Case Digest (G.R. No. 187273)
Facts:
Isidro T. Hildawa v. Minister of Defense, Juan Ponce Enrile; Fabian Ver; Prospero Olivas, G.R. No. 67766, and Ricardo C. Valmonte v. Integrated National Police and Brig. Gen. Narciso Cabrera, G.R. No. 70881, August 14, 1985, Supreme Court En Banc, Relova, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Isidro T. Hildawa and Ricardo C. Valmonte filed special civil actions seeking: (a) declaration of nullity of any executive/administrative order creating “secret marshals” or “crimebusters” with authority to shoot suspects and (b) certiorari/prohibition with preliminary injunction/ restraining order to recall and enjoin such teams. They alleged that the formation and fielding of secret marshals who exercise an alleged “license to kill” violated constitutional guarantees including the right to life, due process and other procedural protections.
Respondents (the Ministry of National Defense, PC Metrocom/Metropolitan Police Force commanders, the Integrated National Police and their commanders) denied any written executive or administrative order authorizing a license to kill, insisting special operation teams were a lawful police response to rising robberies and holdups and that members enjoy no immunity beyond that of ordinary peace officers. Petitioners admitted they had not produced any written order authorizing killings and had not seen such a document.
The trial of the petitions below consisted of pleadings, respondents’ comments, and a compliance report by the Solicitor General responding to the Court’s June 11, 1985 resolution, which presented data that, from May 4–9, 1985, fifteen alleged holduppers were killed by policemen and that the policemen were the subject of proceedings with the Judge Advocate General’s Office but had been ordered released. The petitions recounted numerous press reports and statistics of suspected summary killings attributed to the marshals/crimebusters, and urged injunctive relief and investigation.
The Supreme Court, acting en banc on petitions G.R. No. 67766 and G.R. No. 70881, entertained the actions and, after hearing the parties and examining the record, declined to order outright disbandment but issued directives: it held creation and deployment of special teams lawful, yet condemned any “license to kill,” ordered strict supervision and control, mandated that unnecessary force not be used, required immediate reporting of any death or injury to superior officers and to the National Poli...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Do the petitioners have a justiciable cause of action and does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to entertain these special civil actions challenging the formation/fielding of secret marshals/crimebusters?
- Were the formation and fielding of special police teams with alleged authority to kill unconstitutional, and what relief, if any, should the Court grant to prevent viol...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)