Powers of the President

Lansang v Garcia, G.R. No. L-33964, G.R. No. L-33965, G.R. No. L-33973,
December 11, 1971
Feria vs CA, GR No. 122954, February 15, 2000; 525 SCRA 525
Manalo v Calderon, G.R. No. 178920, October 15, 2007
Military power enables the President to:
1. Command all the armed forces of the
Philippines
2. Suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus
3. Declare martial law
 The Writ of Habeas Corpus
 Is a writ directed to the person detaining another,
commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at
a designated time and place, with the day and cause of
his caption and detention, to do, to submit to, and
receive whatever the court or judge awarding the writ
shall consider in his behalf.
 It is a high prerogative common law writ of ancient
origin the great objective of which is the liberation of
those who may be in prison without sufficient cause.
When it is available?
 The liberty of an individual may be restored by
habeas corpus where he is subjected to physical
restraint, such as arbitrary detention.
 Even moral restraint is a ground for the issuance
of this writ
It should be noted that it is not the writ itself
but only its privilege that may be suspended

 When an application for habeas corpus is filed and the court finds the
petition in proper form, It will issue the writ as a matter of course,
ordering the production of the person allegedly detained and requiring
the respondent to justify the detention. Only where the return of the
respondent shows that the person in custody is being held for a crime
covered by the proclamation suspending the writ of habeas corpus and
in a place where it is effective will the court dismiss the petition. In all
other cases, it will continue the proceedings to determine the validity of
the person’s detention.
 Suspension of the privilege itself is the exception and not the rule.
The rule being the affirmation and not the limitation of liberty.
 “the
ARTICLE III (3), Section 15 provides that

privilege of the writ of habeas

corpus shall not be suspended
except in cases of invasion or
rebellion, when the public safety
requires it.”
Grounds for suspension:
 The President is entrusted the power to suspend
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
However, this power is not without limitations
and may be revoked by the Congress or the
Supreme Court in proper cases.
  ARTICLE VII, SECTION 18 provides that:

 “The president shall be the commander-in-chief of all

armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it
becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces
to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the
public safety requires it, he may, for a period not
exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any
part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight
hours from the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus,
the president shall submit a report in person or in
writing to the Congress.
 The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority
all its members in regular or special session, may revoke such
proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set
aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the
Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or
suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the
invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
 The Congress, if not in session, shall within 24 hours following
such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its
rules without need of a call.
 The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding
filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of
the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its
decision thereon within 30 days from its filing.
 A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor
supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor
authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over
civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the
privilege of the writ.
 The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons
judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly
connected with invasion.
 During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus
arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within 3 days, otherwise
he shall be released.”
 The Supreme Court decidedly has the power to annul the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus if the same is not based on either the two
grounds enumerated in the constitution, to wit, “invasion or rebellion, when
the public safety requires it.”
Lansang v Garcia

Ponente: Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion

 FACTS

Due to the throwing of two hand grenades in a Liberal Party caucus in

1971 causing the death of 8 people, Marcos issued Proclamation
number 889 which suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus. Marcos urged that there is a need to curtail the growth of
Maoist groups. Subsequently, Lansang et al were invited by the
Philippine Constabulary headed by Garcia for interrogation and
investigation. Lansang et al questioned the validity of the suspension
of the writ averring that the suspension does not meet the
constitutional requisites.
ISSUE
Whether or not the suspension
is constitutional.
 HELD

The doctrine established in Barcelon and Montenegro was subsequently

abandoned in this case where the SC declared that it had the power to
inquire into the factual basis of the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus by Marcos in Aug 1971 and to annul the same if no legal
ground could be established. Accordingly, hearings were conducted to
receive evidence on this matter, including two closed-door sessions in
which relevant classified information was divulged by the government to the
members of the Supreme Court and 3 selected lawyers of the petitioners. In
the end, after satisfying itself that there was actually a massive and
systematic Communist-oriented campaign to overthrow the government by
force, as claimed by Marcos, the Supreme Court unanimously decided
to uphold the suspension of the privilege of the Writ of Habeas
Corpus.
 Far from being full and plenary, the authority to suspend the
privilege of the writ is circumscribed, confined and
restricted, not only by the prescribed setting or conditions
essential to its existence, but also, as regards the time
when and the place where it may be exercised.
 Pursuant to the principle of separation of powers underlying
our system of government, the executive is supreme within
its sphere. However, the separation of powers, under the
Constitution, is not absolute. It goes hand in hand with the
system of checks and balances, under which the
executive is supreme, as regards the suspension of the
privilege, but only if and when he acts within the
sphere allotted to him by the basic law, and the authority
to determine whether or not he has acted is vested in the
judicial department, which in this respect, is, in turn,
constitutionally supreme.
Feria v CA

