Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ARTICLE III Bill of Rights authority to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
SECTION 15 corpus, jeopardizing as the latter does individual liberty; and
SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF
(b) the privilege had been suspended by the American
THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Governor-General, whose act, as representative of
the Sovereign, affecting the freedom of its subjects, can
LANSANG vs. GARCIA hardly be equated with that of the President of the
Pertinent Constitutional Provisions in the case Philippines dealing with the freedom of the Filipino
paragraph (14) of section 1, Article III of our Constitution, reading: people, in whom sovereignty resides, and from whom all
government authority emanates.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended
except in cases of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, when the public The ruling of MONTENEGRO vs. CASTANEDA
safety requires it, in any way of which events the same may be The pertinent ruling in the Montenegro case was based mainly upon
suspended wherever during such period the necessity for such the Barcelon case, and hence, cannot have more weight than the same.
suspension shall exist.
Issue in both Barcelon and Montenegro Cases
and paragraph (2), section 10, Article VII of the same instrument, Barcelon Case: it did determine whether or not the Chief Executive
which provides that: had acted in accordance with law.
The President shall be commander-in-chief of all armed forces of the Montenegro Case: the Court held that petitioner therein had "failed to
Philippines, and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such overcome the presumption of correctness which the judiciary accords
armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, to acts of the Executive ...." In short, the Court considered the question
insurrection, or rebellion. In case of invasion, insurrection, or whether or not there really was are rebellion, as stated in the
rebellion, or imminent danger thereof when the public safety requires proclamation therein contested.
it, he may suspend the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus, or place
the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Court’s power to review from American Jurisprudence
One of the important, if not dominant, factors, in connection therewith,
The merit of the claim regarding actual insurrection or rebellion was intimated in Sterling v. Constantin, in which the Supreme Court
has been rendered moot and academic of the United States, speaking through Chief Justice Hughes, declared
In other words, apart from adverting to the existence of that:
The precept in the Bill of Rights establishes a general rule, as well as Principle of Separation of Power and Checks and Balances
an exception thereto. Under the principle of separation of powers and the system of checks
and balances, the judicial authority to review decisions of
What is more, it postulates the former in the negative, evidently to administrative bodies or agencies is much more limited, as regards
stress its importance, by providing that "(t)he privilege of the writ findings of fact made in said decisions.
of habeas corpus shall not be suspended ...."
Under the English law, the reviewing court determines
Exception to the general rule only whether there is some evidentiary basis for the
It is only by way of exception that it permits the suspension of the contested administrative findings;
privilege "in cases of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion" — or, under no quantitative examination of the supporting evidence is
Art VII of the Constitution, "imminent danger thereof" — "when the undertaken.
public safety requires it, in any of which events the same may be The administrative findings can be interfered with only if
suspended wherever during such period the necessity for such there is no evidence whatsoever in support thereof, and said
suspension shall exist." finding is, accordingly, arbitrary, capricious and obviously
unauthorized.
For from being full and plenary, the authority to suspend the privilege
of the writ is thus circumscribed, confined and restricted, not only by Substantial Evidence Rule
the prescribed setting or the conditions essential to its existence, but, This view has been adopted by some American courts. It has, likewise,
also, as regards the time when and the place where it may be exercised. been adhered to in a number of Philippine cases. Other cases,
These factors and the aforementioned setting or conditions mark, in both jurisdictions, have applied the "substantial evidence" rule,
establish and define the extent, the confines and the limits of said which has been construed to mean "more than a mere scintilla" or
power, beyond which it does not exist. "relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion," even if other minds equally reasonable
When privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended might conceivably opine otherwise.
Accordingly, when individual freedom is used to destroy that social
order, by means of force and violence, in defiance of the Rule of Law No cogent reason has been submitted to warrant the rejection of such
— such as by rising publicly and taking arms against the government test. Indeed, the co-equality of coordinate branches of the Government,
to overthrow the same, thereby committing the crime of rebellion — under our constitutional system, seems to demand that the test of the
there emerges a circumstance that may warrant a limited withdrawal validity of acts of Congress and of those of the Executive be, mutatis
of the aforementioned guarantee or protection, by suspending the mutandis, fundamentally the same. Hence, counsel for petitioner
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, when public safety requires it. Rogelio Arienda admits that the proper standard is not correctness,
but arbitrariness.
