-into by courts of justice. Otherwise, the
explicit constitutional provisions thereon would be meaningless. Surely, the framers of our Constitution
could not have intended to engage in such a wasteful exercise in futility." (42 SCRA 448, 473-474.)

8. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; TO REVERT TO THE PRINCIPLE ANNOUNCED IN BARCELON V. BAKER AND
MONTENEGRO V. CASTAÑEDA IS UNFORTUNATE. — It is clear that the competence of this Court to pass
upon the validity of the suspension of the privilege of the writ is confined within limits that preclude the
assumption of power that rightfully belongs to the Executive. There would then be, to my mind, no sufficient
justification to retreat from a position that assures judicial participation on a matter of momentous
consequence. Moreover, to the extent that such a move has had the benefit of judicial appraisal, and
thereafter approval, to that extent there may be less valid opposition and hopefully greater understanding of
why such a step had to be taken. With Lansang overruled, the doctrine that the suspension of the privilege
of the writ announced in Barcelon v. Baker, 5 Phil. 87, and Montenegro v. Castañeda, 91 Phil. 882(1952),
will be revived. This for me is unfortunate. The Montenegro decision, as I had occasion to state "owed its
existence to the compulsion exerted by Barcelon v. Baker, a 1905 decision. This Court was partly misled by
an undue reliance in the latter case on what it considered to be authoritative pronouncements from such
illustrious American jurists as Marshall, Story and Taney. That is to misread what was said by them. This is
most evident in the case of Chief Justice Marshall, whose epochal Marbury v. Madison was cited. Why that
was so is difficult to understand. For it speaks to the contrary. It was by virtue of this decision that the
function of judicial review owes its original notwithstanding the absence of any explicit provision in the
American Constitution empowering the courts to do so.

9. ID.; JUDICIARY; COURTS TO CONSIDER ENVIRONMENTAL FACTS AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS IN

MAKING ITS OPINIONS. — An opinion of a court, especially this Tribunal, should not ignore the
environmental facts which gave rise to a litigation where the issues arise from problems inseparable from
national security. There is, in addition, the need to take into consideration the pressure of contemporary
events. For as has so often been stressed, judicial process does not take place in a social void. The
questions before the Court are to be viewed with full awareness of the consequences attendant to the
decision reached. As so tersely expressed by Justice Tuason in Araneta v. Dinglasan, 84 Phil. 368 (1949).
"We test a rule by its results." More often than not especially during times of stress, it is inescapable that
efforts be made to reconcile time-tested principles to contemporary problems. The judiciary is called upon to
do its part.

TEEHANKEE, J., dissenting: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; RIGHT TO LIBERTY; SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS; NO NECESSITY FOR THE RE-EXAMINATION AND OVERRULING OF LANSANG V. GARCIA. — Justice
Teehankee submits that the resolution of the issues in this case does not call for the all-encompassing ruling
in the main opinion with its sweeping scope that would reexamine and overturn the benchmark ruling in
Lansang. The limited suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the two instances provided
under Presidential Proclamation No. 2045 has not been challenged in this case. Lansang recognizes the
greatest deference and respect that is due the President’s determination for the necessity of suspending the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. But Lansang sets at the same time the constitutional confines and
limits of the President’s power to suspend the privilege of the writ and enunciates the constitutional test, not
of the correctness of the President’s decision, but that the President’s decision to suspend the privilege not
suffer from the constitutional infumity of arbitrariness.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; RIGHT TO BAIL MAY BE INVOKED NOTWITHSTANDING THE DURATION THEREOF. — Justice
Teehankee submits, that notwithstanding the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and
the issuance on March 9, 1982 of Letter of Instruction No. 1211 that the Presidential Commitment Order
constitutes authority to keep the subject person under detention "until ordered released by the President or
his duly authorized representative" (which is a mere internal instruction to certain agencies), the higher and
superior mandate of the Constitution guarantees the right to bail and vests the courts with the jurisdiction
and judicial power to grant ball which may not be removed nor diminished nor abdicated. The Court cannot
but to hold, if it is to be true to the fundamental precept that "The Constitution is a law for rulers and for
people equally in war and in peace and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men at all times
and under all circumstances." cralaw virtua1aw library

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND RIGHT TO BAIL ARE SEPARATE
AND CO-EQUAL. — As stressed by then Chief Justice Ricardo Paras, in the leading cases of Nava v.
Gatmaitan and Hernandez v. Montessa, jointly decided with Angeles v. Abaya and reported in 90 Phil. 172
(1951). "The right to bail, along with the right of an accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet
the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses in his
behalf (Article III, Section I, Paragraph 17 of the Constitution), tends to aid the accused to prove his
innocence and obtain acquittal. If it be contended that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus includes the suspension of the distinct right to bail or to be provisionally at liberty, it would a fortiori
imply the suspension of all his other rights (even the right to be tried by a court) that may win for him
ultimate acquittal and hence, absolute freedom. The latter result is not insisted upon for being patently
untenable." Then Chief Justice Paras stressed that." . . The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the
right to bail guaranteed under the Bill of Rights are separate and coequal. if the intention of the framers of
the Constitution was that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus carries or implies the
suspension of the right to bail, they would have very easily provided that all persons shall before conviction
be bailable by sufficient sureties, except those charged with capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong
and except when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. As stated in the case of Ex Parte
Milligan, 4 Wall, 2, 18 L. ed. 297, the Constitution limited the suspension to only one great right, leaving the
rest to remain forever inviolable." cralaw virtua1aw library

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; EXISTENCE OF DANGER POSED BY THE RELEASE OF DEFENDANTS ON BAIL NOT
SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR COURTS TO TAMPER WITH FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. — The late Justice
Pedro Tuason emphasized that "To the plea that the security of the State would be jeopardized by the
release of the defendants on bail, the answer is that the existence of danger is never a justification for
courts to tamper with the fundamental rights expressly granted by the Constitution. These rights are
immutable, inflexible, yielding to no pressure of convenience, expediency or the so-called ‘judicial
statesmanship.’ The Legislature itself cannot infringe them, and no court conscious of its responsibilities and
limitations would do so. If the Bill of Rights are incompatible with stable government and a menace to the
Nation, let the Constitution be amended, or abolished. It is trite to say that, while the Constitution stands,
the courts of justice as the repository of civil liberty are bound to protect and maintain undiluted individual
rights."
cralaw virtua1aw library

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; BAIL TO BE GRANTED DESPITE THE ISSUANCE OF A PRESIDENTIAL COMMITMENT
ORDER; CASE AT BAR. — The right to bail cannot just be cancelled out summarily because of the issuance
of a PCO. In the case at bar, detainee Dr. Aurora Parong is charged in the municipal court with the crime of
illegal possession of firearm, which is a clearly bailable offense. The charges filed against the other detainees
are likewise for clearly bailable offense. It is elementary that the right to bail in non-capital offenses and
even in capital offenses where evidence of guilt is not strong will be generally granted and respected by the
courts, "the natural tendency of the courts (being) towards a fair and liberal appreciation," particularly
taking into consideration the record and standing of the person charged and the unlikelihood of his fleeing
the court’s jurisdiction.
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; DUTY OF THE COURTS TO PROTECT CITIZENS AGAINST DEPRIVATION OF THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. — The continuous flow of petitions for habeas corpus filed with this Court should
not be decried nor discouraged. The Court stands as the guarantor of the constitutional and human rights of
all persons within its jurisdiction and must see to it that the rights are respected and enforced. It is settled
in this jurisdiction that once a deprivation of a constitutional right is shown to exists, the court that rendered
the judgment or before whom the case is pending is ousted of jurisdiction and habeas corpus is the
appropriate remedy to assail the legality of the detention. (Gumabon v. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420,
427.) So accused persons deprived of the constitutional right of speedy trial have been set free. (Conde v.
Diaz, 45 Phil. 173). And likewise persons detained indefinitely without charges so much so that the
detention becomes punitive and not merely preventive in character are entitled to regain their freedom. The
spirit and letter of our Constitution negates as contrary to the basic precepts of human rights and freedom
that a person be detained indefinitely without any charges.

7. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CONCERN AND SECURITY OF THE NATION NOT SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR THE
VIOLATION OF HUMAN DIGNITY AND RIGHTS. — As to the "self-evident" submittal of the main opinion that
"the duty of the judiciary to protect individual rights must yield to the power of the Executive to protect the
State, for if the State perishes, the Constitution, with the Bill of Rights that guarantees the right to personal
liberty, perishes with it," Justice Teehankee only recalls the exhortation of the Holy Father John Paul II in his
address to the Philippine nation on February 17, 1981, thus: "Even in exceptional situations that may at
times arise, one can never justify any violation of the fundamental dignity of the human person or of the
basic rights that safeguard this dignity. Legitimate concern for the security of a nation, as demanded by the
common good, could lead to the temptation of subjugating to the State the human being and his or her
dignity and rights. Any apparent conflict between the exigencies of security and of the citizens’ basic rights
must be resolved according to the fundamental principle — upheld always by the church — that social
organization exists only for the service of man and for the protection of his dignity, and that it cannot claim
to serve the common good when human rights are not safeguarded. People will have faith in the
safeguarding of their security and the promotion of their well-being only to the extent that they feel truly
involved, and supported in their very humanity."

DECISION

DE CASTRO, J.:

Petition for a writ of habeas corpus and mandamus seeking the following relief: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, petitioners pray this Honorable Court: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. To immediately issue a writ of habeas corpus directing respondents to appear and produce the bodies of
Dr. AURORA PARONG, NORBERTO PORTUGUESE, SABINO PADILLA, FRANCIS DIVINAGRACIA, IMELDA DE
LOS SANTOS, BENJAMIN PINEDA, ZENAIDA MALLARI, MARIANO SORIANO, TITO TANGUILIG, LETTY
BALLOGAN, BIENVENIDA GARCIA, EUFRONIO ORTIZ, JR., JUANITO GRANADA and TOM VASQUEZ, forthwith
before this Honorable Court and to make due return of the writ therewith;

"2. To issue, in addition or in the alternative to the writ of habeas corpus, a writ of mandamus compelling
the respondents to disclose the petitioners’ present place of detention and to order the respondents to allow
counsel and relatives to visit and confer with the petitioners;

"3. Pending the determination of the legality of their continued detention, to forthwith release the detainees
on bail upon such terms and conditions as the Court may fix, and after hearing, to order petitioners’
immediate release; and

"4. To grant petitioners such other and further relief as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises."
virtua1aw library
cralaw

The records show that nine (9) of the fourteen (14) detainees herein were arrested on July 6, 1982 at about
1:45 p.m. when three (3) teams of the PC/INP of Bayombong, Nueva Viscaya led by Lt. Col. Coronel, 1st Lt.
de Guzman and 1st Lt. Baria, after securing a Search Warrant No. S-82 issued by Judge Sofronio Sayo of
the Court of First Instance of Nueva Viscaya conducted a raid at the residence of Dra. Aurora Parong.
Apprehended during the said raid were Dra. Aurora Parong, Benjamin Pineda, Sabino Padilla, Francisco
Divinagracia, Zenaida Mallari, Letty Ballogan, Norberto Portuguese, and Mariano Soriano who were then
having a conference in the dining room of Dra. Parong’s residence which had been doing on since 10:00
a.m. of that same day.

The other four (4) detainees herein, namely: Imelda de los Santos, Eufronio Ortiz, Jr., Juanito Granada, and
Bienvenida Garcia, were arrested on the following day, July 7, 1982 by the same PC teams.

On July 15, 1982, Tom Vasquez was arrested, and his Volkswagen car, bearing Plate No. DAP 347, was
seized by the PC authorities.

