Case Digest (G.R. No. L-37364)
Facts:
Benigno S. Aquino, Jr., G.R. No. L-37364, May 09, 1975, the Supreme Court En Banc, Antonio, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. was arrested on September 23, 1972 after the proclamation of martial law; he filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the proclamation and his detention, which this Court dismissed on September 17, 1974 (the Martial Law Cases). On August 14, 1973 six amended charge sheets were filed against him with Military Commission No. 2 for offenses including illegal possession of firearms, violations of the Anti‑Subversion Act (R.A. No. 1700) and murder. Petitioner filed the original petition in this case on August 23, 1973 seeking to prohibit the military commission from proceeding with his trial.The Supreme Court called an urgent hearing on August 26, 1973 to consider quorum and other threshold questions. When the commission convened on August 27 the petitioner refused to participate and discharged both civilian and military counsel; proceedings were adjourned. On August 28, 1973 the President issued Administrative Order No. 355, creating a five‑member Special Committee to reinvestigate the charges; petitioner declined to name a representative and the Committee did not function effectively. Petitioner filed supplemental petitions (challenging the Special Committee and later the continued enforcement of martial law), respondents filed answers, and memoranda were exchanged; the case was submitted for decision.
On March 24, 1975 petitioner sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin the commission’s March 10, 1975 order to perpetuate testimony; after papers and affidavits were filed, the Court issued a TRO on April 14, 1975. At the April 14 hearing petitioner’s counsel moved to withdraw the petitions; seven Justices voted to deny withdrawal under Section 11, Rule 56 (three voted to allow it). The Court then reached the merits and, by a vote of eight Justices, dismissed the main and supplemental petitions. The Court resolved (1) that Military Commission No. 2 was validly constituted and had jurisdiction over the charges; (2) that various presidential orders and presidential decrees governing military tribunals (General Orders Nos. 8 and 12; Presidential Decree No. 39, as amended; P.D. No. 77; P.D. No. 328) form part of the law of the land under Article XVII, Sec. 3 of the 1973 Constitution; (3) that the procedures before the commission satisfied constitutional due process; (4) that Administrative Order No. 355 did not strip due process and the reinvestigating Committee (if properly constituted) could exercise powers akin to those of a preliminary investigator; (5) that the taking of conditional depositions/perpetuation of testimony under P.D. No. 328 was proper akin to Rule 119, Sec. 7; and (6) that an accused may waive presence at perpetuation proceedings, with a divided view among Justices as to the scope of that waiver.
...(Pro-only)Issues:
- Procedural: Should petitioner’s motion to withdraw his petitions and related incidents be granted?
- Substantive: May Military Commission No. 2 lawfully try civilians for the charged offenses (including pre‑martial law conduct)?
- Substantive: Does Administrative Order No. 355 or its implementation deny petitioner due process?
- Substantive: Do the procedures that dispense with preliminary investigation or limit cross‑examination (P.D. No. 39 as amended, P.D. No. 77, P.D. No. 328) violate the constitutional guarantee of due process?
- Substantive/procedural: Was the military commission’s order to perpetuate testimony (conditional deposition) void for lack of reasonable notice to petitioner?
- Substantive/procedural: Can petitioner waive his persona...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)