University of the Philippines College of Law

Subject | Professor
Case Digest
TOPIC: Proclamation of Martial Law
DOCTRINE: suspension of the writ was a political question to be resolved solely by the
president
CASE Number (including date): G.R. No. L-61388 | 1983-04-20
CASE Name: 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, vs. MINISTER JUAN PONCE ENRILE, GEN.
FABIAN C. VER, GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, and LT. COL. MIGUEL CORONEL,
respondents.
Ponente: DE CASTRO, J.:
FACTS
nine (9) of the fourteen (14) detainees herein were arrested when three (3)
teams of the PC/INP of conducted a raid at the residence of Dra. Aurora Parong who
were having a conference. 4 other detainess were arested the next day
the (14) detainees were all detained at the PC/INP Command Headquarters,
Bayombong, Nueva Viscaya until their transfer to an undisclosed places.
petition for the writ of habeas corpus and mandamus filed by Josefina GarciaPadilla, mother of detained petitioner Sabino G. Padilla, Jr.
The mandamus aspect of the instant petition has, however, become moot and
academic, the whereabouts of petitioners having already become known to petitioner
Josefina Garcia-Padilla.
Petitioner: 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
o 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
o no criminal charges have as of yet been filed against any of the
detainees; 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.
o 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
ISSUES

1. Whether or not petitioners' detention is legal

2. Whether or not 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
HELD (including the Ratio Decidendi)

(1) Yes:
o Prior thereto to the arrest, the detainees were 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.
o 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).
o 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, and sizeable
quantity of printing paraphernalia, which were then seized.
o 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), Rules 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.
o 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 rebyellion, 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
goarrest and detention of persons ordered by the President through
the issuance of Presidential Commitment Order (PCO) is merely
preventivevernment forces, or any other milder acts but equally in
pursuance of the rebellious movement.
o
(2) No answer. Political Question
o reverting to the ruling of Montenegro vs. Castaeda 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."
o 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 Castaeda 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.
From uber:
The questioned power of the president to suspend the privilege of the WoHC was
once again held as discretionary in the president. The SC again reiterated that the
suspension of the writ was a politicoal question to be resolved solely by the
president. It was also noted that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus must, indeed, carry with oj0ii0oj9oi the suspension of the right to bail, if
the governments campaign to u8l3el3
the rebelliono ios to be enhanced and
rendered oeffective. 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, rejoinooi90op90oooo090ioooo their
comrades in the field thereby jeopardizing the success of government efforts to bring
to an end the invasion, rebellion or insurrection.
RULING:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition should be, as it is hereby dismissed.
Note from uber:
This ruling was abrogated by Sec 18, Art 7 of the 1987 Constitution which expressly
constitutionalized the Lansang Doctrine. Note as well that under Art 3 (Sec 13) of the
Constitution it is stated that the right to bail shall not be impaired even if the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
FACTS
motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioner Garcia Padilla.
The stress is on the continuing validity of Garcia v. Lansang as well
as the existence of the right to bail even with the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
The motion asserted further that the suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus does not vest the President with the power to
issue warrants of arrest or presidential commitment orders, and that even
it be assumed that he has such a power, the Supreme Court may review its
issuance when challenged.
It was finally alleged that since petitioners were not caught in
flagrante delicto, their arrest was illegal and void.
ISSUES

1. whether or not the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
vests the President with the power to issue warrants of arrest or presidential
commitment orders
(1)

HELD (including the Ratio Decidendi)

PCO has been replaced by Preventive Detention Action (PDA),

pursuant to PD No. 1877.
a PDA constitute an authority to arrest and
preventively detain persons committing the aforementioned crimes, for
a period not exceeding one (1) year, with the cause or causes of their
arrest subjected to review by the President or by the Review
Committee created for that purpose."
the crimes of subversion and rebellion are continuing offenses.
Presidential Decree No. 1877 limits the duration of the
preventive detention action for the period not exceeding one year
The persons who were detained by virtue of Presidential
Commitment Order (PCO) issued on July 12, 1982, and in whose behalf the
above-captioned cases was filed have been released detention by the military
authorities concerned
There is no question, therefore, that the force and effectivity of
a presidential commitment order issued as far back as July 12, 1982 had
ceased to have any force or effect.
RULING:
WHEREFORE, pursuant to Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 1877 and Section 8 of the
Rules and Regulations Implementing Presidential Decree No. 1877-A, the motion for
reconsideration should have been granted, and the writ of habeas corpus ordering the
release of the detainees covered by such Section 8 issued, but in the light of the foregoing
manifestation as to Norberto Portuguese, Sabino Padilla, Francis Divinagracia, Imelda de los
Santos, Benjamin Pineda, Zenaida Mallari, Mariano Soriano, Tito Tanguilig, Letty Ballogan,
Bienvenido Garcia, Eufronio Ortiz, Jr., Juanito Granada, and Tom Vasquez, having been
released, the petition as to them has been declared moot and academic. As to Dr. Aurora
Parong, since a warrant of arrest against her was issued by the municipal court of
Bayombong on August 4, 1982, for illegal possession of firearm and ammunitions, the
petition is likewise declared moot and academic.