The herein fourteen (14) detainees (hereafter referred to sometimes as petitioners) were all detained at the
PC/INP Command Headquarters, Bayombong, 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. The mandamus aspect of the instant petition
has, however, become moot and academic, and whereabouts of petitioners having already become known to
petitioner Josefina Garcia-Padilla.

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 the PC/INP raiding team which made the arrest were only
armed with a search warrant (No. 3-82) issued by Judge Sofronio G. Sayo of the Court of First Instance of
Nueva Viscaya, and nowhere in said warrant was authority given to make arrests, much less detention; that
the search warrant which authorized respondents to seize "subversive documents, firearms of assorted
calibers, medicine and other subversive paraphernalia" in the house and clinic of Dra. Aurora Parong was a
roving and general warrant and is, therefore, illegal per se because it does not state specifically the things
that are to be seized (Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383); that no criminal charges have as of yet been filed
against any of the detainees; that the fourteen (14) 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; that while it is true that a purported telegram stating the issuance of a Presidential
Commitment Order (PCO) was shown to the detainees on or about July 11 and 12, 1982, but counsel and
the detainees have not yet been given a copy of such PCO, nor notified of its contents, raising a doubt
whether such commitment order has in fact been issued.

It is further alleged that respondents are denying the detainees their constitutional right to counsel, averring
that the detainees were allowed regular visits by counsel and relatives during their period of detention from
July 6 to August 10, 1982 at the PC/INP Command in Bayombong, Nueva Viscaya; however, when a certain
Major Cristobal and Lt. Marcos (alleged to be from the Camp Crame Intelligence Units) took full control of
the investigation, counsels were allowed to visit only on weekends; that when the detainees were
transferred on August 10, 1982 to a place known only to respondents, the detainees’ counsels and relatives
were not notified, raising the apprehension that petitioners’ constitutional rights to silence, to counsel and
against self-incrimination are being violated; that counsels have tried to locate if the detainees were taken
to Camp Crame or Camp Bago Bantay but to no avail; that Major Forondo of the PC Command in Nueva
Viscaya informed Mrs. Josefina Padilla that the detainees were transferred to Tuguegarao, Cagayan, others
to Echague, Isabela; 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.

In the resolution of this Court en banc dated August 17, 1982, the writ of habeas corpus was issued and
respondents were required to make a return of the writ. Hearing on the petition was set on August 26,
1982.

In the return to the writ filed on August 23, 1982, Respondents, through the Solicitor General, alleged, to
wit:
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"I. AS TO HABEAS CORPUS

"1. The detainees mentioned in the petition, with the exception of Tom Vasquez who was temporarily
released on July 17, 1982, after his arrest on July 15, 1982, are all being detained by virtue of a Presidential
Commitment Order (PCO) issued on July 12, 1982, pursuant to LOI No. 1211 dated March 9, 1982, in
relation to Presidential Proclamation No. 2045 dated January 17, 1981. The said PCO was issued by
President Ferdinand E. Marcos for violation of P.D. No. 885 . . ..

"2. The corresponding charges against the said detainees have been filed in court and before the Acting
Provincial Fiscal of Nueva Viscaya where they are pleading. A warrant of arrest against detainee Dra. Aurora
Parong was issued on August 4, 1982, by the Municipal Court of Bayombong, for illegal possession of
firearm and ammunition . . .." cralaw virtua1aw library

II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ON HABEAS CORPUS

"3. The persons named in the above-mentioned Presidential Commitment Order were arrested and are being
detained for offenses with respect to which under Proclamation No. 2045, the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus continues to be suspended, thus: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President/Prime Minister of the Philippines, by virtue of the
powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby revoke Proclamation No. 1081 (Proclaiming a state of
Martial Law in the Philippines) and Proclamation No. 1104 (Declaring the Continuation of Martial Law) and
proclaim the termination of the state of martial law throughout the Philippines; Provided, that the call to the
Armed Forces of the Philippines to prevent or suppress lawless violence, insurrection, rebellion and
subversion shall continue to be in force and effect; and Provided that in the two autonomous regions in
Mindanao, upon the request of the residents therein, the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus shall continue; and in all other places the suspension of the privilege of the writ shall also continue
with respect to persons at present detained as well as others who may hereafter be similarly detained for
the crimes of insurrection or rebellion, subversion conspiracy or proposals to commit such crimes, and for all
other crimes and offenses committed by them in furtherance or on the occasion thereof, or incident thereto,
or in connection therewith." (Emphasis supplied)

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is unavailing as to them. Courts cannot inquire into the validity
and cause of their arrest and detention.

"4. The power of the President in an emergency, such as that which necessitated the continued suspension
of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, to order the detention of persons believed engaged in crimes
related to national security is recognized. (Aquino v. Enrile, 59 SCRA 83; Luneta, Et. Al. v. Special Military
Commission No. 1, Et Al., 102 SCRA 56).

"5. In the instant petition, petitioner Josefina Garcia-Padilla does not appear to have been authorized by the
thirteen (13) other detainees to represent them in the case at bar." cralaw virtua1aw library

Accordingly, the petition was duly heard on August 26, 1982. After hearing, the Court issued the following
resolution, to wit:
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"G.R. No. 61388 (In the Matter of the Petition for the Insurance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus of Dr. Aurora
Parong, Norberto Portuguese, Sabino Padilla, Francis Divinagracia, Imelda de los Santos, Benjamin Pineda,
Zenaida Mallari, Mariano Soriano, Tito Tanguilig, Letty Ballogan, Bienvenida Garcia, Eufronio Ortiz, Jr.,
Juanito Granada and Tom Vasquez; Josefina Garcia-Padilla v. Minister Juan Ponce Enrile, Gen. Fabian C. Ver,
Gen. Fidel V. Ramos and Lt. Col. Miguel Coronel.) — The return of the writ of habeas corpus and answer to
the prayer for mandamus filed by the Solicitor General for respondents in compliance with the resolution of
August 17, 1982 is NOTED.

"At the hearing of this case this morning, former Senator Jose W. Diokno, Attorneys Alexander A. Padilla and
Efren H. Mercado appeared for petitioner. Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza and Assistant Solicitor
General Ramon A. Barcelona, appeared for the respondents. All of the detainees, except Tom Vasquez, who
was temporarily released on July 17, 1982, were present in Court; Dr. Aurora Parong, Norberto Portuguese,
Sabino Padilla, Francis Divinagracia, Imelda de los Santos, Benjamin Pineda, Zenaida Mallari, Mariano
Soriano, Tito Tanguilig, Letty Ballogan, Bienvenida Garcia, Eufronio Ortiz, Jr. and Juanito Granada. Attorney
Alexander A. Padilla argued for the petitioner. Solicitor General Mendoza argued for the respondents. Former
Senator Diokno argued in the rebuttal. The Court Resolved to require the Solicitor General to SUBMIT within
five (5) days from date the documents relevant to the issuance of the Presidential Commitment Order.
Thereafter, the case shall be considered SUBMITTED for resolution." cralaw virtua1aw library
As required, the Solicitor General submitted the documents relevant to the issuance of the Presidential
Commitment Order on August 27, 1982, after which the Case was submitted for resolution.

The fundamental issue here, as in all petitioner for the writ of habeas corpus, is whether or not petitioners’
detention is legal. We have carefully gone over the claims of the parties in their respective pleadings as well
as in the oral argument during the hearing on August 26, 1982, and 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.

1. At the time of the arrest of the nine (9) of the fourteen (14) detainees herein on July 6, 1982, records
reveal that they were then having conference in the dining room of Dra. Parong’s residence from 10:00 a.m.
of that same day. Prior thereto, at 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.
Caught in flagrante delicto, the nine (9) detainees mentioned scampered towards different directions leaving
on 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.

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.

2. The arrest of persons involved in the rebellion whether as its fighting armed elements, or for committing
non-violent acts but in furtherance of the rebellion, is more an act of capturing them in the course of an
armed conflict, to quell the rebellion, than for the purpose of immediately prosecuting them in court for a
statutory offense. The arrest, therefore, need not follow the usual procedure in the prosecution of offenses
which requires the determination by a judge of the existence of probable cause before the issuance of a
judicial warrant of arrest and the granting of bail if the offense is bailable. Obviously, the absence of a
judicial warrant is no legal impediment to arresting or capturing persons committing overt acts of violence
against government forces, or any other milder acts but equally in pursuance of the rebellious movement.
The arrest or capture is thus impelled by the exigencies of the situation that involves the very survival of
society and its government and duly constituted authorities. If killing and other acts of violence against the
rebels find justification in the exigencies of armed hostilities which is of the essence of waging a rebellion or
insurrection, most assuredly so in case of invasion, merely seizing their persons and detaining them while
any of these contingencies continues cannot be less justified. In the language of Moyer v. Peabody, 1 cited
with approval in Aquino, Et. Al. v. Ponce Enrile, 2 the President "shall make the ordinary use of the soldiers
to that end that he may kill persons who resist, and, of course, that he may use the milder measure of
seizing the bodies of those whom he considers to stand in the way of restoring peace. Such arrests are not
necessarily for punishment, but are by way of precaution, to prevent the exercise of hostile power." cralaw virtua1aw library

Thus characterized, the arrest and detention of persons ordered by the President through the issuance of
Presidential Commitment Order (PCO) is merely preventive. "When it comes to a decision by the head of the
State upon a matter involving its life, the ordinary rights of individuals must yield to what he deems the
necessities of the moment. Public danger warrants the substitution of executive process for judicial process."
3 What should be underscored is that if the greater violation against life itself such as killing, will not be the
subject of judicial inquiry, as it cannot be raised as transgressing against the due process clause that
protects life, liberty and property, lesser violations against liberty, such as arrest and detention, may not be
insisted upon as reviewable by the courts.

3. Transcendentally important, therefore, is the question of whether the issuance of a Presidential

Commitment Order (PCO) has provided the legal basis of the detention of herein detainees following their
arrest for Proclamation No. 2045 covered offenses. This question has to be set at rest promptly and
decisively, if We are to break a seemingly continuous flow of petitions for habeas corpus, as what had been
seen lately of such petitioners being filed in this Court one after the other.

The function of the PCO is to validate, on constitutional ground, 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. chanrobles law library

The significance of the conferment of this power, constitutionally upon the President as Commander-in-
Chief, is that the exercise thereof is not subject to judicial inquiry, with a view to determining its legality in
the light of the bill of rights guarantee to individual freedom. This must be so because the suspension of the
privilege is a military measure the necessity of which the President alone may determine as an incident of
his grave responsibility as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, of protecting not only public safety
but the very life of the State, the government and duly constituted authorities. This should be clear beyond
doubt in the case of "invasion," along which "rebellion" or "insurrection" is mentioned by the Constitution,
which contingency does not present a legal question on whether there is a violation of the right to personal
liberty when any member of the invading force is captured and detained.

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 aforementioned 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.

The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is one such measure. To be effective, the
occasion for its application on specific individuals should be left to the exclusive and sound judgment of the
President, at least while the exigencies of invasion, rebellion or insurrection persist, and the public safety
requires it, a matter, likewise, which should be left for the sole determination of the President as
Commander-in-Chief of the Nation’s armed forces. The need for a unified command in such contingencies is
imperative — even axiomatic — as a basic military concept in the art of warfare.

4. From the clear language of the Lansang case, 4 "the function of Court is merely to check — not to
supplant — the Executive, or to ascertain merely whether he has gone beyond the constitutional limits of his
jurisdiction, not to exercise the power vested in him or to determine the wisdom of his act." If, however, the
constitutional right to bail is granted to the herein petitioners by the court, through the procedure laid down
under Rule 114 of the Rules of court, what inevitably results is the supplanting of the decision of the
President to detain pursuant to Proclamation No. 2045, of persons who come under its coverage.

