B/GEN. JOSE COMENDADOR, B/GEN, MARIELO BLANDO, CAPT. DANILO January 17,1981, President Marcos issued Proc. No.

7,1981, President Marcos issued Proc. No. 2045 proclaiming the

PIZARRO, CAPT. MANUEL ISON, COL. LUISITO SANCHEZ, LTC. ROMELINO termination of the state of martial law throughout the Philippines. With the termination
GOJO, LTC. ARSENIO TECSON, LTC. RAFAEL GALVEZ, LTC. TIBURCIO of martial law and the dissolution of the military tribunals created there under, the
FUSILLERO, LTC. ERICSON AURELIO, LTC. JACINTO LIGOT LTC. FRANKLIN reason for the existence of P.D. No. 39 ceased automatically.
BRAWNER, MAJ. ALFREDO OLIVEROS, MAJ. CESAR DE LA PERA, MAJ. It is a basic canon of statutory construction that when the reason of the law
LEUVINO VALENCIA, CAPT. FLORENCIO FLORES, CAPT. JAIME JUNIO, CAPT. ceases, the law itself ceases. Cessante rationelegis, cessat ipsa lex. Applying these
DANILO LIM, CAPT. ELMER AMON, CAPT. VERGEL NACINO, and LT. JOEY rules, we hold that the withdrawal of the right to peremptory challenge in P.D. No. 39
SARROZA, petitioners, vs. GEN. RENATO S. DE VILLA, CHIEF OF STAFF, AFP, became ineffective when the apparatus of martial law was dismantled with the
THE PTI INVESTIGATING PANEL COMPOSED OF: COL. MANUEL S. MENDIOLA, issuance of Proclamation No.2045, As a result, the old rule embodied in Article 18 of
COL. VIRTUD NORBERTO L. DAGZA MAJ. FELIX V. BALDONADO and MAJ. Com. Act No. 408 was automatically revived and now again allows the right to
ESTELITO L. PORNEA and GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL NO. 14 COMPOSED peremptory challenge.
OF: B/GEN. DEMETRIO CAMUA COL. HERMINIO A. MENDOZA, COL. ERNESTO
B. YU, COL. ROMEO ODI, COL. WILLY FLORENDO, COL. DIONY A. VENTURA NOTE:
and CAPT. FRANCISCO T. MALLILLIN, respondents. Article 18 of the Articles of War entitle "each side" to one peremptory
G.R. No. 93177 August 2, 1991 challenge, with sole provisio that "the law member of court shall not be challenged
except for cause."
Facts: A Peremptory Challenge is afforded to an accused who, whether rightly or
The petitioners are officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines facing wrongly, honestly feels that the member of the court peremptorily challenged by him
prosecution for their alleged participation in the failed coup d' etat that took place on cannot sit in judgment over him, impartially. Every accused is entitled to fair trial. It
1989. The charges against them are violations of Articles of War (AW) 67 (Mutiny), allows the accused to reject a member of the court.
AW 96 (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman) and AW 94 (Various
Crimes) in relation to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (Murder).
A Pretrial investigation was constituted before being referred to the General
Court Martial (GCM). The petitioners were, given several, opportunities to present
their side in the pretrial investigation, however, PTI panel resolved to recommend that
the charges be referred to the GCM, due to failure of the petitioners to submit their
counter affidavits.
In the GCM No. 14 on May 15, 1990 hearing, Petitioners manifested that
they were exercising their rights to raise peremptory challenges against the President
and members of the General Court Martial No. 14. They invoked Article 18 of Com.
Act No. 408 for this purpose. GCM No. 14 ruled, however, that peremptory challenges
had been discontinued under P.D. No. 39.
Petitioners seek certiorari against its ruling denying them the right to
peremptory right/challenge as granted by Article 18 of the Articles of War.

Issue:
Whether or Not the right to peremptory challenge provided by Article 18 of Com. Act
No. 408 (Articles of War) has been discontinued under P.D. No. 39.

Ruling:
NO.
Petitioners have the right to peremptory challenge. The right to peremptory
challenge was originally provided under Article 18 of Com. Act No. 408 (Articles of
War).
November 7,1972, when President Marcos promulgated P.D. No. 39
(Governing the Creation, Composition, Jurisdiction, Procedure, and other matters
relevant to military Tribunals). This decree disallowed the peremptory challenge.