UNIVERSITY OF CEBU Banilad

COLLEGE OF LAW

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

REACTION PAPER
on
THE CONSPIRATORS

Submitted by:
Reality Mae S. Tabernero
JD 2

Submitted to:
Atty. Judiel M. Pareja
Professor

ABSTRACT:
This is a reaction paper about the trial of the assassins of President Abraham Lincoln. One of
them is Mary Surratt, the first woman who was executed. This paper shows how justice was delivered

during that time. I want to relate the happenings in the movie to the Philippine laws if whether or not,
using the Philippine Constitution, the rights of Mary Surratt was violated during the trial. The Constitution
was made to safeguard the rights of the people. In this case, a woman was charged of being a coconspirator for the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. I doubted the validity of the trial because
as I have seen, it seems that the prosecution was controlling the military commission. It looked like theyre
sacrificing a life, the life of Mary Surratt the mother of John Surratt for the latters arrest.

SYNOPSIS:
Following the assassination of President Lincoln, seven men and one woman are arrested and
charged with conspiring to kill Lincoln, the vice president and the secretary of state. Lawyer Frederick
Aiken reluctantly agrees to defend the lone woman, Mary Surratt, who owns a boarding house where
John Wilkes Booth and others met to plan their crimes. Aiken realizes that Mary may be innocent and
being used as bait to capture her son, a suspect who is still at large.

DISCUSSION:
It is true that Mary Surratt was found guilty of conspiring to kill Abraham Lincoln. However, the
question lies on whether Mary Surratt was denied of due process and equal protection. In this case, it is
hard to prove the innocence on Mary Surratt because the plan to assassinate the President was done in
the boarding house which she owned. However, even though she is guilty of such crime, she was
prejudiced of her right to a public trial. On the basis of our 1987 Constitution, Section 14 (1), Article III
states that,
No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
I have three points to ponder in this paper: (1) What really is due process, (2) the right to equal
protection of the law and, (3) the writ of habeas corpus.
First, does all trial constitute due process? I say, no. If a trial the was made just for the sake to
achieve the arrest of her son John Surratt or any person then, it is not due process and it never will. It is
incrimination against the accused on trial that he will be forced to tell something to satisfy the
prosecutions needs. I believe that she was made to answer the crime that was made by her son. The
right to due process is supposed to be the persons right to be heard. However, as what Ive mentioned
that not all trial is in accordance with due process, she, Mary Surratt did not really enjoyed her right
because the prosecution, on their process of proving her guilt, forgot that the accused is also a person
entitled to his own rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Reverdy Johnson said during the trial:
Our founding fathers drafted a constitution, precisely for times like this.
It is true that the Constitution was drafted to safeguard every right of the citizens against the
oppressions of the government. However, as what Ive seen, it seems that the government themselves
have abandoned the constitution and relied on their emotions seeking for justice through wrongful
upholding of the law. Theyve brought the law in their own hands. They used the law for vengeance on the
death of their beloved President. It should be supposed to be like that. Everybody is aggrieved on the
death but they should put tot their minds that the rule of law must prevail regardless of the emotions they
have at that time.

2 | Page

Second is on equal protection. Sec. 1 Art III of the 1987 Constitution states that: No person shall
be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the
equal protection of the law.
In this case, Mary Surratt was deprived not only of her right to due process but also the right to
equal protection of the law. The U.S. Constitution requires a person to have a jury of their peers. Since
Mrs. Surratts case took place within the last few ripples of the Civil War, she was tried in a military
tribunal of high-ranking Union officials. Of course, this turned out to be incredibly biased and screamed of
an unfair trial. Adding to that was the corruption of the prosecutor. Not only did he personally select the
members of the tribunals, he was also guilty of witness tampering and intimidation. Unfair over rulings
also worked against Ms. Surratt as she was forbidden of testifying in her own defense. The Union officials
had only one goal in mind, swift justice.
Section 14 (2) Article III of the 1987 Constitution states that, In all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by
himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a
speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused. Provided, that he has been
duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
Though the bulk of the film consists of tribunal proceedings and flashbacks, the films main
objective is not to persuade the viewer of Marys guilt or innocence. No, it is to show regardless of her
innocence, she was denied a fair trial which is guaranteed in the most important document, the
Constitution.

Third is the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Section 15 Article III of the 1987 Constitution
states that, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion
or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.
When Aiken procured the writ of habeas corpus, it was suspended by the President. Basing in our
own Constitution, there is injustice. The privilege of the writ should not be suspended and it will only be
suspended in cases enumerated therein. In this case, the assassination cannot constitute to be neither
rebellion nor invasion or even a threat to public safety. The effect of the assassination is only incidental
because of the grief of the people. It cannot be a ground for the suspension of the writ.

CONCLUSION:
Finally, I conclude that America has their darkest past. What we see right now is very different
than before. What we see as the mighty United States is America once became a nation of vengeance.
However, the movie taught us one thing, and that is to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law
regardless of the emotions or the grievances that we have.

3 | Page

Inter arma, silent leges. "In times of war, the law falls silent." I should not be like this, generally,
the Constitution guarantees the right of the people and limits the power of the government. I believe that
the law will never be silent in whatever cases.
Therefore, whatever the movie taught us, we should apply it in our own lives. That is, to uphold
the constitution, to fight for our right, to obey the rule of law and to respect each and everyones right.

REFRENCES:
Book/s:
Cruz, Isagani A., 2007. Constitutional Law. Quezon City, Philippines: Central Books Supply, Inc.
Online:
Scott, A O. Historys Loose Ends, and a Tightening Noose. APRIL 14, 2011. New York retrieved
from http://www.nytimes.com/.

4 | Page