V.

On whether the filing of charges of illegal assembly in military courts are sufficient to keep
the Ombudsman, Chief Justice, and others in detention.

Paragraph 4, Section 18, Art. VII, of the Constitution provides: A state of martial law
does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil
courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts
and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the
privilege of the writ.

Since the Constitution is clear, this Court has no other role than to apply the provision in
the Constitution which necessitates the ceasing of functions of civil courts before military courts
may be conferred jurisdiction. In the case at hand, the respondents never refuted the fact that
during the proclamation of martial law and the proclamation of a revolutionary government, civil
courts have continued to function. Hence, the military courts were never conferred jurisdiction
and thus any charge filed in such courts will have no legal effect. Thus in the case presented, the
filing of charges of illegal assembly in the military courts will not suffice to keep the
Ombudsman, the Chief Justice, and others in detention.

The Applicants argued for the application of Amartya Sen’s Idea of Justice; that taking
into consideration the past, wherein military courts were conferred jurisdiction and then abused
its powers, the provision on conferment of jurisdiction upon military courts must be strictly
applied. Amartya Sen advocated that to achieve a society with the least injustice, all perspectives
must be taken into account in administering justice. This Court believes that to allow the filing of
charges in military courts to keep the Ombudsman, the Chief Justice, and others in detention, in
view of the past abuses of the Marcos dictatorship would result to great injustice—going against
the Constitution and the Amartya Sen’s Idea of Justice.