Two facts that may be likened to declaration of war
Magnitude of Rebellion In view of the foregoing, it does not appear that the President has acted
The magnitude of the rebellion has a bearing on the second condition arbitrary in issuing Proclamation No. 889, as amended, nor that the
essential to the validity of the suspension of the privilege — namely, same is unconstitutional.
that the suspension be required by public safety.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II NOTES & DOCTRINES 3
(a) If the proclamation suspending the privilege of the writ Writ of habeas corpus is a Writ of inquiry
of habeas corpus is valid — and We so hold it to be — and It is essentially a writ of inquiry and is granted to test the right under
the detainee is covered by the proclamation, the filing of a which he is detained.
complaint or information against him does not affect the
suspension of said privilege, and, consequently, his release When the writ is not allowed or discharged authorized
may not be ordered by Us; Section 4, Rule 102 of the said Rules provides when the writ
of habeas corpus is not allowed or discharged authorized:
(b) Inasmuch as the filing of a formal complaint or information
does not detract from the validity and efficacy of the Sec. 4. When writ not allowed or discharged authorized. If it appears
suspension of the privilege, it would be more reasonable to that the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody
construe the filing of said formal charges with the court of of an officer under process issued by a court or judge or by virtue of a
first instance as an expression of the President's belief that judgment or order of a court of record, and that the court or judge had
there are sufficient evidence to convict the petitioners so jurisdiction to issue the process, render the judgment; or make the
charged and that hey should not be released, order, the writ shall not be allowed; or if the jurisdiction appears after
therefore, unless and until said court — after conducting the the writ is allowed, the person shall not be discharged by reason of any
corresponding preliminary examination and/or investigation informality or defect in the process, judgment, or order. Nor shall
— shall find that the prosecution has not established the anything in this rule be held to authorize the discharge of a person
existence of a probable cause. Otherwise, the Executive charged with or convicted of an offense in the Philippines, or of a
would have released said accused, as were the other person suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment.
petitioners herein;
Court includes quasi-judicial bodies
IN RE: THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS The grant of the power to suspend the said privilege provides the basis
FOR DR. AURORA PARONG ET AL. vs. PONCE ENRILE for continuing with perfect legality the detention as long as the
Arrest is legal in the case at bar invasion or rebellion has not been repelled or quelled, and the need
The fundamental issue here, as in all petitioner for the writ of habeas therefor in the interest of public safety continues.
corpus, is whether or not petitioners' detention is legal. We have
carefully gone over the claims of the parties in their respective Suspension of the privilege is a military measure
pleadings as well as in the oral argument during the hearing on August The significance of the conferment of this power, constitutionally upon
26, 1982, and We find that petitioners have not been illegally deprived the President as Commander-in-Chief, is that the exercise thereof is
of their constitutional right to liberty, neither in the manner of their not subject to judicial inquiry, with a view to determining its legality
arrest, nor by their continued detention, and that the circumstances in the light of the bill of rights guarantee to individual freedom.
attendant in the herein case do not warrant their release on a writ of
habeas corpus. This must be so because the suspension of the privilege is a military
measure the necessity of which the President alone may determine as
Detainees were caught in flagrante delicto an incident of his grave responsibility as the Commander-in-Chief of
Caught in flagrante delicto, the nine (9) detainees mentioned the Armed Forces, of protecting not only public safety but the very life
scampered towards different directions leaving in top of their of the State, the government and duly constituted authorities.
