Aquino vs.

Enrile
Very Quickly:
- Enrile (then Minister of National Defense), pursuant to the order of Marcos issued and ordered the
arrest of a number of individuals including Benigno Aquino Jr even without any charge against them.
- Aquino and some others filed for habeas corpus against Juan Ponce Enrile. Enriles answer contained a
common and special affirmative defense that the arrest is valid pursuant to Marcos declaration of
Martial Law.
ISSUE: Whether or not Aquinos detention is legal in accordance to the declaration of Martial Law.
HELD: The Constitution provides that in case of invasion, insurrection or rebellion, or imminent danger
against the state, when public safety requires it, the President may suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part therein under Martial Law.
In the case at bar, the state of rebellion plaguing the country has not yet disappeared, therefore, there is
a clear and imminent danger against the state. The arrest is then a valid exercise pursuant to the
Presidents order.

Important Background stuff

1935 Constitution
Article VII Section 10, Paragraph (2)
"the President shall be commander-in-chief ...he may call out such armed
forces to prevent or suppress ... In case of invasion, insurrection, or
rebellion, or imminent danger thereof... he may suspend the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus, or place the Philippines or any part thereof under
martial law."
article III (Bill of Rights)
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in
cases of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, 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."

Proclamation No. 1081 (Sept. 22, 1972)-> placed the entire country under Martial Law
Proclamation No. 1104-> Plebiscite vote in favor of Martial Law continuing
General Order no. 2-> Ordered the arrest of Aquino
General Order no.3-A->"the Judiciary shall continue to function in accordance with its
present organization...except the following:
1. Those involving the validity, legality or constitutionality of Proclamation 1081 dated
September 21, 1972 or of any decree, order or acts issued, promulgated or performed by
(the President) or by (his) duly designated representative pursuant thereto,"
2. the questions involved in these cases are political and non-justiciable and, therefore,
outside the domain of judicial inquiry.

1973 Constitution Section 3 (2) of Article XVII

All proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions, and acts promulgated, issued,

or done by the incumbent President shall be part of the law of the land, and
shall remain valid, legal, binding, and effective even after lifting of martial law
or the ratification of this Constitution, unless modified, revoked, or superseded
by subsequent proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions, or other acts of the
ncumbent President, or unless expressly and explicitly modified or repealed by
the regular National Assembly.

Issues:
1. The validity of Proclamation No. 1081. (This is the more important one)
2. Assuming its original validity, may We inquire into the validity of its continuation?
3. Has the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus also been suspended upon the
proclamation of martial law?

Issue 1: Whether the court can inquire into validity of Proc. 1081
(political or judiciable character of issue)
What is a political question?
From Taada vs. Cuenco:

"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."
issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure
the Court makes a determination that the Constitution has vested the
making of a final decision in a body other than the Court. They have
jurisdiction over the case but not over the specific issue.
Enrile- Constitution plainly gave circumstance where Martial Law may be declared.
Aquino- President has exceeded his powers, supreme court therefore must protect
individual liberty

Ruling: It is a political question

1. 1935 constitution very clear that power to determine whether there is necessity to
declare Martial Law vested in President
2. 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."
For this reason this Court announced that the test was not whether the President
acted correctly but whether he acted arbitrarily.
Proclamation No. 1081 specifies in twenty-six (26) printed pages the various
findings which led to its promulgation. The conspiracy to overthrow the
government, the rapidly expanding ranks...
Lansang, vs. Garcia: Court stated that it interferes with an administrative
finding only if there is no evidence whatsoever in support thereof and said
finding is actually arbitrary, capricious, and obviously unauthorized.

Issue 2: Assuming its original validity, may we inquire into the validity of its continuation?

Referendum of July 27-28, 1973, The question propounded to the voters was:
"Under the (1973) Constitution, the President, if he so desires,
can continue in office beyond 1973. Do you want President
Marcos to continue beyond 1973 and finish the reforms he
initiated under Martial Law?"

The overwhelming majority of those who cast their ballots, voted affirmatively on
the proposal. The question was thereby removed from the area of presidential
power under the Constitution and transferred to the seat of sovereignty itself.
Whatever may be the nature of the exercise of that power by the President in the
beginning whether or not purely political and therefore non-justiciable this Court is
precluded from applying its judicial yardstick to the act of the sovereign.
Continuation is a political question too

So....Can a president drunk with power just declare Martial Law and Supreme court can
stop it?
No, if it is publicly and generally known that there is no rebellion of the nature and
extent contemplated in the Constitution, no amount of evidence offered by the
Executive can judicially create such a rebellion.
Issue 3: Has the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus also been suspended upon the
proclamation of martial law?
- Distinction between the power of the President to suspend the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus, and his power to proclaim martial law. Bill of Rights prohibits
suspension of the privilege except in the instances specified therein, no such prohibition
or qualification with respect to the declaration of martial law.
BUT- implicit in a state of martial law is the suspension of the said privilege with respect
to persons arrested or detained for acts related to the basic objective of the
proclamation, which is to suppress invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, or to safeguard
public safety against imminent danger thereof. the Court is almost unanimous.