G.R. No. L-58284 - IN RE: Buscayno vs. Military Commissions

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-58284)

Factual Background

Bernabe Buscayno alias Commander Dante and Jose Ma. Sison alias Amado Guerrero were alleged subversives and were placed on a military “National Target List” whose arrest was ordered under General Order No. 2 dated September 22, 1972. Rewards were offered by Department Order No. 610 for their capture or information leading to their capture. The petitioners were charged in multiple military commissions with offenses including subversion, rebellion and murder based on alleged leadership and overt acts on behalf of the Communist Party of the Philippines and its armed wings.

Arrests and Formal Charges

Buscayno was arrested on August 26, 1976 and initially charged with subversion and murder before Military Commission No. 2 and later with rebellion before Military Commission No. 1 (refiled as Special Military Commission No. 1). The Sison spouses were arrested on November 10, 1977 and were charged with rebellion and with subversion in separate military commissions, including charges under Presidential Decree No. 885 and earlier under Republic Act No. 1700.

Military Commission Proceedings Against Buscayno

Proceedings before Military Commission No. 2 began with prosecutions in 1973. After the prosecution rested in 1977, Buscayno waived certain rights, declined to present evidence, and the Commission on November 25, 1977 found the accused guilty and imposed death by firing squad. The President directed a reopening; later the Commission reconvened in 1981, Buscayno’s counsel sought postponements and did not present evidence, and on May 4, 1981 the Commission reaffirmed its 1977 decision imposing death.

Prior Habeas Corpus Petitions and Related Decisions

Buscayno and the Sison spouses previously sought relief in petitions filed in this Court (notably L-47185 and L-49579). This Court in its decision dated January 15, 1981 dismissed those earlier petitions, reiterating that military tribunals have jurisdiction to try civilians for the specified offenses and that proceedings before such tribunals were not per se violative of procedural due process.

The Instant Petition and Reliefs Sought

On October 2, 1981 the petitioners filed an omnibus petition for habeas corpus, prohibition and mandamus. They alleged illegal detention, denial of constitutional rights to present evidence, asserted double jeopardy, contended that the repeal or supersession of the Anti-Subversion Law affected pending charges, and prayed for dismissal of charges, release, bail, and prohibitory relief against continuing military commission proceedings and review actions.

Issues Presented to the Court

The Court treated whether the petitioners were illegally detained and entitled to release or bail; whether the Court could review rulings of military commissions; whether Presidential Decree No. 885 repealed Republic Act No. 1700 so as to extinguish liability for subversion; and whether prosecution on both rebellion and subversion violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.

Habeas Corpus, Bail, and Proclamation No. 2045

The Court found that the petitioners were not illegally deprived of their liberty. It held that Proclamation No. 2045, which terminated martial law on January 17, 1981, expressly preserved the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus with respect to persons detained for insurrection, rebellion and subversion and related offenses and therefore sanctioned the continued confinement of the petitioners. Because the privilege of the writ was suspended as to them, the Court concluded that they were not entitled to bail, citing the principle applied in Lansang v. Garcia.

Scope of Judicial Review Over Military Commission Proceedings

The Court observed that ordinarily it could not review military commission rulings and proceedings directly on habeas corpus and similar writs. It relied on provisions of the National Security Code, Presidential Decree No. 1498, which restrict review to decisions of the Court of Military Appeals as provided in sections 86(f) and 87(e). The Court declared that interlocutory and trial rulings of military commissions should first be addressed by the military review authority and not by this Court, and therefore declined to pass at this stage on the petitioners’ complaints regarding evidentiary denial and perpetuation proceedings.

Effect of Presidential Decree No. 885 on Subversion Charges

The Court resolved that Presidential Decree No. 885, although superseding Republic Act No. 1700, expressly provided in section 7 a saving clause that acts committed in violation of the former law before the effectivity of the decree “shall be prosecuted and punished in accordance with the provisions of the former Act” and that pending cases shall not be prevented from prosecution. The Court therefore held that the repeal did not extinguish criminal liability for acts committed prior to PD 885.

