Case Digest (G.R. No. L-47185)
Facts:
In Bernabe Buscayno v. Ponce Enrile, G.R. No. L-47185, January 15, 1981, the Supreme Court En Banc, Fernando, C.J., writing for the Court, dismissed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and prohibition. Petitioner Bernabe Buscayno (accused leader of the CPP/HMB/NPA) challenged the authority of Military Commission No. 2 and other respondents — including Hon. Juan Ponce Enrile, Secretary of National Defense, Gen. Romeo C. Espino, Gen. Fidel V. Ramos, Military Commission No. 2, and Col. Miguel A. Aure — to try him for offenses under the penal statutes and argued that such trial violated constitutional provisions after the October 17, 1976 plebiscite.Petitioner was arrested in Barrio Sto. Rosario, Mexico, Pampanga, and was an accused in several cases (including violation of R.A. No. 1700, murder, and the MV Karagatan rebellion case) that had been or were being heard by military commissions; his trial before Military Commission No. 2 had begun prior to his arrest and continued after arraignment. He filed the instant petition on October 25, 1977, and an urgent supplemental petition on December 3, 1977 alleging, among other points, that the October 17, 1976 plebiscite had effectively terminated the martial-law regime and deprived the military commissions of jurisdiction to try civilians.
Respondents, through a Comment dated December 12, 1977, answered and quoted an executive order (dated November 29, 1977, in the Comment) directing that the military commission reopen the trial to receive additional arguments, witnesses and evidence in the interest of justice; the separate opinion of Justice Teehankee records a Presidential order dated November 30, 1977 to the same effect and notes that a death sentence had been imposed by the commission on November 25, 1977. The Court treated the petition as an original habeas corpus/prohibition proceeding and, after considering the submissi...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- After the October 17, 1976 plebiscite and attendant political developments, did Military Commission No. 2 retain power to try a civilian such as petitioner?
- Was petitioner denied procedural due process by being tried before the military commission rather than the regular civil courts?
- Would a military commission decision against petitioner violate Article X, Section 9 of the Constitution (requiring that every decision of a court of rec...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)