conference table numerous subversive documents, periodicals,
pamphlets, books, correspondence, stationaries, and other papers, This should be clear beyond doubt in the case of "invasion," along
including a plan on how they would infiltrate the youth and student which "rebellion" or "insurrection" is mentioned by the Constitution,
sector (code-named YORK). Also found were one (1) .38 cal. revolver which contingency does not present a legal question on whether there
with eight (8) live bullets, nineteen (19) rounds of ammunition for M16 is a violation of the right to personal liberty when any member of the
armalite, eighteen thousand six hundred fifty pesos (P18,650.00) cash invading force is captured and detained.
believed to be CPP/NPA funds, assorted medicine packed and ready
for distribution, as sizeable quantity of printing paraphernalia, which The Suspension is one such measure that in order to be effective
were then seized. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is one such
measure. To be effective, the occasion for its application on specific
Arrest here need not follow usual procedure individuals should be left to the exclusive and sound judgment of
The arrest, therefore, need not follow the usual procedure in the the President, at least while the exigencies of invasion, rebellion or
prosecution of offenses which requires the determination by a judge of insurrection persist, and the public safety requires it, a matter, likewise,
the existence of probable cause before the issuance of a judicial which should be left for the sole determination of the President as
warrant of arrest and the granting of bail if the offense is bailable. Commander-in-Chief of the Nation's armed forces. The need for a
unified command in such contingencies is imperative-even axiomatic-
Obviously, the absence of a judicial warrant is no legal impediment as a basic military concept in the art of warfare.
They may not even claim the right to be charged immediately in doubtlessly realized how hardly possible it is to adduce evidence or
court, as they may rightfully do so, were they being charged with an proof upon which to show the President having acted with
ordinary or common offense. This is so because according to legal arbitrariness.
writers or publicists, the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus "has the sole effect of allowing the executive to defer Judicial interference
the trials of persons charged with certain offenses during the period of Judicial interference was thus held as permissible, and the test as laid
emergency." This clearly means denial of the right to be released on down therein is not whether the President acted correctly but whether
bail on being charged in court with bailable offenses. he acted arbitrarily. This would seem to be pure semanticism, if We
consider that with particular reference to the nature of the actions the
Suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus must carry President would take on the occasion of the grave emergency he has to
the suspension of the right to bail deal with, which, as clearly indicated in Section 9, Art. VII of the
The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus must, Constitution partakes of military measures, the judiciary can, with
indeed, carry with it the suspension of the right to bail, if the becoming modesty, ill afford to assume the authority to check or
government's campaign to suppress the rebellion is to be enhanced and reverse or supplant the presidential actions.
rendered effective.
On these occasions, the President takes absolute command, for the
Reason: If the right to bail may be demanded during the continuance very life of the Nation and its government, which, incidentally,
of the rebellion, and those arrested, captured and detained in the course includes the courts, is in grave peril. In so doing, the President is
thereof will be released, they would, without the least doubt, rejoin answerable only to his conscience, the people and to God. For their
their comrades in the field thereby jeopardizing the success of part, in giving him the supreme mandate as their President, the people
government efforts to bring to an end the invasion, rebellion or can only trust and pray that, giving him their own loyalty with utmost
insurrection. patriotism, the President will not fail them.
. It would, therefore, seem to be ignoring realities in the name of Power and the Right to Liberty
misplaced magnanimity and compassion, and for the sake of humanity, For the power is intended as a limitation of the right, in much the same
to grant the demand for respect of rights supposedly guaranteed by the way as individual freedom yields to the exercise of the police power of
Constitution by those who themselves seek to destroy that very same the State in the interest of general welfare.
instrument, trampling over it already as they are still waging war
against the government. This stark actuality gives added force and The difference again is that the power comes into being during extreme
substance to the rationale of the suspension of the privilege of the writ emergencies the exercise of which, for complete effectiveness for the
of habeas corpus in case of invasion, insurrection, rebellion, or purpose it was granted should not permit intereference, while
imminent danger thereof, when public safety requires it. individual freedom is obviously for full enjoyment in time of peace,
but in time of war or grave peril to the nation, should be limited or
The petition now before Us is exactly one of this kind. If granted, the
effect is to transfer the jurisdiction of the trial courts in criminal cases
to this Court, which is simply inconceivable.