The specific mention in the Constitution of rebellion and insurrection along with invasion and imminent
danger thereof, shows that the terms "rebellion and insurrection" are used therein in the sense of a state or
condition of the Nation, not in the concept of a statutory offense. What, therefore, should determine the
legality of imposing what is commonly referred to as "preventive detention" resulting from the suspension of
the privilege of habeas corpus, is the necessity of its adoption as a measure to suppress or quell the
rebellion, or beat off an invasion. The necessity for such measure as a means of defense for national survival
quite clearly transcends in importance and urgency the claim of those detained to the right to bail to obtain
their freedom. To hold otherwise would defeat the purpose of the constitutional grant of the power to
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus on the occasions expressly mentioned in the charter. For
what indeed could the purpose be of suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus other than to
restrict, at least for the duration of the emergency of invasion or rebellion, the right to personal liberty,
dictated as it is, in the greater interest of public safety and national security.
So it is that Proclamation No. 2045 mentions not only rebellion or insurrection as coming within the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, but also other offenses, including subversion which
is not mentioned in the Constitution, committed by reason or on the occasion of the rebellion, or in
connection therewith, or in the furtherance thereof. There need be no alarm over what libertarian jurists fear
as violation of the constitutional right to personal liberty when the President decrees the suspension of the
privilege of habeas corpus. Only those who give cause for it will be subject to restriction of their liberty, as
the necessity therefor arises in the interest of national defense and survival. The constitutional guarantee of
individual freedom is intact in all its plenitude and sanctity, save only as the Constitution has envisioned the
need for its limitation, and only to a few, in relation to the entire population, as the Constitution itself
permits in case of overwhelming and imperious necessity.

5. Worthy of profound notice and keen appreciation is the fact that the authority to suspend the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus has been deliberately vested on the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the
armed forces, together with the related power to call out the armed forces to suppress lawless violence and
impose martial law. 5 The choice could not have been more wise and sound, for no other official may, with
equal capability and fitness, be entrusted with the grave responsibility that goes with the grant of the
authority. The legislature was considered in the alternative upon which to lodge the power, or to share in its
exercise, but the distilled wisdom of the Constitutional Convention finally made its choice for the President
alone.

As previously noted, "invasion" which is not a statutorily-defined offense and "imminent danger thereof" as
mentioned in the Constitution indicate that "rebellion and insurrection" are also mentioned therein not in
their concept as statutorily-defined public crimes, but as a state or condition of extreme emergency resulting
from the existence of the aforesaid events. Now, if captured enemies from the invading force may not be
charged with any statutory offense that would provide the occasion to demand the right to bail, it is obvious
that persons engaged in rebellion or insurrection may not claim the right to be released on bail when
similarly captured or arrested during the continuance of the aforesaid contingency. They may not even claim
the right to be charged immediately in court, as they may rightfully do so, were they being charged with an
ordinary or common offense. This is so because according to legal writers or publicists, the suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus "has the sole effect of allowing the executive to defer the trials of
persons charged with certain offenses during the period of emergency." 6 This clearly means denial of the
right to be released on bail on being charged in court with bailable offenses.

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.

Realistically, a person engaged in the rebellion does not, upon being arrested or captured, cease to be as
committed to the cause of the movement. Through a grand conspiracy, as is of the essence of how rebellion
is committed, involving a great mass of confederates bound together by a common goal, he remains in a
state of continued participation in the criminal act or design. His heart still beats with the same emotion for
the success of the movement of which he continues to be an ardent adherent and ally. It is simple logic then
to hold that there should be no legal compulsion for a captured rebel to be charged in court, only to be
released on bail, while he is, realistically and legally, still as much as part and parcel of the movement,
continuing as it is, as those still engaged in carrying on actively to attain their goal of overthrowing the
established regime. Hence, it is easy to perceive how impressed with absolute verity is the opinion
expressed by two acknowledged authorities on Constitutional law in our country, 7 which We quote: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . If the return to the writ shows that the person in custody was apprehended and detained in areas
where the privileges of the writ have been suspended or for the crimes mentioned in the executive
proclamation, the court will suspend further proceedings in the action." cralaw virtua1aw library

Impeccable as it is, the opinion could not but find a resonant echo as it did in the recent case of Buscayno v.
Military Commission; 8 decided after Proclamation No. 2045 was issued, which in terms clear and
categorical, held that the constitutional right to bail is unavailing when the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus is suspended with respect to certain crimes as enumerated or described in the abovementioned
Proclamation.
It is, likewise, all too well-known that when the rebel forces capture government troopers or kidnap private
individuals, they do not accord to them any of the rights now being demanded by the herein petitioners,
particularly to be set at liberty upon the filing of bail. As a matter of common knowledge, captives of the
rebels or insurgents are not only not given the right to be released, but also denied trial of any kind. In
some instances, they may even be liquidated unceremoniously. What is then sought by the suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is, among others, to put the government forces on equal fighting
terms with the rebels, by authorizing the detention of their own rebel or dissident captives as the rebellion
goes on. In this way, the advantage the rebellion forces have over those of the government, as when they
resort to guerrilla tactics with sophisticated weapons, is, at least, minimized, thereby enhancing the latter’s
chances of beating their enemy. It would, therefore, seem to be ignoring realities in the name of misplaced
magnanimity and compassion, and for the sake of humanity, to grant the demand for respect of rights
supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution by those who themselves seek to destroy that very same
instrument, trampling over it already as they are still waging war against the government. This stark
actuality gives added force and substance to the rationale of the suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus in case of invasion, insurrection, rebellion, or imminent danger thereof, when public safety
requires it.

6. Invoking the Lansang case, 9 however, petitioners would ask this Court to review the issuance of the PCO
against them, intimating that arbitrariness attended its issuance because, relying on the evidence
supposedly available in the hands of the military, they claim they are not guilty of rebellion. They also
contend that the provisions of LOI No. 1211 have not been complied with.

The Lansang case went no further than to pronounce the suspension of the writ of the privilege of habeas
corpus on August 21, 1971, valid and constitutional, on a finding that there was no arbitrariness attendant
to the suspension. It never intended to suggest that for every individual case of arrest and detention, the
writ of habeas corpus is available, even after the suspension of this privilege, to question the legality of the
arrest and detention on ground of arbitrariness. When a person is charged in court for an ordinary offense,
the law does not authorize the filing of a petition for habeas corpus based on the ground that there is
absolutely no evidence to hold him for trial, which, in effect, constitutes an allegation of arbitrariness in the
filing of the case against him. The law has afforded him adequate safeguards against arbitrariness, such as
the requirement of determining the existence of a probable cause by the judge before the issuance of the
warrant of arrest. The finding of such probable cause may not be immediately brought for review by this
Court in a habeas corpus proceeding, on the claim of arbitrariness. The matter is to be decided on the basis
of the evidence, and this Court is not the proper forum for the review sought, not being a trial of facts. If
such a procedure were allowed, it would be easy to delay and obstruct the prosecution of am offense by a
resort to a petition for habeas corpus based on arbitrariness, which most accused, if not all, would be most
inclined, specially when they are out on bail. The petition now before Us is exactly one of this kind. If
granted, the effect is to transfer the jurisdiction of the trial courts in criminal cases to this Court, which is
simply inconceivable. Moreover, arbitrariness, while so easy to allege, is hard to prove, in the face of the
formidable obstacle built up by the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.
Unexhilaratingly, this is the revealing experience of this Court in the Lansang case, where it doubtlessly
realized how hardly possible it is to adduce evidence or proof upon which to show the President having acted
with arbitrariness.

7. The last question relates to the legality of the Presidential Commitment Order (PCO) issued by the
President on July 12, 1982, tested by the conformity of its issuance to the procedure laid down under LOI
1211, petitioners insisting that the LOI limits the authority of the President to cause the arrest and detention
of persons engaged in or charged with, the crimes mentioned in Proclamation No. 2045. They contend that
the procedure prescribed in the LOI not having been observed, the PC issued thereunder did not validate the
initial illegal arrest of the herein petitioners as well as their continued detention.

It must be noted that LOI No. 1211, which provides the guidelines in the arrest and detention of persons
engaged in, or charged with, the crimes mentioned in Proclamation No. 2045, contemplates of three
situations when an arrest can be made, to wit: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. The arrest and detention effected by virtue of a warrant issued by a judge;

"2. The arrest and detention effected by a military commander or the head of a law enforcement agency
after it is determined that the person or persons to be arrested would probably escape or commit further
acts which would endanger public order and safety. After the arrest, however, the case shall be immediately
referred to the city or provincial fiscal, or to the municipal, city, circuit, or district judge for preliminary
examination or investigation who, if the evidence warrants, shall file the corresponding charges and,
thereafter, secure a warrant of arrest;

"3. The military commander or the head of the law enforcement agency may apply to the President thru the
Minister of National Defense, for a Presidential Commitment Order under the following circumstances: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) When resort to judicial process is not possible or expedient without endangering public order and safety;
or

(b) When the release on bail of the person or persons already under arrest by virtue of a judicial warrant
would endanger said public order and safety." cralaw virtua1aw library

Petitioners appear to place entire reliance on paragraphs 1 and 2 of LOI No. 1211, ignoring paragraph 3 of
LOI No. 1211, which provides: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"3. The above notwithstanding, the military commander or the head of the law enforcement agency may
apply to the President thru the Minister of National Defense, for a Presidential Commitment Order covering
the person or persons believed to be participants in the commission of the crimes referred to in paragraph 1
under the following circumstances: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) When resort to judicial process is not possible or expedient without endangering public order and safety;
or

(b) When the release on bail of the person or persons already under arrest by virtue of a judicial warrant
would endanger said public order and safety." cralaw virtua1aw library

The reliance of petitioners on paragraphs 1 and 2 of LOI 1211 as to the alleged necessity of judicial warrant
before a person may be arrested and detained is not well-founded. Neither is the contention that paragraph
3 of LOI 1211 applies only when judicial process is not possible. This is a narrow and constricted
interpretation of LOI 1211 when viewed in its entirety. Even in instances when a resort to judicial process is
possible, where, in the judgment of the President, a resort thereto would not be expedient because it would
endanger the public order or safety, a PCO is justified. So, too, when release on bail in the ordinary judicial
process will invite the same danger. chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

By its very nature, and clearly by its language, LOI 1211 is a mere directive of the President as Commander-
in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines to his subordinates or implementing officers for the ultimate
objective of providing guidelines in the arrest and detention of the persons covered by Presidential
Proclamation No. 2045. The purpose is "to insure protection to individual liberties without sacrificing the
requirements of public order and safety and the effectiveness of the campaign against those seeking the
forcible overthrow of the government and duly constituted authorities." LOI 1211 does not, in any manner,
limit the authority of the President to cause the arrest and detention of persons engaged in, or charged with
the crimes or offenses mentioned in said Proclamation in that he (President) would subject himself to the
superior authority of the judge who, under normal judicial processes in the prosecution of the common
offenses, is the one authorized to issue a judicial warrant after a preliminary investigation is conducted with
a finding of probable cause. Those who would read such an intention on the part of the President in issuing
LOI 1211 seems to do so in their view that LOI forms part of the law of the land under the 1976 amendment
of the Constitution. 10 They would then contend that a PCO issued not in compliance with the provisions of
the LOI would be an illegality and of no effect.

To form part of the law of the land, the decree, order or LOI must be issued by the President in the exercise
of his extraordinary power of legislation as contemplated in Section 6 of the 1976 amendments to the
Constitution, whenever in his judgment, there exists a grave emergency or a threat or imminence thereof,
or whenever the interim Batasan Pambansa or the regular National Assembly fails or is unable to act
adequately on any matter for any reason that in his judgment requires immediate action. There can be no
pretense, much less a showing, that these conditions prompted the President to issue LOI 1211. Verily, not
all LOI issued by the President should be dignified into forming part of the law of the land.

In the event then that the judge believes no warrant shall issue, the President, under Presidential
Proclamation No. 2045 and Letter of Instruction No. 1211, is not bound by such finding, as explicitly
provided in paragraph 2 of LOI 1211. That the President avails of the facilities of the judicial machinery, as
is the clear intent of LOI 1211, to aid him in exercising his power to restrain personal liberty, as dictated by
the necessities and exigencies of the emergency, does not indicate any intention on his part to renounce or
to allow even mere curtailment of his power such that the judicial process will thereupon take its normal
course, under which the detainees or accused would then be entitled to demand their right of due process,
particularly in relation to their personal liberty. 11 The issuance of the PCO by the President necessarily
constitutes a finding that the conditions he has prescribed in LOI 1211 for the issuance of that PCO have
been met, and intends that the detention would be pursuant to the executive process incident to the
government campaign against the rebels, subversives and dissidents waging a rebellion or insurrection. The
ruling in the Nava v. Gatmaitan

case, . . as above intimated, must have shown him that to prosecute the offense through the judicial
process of forthwith instead of deferring it, would neither be wise nor expedient if he were to deal effectively
with the grave emergency at hand.

What has been said above shows the need of reexamining the Lansang case with a view to reverting to the
ruling of Barcelon v. Baker, 5 Phil. 87, a 1905 decision, and Montenegro v. Castañeda, 91 Phil. 882 (1952),
that the President’s decision to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is "final and conclusive
upon the courts, and all other persons." This well-settled ruling was diluted in the Lansang case which
declared that the "function of the Court is merely to check — not to supplant - the Executive, or ascertain
merely whether he has gone beyond the constitutional limits of his jurisdiction not to exercise the power
vested in him or to determine the wisdom of his act." Judicial interference was thus held as permissible, and
the test as laid down therein is not whether the President acted correctly but whether he acted arbitrarily.
This would seem to be pure semanticism, if We consider that with particular reference to the nature of the
actions the President would take on the occasion of the grave emergency he has to deal with, which, as
clearly indicated in Section 9, Art. VII of the Constitution partakes of military measures, the judiciary can,
with becoming modesty, ill afford to assume the authority to check or reverse or supplant the presidential
actions. On these occasions, the President takes absolute command, for the very life of the Nation and its
government, which, incidentally, includes the courts, is in grave peril. In so doing, the President is
answerable only to his conscience, the people and to God. For their part, in giving him the supreme
mandate as their President, the people can only trust and pray that, giving him their own loyalty with
utmost patriotism, the President will not fail them.

In his separate opinion in the Lansang case, then Justice Fernando, now our learned Chief Justice, went
along with the proposition that the decision of the Executive in the exercise of his power to suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is his alone, and in his own language, is "ordinarily beyond the ken of
the Courts." This is so, as the Founding Fathers must have felt that in the particular situations at hand, the
Executive and the Judiciary should maintain a mutually deferential attitude. This is the very essence of the
doctrine of "political question," as determining the justiciability of a case. The wisdom of this concept
remains well-recognized in advanced constitutional systems. To erase it from our own system as seems to
be what was done in the Lansang case, may neither be proper nor prudent. A good example could be given
in the exercise of the presidential power of pardon which is beyond judicial review, specially under the new
Constitution where the condition that it may be granted only after final conviction has been done away with.

True, the Constitution is the law "equally in war and in peace," 12 as Chief Justice Fernando cited in his
brilliant separate opinion in the same Lansang case. Precisely, it is the Constitution that gives the President
specific "military power" in times of warlike conditions as exist on the occasion of invasion, insurrection or
rebellion. Both power and right are constitutionally granted, with the difference that the guarantee of the
right to liberty is for personal benefit, while the grant of the presidential power is for public safety. Which of
the two enjoys primacy over the other is all too obvious. For the power is intended as a limitation of the
right, in much the same way as individual freedom yields to the exercise of the police power of the State in
the interest of general welfare. The difference again is that the power comes into being during extreme
emergencies the exercise of which, for complete effectiveness for the purpose it was granted should not
permit interference, while individual freedom is obviously for full enjoyment in time of peace, but in time of
war or grave peril to the nation, should be limited or restricted. In a true sense then, our Constitution is for
both peacetime and in time of war; it is not that in time of war the Constitution is silenced. The Founding
Fathers, with admirable foresight and vision, inserted provisions therein that come into play and application
in time of war or similar emergencies. So it is that, as proclaimed by the Constitution, the defense of the
State is a prime duty of government. Compulsory military service may be imposed, certainly a mandate that
derogates on the right to personal liberty. It, therefore, becomes self-evident that the duty of the judiciary
to protect individual rights must yield to the power of the Executive to protect the State, for if the State
perishes, the Constitution, with the Bill of Rights that guarantees the right to personal liberty, perishes with
it.

In times of war or national emergency, the legislature may surrender a part of its power of legislation to the
President. 13 Would it not be as proper and wholly acceptable to lay down the principle that during such
crises, the judiciary should be less jealous of its power and more trusting of the Executive in the exercise of
its emergency powers in recognition of the same necessity? Verily, the existence of the emergencies should
be left to President’s sole and unfettered determination. His exercise of the power to suspend the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus on the occasion thereof, should also be beyond judicial review. Arbitrariness, as
a ground for judicial inquiry of presidential acts and decisions, sounds good in theory but impractical and
unrealistic, considering how well-nigh impossible it is for the courts to contradict the finding of the President
on the existence of the emergency that gives occasion for the exercise of the power to suspend the privilege
of the writ. For the Court to insist on reviewing Presidential action on the ground of arbitrariness may only
result in a violent collision of two jealous powers with tragic consequences, by all means to be avoided, in
favor of adhering to the more desirable and long-tested doctrine of "political question" in reference to the
power of judicial review. 14

Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 Constitution, as earlier cited, affords further reason for the reexamination of
the Lansang doctrine and reversion to that of Barcelon v. Baker and Montenegro v. Castañeda. chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

Accordingly, We hold that in times of war and similar emergency as expressly provided in the Constitution,
the President may suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, which has the effect of allowing the
Executive to defer the prosecution of any of the offenses covered by Proclamation No. 2045, including, as a
necessary consequence, the withholding for the duration of the suspension of the privilege, of the right to
bail. The power could have been vested in Congress, instead of the President, as it was so vested in the
United States for which reason, when President Lincoln himself exercised the power in 1861, Chief Justice
Taney of the U.S. Supreme Court expressed the opinion that Congress alone possessed this power under the
Constitution. 15 Incidentally, it seems unimaginable that the judiciary could subject the suspension, if
decreed through congressional action, to the same inquiry as our Supreme Court did with the act of the
President, in the Lansang case, to determine if the Congress acted with arbitrariness.

We further hold that under LOI 1211, a Presidential Commitment Order, the issuance of which is the
exclusive prerogative of the President under the Constitution, may not be declared void by the courts, under
the doctrine of "political question," as has been applied in the Baker and Castañeda cases, on any ground,
let alone its supposed violation of the provision of LOI 1211, thus diluting, if not abandoning, the doctrine of
the Lansang case. The supreme mandate received by the President from the people and his oath to do
justice to every man should be sufficient guarantee, without need of judicial overseeing, against commission
by him of an act of arbitrariness in the discharge particularly of those duties imposed upon him for the
protection of public safety which in itself includes the protection of life, liberty and property. This Court is
not possessed with the attribute of infallibility that when it reviews the acts of the President in the exercise
of his exclusive power, for possible fault of arbitrariness, it would not itself go so far as to commit the self-
same fault.

Finally, We hold that upon the issuance of the Presidential Commitment Order against herein petitioners,
their continued detention is rendered valid and legal, and their right to be released even after the filing of
charges against them in court, to depend on the President, who may order the release of a detainee or his
being placed under house arrest, as he has done in meritorious cases.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition should be, as it is hereby dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

Guerrero, Plana, Escolin, Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Makasiar, J., concurs in the result and in overruling the Lansang case.

Aquino, J., is on leave.

Concepcion, Jr. and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur in the result.

Abad Santos, J., concurs in the result and in overruling Lansang. I reserve my right on the question of bail.

Separate Opinions

FERNANDO, C.J., concurring: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

It does not admit of doubt that the question posed in this petition for the writ of habeas corpus, and in other
similar petitions for that matter, is impressed with significance that calls for the highest degree of care and
circumspection. The result arrived at by the Court is that once a presidential commitment order is issued,
the detention is rendered valid and legal, the right to be released of the person detained even after the filing
of charges being dependent on the President "who may order the release of a detainee or his being placed
under house arrest, as he has done in meritorious cases." 1 The exhaustive opinion of the Court penned by
Justice de Castro likewise reexamines the Lansang doctrine 2 which ruled that the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus raises a judicial rather than a political question and reverts to the
principle announced in the earlier cases of Barcelon v. Baker 3 and Montenegro v. Castañeda, 4 both of
which held that the question raised is political in character.

I concur in the ruling that while as a general rule preventive detention is an obstacle to judicial inquiry, this
Court is empowered where compelling reasons exist to inquire into the matter. Moreover, the judiciary once
a case has been filed has jurisdiction to act on a petition for bail. I dissent insofar as the decision overrules
Lansang v. Garcia. cralawnad

1. Petitioners in their application for the writ of liberty assert an infringement of a right that finds shelter in
the fundamental law. This Court, both in normal times and under emergency conditions, is not susceptible to
the accusation that it has not accorded the most careful study to a plea of such character. Petitioners were
heard and their cases decided. In addition to Lansang, People v. Ferrer, 5 Aquino Jr. v. Ponce Enrile 6 and
Aquino Jr. v. Military Commission No. 2 7 may be cited. This Tribunal then has not been insensible to its
duty to render fealty to the applicable mandates of the Constitution. That is to be true to the primordial
concept first announced in the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison, 8 the opinion being rendered by
the illustrious Chief Justice Marshall, enunciating the principle of judicial review. Our Constitution is quite
clear on the matter. So it was held in Angara v. Electoral Tribunal, 9 the first case of transcendental
importance under the 1935 Charter. It is quite manifest that judicial review is not only a power but a duty.
10

2. Thus the judiciary can be appealed to and in appropriate cases, annul executive or legislative acts. For as
so often stressed, "the Constitution is not only law, but a higher law, to which other law must bow." 11
Professor Black went on to state: "Here, I think, we are laboring the obvious. The superior status of the
Constitution is clearer even than its standing as law. But if it is of superior status, and if it is law, then it is
law of a superior status. Again, the important thing is not whether some flaw could be found in the logic by
which this was established. The logic of human institutions is a logic of probability. The important thing is
that this concept of the superior status of the Constitution as law very early became and has since continued
to be a standard part of the way in which the American lawyer and judge and citizen look at their
government." 12 This is not to deny the possibility of judicial interference with policy formulation, better left
to the political branches. It is an entirely different matter of course where the question is one of liberty.

