Case Summary (G.R. No. L-37364)
Petitioner’s Habeas Corpus Proceeding
Petitioner filed for habeas corpus (G.R. No. L-35546) on September 25, 1972, challenging Martial Law validity and his detention. SC issued writ, heard memoranda, and on September 17, 1974 upheld Martial Law and petitioner’s detention.
Challenge to Military Commission’s Jurisdiction
On August 14, 1973 six amended charge sheets (illegal firearms, subversion, murder) were filed with MC No. 2. Petitioner sought prohibition on August 23, 1973 to restrain trial set for August 27, 1973.
Supreme Court’s Quorum and Hearing
SC held August 26, 1973 hearing on quorum (nine justices). Parties asked to seek postponement. Petitioner refused to participate in August 27 arraignment and discharged counsel; Commission adjourned.
Creation of Special Committee (Adm. Order No. 355)
August 28, 1973 President issued Adm. Order 355 creating Special Committee (retired Justice plus four designated members) to re-investigate charges and determine probable cause. Petitioner, IBP President and retired Justice J.B.L. Reyes declined to designate, so committee never functioned.
Supplemental Petitions and Answers
September 4, 1973 petitioner filed supplemental petition questioning Special Committee’s legality and seeking court-administered preliminary investigation. SC required answer August 21, 1974. January 1975 petitioner filed second supplemental petition challenging continued Martial Law; respondents answered.
Urgent Motion to Restrain Perpetuation
March 10, 1975 MC No. 2 ordered perpetuation of prosecution-witness testimony. March 24, 1975 petitioner moved for TRO to enjoin such proceedings pending SC ruling. SC, citing lack of quorum, initially declined; April 14, 1975 issued TRO and set hearing.
Motion to Withdraw and SC Resolution
At April 14 hearing petitioner’s counsel moved to withdraw all petitions, motions and incidents. SC required briefs on motion and then considered the case submitted on withdrawal motion.
Denial of Withdrawal Motion
By 7–3 vote the motion to withdraw was denied under Rule 56, Sec. 11 (seven justices favored denial; three favored granting). Chief Justice inhibited.
Dismissal of Petitions on Merits
By vote of eight justices the main and supplemental petitions were dismissed. SC held respondent Commission lawfully constituted and vested with jurisdiction.
Authority of Military Commissions under 1987 Constitution
Under Martial Law (Proclamation 1081) and Art II, Sec 18; Art VII, Sec 18; and 1987 Constitution Art VII, Sec 18(2), the President may promulgate orders essential to security. General Orders 8, 12 and P.D. 39 creating military tribunals are “part of the law of the land.”
Military Tribunal Jurisdiction and Due Process
Military tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction over offenses against public order, subversion, firearms laws and crimes affecting rebellion suppression. Due process under Art III, Sec 1 guaranteed by fair tribunal, proper notice, opportunity to defend and impartiality; judicial process is not indispensable.
Fairness and Presumption of Impartiality
Alleged presidential prejudgment does not override presumption of innocence and good faith for all officials. Military tribunal members and reviewing authorities presumed impartial.
Validity of Administrative Order No. 355
Adm. Order 355 intended to protect due process by Special Committee preliminary investigation; P.D. 77 grants committee powers equivalent to preliminary investigators, including implied cross-examination.
Preliminary Investigation: P.D. 39, 77 vs. R.A. 1700
Preliminary investigation is statutory and may be modified. P.D. 77 grants right to counsel; P.D. 328 amended P.D. 39 to secure accused’s rights. Absence of cross-examination at preliminary stage does not violate due process. R.A. 1700’s requirements may be altered under martial law.
Perpetuation of Testim
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-37364)
Pertinent Facts
- On September 23, 1972, petitioner Sen. Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. was arrested at Fort Bonifacio pursuant to General Order No. 2-A for alleged conspiracy to seize state power.
- He was detained and sued for a writ of habeas corpus on September 25, 1972, questioning Martial Law and his detention.
- The Supreme Court issued the writ, heard the case, and on September 17, 1974 dismissed it, upholding Martial Law and petitioner’s arrest.
Procedural History of Prohibition Petition
- Original petition for prohibition filed August 23, 1973 to restrain Military Commission No. 2 from trying petitioner on six amended charge sheets submitted August 14, 1973.
- Urgent hearing on August 26, 1973 assessed the Court’s quorum for constitutional questions; no final action then due to subsequent developments.
Creation of Special Reinvestigating Committee
- President issued Administrative Order No. 355 on August 28, 1973, directing reinvestigation of charges against petitioner by a five-member civilian committee.
- Committee to be chaired by a retired Supreme Court Justice, with four members designated by petitioner, the IBP president, the Secretaries of Justice and National Defense.
- Petitioner, IBP president and retired Justice Reyes all declined to designate members; committee remained two-member and nonfunctional.
Supplemental Petitions and Answers
- First Supplemental Petition (September 4, 1973) challenged legality of Special Committee; Chief Justice and Sec. of Justice made respondents.
- Respondents (except the Chief Justice) filed answer by August 21, 1974; petitioner granted extensions but later sought leave to file Second Supplemental Petition.
- Second Supplemental Petition (late 1974) questioned continued enforcement of Martial Law after Presidential statements of its technical lifting; respondents answered thereafter.
- Parties submitted memoranda under the Court’s January 14, 1975 Resolution.
Urgent Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
- On March 24, 1975, petitioner moved to restrain Military Commission No. 2 from perpetuating testimony under its March 10, 1975 order.
- Respondents filed comment March 31, 1975; hearing set April 14, 1975.
- By Resolution of April 1, 1975 the Court, lacking necessary quorum, did not act on the motion.
- Petitioner filed a manifestation April 7, 1975, asserting absence of constitutional question; respondents replied April 12–14.
- On April 14, 1975 the Court issued the requested temporary restraining order.
Military Commission Proceedings and Motion to Withdraw
- Military Commission No. 2 commenced perpetuation proceedings on April 14, 1975; petitioner discharged both civilian and military counsel and declared refusal to participate.
- Petitioner’s counsel moved before the Supreme Court to withdraw the petition and all related matters; respondents objected.
- Court, by resolution, required transcript copies, permitted counsel–client conference, and received further pleadings on the withdrawal motion.
Vote on Withdrawal Motion and Final Submission
- Only three Justices voted to grant petitioner’s motion