G.R. No. L-37364 - Aquino, Jr. vs. Military Commission No. 2

On September 21, 1972, President Marcos proclaimed martial law (Proclamation No. 1081). Two days later, on September 23, 1972, Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. (petitioner), was arrested for alleged complicity in a conspiracy to overthrow the government. He was detained at Fort Bonifacio.
On September 25, 1972, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (G.R. No. L-35546), challenging the validity of martial law and his detention. The Supreme Court issued the writ, heard memoranda, and on September 17, 1974, dismissed the petition, upholding martial law and the lawfulness of his arrest and detention (Martial Law Cases, 59 SCRA 183).

On August 14, 1973, six amended charge sheets were filed against petitioner with Military Commission No. 2, alleging:

Illegal possession of firearms and explosives (Crim. Case MC-2-19).
Violations of the Anti-Subversion Act (Crim. Cases MC-2-20, MC-2-21, MC-2-23, MC-2-24).
Murder (Crim. Case MC-2-22).

The military tribunal claimed exclusive jurisdiction over these offenses under General Orders Nos. 8 and 12 and Presidential Decree No. 39 (November 7, 1972).

Original petition (L-37364) filed August 23, 1973 – sought prohibition against the military commission’s trial of petitioner; urgent hearing called August 26; quorum issues raised.
Petitioner refused to participate in arraignment (August 27) and discharged all counsel.
Administrativ e Order No. 355 (August 28, 1973) created a Special Reinvestigating Committee (five members) to reinvestigate the charges and determine prima facie guilt; committee never functioned (petitioner and IBP failed to designate members; Chief Justice’s appointee declined).
Supplemental petitions filed:

September 5, 1973 – challenged validity of the Special Committee.
October 31, 1974 – challenged continued enforcement of martial law after the new Constitution.

Respondents filed answers (August 1974 and December 1974); parties submitted memoranda (January–March 1975).
On March 10, 1975, Military Commission No. 2 ordered perpetuation of testimony of prosecution witnesses (March 31–April 4).
Petitioner’s urgent motion for temporary restraining order filed March 24, 1975.
On April 1, 1975, the Supreme Court cited lack of quorum to act on the motion.
On April 8, 1975, the Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the military commission from perpetuation proceedings; hearing set April 14.
At the April 14 hearing, petitioner’s counsel moved to withdraw the petition and all pending incidents, stating refusal to seek further relief from the Court. The Court sought memoranda on the motion and held the case submitted.

Motion to withdraw denied (3 votes in favor, 7 against; Sec. 11, Rule 56, Rules of Court).
By an 8–5 vote, the Supreme Court dismissed the main and supplemental petitions, upheld martial law, and affirmed the validity of Military Commission No. 2’s jurisdiction over petitioner.
Ordered lifting of the temporary restraining order; directed that petitioner’s presence be required only for identification of witnesses (majority view), but recognized his right to waive presence at other stages.

Was the proclamation of martial law (Proclamation No. 1081) valid under the 1973 Constitution?
Could martial law lawfully continue after ratification of the new Constitution?

Do military commissions, created under General Orders No. 8 and 12 and P.D. 39, have jurisdiction to try civilians for:

Civil offenses committed before martial law (e.g., weapons posession, subversion, murder)?
Violations of the Anti-Subversion Act?

Does the Constitution’s vesting of judicial power exclusively in the Supreme Court and inferior civilian courts preclude civilian trials by military tribunals?
Are the procedural rules for military tribunals (P.D. 39 as amended by P.D. 77 and 328) sufficient to satisfy due process guarantees (notice, counsel, right to confront witnesses)?

Was Administrative Order No. 355 creating the Special Reinvestigating Committee a lawful exercise of presidential power?
Did the committee’s failure to function deprive petitioner of his statutory right to preliminary investigation (Anti-Subversion Act, R.A. 1700; R.A. 5180)?

Was the military commission’s ex parte order of March 10, 1975, and notice to petitioner sufficient under P.D. 328 and Rule 119, Section 7?
May petitioner waive his personal presence at perpetuation and trial proceedings, including identification of witnesses?