3. An inquiry into the validity of executive or legislative act has been fitly characterized as both awesome
and delicate. Nonetheless, for the judiciary, there is no choice. To repeat, it is a duty to be performed. This
is so especially where the writ of habeas corpus has been invoked. It is then incumbent on a court to pass
on the legality of the detention. As I had occasion to state in my separate opinion in Aquino Jr. v. Enrile: 13
"This Court has to act then. The liberty enshrined in the Constitution, for the protection of which habeas
corpus is the appropriate remedy, imposes that obligation. Its task is clear. It must be performed. That is a
trust to which it cannot be recreant. Whenever the grievance complained of is deprivation of liberty, it is its
responsibility to inquire into the matter and to render the decision appropriate under the circumstances.
Precisely, a habeas corpus petition calls for that response." 14 It cannot be overemphasized that the writ
of habeas corpus, as a constitutional right, it, for eminent commentators, protean in scope. A reference to
the opinion of the Court in Gumabon v. Director of Bureau of Prisons 15 may not be amiss. Thus: "The writ
imposes on judges the grave responsibility of ascertaining whether there is any legal justification for a
deprivation of physical freedom. Unless there be such a showing, the confinement must thereby cease." 16
It continues: "Rightly then could Chafee refer to the writ as ‘The most important human rights provision’ in
the fundamental law. Nor is such praise unique. Cooley spoke of it as ‘One of the principal safeguards to
personal liberty.’ For Willoughby, it is ‘the greatest of the safeguards erected by the civil law against
arbitrary and illegal imprisonment by whomsoever detention may be exercised or ordered.’ Burdick echoed a
similar sentiment, referring to it as ‘One of the most important bulwarks of liberty.’ Fraenkel made it
unanimous, for to him, ‘without it much else would be of no avail.’ Thereby the rule of law is assured. A full
awareness of the potentialities of the writ of habeas corpus in the defense of liberty coupled with its
limitations may be detected in the opinions of former Chief Justices Arellano, Avanceña, Abad Santos, Paras,
Bengzon and [Chief Justice Concepcion]. It fell to Justice Malcolm’s lot, however to emphasize quite a few
times the breadth of its amplitude and of its reach." 17
4. So it is in the United States. As so well put by Justice Brennan in Fay v. Noia: 18 "We do well to bear in
mind the extraordinary prestige of the Great Writ, habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, in Anglo-American
jurisprudence: ‘the most celebrated writ in English Law,’ 3 Blackstone Commentaries 129. It is ‘a writ
antecedent to statute, and throwing its root deep into the genius of our common law . . . . It is perhaps the
most important writ known to the constitutional law of England, affording as it does a swift and imperative
remedy in all cases of illegal restraint and confinement. It is of immemorial antiquity, an instance of its use
occurring in the thirty-third year of Edward I.’ Secretary of State for Home Affairs v. O’Brien [1923] AC 603,
609 (HL). Received into our own law in the colonial period, given explicit recognition in the Federal
Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 2, incorporated in the first grant of federal court jurisdiction, Act of
September 24, 1978, c 20, sec. 14, 1 Stat 81, 82, habeas corpus was earlier confirmed by Chief Justice John
Marshall to be a ‘Great constitutional privilege.’ Ex parte Bollman and Swartout (US) 4 Cranch 75, 95, 2L ed
554, 561. Only two Terms ago this Court had occasion to reaffirm the high place of the writ in our
jurisprudence: ‘We repeat what has been so truly said of the federal writ: "there is no higher duty than to
maintain it unimpaired," Bowen v. Johnston, 306 US 19, 26, 83 L ed 455, 461, 59 S Ct 442 (1939), and
unsuspended, save only in the cases specified in our Constitution.’ Smith v. Bennett, 365 US 708, 713, 61
ed 2d 39, 43, 81 s Ct. 895." 19

5. To repeat, it is the ruling of this Court that an issuance of a presidential commitment order imparts
validity to a detention the right to be released of the person detained even after the filing of charges being
dependent on the President who may order such release or his being placed under house arrest. As I
mentioned at the outset, I yield a qualified concurrence. The power of preventive detention where the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended has been recognized. 20 The lifting of martial law
unfortunately has not been followed by a restoration of peace and order in certain sections of the country. In
the proclamation lifting martial law, the last paragraph of the whereas clause spoke of the awareness of the
government and the Filipino people of public safety continuing "to require a degree of capability to deal
adequately with elements who persist in endeavoring to overthrow the government by violent means and
exploiting every opportunity to disrupt [its] peaceful and productive" efforts. 21 Accordingly, in terminating
the state of martial law throughout the Philippines, it was provided: "that the call to the Armed Forces of the
Philippines to prevent or suppress lawless violence, insurrection, rebellion and subversion shall continue to
be in force and effect; and Provided that in the two autonomous regions in Mindanao, upon the request of
the residents therein, the suspension of the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus shall continue; and in all
other places the suspension of the privilege of the writ shall also continue with respect to persons at present
detained as well as others who may hereafter be similarly detained for the crimes of insurrection or
rebellion, subversion; conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes and for all other crimes and offenses
committed by them in furtherance or on the occasion thereof, or incident thereto, or in connection
therewith; . . ." 22 That is the basis for the preventive detention of petitioners in this case.

6. The President as commander-in-chief may call out the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless
violence, invasion, insurrection, or rebellion and in case of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, or imminent
danger thereof, when the public safety requires it, "may suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus,
or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law." 23 There are thus three alternatives which
may be availed to meet a grave public danger to the security of the state. As pointed out by Chief Justice
Concepcion in Lansang, prior to the suspension of the privilege of the writ in 1971, the armed forces had
been called out, but such a move "proved inadequate to attain the desired result. Of the two (2) other
alternatives, the suspension of the privilege is the least harsh." 24 Even if only the first alternative were
resorted to, the executive could still exercise the power of preventive detention. Moyer v. Peabody 25
decided by the American Supreme Court, the opinion being penned by Justice Holmes, may be cited.
According to the statement of the facts of that case, "it appeared that the governor had declared a county to
be in a state of insurrection, had called out troops to put down the trouble, and had ordered that the plaintiff
should be arrested as a leader of the outbreak, and should be detained until he could be discharged with
safety, and that then he should be delivered to the civil authorities, to be dealt with according to law." 26
On those facts the American Supreme Court held that preventive detention was allowable, the test of its
validity being one of good faith. The state governor then could "make the ordinary use of the soldiers to that
end; that he may kill persons who resist, and, of course, that he may use the milder measure of seizing the
bodies of those whom he considers to stand in the way of restoring peace. Such arrests are not necessarily
for punishment, but are by way of precaution, to prevent the exercise of hostile power. So long as such
arrests are made in good faith and in the honest belief that they are needed in order to head the
insurrection off, the governor is the final judge and cannot be subjected to an action after he is out of office,
on the ground that he had not reasonable ground for his belief." 27 The last paragraph of Justice Holmes
opinion was even more emphatic: "When it comes to a decision by the head of the state upon a matter
involving its life, the ordinary rights of individuals must yield to what he deems the necessities of the
moment. Public danger warrants the substitution of executive process for judicial process. See Keely v.
Sanders, 99 U.S. 441, 446, 25 L. ed. 327, 328. This was admitted with regard to killing men in the actual
clash of arms; and we think it obvious, although it was disputed, that the same is true of temporary
detention to prevent apprehended harm. As no one would deny that there was immunity for ordering a
company to fire upon a mob in insurrection, and that a state law authorizing the governor to deprive citizens
of life under such circumstances was consistent with the 14th Amendment, we are of opinion that the same
is true of a law authorizing by implication that was done in this case." 28 Nonetheless, while preventive
detention is a proper measure to cope with the danger arising from the insurrection or rebellion, it may
continue for such length of time as to make it punitive in character. If such were the case, I am not
prepared to yield concurrence to the view that this Court is devoid of the power in a habeas
corpus proceeding to inquire into the legality of the detention. As to when such a stage is reached cannot be
set forth with precision. The test would be an appraisal of the environmental facts of each case. This is not
to deny that the presumption must be in favor not only of the good faith characterizing the presidential
action but of the absence of any arbitrary taint in so ordering preventive detention. It is out of excess of
caution and due to the belief that habeas corpus as a writ of liberty should not be unnecessary curtailed that
I feel compelled to qualify my concurrence in that respect.

7. Nor is this all. Once a case is filed, the party detained may avail himself of the right to bail. If there be
such a petition, the court has jurisdiction to grant or to deny bail in accordance with the constitutional
provision. 29 Inasmuch as the return to the writ filed by the Solicitor General states that a warrant of arrest
against detainee Dra. Aurora Parong was issued on August 4, 1982, by the Municipal Court of Bayombong,
for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, then clearly, she has a right to invoke such right,
notwithstanding the suspension of the privilege of the writ. So I did argue as counsel in Hernandez v.
Montesa, 30 where a majority of this Court with one vote lacking to make their conclusion doctrinal agreed
with such submission. There was adherence to such a view in my separate opinions in Lansang 31 and in
Buscayno v. Enrile, 32 I do so again and to that extent dissent.

8. It may be worthwhile to touch briefly on the exercise of power of preventive detention in other
jurisdictions. The retired Lord President of the Federal Court of Malaysia Tun Mohamed Suffian in his work on
the Malaysian constitution, spoke of the emergency powers of the executive, the Yang Dipertuan Agung in
this wise: "If the Yang Dipertuan Agung (acting on Cabinet advice) is satisfied that a grave emergency exists
whereby the security or economic life of the Federation or any part thereof is threatened, article 150
empowers him to issue a proclamation of emergency. He has done so thrice: first, to meet the emergency
caused by Indonesian confrontation, secondly, to meet the emergency caused by the political crisis arising
out of the position of the Chief Minister of Sarawak and, thirdly, to meet the emergency caused as a result
of the violence that erupted on 13th May, 1969. (The 1948-1960 emergency was proclaimed under pre-
independence law, not under the constitution). If a proclamation of emergency is issued when Parliament is
not sitting, the Yang Dipertuan Agung must summon Parliament as soon as may be practicable. Until both
Houses of Parliament are sitting, he may promulgate ordinances having the force of law, if satisfied that
immediate action is required." 33 By virtue of such competence, preventive detention may be ordered. 3 4
The power of preventive detention is likewise recognized in India. According to Professor Jain, in a leading
article, it "prevails in many democratic countries and in some form or other, at one time or other, each
democratic country has taken recourse to preventive detention, especially during the war period." 35 He
mentioned the United States Internal Security Act enacted by its Congress in 1950 for emergency detention
"during an emergency of war, invasion or domestic insurrection of a person about whom there is a
reasonable ground to believe that he would probably engage in acts of sabotage or espionage. The U.S.
Constitution also provides for suspension of habeas corpus during rebellion or invasion if public safety so
requires." 36 He likewise referred to England, citing Regulation 14B of the Defense of Realm Act
Regulations, 1914, during World War I and Regulation 18B of the Defense Regulations during World War II
which according to him led to the celebrated case of Liversidge v. Anderson. 37 Then he turned to his own
country: "In India, because of unstable law and order situation, preventive detention has been in vogue
since its independence in 1947. After the commencement of the Constitution, Parliament enacted the
Preventive Detention Act, 1950, to lay down a legal framework for preventive detention on certain grounds.
The present day law for the purpose is the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. A salient feature of
the law of preventive detention in India has been to confer a very broad discretion on the administrative
authority to order preventive detention of a person in certain circumstances." 38 He spoke of the relevant
constitutional provisions having a bearing on preventive detention: "A law for preventive detention can be
made by Parliament exclusively under entry 9, List 1, for reasons connected with ‘defense’, ‘foreign affairs’
or the ‘security of India.’ Further, under entry 3, List 111, Parliament and the State Legislatures can
concurrently make a law for preventive detention for reasons connected with the "security of a State’,
maintenance of public order,’ or ‘maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.’
Parliament thus has a wide legislative jurisdiction in the matter as it can enact a law of preventive detention
for reasons connected with all the six heads mentioned above. The Preventive Detention Act, 1950, and now
the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, have been enacted by Parliament providing for preventive
detention for all these six heads." 39 For him the law of preventive detention in India "has therefore been
too much administrative-ridden and the scope of judicial review has been very much limited." 40 He made a
careful study of the cases on preventive detention in India. As he pointed out, "the range and magnitude of
administrative control over the individual’s personal liberty is very vast, and the range of judicial control is
very restrictive, as the basic question, whether a person should be detained or not on the facts and
circumstances of the case, lies within the scope of administrative discretion and beyond judicial

review." 41 Nonetheless, the Supreme Court of India, as he stressed, "in the interest or maintaining
constitutionalism," has been able to take "a somewhat broad view of its restricted powers, and has given
whatever relief it can to the detained persons." 42 For me that approach has much to recommend it. This is
not to deny that in the event there is a misapprehension as to the actual facts that led to the preventive
detention, the plea for remedial action should, in the first instance, be addressed to the President. Very
likely, there will be an affirmative response. Even then, the assurance to a party feeling aggrieved that there
could still be resort to judicial review, even if utilized only in rare and exceptional cases, may conduce to a
deeper sense of loyalty to the existing constitutional order on the part of the misguided or disaffected
individuals. Hence, to repeat, this qualified concurrence on my part.

