Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SYLLABUS
DECISION
DE CASTRO, J : p
Petition for a writ of habeas corpus and mandamus seeking the following relief:
"4. To grant petitioners such other and further relief as may be deemed
just and equitable in the premises."
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 vs.
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:
"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 . . .."
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.
Accordingly, the petition was duly heard on August 26, 1982. After hearing, the
Court issued the following resolution, to wit:
"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 vs. 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."
". . . 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."
Impeccable as it is, the opinion could not but find a resonant echo as it did in the
recent case of Buscayno vs. 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:
"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:
(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."
Petitioners appear to place entire reliance on paragraphs 1 and 2 of LOI No. 1211,
ignoring paragraph 3 of LOI No. 1211, which provides:
(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."
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 vs. 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 vs. Baker , 5 Phil. 87, a 1905 decision, and
Montenegro vs. 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 vs.
Baker and Montenegro vs. Castañeda. LibLex
Separate Opinions
FERNANDO, C.J., concurring:
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. Lex Lib
"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 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.
"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.
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."
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. prc d
"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.
In the recent case of Sobremonte vs. 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."
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:
"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; . . ."
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."
Footnotes
3. Moyer vs. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78, citing Keely vs. Sanders, 99 U.S. 441, 446, 25 L. Ed.
327, 328.
7. Political Law of the Philippines by Senator Lorenzo Tañada and Atty. Francisco
Carreon, Vol. II, p. 236.
8. 109 SCRA 273.
14. As explained in Tañada, et al. vs. 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).
1. Decision, 17.
3. 5 Phil. 87 (1905).
10. Cf. In addition to Angara, there is likewise the case of Tañada v. Cuenco, 103 Phil.
1051 (1957).
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).
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).
22. Ibid.
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."
30. 90 Phil. 172 (1951). It is reported along with Nava v. Gatmaitan and Angeles v. Abaya
in a single resolution.
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).
43. I had a separate opinion, dissenting in part, but I concurred in the holding that the
question is judicial rather than political.
2. 5 Phil. 87 (1905).
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.
8. Jointly decided with Angeles vs. 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 vs. Abancio, 21 SCRA 321.