Analysis of the Double Jeopardy Claim

Addressing the petitioners’ invocation of the constitutional protection against being tried twice for the same offense, the Court restated the legal test drawn from Rule 117, Sec. 9, Rules of Court and related authorities: to establish jeopardy there must have been a valid formal charge, trial in a court of competent jurisdiction and final termination of the case by conviction, acquittal, or dismissal without the accused’s consent. The Court found that none of the petitioners’ cases had been terminated; consequently jeopardy had not attached and double jeopardy protection was not available. The Court further explained that subversion and rebellion are distinct offenses — subversion being a national-security crime

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-58284)

Parties and Posture

Bernabe Buscayno, Jose Ma. Sison and Juliet Sison filed an omnibus petition for habeas corpus, prohibition and mandamus seeking release, dismissal of charges and injunctive relief against military trials.
Military Commissions Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 25, General Fabian Ver, General Fidel Ramos, Lieutenant Colonel Virgilio Saldajeno, Captain Melchor A. Acosta and Review Board of the Armed Forces of the Philippines were named as respondents.
The petition was heard en banc and sought, among other reliefs, review of Military Commission No. 2's decision affirming conviction and death sentence against Buscayno.
The petitioners also moved for temporary restraining orders to enjoin several military commissions from proceeding with trials and perpetuation proceedings.

Key Facts

Buscayno was included in the "National Target List" under General Order No. 2 dated September 22, 1972 and was arrested on August 26, 1976 in Mexico, Pampanga.
Department Order No. 610 fixed monetary prizes for the killing, capture or surrender of Buscayno and Sison, and for information directly leading to their killing or capture.
Buscayno was charged with subversion and murder before Military Commission No. 2 and with rebellion before Special Military Commission No. 1 (later SMC-1-1).
Jose Ma. Sison and Juliet Sison were arrested on November 10, 1977 and faced subversion and rebellion charges before Military Commissions Nos. 25, 6 and Special Military Commission No. 1.
Buscayno waived presence and counsel at arraignment in the subversion and murder cases, declined to present evidence after the prosecution rested, and was found guilty and sentenced to death in 1977 but the trial was later reopened by presidential direction.

Charges and Proceedings

The subversion charge against Buscayno alleged membership and leadership in the Communist Party of the Philippines and related armed wings with specified overt acts spanning 1965 to 1971.
The murder charge against Buscayno alleged participation in the abduction and killing of Cecilio Sumat in late 1967.
The rebellion charges in Criminal Case No. MC-1-92 / SMC-1-1 alleged rising in arms beginning about February 4, 1972 and related activities including the Karagatan landings of arms on July 2, 1972.
Jose Ma. Sison was charged with subversion under Presidential Decree No. 885 in Case No. 113 dated October 3, 1978, and Juliet Sison faced a 1972 subversion charge in Military Commission No. 6.
Multiple military commissions conducted hearings, transcript exchanges occurred, and military tribunals repeatedly denied motions to transfer to civilian courts.

Procedural History

Buscayno filed prior habeas corpus petitions, including L-47185, which this Court dismissed on January 15, 1981.
The Sison spouses joined a habeas corpus, prohibition and mandamus petition L-49579 that was also dismissed on January 15, 1981.
After the 1977 conviction by Military Commission No. 2, the President ordered a reopening of the trial and the Commission ultimately reaffirmed the 1977 decision on May 4, 1981.
The instant petition, filed October 2, 1981, raised issues of unlawful detention, denial of right to present evidence, double jeopardy, repeal of the Anti-Subversion Law, and entitlement to bail.

Issues Presented

Whether the petitioners were illegally detained and therefore entitled to release by writ of habeas corpus.
Whether Buscayno was denied his constitutional right to present evidence at trial before Military Commission No. 2.
Whether prosecution of subversion and rebellion charges constituted double jeopardy in violation of constitutional protections.
Whether Presidential Decree No. 885 repealed Republic Act No. 1700 so as to extinguish liability for acts committed prior to PD 885.
Whether the Court could review rulings and proceedings of military commissions and whether the petitioners were entitled to bail despite the suspension of the privi