Facts:
In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Teodosio Lansang, Rogelio V. Arienda, Luzvimindo David, Nemesio E. Prudente, Gerardo Tomas, Reynaldo Rimando, Filomeno M. de Castro, Antolin Oreta, Jr., Gary B. Olivar, G.R. Nos. L-33964, L-33965, L-33973, L-33982, L-34004, L-34013, L-34039, L-34265 and L-34339, December 11, 1971, the Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, C.J., writing for the Court.
On August 21, 1971 a bombing at the Liberal Party rally in Plaza Miranda killed and injured many; in response the President issued Proclamation No. 889 (Aug. 21, 1971) suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus for persons detained for insurrection/rebellion and related offenses. Proclamation No. 889-A (Aug. 30, 1971) amended the language to assert that the lawless elements "are actually engaged in an armed insurrection and rebellion," and subsequent proclamations (889‑B, 889‑C, 889‑D) partially lifted the suspension in numerous provinces and cities. Several persons were arrested by Philippine Constabulary agents after August 21 and detained at Camp Crame and other installations.
Petitions for writs of habeas corpus were filed on various dates (late August–November 1971) by or for the detainees (named above). Respondents (Chief, Philippine Constabulary; Secretary of National Defense; Chief of Staff, AFP) filed returns asserting that detentions were made on reasonable belief that the detainees had participated in rebellion/insurrection, and that the detentions were authorized by Proclamation No. 889 as amended; respondents also invoked the propriety and finality of the President’s executive finding. The returns described directives, memoranda and safeguards issued by the Executive and the Constabulary to govern arrests and treatment of detainees.
The Court initially heard consolidated cases (Sept. 1, 1971) and, after tentative consensus that judicial inquiry into the factual bases was appropriate, set the cases for re‑hearing (Oct. 8, 1971). The Court conducted closed‑door briefings (Oct. 28–29, 1971) with selected petitioner counsel and high military officers to review classified information; parties filed memoranda and summaries thereafter. On November 13 and 15, 1971 respondents manifested that several petitioners had been released or temporarily released and that criminal complaints (Anti‑Subversion Act, RA 1700) had been filed in the City Fiscal’s Office of Quezon City and the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal (Crim. Case No. Q‑1623), with some petitioners named as defendants. Some petitioners were released permanently or temporarily; others remained detained and under criminal investigation.
The Court considered: (a) whether it may inquire into the factual bases for presidential proclamations suspending the writ, (b) the formal and substantive validity of Proclamation No. 889 as amended, (c) whether particular petitioners fell within the proclamation’s coverage, and (d) the effect of subsequent filing of criminal complaints and preliminary examinations. The matter was ...
(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court inquire into the factual bases of Presidential Proclamations Nos. 889 and 889‑A that suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or are the President’s findings final and conclusive?
- If the Court may inquire, was Proclamation No. 889, as amended, constitutionally valid (formally and substantively) under Article III, sec. 1, par. 14 and Article VII, sec. 10, par. 2 of the 1935 Constitution?
- Are the detained petitioners before the Court covered by the proclamation and, if so, should they be released despite the suspension of the wr...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: