IN RE AQUINO

G.R. No. L-35546. September 17, 1974

Macalintal, CJ.

FACTS:

According to Chief Justice Macalintal: These nine cases are all about the petitions for habeas corpus,
the petitioners having been arrested and detained unlawfully by the military by virtue of Proclamation
no.1081 dated September 21, 1972 through the President exercising his powers he assumed by
virtue of Martial Law. The petitioners were arrested pursuant to Gen. Order no 2 for being
participants or for having giving aid and comfort in the conspiracy to seize political and state power in
the country and to take over the Government by force (September 22, 1972).The provision of the
1935 constitution reads the President shall be commander-in-chief of all armed forces in the
Philippines and, whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or
suppress lawless violence, invasion, insurrection or rebellion. In case of invasion, insurrection, or
rebellion, or imminent danger thereof, when the public safety requires it, he may suspend the privilege
of writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Art VII Section
10(2)

According to Castro, J.: On Sept 21 1972, the country was placed under Martial Law. From Sept 22 to
30, petitioners were arrested by the military authorities and detained, some at Fort Bonifacio, Rizal,
Camp Aguinaldo and Camp Crame. They aver that the arrest and detention were illegal having been
effected without valid order of a court of justice. Writ of habeas corpus were directed by the Court
directing respondents to produce the bodies of the petitioners in Court. Respondents, through the
Solicitor General, answered that such arrests were legally ordered by the President pursuant to
Proclamation of Martial Law as participant or as having giving aid and comfort in the conspiracy to
seize political and state power and to take the government by force. Hearings were held on 26 and
29 September and October 6. Meanwhile, some of the petitioners, with leave of Court, withdrew their
petitions, others were released from custody under certain restrictive conditions. Voltaire died after his
release, the action was deemed abated. Only Diokno and Benigno Aquino was still in military custody
(September 9, 1972the date of the supposed promulgation of the nine cases.) On September 11
1972,the petitioner Diokno was released. Eleven members voted to dismiss Dioknos petition as being
moot and academic except Castro, who find Dioknos derogatory imputations grave and highly
insulting. On August 23 1973, petitioner Ninoy filed an action for certiorari and prohibition with this
Court, alleging that on 11 August 1973 charges of murder, subversion and illegal possession of
firearm were filed against him, that his trial held on August 27, 29, 31was illegal because the
proclamation of Martial law was unconstitutional and that he could not expect a fair trial because the
President could reverse any judgment of acquittal by the military court and sentence him to death.
Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. vs. Military Commission No. 2 On the other hand, December 28 1973, Jose
Diokno filed a motion to withdraw his petition filed in his behalf, imputing the (1) delay in the
disposition of the case, (2)that the decision of the Court in the Ratification cases contrary to the
Courts ruling that the 1973 Constitution was not validly ratified and (3) the action of the members of
the Court taking an oath to the new Constitution and which becomes a different court in which he filed
his petition. Diokno asserts that a conscience that allows man to rot behind bars for more than one
year and three months without trialof course, without any charges at allis a conscience that has
become stunted, if not stultified.. and I cannot continue to entrust my case to them; and I have
become thoroughly convinced that our quest for justice in my case is futile.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not this court may inquire into the validity of Proclamation no1081. Is the existence of
conditions claimed to justify the exercise of power to declare martial law subject to judicial
inquiry? Is the question political or justiciable in character?

2. Whether or not the petitions for writ of habeas corpus should be suspended contending that the
proclamation of Martial Law was unconstitutional.
HELD:

1. YES. Five justices held that the question is political and should not be determined by court.
(Makasiar, Antonio, Esguerra, Fernandez and Aquino) Fernandez adds that as a member of the
1973 Convention he believes that the as a member of the Convention, they have put an
imprimatur on the proposition of the validity of a martial law proclamation Barredo believes that
political question are not per se beyond the courts jurisdiction, judicial power vested in it by the
Constitution being all-embracing and plenary but as a matter of policy should abstain from
interfering with the Executives Proclamation. Esguerra finds that the declaration of martial lawis
final and conclusive upon the courts. Antonio finds that there is no dispute as tothe existence of a
state of rebellion and on that premise emphasizes the factor of necessity for the exercise of the
president under the 1935 Constitution to declare martial law.

Four on the side of justiciability: Castro, Fernando, Teehanke and Munoz Palma. The
constitutional sufficiency may be inquired into by court and would thus apply the principle laid
down by Lansang although the case refers to the power of President to suspend habeas corpus.
The recognition of justiciability in Lansang is there distinguished from the power of judicial review
and is limited to ascertaining whether the President has gone beyond the constitutional limits of
his jurisdiction, not to exercise the power vested in him or to determine the wisdom of the act. The
Test is whether in suspending the writ of habeas corpus, the president he did or did not act
arbitrarily (bias, capricious). Applying the test, the Justices find no arbitrariness in the Presidents
proclamation of martial law pursuant to the 1935 Constitution. The bases for the suspension of
the privilege of writ of habeas corpus, with regards to the existence of a state rebellion in the
country, had not disappeared but had even worsened.

The question of the validity of the Proclamation no 1081 has been foreclosed by the transitory
provision of the 1973 Constitution (Art XVII. Sec 3 (2)) that 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 the ratification of
this Constitution. The political or justiciable question controversy has become moot and
purposeless as a consequence of the referendum of July 27-28, 1973. The question which was
overwhelmingly voted upon by a majority of voters, even between 15 and 18 years of age in
affirmative: Under the 1973 Constitution, the President, if he so desires, can continue in office
beyond 1973 and finish the reforms he initiated under martial law?

2. YES. The petitions should be dismissed with respect to petitioners who have been released from
detention but have not withdrawn their petitions because they are still subject to certain
restrictions. Implicit in the state of martial law is the suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas
corpus with respect to persons arrested or detained for acts related to the basic objective of the
proclamation: to suppress invasion, insurrection, rebellion or to safeguard public safety against
imminent danger thereof.
RULING SUMMARIZED (Castro):

1. That the proclamation of Martial Law in September 1972 by the President was within the 1932
Constitution

2. That because the Communist rebellion had not been abated and instead the subversion had
proliferated throughout the country, the imposition of martial law was an imperative of national
survival.

3. That the arrest and detention of the persons who were participants or gave aid and comfort in the
conspiracy to seize political and state power in the country and to take over the Government by
force were not unconstitutional nor arbitrary

4. That subsumed in the declaration of martial law is the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus

5. That the fact that the regular courts are open cannot be accepted as evidence that rebellion and
insurrection no longer imperil the safety of the state

6. That actual armed combat has been and still raging in parts of Mindanao, Bicol and Cagayan

7. That the hosts of doubts with respect to the validity of the ratification and effectivity of the 1973
Constitution has been dispelled by the national referendum of July 1973

8. That the issue of the validity and constitutionality of the arrest and detention of all the petitioners
and of the restrictions imposed upon those who were freed, is now foreclosed by the transitory
provision of 1973 CONSTITUTION(Article XVII Sec 3 (2)) which validates all acts made by the
President.

**Habeas Corpus- the purpose of the writ is to inquire into the cause or reason why a person is being
restrained of his liberty against his will and if there is no legal and/or valid justification shown for such
restraint the writ will forthwith issue to restore to that person his liberty or freedom.