Case Summary (G.R. No. L-58284)
Buscayno’s arrest, military commission proceedings, and initial habeas petitions
Buscayno was arrested August 26, 1976 and detained at Camp Crame. He sent a letter (Sept. 7, 1976) indicating refusal to appear and waiving counsel in certain proceedings. He was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, initially waived presentation of defense evidence, and was later represented by counsel (Juan T. David, appearance July 18, 1977). Military Commission No. 2, after prosecution presentation and Buscayno’s failure to present evidence, deemed the case submitted (November 25, 1977) and convicted, imposing death by firing squad. The President ordered a reopening on November 29, 1977. Buscayno filed a habeas corpus petition and prohibition in this Court (October 25, 1977) but this Court earlier dismissed a related petition (L-47185, January 15, 1981). Military Commission proceedings were revisited in 1981 (reconvened March 27, 1981), with postponements and further rulings; on May 4, 1981 the Commission reaffirmed its 1977 conviction and death penalty.
Charges and procedural posture of the Sison spouses
Jose Ma. Sison and Juliet de Lima-Sison were arrested November 10, 1977 pursuant to orders of the Secretary of National Defense. They and numerous co-accused were charged with rebellion (Special Military Commission No. 1, amended charge sheet Nov. 8, 1977) and with subversion before other military commissions (Juliet Sison earlier charged in 1972 before Military Commission No. 6; Jose Ma. Sison charged in 1978 before Military Commission No. 25). Charge sheets allege organizing, leading, fomenting indoctrination, agitation and the taking up of arms in furtherance of efforts to overthrow the government.
The omnibus petition filed October 2, 1981 and reliefs sought
The petitioners filed an omnibus petition for habeas corpus, prohibition and mandamus challenging the May 4, 1981 decision of Military Commission No. 2 (conviction and death sentence of Buscayno), alleging denial of the constitutional right to present evidence; seeking dismissal of the rebellion and subversion charges on double jeopardy grounds; seeking injunctions to stop Military Commissions Nos. 1, 6, and 25 from further proceedings; requesting release and bail; and asking for temporary restraining orders against perpetuation of testimony and review actions.
Supreme Court’s disposition on habeas corpus, detention and bail
The Court held petitioners were not illegally deprived of liberty and denied relief. It relied on Proclamation No. 2045 (Jan. 17, 1981), which terminated martial law but expressly preserved the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus as to persons detained for rebellion, subversion and related offenses and provided for the phased dissolution of military tribunals only upon final determination of certain cases. Because Proclamation No. 2045 explicitly continued the suspension of the privilege of the writ for persons like the petitioners, the Court found they were not entitled to bail and thus denied the habeas corpus claims and bail requests (the Court cited Lansang v. Garcia as authority for the proposition that suspension of the privilege of the writ precludes bail).
Limitations on this Court’s review of military commission proceedings
The Court reiterated that it ordinarily cannot review interlocutory rulings and proceedings of military commissions directly; under the National Security Code (PD 1498) the Court’s review is generally limited to decisions of the Court of Military Appeals in cases appealed from military commissions. Consequently, factual or procedural complaints about the conduct of trials before military commissions (e.g., denial of opportunity to present evidence) should first be addressed by the reviewing military authority rather than this Court in the first instance.
Ruling on the alleged repeal of the Anti-Subversion Law (RA 1700) by PD 885
Petitioner Juliet Sison argued that her criminal liability under RA 1700 was extinguished by PD 885 (Revised Anti-Subversion Law). The Court rejected that contention: PD 885 expressly superseded RA 1700 but included a transitory/saving clause (section 7) providing that acts committed in violation of the former law prior to PD 885 remain prosecutable under the former law and pending cases are not barred. This saving provision was noted as reenacted in PD 1498; thus subversion prosecutions under RA 1700 were not extinguished by PD 885.
Ruling on the double jeopardy claim
The Court analyzed the constitutional and procedural prerequisites for double jeopardy (drawing from section 9, Rule 117, Rules of Court and existing case law): for jeopardy to attach, a valid complaint/information must be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction and the case must have been terminated by conviction, acquittal or dismissal without the accused’s consent. The Court found that none of the petitioners’ cases had been finally terminated; therefore jeopardy had not attached and the double jeopardy defense could not be invoked. The Court explained that subversion and rebellion are distinct offenses—subversion is a crime against national security (membership and leadership in subversive organizations), while rebellion is a crime against public order involving public uprising and taking up of arms—and that the overt acts alleged in the respective charges differ in time and substance. Reliance was placed on prior decisions (e.g., Bulaong, People v. Liwanag) to support the conclusion that the plea of double jeopardy was premature and without merit given the procedural posture.
Final disposition
The Court dismissed the petition, lifted any restraining order, and imposed no costs.
Concurring and dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Fernando — scope of review and bail issue
Chief Justice Fernando concurred in the result but expressed reservations and separate views: he disagreed with the majority’s construal of the Court’s power to review military tribunal actuations and urged reexamination of the doctrine that suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus necessarily suspends the right to bail; he considered the p
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-58284)
Parties, Citation and Procedural Posture
- Case citation: 196 Phil. 41 EN BANC; G.R. No. 58284; decision dated November 19, 1981.
- Petitioners: Bernabe Buscayno (alias Commander Dante), Jose Ma. Sison (alias Amado Guerrero) and Juliet (de Lima) Sison.
- Respondents: Military Commissions Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 25; General Fabian Ver; General Fidel Ramos; Lieutenant Colonel Virgilio Saldajeno; Captain Melchor A. Acosta; Review Board of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
- Relief sought: omnibus petition for writs of habeas corpus, prohibition and mandamus; declaratory relief to annul conviction of Buscayno by Military Commission No. 2; dismissal of charges for double jeopardy; injunctions against Military Commissions Nos. 1, 6 and 25; bail; temporary restraining orders against continued trials and certain perpetuation proceedings.
- Disposition at bar: Petition dismissed; restraining order lifted; no costs.
Factual Background — General
- Buscayno and Sison were characterized in the record as alleged subversives, classified as “PKP/HMB/CPP/MAMAO and Traditional Armed Group personalities,” and wanted by authorities since 1971.
- Department Order No. 610 (Undersecretary of National Defense Efren I. Plana) established monetary rewards (P150,000 for Buscayno; P50,000 for Sison) for killing, capturing, or furnishing information directly leading to their killing or capture.
- Buscayno and Sison were included in a “National Target List” of active participants in a conspiracy to seize political/state power; the list was prepared by Colonel Hamilton B. Dimaya and used in conjunction with General Order No. 2 dated September 22, 1972.
Factual Background — Specific Allegations Against Buscayno
- Prior to arrest, Buscayno and Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. were charged in an amended charge sheet (August 14, 1973) before Military Commission No. 2 with subversion (RA 1700), alleging leadership roles in the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (HMB), and New People’s Army (NPA).
- Specific overt acts alleged against Buscayno and Aquino in Criminal Case No. MC-2-23 included (allegations listed in the charge sheet):
- Transfer and provision of money and arms at various times and locations (1965–1969 incidents cited, e.g., P15,000 used for NPA-sponsored demonstration in 1969; transfer of .45 pistols and armored vests; provision of firearms taken from Manuel Rodriguez’s house).
- Provision of shelter and medical treatment (1970–1971) to certain officers/members of HMB/NPA.
- Buscayno (with other named conspirators) was separately charged with murder (Criminal Case No. MC-2-22) for the alleged abduction and killing of Cecilio Sumat between late November and December 2, 1967.
- Rebellion charges: in Criminal Case No. MC-1-92 (later refiled as SMC-1-1 with amended charge sheet dated November 8, 1977), Buscayno and ninety-one others (including Sison and Juliet de Lima) were charged with rebellion for acts alleged on or about February 4, 1972 and during subsequent periods, including organizing Karagatan Fishing Corporation and using M/V Karagatan to land war materials at Digoyo Point, Palanan, Isabela on July 2, 1972.
Arrests, Initial Proceedings and Trial Dynamics
- Buscayno was arrested on August 26, 1976 in Barrio Sto. Rosario, Mexico, Pampanga by Armed Forces operatives and detained at the Constabulary Security Unit, Camp Crame.
- Prior to and at arraignment in the subversion and murder cases, Buscayno waived his right to be present and to have counsel, declared no intention to appear before the tribunal earlier, and pleaded not guilty.
- After prosecution rested, Buscayno declined to present evidence in writing. On July 18, 1977, Juan T. David entered as counsel for Buscayno in Criminal Case No. MC-2-23.
- Buscayno’s counsel filed a petition for habeas corpus and prohibition in this Court on October 25, 1977 (L-47185). In November 1977, the Commission found all accused guilty as charged and imposed death by firing squad; four days later the President directed the Commission to reopen the trial to give Buscayno and Aquino another chance to present evidence.
- The Commission gave further opportunities to present evidence; Buscayno’s counsel sought postponements and challenged competency of the Commission president; the challenge was rejected and the cases were re-submitted for decision. On May 4, 1981, the Commission reaffirmed its 1977 decision imposing death by firing squad on Buscayno.
Factual Background — Sison Spouses and Other Accusations
- Juliet de Lima-Sison and Jose Ma. Sison were charged in various military commission cases for subversion and rebellion:
- Juliet was charged (Case No. 55, Military Commission No. 6; charge sheet dated November 16, 1972) with subversion for being a ranking leader of Kabataang Makabayan in Bicol, assisting Jose Sison as KM chairman, and editing Ang Bayan in Isabela (1971–72). The charge sheet listed extensive indoctrination, agitation, slogans, propagation and alleged armed rising (specified instances).
- Jose Ma. Sison and others were charged with subversion under Presidential Decree No. 885 (Case No. 113, Military Commission No. 25; charge sheet dated October 3, 1978) alleging wilful organization and membership in the CPP and NPA in Capas, Tarlac and elsewhere for the purpose of armed revolution with foreign assistance.
- The Sison spouses and Buscayno spouses contested military jurisdiction; on January 3, 1979 the Sison spouses and others filed habeas corpus, prohibition and mandamus in this Court (L-49579); that petition was dismissed by this Court on January 15, 1981.
Legal Questions Presented
- Are the petitioners (Buscayno and the Sison spouses) illegally detained?
- Was Buscayno denied his constitutional right to present evidence before Military Commission No. 2, rendering the conviction void?
- Do petitions for dismissal based on double jeopardy have merit where petitioners face both subversion and rebellion charges arising from alleged related acts?
- Did Presidential Decree No. 885 (Revised Anti-Subversion Law) repeal Republic Act No. 1700 in a manner that extinguishes criminal liability for acts committed before PD 885’s effectivity?
- Can this Court review rulings and proceedings of military commissions and to what extent?
- Does Proclamation No. 2045 (termination of martial law) permit continued detention and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus for persons detained for rebellion or subversion, and are such detainees entitled to bail?