Ponente: Justice Leonardo Quisumbing

 FACTS
After discovering that his entire criminal records, including the copy of the
judgment, was lost or destroyed, petitioner filed a Petition for the Issuance of
a Writ of Habeas Corpus with the Supreme Court against the Jail Warden of
the Manila City Jail, the Presiding Judge of Branch 2, Regional Trial Court of
Manila, and the City Prosecutor of Manila, praying for his discharge from
confinement on the ground that his continued detention without any valid
judgment is illegal and violative of his constitutional right to due process.
The RTC dismissed the case on the ground that the mere loss of the records
of the case does not invalidate the judgment or commitment nor authorize
the release of the petitioner, and that the proper remedy would be
reconstitution of the records of the case which should be filed with the court
which rendered the decision.
Petitioner argues that his detention is illegal because there exists
no copy of a valid judgment as required by Sections 1 and 2 of
Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, and that the evidence considered
by the trial court and Court of Appeals in the habeas
corpus proceedings did not establish the contents of such
judgment.
In a comment, OSG maintains that public respondents have
more than sufficiently shown the existence of a legal ground for
petitioner’s continued incarceration, viz., his conviction by final
judgment, and under Section 4 of Rule 102 of the Rules of Court,
the discharge of a person suffering imprisonment under lawful
judgment is not authorized.
ISSUE
Whether or not there is legal
basis to detain petitioner after the
destruction or loss of his criminal
records.
 HELD
Yes. The writ of habeas corpus, was devised and exists as a speedy and effectual remedy
to relieve persons from unlawful restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of
personal freedom. It secures to a prisoner the right to have the cause of his detention
examined and determined by a court of justice, and to have the issue ascertained as to
whether he is held under lawful authority. Consequently, the writ may also be availed of
where, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding, (a) there has been a deprivation of
a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person, (b) the court had no
jurisdiction to impose the sentence, or (c) an excessive penalty has been imposed,
as such sentence is void as to such excess. Petitioner’s claim is anchored on the first
ground considering, as he claims, that his continued detention, notwithstanding the lack of a
copy of a valid judgment of conviction, is violative of his constitutional right to due process.
Based on the records and the hearing conducted by the trial court, there is sufficient
evidence on record to establish the fact of conviction of petitioner which serves as the legal
basis for his detention.
 As a general rule, the burden of proving illegal restraint by the respondent
rests on the petitioner who attacks such restraint. In other words, where
the return is not subject to exception, that is, where it sets forth process
which on its face shows good ground for the detention of the prisoner, it is
incumbent on petitioner to allege and prove new matter that tends to
invalidate the apparent effect of such process. If the detention of the
prisoner is by reason of lawful public authority, the return is
considered prima facie evidence of the validity of the restraint and the
petitioner has the burden of proof to show that the restraint is illegal.
 When a court has jurisdiction of the offense charged and of the party who
is so charged, its judgment, order, or decree is not subject to collateral
attack by habeas corpus.
Manalo v Calderon

Ponente: Justice Ruben T. Reyes

 FACTS
Five armed men forcibly entered Polling Precinct 76-A of Barangay
Pinagbayanan Elementary School, and poured gasoline over a ballot box.
They fired several rounds of ammunitions at the premises, setting it ablaze.
In the investigation that ensued, several eye-witnesses identified some of
petitioners as the perpetrators of the school burning. The investigation also
yielded that all six petitioners, who are all members of the PNP, failed to
timely respond to the incident.
Acting on the reports, the PNP hierarchy issued three successive
memoranda putting the Petitioners under restrictive custody. The
memoranda provided (1) that all movements of the Petitioners within the
camp should be monitored;(2) that when situation warrants their movement
outside camp, they should be properly escorted on one-on-one basis;and(3)
that a logbook should be maintained to record their place of destination,
name of escort, Estimated Time of Departure, and Estimated Time of Return
to Station.
Petitioners thus instituted this action praying that a writ of
habeas corpus be issued and that the Court adjudge their
restrictive custody status as illegal.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) manifested
that by a Memorandum Order the Director of PNP
Regional Office has recalled the assailed restrictive
custody order embodied in the two Memoranda. In view
of the recall, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed on
ground of mootness.
 ISSUES
 1.Should the Court dismiss the petition on the sole ground of mootness, the
assailed orders having been recalled?

 2. Are Petitioners unlawfully detained

or restrained of their liberty under
their restrictive custody status?
 HELD

No. petitioners are not unlawfully detained or restrained of

their liberty.
The main thrust of the special proceeding of habeas
corpus is to inquiry into the legality of one’s detention.
More specifically, it’s vital purpose is to obtain immediate
relief from illegal confinement, to liberate those who may
be imprisoned without sufficient cause and to deliver
them from unlawful custody. Only if the Court is satisfied
that a person is unlawfully restrained of his liberty will a
petition for habeas corpus be granted and the person
detained released from confinement.
In this case, since there is no illegal and involuntary
depravation of the petitioners’ freedom of action they
cannot avail or invoke the writ of habeas corpus.
Hence, the writ of habeas corpus cannot be availed of by
police officers (petitioners) under investigation and
subjected to a ‘restrictive custody order by their
superiors, limiting their physical movements and liberty
to leave their camps. According to the Supreme Court,
considering they are not, by reason of their restrictive
custody status, actually detained or imprisoned, their
“minimal restraint” is beyond the ambit of habeas corpus.