9. The opinion of the Court, however, did not stop at dismissing the petition on the ground that the issuance
of a presidential commitment order validates the preventive detention of petitioners. It went further by
reexamining the unanimous ruling in Lansang to the effect that the suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus raises a judicial rather than a political question and holding that it is no longer
authoritative. With due respect, I cannot agree to such a conclusion. In the first place, there was no need to
go that far. For me, at least, the rationale that this Court must accord deference to a presidential
commitment order suffices for the decision of this case. Nor would I limit my dissent on that ground alone.
It is for me, and again I say this with due respect, deplorable and unjustifiable for this Court to turn its back
on a doctrine that has elicited praise and commendation from eminent scholars and jurists here and abroad.

10. That is easily understandable. The learned, comprehension and unanimous Lansang opinion penned by
Chief Justice Concepcion concurred in by all the Justices, 43 to my mind, explains with lucidity and force
why the question is judicial rather than political. Thus: "Indeed, the grant of power to suspend the privilege
is neither absolute nor unqualified. The authority conferred by the Constitution, both under the Bill of Rights
and under the Executive Department, is limited and conditional. The precept in the Bill of Rights establishes
a general rule, as well as an exception thereto. What is more, it postulates the former in the negative,
evidently to stress its importance, by providing that ‘(t)he privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be
suspended . . . .’ It is only by way of exception that it permits the suspension of the privilege ‘in cases of
invasion, insurrection, or rebellion’-or, under Art. VII of the Constitution, ‘imminent danger thereof’-’when
the public safety requires it, in any of which events the same may be suspended wherever during such
period the necessity for such suspension shall exist.’ For from being full and plenary, the authority to
suspend the privilege of the writ is thus circumscribed, confined and restricted, not only by the prescribed
setting or the conditions essential to its existence, but, also, as regards the time when and the place where
it may be exercised. These factors and the aforementioned setting or conditions mark, establish and define
the extent, the confines and the limits of said power, beyond which it does not exist. And, like the
limitations and restrictions imposed by the Fundamental Law upon the legislative department, adherence
thereto and compliance therewith may, within proper bounds, be inquired into by courts of justice.
Otherwise, the explicit constitutional provisions thereon would be meaningless. Surely, the framers of our
Constitution could not have intended to engage in such a wasteful exercise in futility." 44 The then Chief
Justice continued: "Much less may the assumption be indulged in when we bear in mind that our political
system is essentially democratic and republican in character and that the suspension of the privilege affects
the most fundamental element of that system, namely, individual freedom. Indeed, such freedom includes
and connotes, as well as demands, the right of every single member of our citizenry to freely discuss and
dissent from, as well as criticize and denounce, the views, the policies and the practices of the government
and the party in power that he deems unwise, improper or inimical to the commonweal, regardless of
whether his own opinion is objectively correct or not. The untrammelled enjoyment and exercise of such
right — which, under certain conditions, may be a civic duty of the highest order — is vital to the democratic
system and essential to its successful operation and wholesome growth and development." 45

11. One of the merits of the ponencia of Chief Justice Concepcion is that it is infused with a sense of realism.
These are his words: "Manifestly, however, the liberty guaranteed and protected by our Basic Law is one
enjoyed and exercised, not in derogation thereof, but consistently therewith, and, hence, within the
framework of the social order established by the Constitution and the context of the Rules of Law.
Accordingly, when individual freedom is used to destroy that social order, by means of force and violence, in
defiance of the Rule of Law — such as by rising publicly and taking arms against the government to
overthrow the same, thereby committing the crime of rebellion - there emerges a circumstance that may
warrant a limited withdrawal of the aforementioned guarantee or protection, by suspending the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus, when public safety requires it. Although we must be forewarned against mistaking
mere dissent - no matter how emphatic or intemperate it may be — for dissidence amounting to rebellion or
insurrection, the Court cannot hesitate, much less refuse - when the existence of such rebellion or
insurrection has been fairly established or cannot reasonably be denied — to uphold the finding of the
Executive thereon, without, in effect, encroaching upon a power vested in him by the Supreme Law of the
land and depriving him, to this extent, of such power, and, therefore, without violating the Constitution and
jeopardizing the very Rule of Law the Court is called upon to epitomize." 46

12. After which this Court, as set forth in the Lansang opinion, considered "the precise nature" of its
function: "Article VII of the Constitution vests in the Executive the power to suspend the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus under specified conditions. Pursuant to the principle of separation of powers underlying our
system of government, the Executive is supreme within his own sphere. However, the separation of powers,
under the Constitution, is not absolute. What is more, it goes hand in hand with the system of checks and
balances, under which the Executive is supreme, as regards the suspension of the privilege, but only if and
when he acts within the sphere allotted to him by the Basic Law, and the authority to determine whether or
not he has so acted is vested in the Judicial Department, which, in this respect, is, in turn, constitutionally
supreme." 47 Further: "In the exercise of such authority, the function of the Court is merely to check - not
to supplant - the Executive, or to ascertain merely whether he has gone beyond the constitutional limits of
his jurisdiction, not to exercise the power vested in him or to determine the wisdom of his act. To be sure,
the power of the Court to determine the validity of the contested proclamation is far from being identical to,
or even comparable with, its power over ordinary civil or criminal cases elevated thereto by ordinary appeal
from inferior courts, in which cases the appellate court has all of the powers of the court of origin." 48 It is
clear the competence of this Court to pass upon the validity of the suspension of the privilege of the writ is
confined within limits that preclude the assumption of power that rightfully belongs to the Executive. There
would then be, to my mind, no sufficient justification to retreat from a position that assures judicial
participation on a matter of momentous consequence. Moreover, to the extent that such a move has had the
benefit of judicial appraisal, and thereafter approval, to that extent there may be less valid opposition and
hopefully greater understanding of why such a step had to be taken.

13. With Lansang overruled, the doctrine that the suspension of the privilege of the writ announced in
Barcelon v. Baker 49 and Montenegro v. Castañeda 50 will be revived. This for me is unfortunate. The
Montenegro decision, as I had occasion to state "owed its existence to the compulsion exerted by Barcelon
v. Baker, a 1905 decision. This Court was partly misled by an undue reliance in the latter case on what it
considered to be authoritative pronouncements from such illustrious American jurists as Marshall, Story, and
Taney. That is to misread what was said by them. This is most evident in the case of Chief Justice Marshall,
whose epochal Marbury v. Madison was cited. Why that was so is difficult to understand. For it speaks to the
contrary. It was by virtue of this decision that the function of judicial review owes its origin notwithstanding
the absence of any explicit provision in the American Constitution empowering the courts to do so. Thus: ‘It
is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the
rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each
other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if
both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case
conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the
law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence
of judicial duty. If, then, the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any
ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which
they both apply." 51 The opinion went on to say: "Nor is the excerpt from Justice Story, speaking for the
United States Supreme Court, in Martin v. Mott, as made clear in the opinion of the Chief Justice, an
authority directly in point. There, a militiaman had been convicted of failing to respond to a call, made under
the Act of 1795, to serve during the War of 1812. His property was taken to satisfy the judgment. He
brought an action of replevin. The American Constitution empowers its Congress ‘to provide for calling forth
the Militia’ in certain cases, and Congress did provide that in those cases the President should have authority
to make the call. All that Justice Story did in construing the statute in the light of the language and purpose
of her Constitution was to recognize the authority of the American President to decide whether the exigency
has arisen. In stating that such power was exclusive and thus had a conclusive effect, he relied on the
language employed, impressed with such a character. The constitutional provision on the suspension of the
privilege of the writ is, as shown, anything but that. Chief Justice Taney, in Luther v. Borden, likewise had to
deal with a situation involving the calling out of the militia. As a matter of fact, an eminent commentator
speaking of the two above decisions had this apt observation: ‘The common element in these opinions would
seem to be a genuine judicial reluctance to speak in a situation where the voice of the Court, even if heard,
could not have any effect. More than this, both Story and Taney seem to share the suspicion, unusual in
them, that under a popular form of government there are certain questions that the political branches must
be trusted to answer with finality.’ What was said next is even more pertinent. Thus: ‘It would be dangerous
and misleading to push the principles of these cases too far, especially the doctrine of "political questions" as
implied in Luther v. Borden. Given the opportunity to afford a grievously injured citizen relief from a
palpably unwarranted use of presidential or military power, especially when the question at issue falls in the
penumbra between the "political" and the "justiciable", the Court will act as if it had never heard of this
doctrine and its underlying assumption that there are some powers against which the judiciary simply
cannot be expected to act as the last time of defense.’ It would thus seem evident that support for the
hitherto prevailing Montenegro ruling was rather frail. Happily, with our decision, it is no longer capable of
the mischief to which it does lend itself of an undue diminution of judicial power to the prejudice of
constitutional rights." 52

14. An opinion of a court, especially this Tribunal, should not ignore the environmental facts which gave rise
to a litigation where the issues arise from problems inseparable from national security. There is, in addition,
the need to take into consideration the pressure of contemporary events. For as has so often been stressed,
judicial process does not take place in a social void. The questions before the Court are to be viewed with
full awareness of the consequences attendant to the decision reached. As so tersely expressed by Justice
Tuason in Araneta v. Dinglasan: 53 "We test a rule by its

results." 54 More often than not especially during times of stress, it is inescapable that efforts be made to
reconcile time-tested principles to contemporary problems. The judiciary is called upon to do its part. There
is wisdom in these words of Justice Tuason from the same opinion: "The truth is that under our concept of
constitutional government, in times of extreme perils more than in normal circumstances, ‘The various
branches, executive, legislative, and judicial,’ given the ability to act, are called upon ‘to perform the duties
and discharge the responsibilities committed to them

respectively.’" 55 To repeat, I accord the fullest respect to the mode and manner in which my brethren
performed their duty and discharged their responsibility in passing upon the transcendental question raised
in this petition. With the basic premise of robust concern for individual rights to which I have been
committed, however, I have no choice except to vote the way I did, even if for those whose opinions I value
conformity with the hitherto unquestioned verities may at times prove to be less than adequate to meet the
exigencies of the turbulent present.

TEEHANKEE, J., dissenting: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I am constrained to dissent from the all-encompassing scope of the main opinion of Mr. Justice de Castro
which would overturn the landmark doctrine of Lansang v. Garcia 1 which upheld the Supreme Court’s
authority to inquire into the existence of factual bases for the President’s suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus in order to determine the constitutional sufficiency thereof and would revert to the
retrogressive and colonial era ruling of Barcelon v. Baker 2 and Montenegro v. Castañeda 3 that the
President’s decision to so suspend the privilege of the writ "is final and conclusive upon the courts and all
other persons," and would further deny the right to bail even after the filing of charges in court to persons
detained under Presidential Commitment Orders.

This case, as in other like cases, focuses on the grievances that persons detained or charged for the crimes
of insurrection, rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, invariably bring to this
Court. They complain, as petitioners do here, of being arrested without any warrant of arrest; of being
informed of purported telegrams concerning the issuance of a Presidential Commitment Order (PCO)
authorizing their arrest and detention, but that they are not given a copy of such PCO nor notified of its
contents, raising doubts whether such PCO has in fact been issued; of being kept in isolation or transferred
to so-called "safehouses" and being denied of their constitutional right to counsel and to silence; of
prolonged detention without charges; "of a seeming 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
confessions and statements from the detainees in violation of their constitutional rights;" and of their
counsel and families undergoing great difficulties in locating or having access to them (main opinion at p. 3).

The State through the Solicitor General on the other hand invariably denies all such charges and submits
affidavits of the arresting officers and detention custodian that detainees are afforded decent and humane
treatment, further countering that such claims are merely calculated to arouse sympathy and as propaganda
against the Government and its institutions.

In many such cases, however, the Court in issuing the writ of habeas corpus requiring respondents to make
a return of the writ includes a resolution, in recognition of the detainees’ constitutional rights, "to allow
counsel for petitioners to visit and confer with the detainee(s) in an atmosphere of confidentiality consistent
with reasonable security measures which respondents may impose," 4 In other cases where respondents
military officials have allegedly denied having in their custody the person(s) detained, the Court has issued
its resolution "on the assumption that the detained person is in the custody of respondents, that there be
due observance and respect of his right to counsel and other constitutional rights by respondents." 5

Respondents’ return through the Solicitor General in the case at bar states that the detainees are all
detained by virtue of a Presidential Commitment Order issued on July 12, 1982 (several days after their
arrest without warrant on July 6 and 7, 1982) and that corresponding charges against the detainees were
filed in court and before the Acting Provincial Fiscal of Nueva Viscaya where they are pending. As to the
detainee Dr. Aurora Parong, the return further states that a warrant of arrest was issued against her on
August 4, 1982 by the Municipal Court of Bayombong for illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition. As
in all other returns in similar cases, the Solicitor General asserts "that the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus is unavailing as to them. Courts cannot inquire into the validity and cause of their arrest and
detention" by virtue of the continued suspension, under Presidential Proclamation No. 2045 (which
proclaimed the termination of martial law in the Philippines), of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in
the two autonomous regions in Mindanao and in all other places with respect to persons detained for
suspected involvement in crimes related to national security.

The main opinion confronts the question of whether the issuance of a Presidential Commitment Order (PCO)
has provided the legal basis of the detention of herein detainees following their arrest for Proclamation No.
2045-covered offenses," and remarks that "this question has to be set at rest promptly and decisively, if we
are to break a seemingly continuous flow of petitions for habeas corpus, as what had been seen lately of
such petitions being filed in this Court one after the other."cralaw virtua1aw library

I. I submit that the resolution of the issues in this case does not call for the all-encompassing ruling in the
main opinion with its sweeping scope that would reexamine and overturn the benchmark ruling in Lansang.
The limited suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the two instances provided under
Presidential Proclamation No. 2045 hag not been challenged in this case. So, what’s the point of an advance
declaration that all checks and barriers are down? Lansang recognizes the greatest deference and respect
that is due the President’s determination for the necessity of suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus. But Lansang sets at the same time the constitutional confines and limits of the President’s power to
suspend the privilege of the writ and enunciates the constitutional test, not of the correctness of the
President’s decision, but that the President’s decision to suspend the privilege not suffer from the
constitutional infirmity of arbitrariness. 6 Thus, after laying the premise "that every case must depend on its
own circumstances," the Court therein thru then Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion held that: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Indeed, the grant of power to suspend the privilege is neither absolute nor unqualified. The authority
conferred by the Constitution, both under the Bill of Rights and under the Executive Department, is limited
and conditional. The precept in the Bill of Rights establishes a general rule, as well as an exception thereto.
What is more, it postulates the former in the negative, evidently to stress its importance, by providing that
‘(t)he privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended . . .’ It is only by way of exception that it
permits the suspension of the privilege ‘in cases of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion’-or, under Art. VII of
the Constitution, ‘imminent danger thereof’ - ‘when the public safety requires it, in any of which events the
same may be suspended wherever during such period the necessity for such suspension shall exist.’ Far
from being full and plenary, the authority to suspend the privilege of the writ is thus circumscribed, confined
and restricted, not only by the prescribed setting or the conditions essential to its existence, but, also, as
regards the time when an the place where it may be exercised. These factors and the aforementioned
setting or conditions mark, establish and define the extent, the confines and the limits of said power,
beyond which it does not exist. And, like the limitations and restrictions imposed by the Fundamental Law
upon the legislative department, adherence thereto and compliance therewith may, within proper bounds,
be inquired into by courts of justice. Otherwise, the explicit constitutional provisions thereon would be
meaningless. Surely, the framers of our Constitution could not have intended to engage in such a wasteful
exercise in futility.

"Much less may the assumption be indulged in when we bear in mind that our political system is essentially
democratic and republican in character and that the suspension of the privilege affects the most
fundamental element of that system, namely, individual freedom. Indeed, such freedom includes and
connotes, as well as demands, the right of every single member of our citizenry to freely discuss and dissent
from, as well as criticize and denounce, the views, the policies and the practices of the government and the
party in power that he deems unwise, improper or inimical to the commonweal, regardless of whether his
own opinion is objectively correct or not. The untrammelled enjoyment and exercise of such right — which,
under certain conditions, may be a civic duty of the highest order — is vital to the democratic system and
essential to its successful operation and wholesome growth and development.

"Manifestly, however, the liberty guaranteed and protected by our Basic Law is one enjoyed and exercise,
not in derogation thereof, but consistently therewith, and, hence, within the framework of the social order
established by the Constitution and the context of the Rule of Law. Accordingly, when individual freedom is
used to destroy that social order, by means of force and violence, in defiance of the Rule of Law - such as by
rising publicly and taking arms against the government to overthrow the same, thereby committing the
crime of rebellion - there emerges a circumstance that may warrant a limited withdrawal of the
aforementioned guarantee or protection, by suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, when
public safety requires it. Although we must be forewarned against mistaking mere dissent - no matter how
emphatic or intemperate it may be — for dissidence amounting to rebellion or insurrection, the Court cannot
hesitate, much less refuse - when the existence of such rebellion or insurrection has been fairly established
or cannot reasonably be denied - to uphold the finding of the Executive thereon, without, in effect,
encroaching upon a power vested in him by the Supreme Law of the land and depriving him, to this extent,
of such power, and, therefore, without violating the Constitution and jeopardizing the very Rule of Law the
Court is called upon to epitomize." 7

II. The crucial issue at bar is that adversely decided by the main opinion, denying petitioners’ motion that
the Court order their release on bail, on the ground that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus for any of the offenses covered by Proclamation No. 2045 "includes, as a necessary consequence, the
withholding for the duration of the suspension of the privilege of the right to bail" (main opinion, at page
16).

1. I submit that notwithstanding the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the
issuance on March 9, 1982 of Letter of Instruction No. 1211 that the Presidential Commitment Order
constitutes authority to keep the subject person under detention "until ordered released by the President or
his duly authorized representative" (which is a mere internal instruction to certain agencies), the higher and
superior mandate of the Constitution guarantees the right to bail and vests the courts with the jurisdiction
and judicial power to grant bail which may not be removed nor diminished nor abdicated. We cannot but so
hold, if we are to be true to the fundamental precept that "The Constitution is a law for rulers and for people
equally in war and in peace and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men at all times and
under all circumstances." cralaw virtua1aw library

The argument that otherwise the purpose of the suspension of the privilege would be defeated ignores the
overwhelming capability of the State and its military and police forces to keep suspects under surveillance
and the courts’ imposition of reasonable conditions in grating bail, such as periodic reports to the authorities
concerned, and prohibiting their going to certain critical areas.
chanrobles.com : virtual law library

2. The most authoritative pronouncement in this regard is of course none other than the President’s himself.
In all the metropolitan newspapers of April 20, 1983, the President is reported to have "said that Pimentel
has been charged with rebellion before the regional trial court of Cebu City and is therefore under the
jurisdiction of the civil court and not only under the jurisdiction of the military by virtue of the PCO." In a
telegram in reply to the appeal of Msgr. Patrick Cronin, Archbishop of Cagayan de Oro and Misamis Oriental,
for lifting of the PCO on Mayor Aquilino Pimentel of Cagayan de Oro City, the President said that" (T)he
disposal of the body of the accused, as any lawyer will inform you, is now within the powers of the regional
trial court of Cebu City and not within the powers of the President." cralaw virtua1aw library

3. This is but in consonance with the majority holding in the leading 1951 cases of Nava v. Gatmaitan and
Hernandez v. Montesa 8 (although it failed one vote short of the required majority of six affirmative votes at
the time) as expounded by then Chief Justice Ricardo Paras and Associate Justice (later Chief Justice) Cesar
Bengzon and Associate Justices Pedro Tuason, Alex Reyes and Fernando Jugo that after formal indictment in
court by the filing against them of an information charging rebellion with multiple murder,
etc., Accused persons covered by the proclamation of suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus are entitled to the right to bail.

4. As stressed by then Chief Justice Ricardo Paras," (T)he right to bail, along with the right of an accused to
be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to
have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witnesses in his behalf (Article III, Section 1, Paragraph 17, of the Constitution),
tends to aid the accused to prove his innocence and obtain acquittal. If it be contended that the suspension
of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus includes the suspension of the distinct right to bail or to be
provisionally at liberty, it would a fortiori imply the suspension of all his other rights (even the right to be
tried by a court) that may win for him ultimate acquittal and, hence, absolute freedom. The latter result is
not insisted upon for being patently untenable." cralaw virtua1aw library

Then Chief Justice Paras stressed that." . . The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the right to bail
guaranteed under the Bill of Rights are separate and co-equal. If the intention of the framers of the
Constitution was that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus carries or implies the
suspension of the right to bail, they would have very easily provided that all persons shall before conviction
be bailable by sufficient sureties, except those charged with capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong
and except when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. As stated in the case of Ex Parte
Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 18 L. ed. 297, the Constitution limited the suspension to only one great right, leaving the
rest to remain forever inviolable."cralaw virtua1aw library

5. It is noteworthy and supportive of the prevailing stand since 1951 that the other great constitutional
rights remain forever inviolable since the Constitution limited the suspension to only one great right (of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus), that there has been no amendment of the Constitution to curtail the
right to bail in case of such suspension notwithstanding the numerous constitutional amendments adopted
after the 1973 Constitution.

6. The late Justice Pedro Tuason emphasized that" (T)o the plea that the security of the State would be
jeopardized by the release of the defendants on bail, the answer is that the existence of danger is never a
justification for courts to tamper with the fundamental rights expressly granted by the Constitution. These
rights are immutable, inflexible, yielding to no pressure of convenience, expediency or the so-called ‘judicial
statesmanship.’ The Legislature itself cannot infringe them, and no court conscious of its responsibilities and
limitations would do so. If the Bill of Rights are incompatible with stable government and a menace to the
Nation, let the Constitution be amended, or abolished. It is trite to say that, while the Constitution stands,
the courts of justice as the repository of civil liberty are bound to protect and maintain undiluted individual
rights."
cralaw virtua1aw library

7. And-former Chief Justice Cesar Bengzon then made the same forceful plea echoed these days by men of
goodwill that respect for constitutional and human rights and adherence to the rule of law would help in the
fight against rebellion and movement for national reconciliation, thus: "And in my opinion, one of the surest
means to ease the uprising is a sincere demonstration of this Government’s adherence to the principles of
the Constitution together with an impartial application thereof to all citizens, whether dissidents or not. Let
the rebels have no reason to apprehend that their comrades now under custody are being railroaded into
Muntinglupa, without benefit of those fundamental privileges which the experience of the ages has deemed
essential for the protection of all persons accused of crime before the tribunal of justice. Give them the
assurance that the judiciary, ever mindful of its sacred mission, win not, thru faulty or misplaced devotion,
uphold any doubtful claims of governmental power in diminution of individual rights, but will always cling to
the principles uttered long ago by Chief Justice Marshall that when in doubt as to the construction of the
Constitution, ‘The Courts will favor personal liberty.’"

8. The right to bail cannot just be cancelled out summarily because of the issuance of a PCO. In the case at
bar, detainee Dr. Aurora Parong is charged in the municipal court with the crime of illegal possession of
firearm, which is a clearly bailable offense. The charges filed against the other detainees are likewise for
clearly bailable offenses. It is elementary that the right to bail in non-capital offenses and even in capital
offenses where evidence of guilt is not strong will be generally granted and respected by the courts, "the
natural tendency of the courts (being) towards a fair and liberal appreciation," particularly taking into
consideration the record and standing of the person charged and the unlikelihood of his fleeing the court’s
jurisdiction.

As the Court held in the leading case of Montano v. Ocampo, 9 wherein the Supreme Court granted bail to
Senator Montano who was charged with multiple murders and frustrated murders: chanrobles.com : virtual law library

"Brushing aside the charge that the preliminary investigation of this case by the aforesaid Judge was
railroaded, the same having been conducted at midnight, a few hours after the complaint was filed, we are
of the opinion that, upon the evidence adduced in the application for bail in the lower court, as such
evidence is recited lengthily in the present petition and the answer thereto, and extensively analyzed and
discussed in the oral argument, there is not such clear showing of guilt as would preclude all reasonable
probability of any other conclusion.

"Exclusion from bail in capital offenses being an exception to the otherwise absolute right guaranteed by the
constitution, the natural tendency of the courts has been toward a fair and liberal appreciation, rather than
otherwise, of the evidence in the determination of the degree of proof and presumption of guilt necessary to
warrant a deprivation of that right.

"Besides, to deny bail it is not enough that the evidence of guilt is strong; it must also appear that in case of
conviction the defendant’s criminal liability would probably call for a capital punishment. No clear or
conclusive showing before this Court has been made.

"In the evaluation of the evidence the probability of flight is one other important factor to be taken into
account. The sole purpose of confining accused in jail before conviction, it has been observed, is to assure
his presence at the trial. In other words, if denial of bail is authorized in capital cases, it is only on the
theory that the proof being strong, the defendant would flee, if he has the opportunity, rather than face the
verdict of the jury. Hence the exception to the fundamental right to be bailed should be applied in direct
ratio to the extent of the probability of evasion of prosecution.

"The possibility of escape in this case, bearing in mind the defendant’s official and social standing and his
other personal circumstances, seems remote if not nil." cralaw virtua1aw library

In the recent case of Sobremonte v. Enrile, 10 the detainee was released upon her filing of the
recommended P1,000.00 bail bond for the offense of possession of subversive literature with which she was
charged and the habeas corpus petition, like many others, although dismissed for having thereby become
moot, accomplished the purpose of securing the accused’s release from prolonged detention. The Court had
occasion to decry therein that "all the effort, energy and manhours expended by the parties and their
counsel, including this Court, . . . could have been avoided had the officers of the AVSECOM and the ISAFP
responded promptly to the inquiries of petitioner instead of giving her the ‘run-around’ by referring her from
one office to another."cralaw virtua1aw library

9. "The continuous flow of petitions for habeas corpus" filed with this Court should not be decried nor
discouraged. The Court stands as the guarantor of the constitutional and human rights of all persons within
its jurisdiction and must see to it that the rights are respected and enforced. It is settled in his jurisdiction
that once a deprivation of a constitutional right is shown to exist, the court that rendered the judgment or
before whom the case is pending is ousted of jurisdiction and habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy to
assail the legality of the detention. 11 So accused persons deprived of the constitutional right of speedy trial
have been set free. 12 And likewise persons detained indefinitely without charges so much so that the
detention becomes punitive and not merely preventive in character are entitled to regain their freedom. The
spirit and letter of our Constitution negates as contrary to the basic precepts of human rights and freedom
that a person he detained indefinitely without any charges.

III. The main opinion invokes "a time of war or grave peril to the nation" (at page 16), oblivious of the
President’s lifting of martial law under Proclamation No. 2045 on January 17, 1981 and the specific premises
therein set forth that.

"WHEREAS, the Filipino people, having subdued threats to the stability of government, public order and
security, are aware that the time has come to consolidate the gains attained by the nation under a state of
martial law by assuming their normal political roles and shaping the national destiny within the framework of
civil government and popular democracy: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREAS, the experience gained by the nation under martial law in subduing threats to the stability of the
government, public order and security, has enabled the Filipino people to rediscover their confidence in their
ability to command the resources of national unity, patriotism, discipline and sense of common destiny;

"WHEREAS, the government and the people are at the same time also aware that the public safety continues
to require a degree of capability to deal adequately with elements who persist in endeavoring to overthrow
the government by violent means and exploiting every opportunity to disrupt the peaceful and productive
labors of the government; . . ." cralaw virtua1aw library

As to the "self-evident" submittal of the main opinion that "the duty of the judiciary to protect individual
rights must yield to the power of the Executive to protect the State, for if the State perishes, the
Constitution, with the Bill of Rights that guarantees the right to personal liberty, perishes with it" (at page
16), I can only recall the exhortation of the Holy Father John Paul II in his address to the Philippine nation
on February 17, 1981, thus: "Even in exceptional situations that may at times arise, one can never justify
any violation of the fundamental dignity of the human person or of the basic rights that safeguard this
dignity. Legitimate concern for the security of a nation, as demanded by the common good, could lead to
the temptation of subjugating to the State the human being and his or her dignity and rights. Any apparent
conflict between the exigencies of security and of the citizens’ basic rights must be resolved according to the
fundamental principle — upheld always by the Church — that social organization exists only for the service
of man and for the protection of his dignity, and that it cannot claim to serve the common good when
human rights are not safeguard People will have faith in the safeguarding of their security and the
promotion of their well-being only to the extent that they feel truly involved, and supported in their very
humanity." cralaw virtua1aw library

Endnotes:

1. 212 U.S. 416, 417.

2. 59 SCRA 183 (1974).

3. Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78, citing Keely v. Sanders, 99 U.S. 441, 446, 25 L. Ed. 327, 328.

4. Lansang v. Garcia, 42 SCRA 488.

5. Section 9, Article VII, Constitution.

6. Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. VIII, p. 236, 1950 Ed.

7. Political Law of the Philippines by Senator Lorenzo Tañada and Atty. Francisco Carreon, Vol. II, p. 236.

8. 109 SCRA 273.

9. Lansang v. Garcia, supra.

10. Section 6, 1976 Amendment to the Constitution.

11. Nava v. Gatmaitan, 90 Phil. 172.

** The ruling was non-doctrinal for lack of the necessary votes.

12. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wallace 2 (1866).

13. Section 15, Article VIII, 1973 Constitution.

14. As explained in Tañada, Et. Al. v. Cuenco, Et. Al. (103 Phil. 1051), term "political question" connotes, in
legal parlance, what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy. It refers to those questions,
which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to
which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Legislature or Executive branch of the
Government (16 C.J.S. 413).

15. Ex parte Merryman, Federal Case No. 9487 (1861).

FERNANDO, C.J., concurring: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Decision, 17.

2. L-33964, December 11, 1971, 42 SCRA 448.

3. 5 Phil. 87 (1905).
4. 91 Phil. 882 (1952).

5. L-32613, December 27, 1972. 48 SCRA 382.

6. L-35546, September 17, 1974, 59 SCRA 183.

7. L-37364, May 9, 1975, 63 SCRA 546.

8. 1 Cranch 137 (1803).

9. 63 Phil. 139 (1936).

10. Cf. In addition to Angara, there is likewise the case of Tañada v. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051 (1957).

11. Black, The People and the Court, 8 (1960).

12. Ibid, 8-9.

13. L-35546, September 11, 1974, 59 SCRA 183.

14. Ibid, 286.

15. L-30026, January 30, 1971, 37 SCRA 420.

16. Ibid, 423.

17. Ibid, 423-424. The quotation from Chafee is found in The Most Important Human Right in the
Constitution, 32 Boston Univ. Law Rev. 143 (1947); from Cooley in 2 Constitutional Limitations 709 (1927);
from Willoughby in 3 on the Constitution 1612 (1929); from Burdick in the Law of the American Constitution
27 (1922); from Fraenkel in Our Civil Liberties 6 (1944).

18. 372 US 391 (1963).

19. Ibid, 399-400.

20. Cf. Lansang v. Garcia, L-33964, December 11, 1971, 42 SCRA 448: Barcelon v. Baker, 5 Phil. 87
(1905): Montenegro v. Castañeda, 91 Phil. 882 (1952).

21. Proclamation No. 2045 (1981).

22. Ibid.

23. Article VII, Sec. 9 of the Constitution.

24. 42 SCRA 448, 488.

25. 212 US 78.

26. Ibid, 83.

27. Ibid, 84-85.

28. Ibid, 86.

29. According to Article IV, Sec. 18 of the Constitution: "All persons, except those charged with capital
offenses when evidence of guilt is strong, shall before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties. Excessive
bail shall not be required."cralaw virtua1aw library

30. 90 Phil. 172 (1951). It is reported along with Nava v. Gatmaitan and Angeles v. Abaya in a single
resolution.
31. 42 SCRA 448.

32. L-47185, January 16, 1981, 102 SCRA 7.

32. Suffian, (1976), An Introduction to the Constitution of Malaysia, 226.

33. Cf. Malaysia Soo Kua v. Public Prosecutor [1970] 1. Malaysian Law Journal 91; Karam Singh v. The
Minister of Internal Affairs [1969] 2. Malaysian Law Journal 129; Phong Chin Hock v. Public Prosecutor
(1977) 1 Malaysian Law Journal 70. The above provision is likewise applicable to Singapore. This decision
from that jurisdiction may be cited: Lim Hock Siew v. Minister of Interior and Defense [1918] 2 Malaysian
Law Journal 219. There is likewise relevance to these articles: Hickling, The Prerogative in Malaysia 17
Malaya Law Review 207 (1975) and Jayakumar, Emergency Powers in Malaysia 18 Malaya Law Review 149
(1976).

35. Jain, Judicial Creativity and Preventive Detention in India, 262.

36. Ibid.

37. Ibid. Liversidge is reported in [1942] A.C. 206.

38. Ibid, 263.

39. Ibid, 263-264.

40. Ibid, 263.

41. Ibid, 303-304.

42. Ibid, 304.

43. I had a separate opinion, dissenting in part, but I concurred in the holding that the question is judicial
rather than political.

44. 42 SCRA 448, 473-474.

45. Ibid, 474-475.

46. Ibid, 475.

47. Ibid, 479-480.

48. Ibid, 480.

49. 5 Phil. 87.

50. 91 Phil. 882 (1952).

51. 42 SCRA 448, 505-506.

52. Ibid, 506-507.

53. 84 Phil. 368 (1949).

54. Ibid, 376.

55. Ibid, 383.

TEEHANKEE, J., dissenting: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. 42 SCRA 448 (1971).

2. 5 Phil. 87 (1905).
3. 91 Phil. 882 (1952).

4. Resolution of July 30, 1982 in G.R. No. 61016 In re: Petition for Habeas Corpus of Horacio R. Morales, Jr.

5. Resolution of April 4, 1983 in G.R. No. 63581 In re: Petition for Habeas Corpus of Carl Gaspar.

6. 42 SCRA at page 481.

7. Idem, at pages 473-475; emphasis copied.

8. Jointly decided with Angeles v. Abaya and reported in 90 Phil. 172 (1951).

9. G.R. L-6352, Resolution of Jan. 29, 1953, 49 O.G. 1855; Emphasis supplied. See Villaseñor v. Abancio, 21
SCRA 321.

10. G.R. No. 60602, Sept. 30, 1982, per Escolin, J.

11. Gumabon v. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420, 427.

12. Conde v. Diaz, 45 Phil. 173.