CHRISTIAN RALPH S.

SEVILLA

AB POLSCI 1A

AQUINO VS. ENRILE

FACTS:

 There are 9 petioners

 All the petioner’s habeas corpus was rejected because they acted against the government under
martial law

 There were nine separate Petitions filed, to wit, in chronological order: G.R. Nos. L-35538,
35539, 35540, 35546, 35547, 35556, 35567, 35571, and 35573, the last having been docketed
on October 3, 1972. Of the nine petitions, only six are now being decided because L-35547,
Voltaire Garcia II, petitioner, became moot upon the death of the petitioner on March 2, 1973,
while on conditional release; Tan Chin Hian and Veronica L. Yuyitung petitioners, was withdrawn
with the approval of the Court on the ground that petitioners had been released from custody;
and L-35571, Bren Guiao, petitioner, was likewise withdrawn with the approval of the Court.
Although there were originally 32 petitioners only 18 remain and they are as enumerated in the
caption of these six cases under consideration. Of these 18 petitioners, three were members of
the Philippine Senate at the time of their arrest, namely: Jose W. Diokno, Benigno S. Aquino, Jr.,
and Ramon V. Mitra, Jr.; two were delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1971, namely:
Jose Mari Velez and Napoleon G. Rama while the rest are well-known journalists and men of the
mass media.

 Habeas corpus will automatically suspended if someone commited a crime such as rebellion
which is a major offense during Martial law.

ISSUE:

 Martial law holds all the citizens not to be against the government or they will arrested with the
case of rebellion which is a major offense.
 DECISION:

 The issuance of General Order No. 2 therefore was a valid initial step taken by the President to
render effective the suppression of armed resistance to our duly constituted government.

Thus, I vote for the dismissal of the petitions for of those who have been conditionally released,
because: The arrest of said petitioners was effected by respondents under a valid Order of the
President. The petitioners concerned have been ordered released from detention. The prime
object of a writ of is to relieve a person from physical restraint and this has been accomplished
on respondent Secretary's initiative, While it is true that the release of petitioners is subject to
certain conditions such as restrictions on petitioners' freedom of movement, such restrictions
are reasonable precautionary measures in the face of public danger, and I do not see any
arbitrariness in the imposition of said restrictions.