Aquino Vs Enrile

FACTS : Enrile (then Minister of National Defense), pursuant to the order of Marcos issued
and ordered the arrest of a number of individuals including Benigno Aquino Jr even without
any charge against them. Hence, Aquino and some others filed for habeas corpus against
Juan Ponce Enrile. Enriles answer contained a common and special affirmative defense that
the arrest is valid pursuant to Marcos declaration of Martial Law.
ISSUE: Whether or not Aquinos detention is legal in accordance to the declaration of Martial
Law.
HELD: The Constitution provides that in case of invasion, insurrection or rebellion, or
imminent danger against the state, when public safety requires it, the President may
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part
therein under Martial Law. In the case at bar, the state of rebellion plaguing the country has
not yet disappeared, therefore, there is a clear and imminent danger against the state. The
arrest is then a valid exercise pursuant to the Presidents order.
Aquino v. Enrile
Constitutional Law. Political Law. Powers of the President.
Aquino v. Enrile
59 SCRA 183
FACTS:
The cases are all petitions for habeas corpus, the petitioners having been arrested and
detained by the military by virtue of Proclamation 1081. The petitioners were arrested and
held pursuant to General Order No.2 of the President "for being participants or for having
given aid and comfort in the conspiracy to seize political and state power in the country and
to take over the Government by force..." General Order No. 2 was issued by the President in
the exercise of the power he assumed by virtue of Proclamation 1081 placing the entire
country under martial law.
ISSUES:
1) Is the existence of conditions claimed to justify the exercise of the power to declare
martial law subject to judicial inquiry?; and
2) Is the detention of the petitioners legal in accordance to the declaration of martial law?
HELD:
5 Justices held that the issue is a political question, hence, not subject to judicial inquiry,
while 4 Justices held that the issue is a justiciable one. However, any inquiry by this Court in
the present cases into the constitutional sufficiency of the factual bases for the proclamation
of martial law has become moot and academic. Implicit in the state of martial law is the
suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus with respect to persons arrested or
detained for acts related to the basic objective of the proclamation, which is to suppress
invasion, insurrection or rebellion, or to safeguard public safety against imminent danger
thereof. The preservation of society and national survival takes precedence. The
proclamation of martial law automatically suspends the privilege of the writ as to the
persons referred to in this case.