Facts:
In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Benigno S. Aquino, Jr., Ramon Mitra, Jr., Francisco Rodrigo, and Napoleon Rama; G.R. Nos. L-35546, L-35538, L-35539, L-35540, L-35547, L-35556, L-35567, L-35571, L-35573; September 17, 1974; the Supreme Court First Division; Makalintal, C.J., writing for the Court.
The petitions arose after
President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued
Proclamation No. 1081 (September 21, 1972) placing the entire Philippines under martial law and directing implementation orders (notably
General Order No. 2/2‑A) for the arrest and detention of persons listed as participants in or giving aid to an alleged conspiracy to seize state power. Petitioners (journalists, politicians and others) were arrested at various points thereafter; some remained in military custody, others were released subject to conditions, and several sought writs of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court contesting the lawfulness of their arrest and detention and the constitutional validity of the proclamation and implementing orders.
The Court issued writs returnable to hearing dates in late September and early October 1972; hearings were held September 26 and 29 and October 6, 1972. The parties filed extensive memoranda and supplemental pleadings. Several petitioners later withdrew their petitions or were released; petitioner
Jose W. Diokno moved to withdraw his petition (Dec. 28, 1973), and petitioner
Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. was separately charged before a military commission (Aug. 11, 1973) and filed a related certiorari/prohibition action (G.R. No. L‑37364). In the meantime the
1973 Constitution was promulgated and proclaimed ratified (Proclamation No. 1102, Jan. 17, 1973) and, by its transitory provision (
Art. XVII, Sec. 3(2)), declared that proclamations, orders and acts of the incumbent President “shall be part of the law of the land.” The Court had earlier decided the Ratification Cases (Javellana v. Executive Secretary, L‑36142, March 31, 1973) and thereafter all members (other than those newly appointed) took the new oath; Diokno subsequently...
(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court inquire into the factual sufficiency of Proclamation No. 1081, or is the proclamation a political (non‑justiciable) question?
- If judicial review is permissible, did the President act arbitrarily in issuing Proclamation No. 1081?
- Does a proclamation of martial law carry with it the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and thereby validate preventive detention and conditional releases in this case?
- Should petitioner Jose W. Diokno b...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: