Republic of the Philippines PHILIPPINES; AND HON.

JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF

NATIONAL DEFENSE, respondents.
SUPREME COURT
G.R. No. L-35556 September 17, 1974
Manila
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF
EN BANC VERONICA L. YUYITUNG AND TAN CHIN HIAN, petitioners,

vs.
G.R. No. L-35546 September 17, 1974 JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LIEUT.
GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF
PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF OF THE
BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., RAMON MITRA, JR., FRANCISCO
PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, respondents.
RODRIGO, AND NAPOLEON RAMA, petitioners,
G.R. No. L-35567 September 17, 1974
vs.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF
HON JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE;
AMANDO DORONILA JUAN L. MERCADO, HERNANDO L. ABAYA,
GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE
ERNESTO GRANADA, LUIS D. BELTRAN, TAN CHIN HIAN, BREN
PHILIPPINES; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE
GUIAO, RUBEN CUSIPAG, ROBERTO ORDOÑEZ, MANUEL ALMARIO
CONSTABULARY, respondents.
AND WILLIE BAUN, petitioners,
G.R. No. L-35538 September 17, 1974
vs.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF
HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE;
JOAQUIN P. ROCES, TEODORO M. LOCSIN, SR., ROLANDO FADUL,
LIEUT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF
ROSALINA GALANG, GO ENG GUAN, MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN,
THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF,
RENATO CONSTANTINO, AND LUIS R. MAURICIO, petitioners,
PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, respondents.
vs.
G.R. No. L-35571 September 17, 1974. *3
THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; THE CHIEF OF STAFF,
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BREN
ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE
Z. GUIAO, TERESITA M. GUIAO, petitioner,
CONSTABULARY, et al., respondents.
vs.
G.R. No. L-35539 September 17, 1974
JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LT.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOSE
GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
W. DIOKNO, CARMEN I. DIOKNO, *1 petitioner,
THE PHILIPPINES: AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF OF THE
vs. PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, respondents.

JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; G.R. No. L-35573 September 17, 1974
ROMEO ESPINO, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE
ERNESTO RONDON, petitioner,
PHILIPPINES. respondents.
vs.
G.R. No. L-35540 September 17, 1974
HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE;
MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, NAPOLEON G. RAMA, AND JOSE MARI
GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; AND
VELEZ, petitioners,
MAJOR RODULFO MIANA, respondents.
vs.

HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE;

HON. FRANCISCO TATAD, PRESS SECRETARY; AND GEN. FIDEL V.
RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, respondents.
G.R. No. L-35547 September 17, 1974 *2
ENRIQUE VOLTAIRE GARCIA II, petitioner,
vs.
BRIG. GEN. FIDEL RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY;
GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE
MAKALINTAL, C.J.:p
These cases are all petitions for habeas corpus, the petitioners
having been arrested and detained by the military by virtue of the
President's Proclamation No. 1081, dated September 21, 1972.
At the outset a word of clarification is in order. This is not the
decision of the Court in the sense that a decision represents a
consensus of the required majority of its members not only on the
judgment itself but also on the rationalization of the issues and
the conclusions arrived at. On the final result the vote is
practically unanimous; this is a statement of my individual opinion
as well as a summary of the voting on the major issues. Why no
particular Justice has been designated to write just one opinion
for the entire Court will presently be explained.
At one point during our deliberations on these cases it was
suggested that as Chief Justice I should write that opinion. The
impracticability of the suggestion shortly became apparent for a
number of reasons, only two of which need be mentioned. First,
the discussions, as they began to touch on particular issues,
revealed a lack of agreement among the Justices as to whether
some of those issues should be taken up although it was not
necessary to do so, they being merely convenient for the purpose
of ventilating vexing questions of public interest, or whether the
decision should be limited to those issues which are really
material and decisive in these cases. Similarly, there was no
agreement as to the manner the issues should be treated and
developed. The same destination would be reached, so to speak,
but through different routes and by means of different vehicles of
approach. The writing of separate opinions by individual Justices
was thus unavoidable, and understandably so for still another
reason, namely, that although little overt reference to it was
made at the time, the future verdict of history was very much a
factor in the thinking of the members, no other case of such
transcendental significance to the life of the nation having before
confronted this Court. Second — and this to me was the
insuperable obstacle — I was and am of the opinion, which was
shared by six other Justices1 at the time the question was voted
upon, that petitioner Jose W. Diokno's motion of December 28,
1973 to withdraw his petition (G.R. No. L-35539) should be
granted, and therefore I was in no position to set down the ruling
of the Court on each of the arguments raised by him, except
indirectly, insofar as they had been raised likewise in the other
cases.
It should be explained at this point that when the Court voted on
Diokno's motion to withdraw his petition he was still under
detention without charges, and continued to remain so up to the
time the separate opinions of the individual Justices were put in
final form preparatory to their promulgation on September 12,
which was the last day of Justice Zaldivars tenure in the Court.2
Before they could be promulgated, however, a major
development supervened: petitioner Diokno was released by the
President in the morning of September 11, 1974. In view thereof
all the members of this Court except Justice Castro agreed to
dismiss Diokno's petition on the ground that it had become moot,
with those who originally voted to grant the motion for
withdrawal citing said motion as an additional ground for such
dismissal.
The petitioners in the other cases, except Benigno Aquino, Jr.
(G.R. No. L-35546), either have been permitted to withdraw their
petitions or have been released from detention subject to certain
restrictions.3 In the case of Aquino, formal charges of murder,
subversion and illegal possession of firearms were lodged against
him with a Military Commission on August 11, 1973; and on the
following August 23 he challenged the jurisdiction of said
Commission as well as his continued detention by virtue of those
charges in a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed in this
Court (G.R. No.
L-37364). The question came up as to whether or not Aquino's
petition for habeas corpus should be dismissed on the ground that
the case as to him should more appropriately be resolved in this
new petition. Of the twelve Justices, however, eight voted against
such dismissal and chose to consider the case on the merits.4
On Diokno's motion to withdraw his petition I voted in favor of
granting it for two reasons. In the first place such withdrawal
would not emasculate the decisive and fundamental issues of
public interest that demanded to be resolved, for they were also
raised in the other cases which still remained pending. Secondly,
since it was this petitioner's personal liberty that was at stake, I
believed he had the right to renounce the application for habeas
corpus he initiated. Even if that right were not absolute I still
would respect his choice to remove the case from this Court's
cognizance, regardless of the fact that I disagreed with many of
his reasons for so doing. I could not escape a sense of irony in this
Court's turning down the plea to withdraw on the ground, so he
alleges among others, that this is no longer the Court to which he
originally applied for relief because its members have taken new
oaths of office under the 1973 Constitution, and then ruling
adversely to him on the merits of his petition.
It is true that some of the statements in the motion are an affront
to the dignity of this Court and therefore should not be allowed to
pass unanswered. Any answer, however, would not be foreclosed
by allowing the withdrawal. For my part, since most of those
statements are of a subjective character, being matters of
personal belief and opinion, I see no point in refuting them in
these cases. Indeed my impression is that they were beamed less
at this Court than at the world outside and designed to make
political capital of his personal situation, as the publicity given to
them by some segments of the foreign press and by local
underground propaganda news sheets subsequently confirmed. It
was in fact from that perspective that I deemed it proper to
respond in kind, that is, from a non-judicial forum, in an address I
delivered on February 19, 1974 before the LAWASIA, the
Philippine Bar Association and the Philippine Lawyers' Association.
Justice Teehankee, it may be stated, is of the opinion that a simple
majority of seven votes out of twelve is legally sufficient to make
the withdrawal of Diokno's petition effective, on the theory that
the requirement of a majority of eight votes applies only to a
decision on the merits.
In any event, as it turned out, after petitioner Diokno was
released by the President on September 11 all the members of
this Court except Justice Castro were agreed that his petition had
become moot and therefore should no longer be considered on
the merits. This notwithstanding, some of the opinions of the
individual members, particularly Justices Castro and Teehankee,
should be taken in the time setting in which they were prepared,
that is, before the order for the release of Diokno was issued.
The Cases.
The events which form the background of these nine petitions are
related, either briefly or in great detail, in the separate opinions
filed by the individual Justices. The petitioners were arrested and
held pursuant to General Order No. 2 of the President (September
22, 1972), "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 powers he assumed by virtue of Proclamation No. 1081
(September 21, 1972) placing the entire country under martial
law. The portions of the proclamation immediately in point read
as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the
Philippines by virtue of the powers vested upon me by Article VII,
Section 10, Paragraph (2) of the Constitution, do hereby place the
entire Philippines as defined in Article I, Section 1 of the
Constitution under martial law and, in my capacity as their
Commander-in-Chief, do hereby command the Armed Forces of
the Philippines, to maintain law and order throughout the
Philippines, prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence as
well as any act of insurrection or rebellion and to enforce
obedience to all the laws and decrees, orders and regulations
promulgated by me personally or upon my direction.
In addition, I do hereby order that all persons presently detained,
as well as all others who may hereafter be similarly detained for
the crimes of insurrection or rebellion, and all other crimes and
offenses committed in furtherance or on the occasion thereof, or
incident thereto, or in connection therewith, for crimes against
national security and the law of nations, crimes against public
order, crimes involving usurpation of authority, rank, title and
improper use of names, uniforms and insignia, crimes committed
by public officers, and for such other crimes as will be enumerated
in orders that I shall subsequently promulgate, as well as crimes
as a consequence of any violation of any decree, order or
regulation promulgated by me personally or promulgated upon
my direction shall be kept under detention until otherwise
ordered released by me or by my duly designated representative.
The provision of the 1935 Constitution referred to in the
proclamation reads: "the President shall be commander-in-chief
of all armed forces of the Philippines and, whenever it becomes
necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or
suppress lawless violence, invasion, insurrection, or rebellion. In
case of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, or imminent danger
thereof, when the public safety requires it, he may suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or place the Philippines or
any part thereof under martial law."
1. The first major issue raised by the parties is whether this Court
may inquire into the validity of Proclamation No. 1081. Stated
more concretely, is the existence of conditions claimed to justify
the exercise of the power to declare martial law subject to judicial
inquiry? Is the question political or justiciable in character?
Justices Makasiar, Antonio, Esguerra, Fernandez and Aquino hold
that the question is political and therefore its determination is
beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. The reasons are given at
length in the separate opinions they have respectively signed.
Justice Fernandez adds that as a member of the Convention that
drafted the 1973 Constitution he believes that "the Convention
put an imprimatur on the proposition that the validity of a martial
law proclamation and its continuation is political and non-
justiciable in character."
Justice Barredo, on the other hand, believes that political
questions are not per se beyond the Court's jurisdiction, the
judicial power vested in it by the Constitution being plenary and
all-embracing, but that as a matter of policy implicit in the
Constitution itself the Court should abstain from interfering with
the Executive's Proclamation, dealing as it does with national
security, for which the responsibility is vested by the charter in
him alone. But the Court should act, Justice Barredo opines, when
its abstention from acting would result in manifest and palpable
transgression of the Constitution proven by facts of judicial notice,
no reception of evidence being contemplated for purposes of such
judicial action.
It may be noted that the postulate of non-justiciability as
discussed in those opinions involves disparate methods of
approach. Justice Esguerra maintains that the findings of the
President on the existence of the grounds for the declaration of
martial law are final and conclusive upon the Courts. He disagrees
vehemently with the ruling in Lansang vs. Garcia, 42 SCRA 448,
December 11, 1971, and advocates a return to Barcelon vs. Baker,
5 Phil. 87 (1905), and Montenegro vs. Castañeda, 91 Phil. 882
(1952). Justice Barredo, for his part, holds that Lansang need not
be overturned, indeed does not control in these cases. He draws a
distinction between the power of the President to suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, which was the issue in
Lansang, and his power to proclaim martial law, calling attention
to the fact that while the Bill of Rights prohibits suspension of the
privilege except in the instances specified therein, it places no
such prohibition or qualification with respect to the declaration of
martial law.
Justice Antonio, with whom Justices Makasiar, Fernandez and
Aquino concur, finds that there is no dispute as to the existence of
a state of rebellion in the country, and on that premise
emphasizes the factor of necessity for the exercise by the
President of his power under the Constitution to declare martial
law, holding that the decision as to whether or not there is such
necessity is wholly confided to him and therefore is not subject to
judicial inquiry, his responsibility being directly to the people.
Arrayed on the side of justiciability are Justices Castro, Fernando,
Teehankee and Muñoz Palma. They hold that the constitutional
sufficiency of the proclamation may be inquired into by the Court,
and would thus apply the principle laid down in Lansang although
that case refers to the power of the President to suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The recognition of
justiciability accorded to the question in Lansang, it should be
emphasized, is there expressly distinguished from the power of
judicial review in ordinary civil or criminal cases, and is limited to
ascertaining "merely whether he (the President) has gone beyond
the constitutional limits of his jurisdiction, not to exercise the
power vested in him or to determine the wisdom of his act." The
test is not whether the President's decision is correct but
whether, in suspending the writ, he did or did not act arbitrarily.
Applying this test, the finding by the Justices just mentioned is
that there was no arbitrariness in the President's proclamation of
martial law pursuant to the 1935 Constitution; and I concur with
them in that finding. The factual bases for the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, particularly in regard to the
existence of a state of rebellion in the country, had not
disappeared, indeed had been exacerbated, as events shortly
before said proclamation clearly demonstrated. On this Point the
Court is practically unanimous; Justice Teehankee merely
refrained from discussing it.
Insofar as my own opinion is concerned the cleavage in the Court
on the issue of justiciability is of not much more than academic
interest for purposes of arriving at a judgment. I am not unduly
exercised by Americas decisions on the subject written in another
age and political clime, or by theories of foreign authors in
political science. The present state of martial law in the
Philippines is peculiarly Filipino and fits into no traditional
patterns or judicial precedents.
In the first place I am convinced (as are the other Justices),
without need of receiving evidence as in an ordinary adversary
court proceeding, that a state of rebellion existed in the country
when Proclamation No. 1081 was issued. It was a matter of
contemporary history within the cognizance not only of the courts
but of all observant people residing here at the time. Many of the
facts and events recited in detail in the different "Whereases" of
the proclamation are of common knowledge. The state of
rebellion continues up to the present. The argument that while
armed hostilities go on in several provinces in Mindanao there are
none in other regions except in isolated pockets in Luzon, and that
therefore there is no need to maintain martial law all over the
country, ignores the sophisticated nature and ramifications of
rebellion in a modern setting. It does not consist simply of armed
clashes between organized and identifiable groups on fields of
their own choosing. It includes subversion of the most subtle kind,
necessarily clandestine and operating precisely where there is no
actual fighting. Underground propaganda, through printed news
sheets or rumors disseminated in whispers; recruitment of armed
and ideological adherents, raising of funds, procurement of arms
and material, fifth-column activities including sabotage and
intelligence — all these are part of the rebellion which by their
nature are usually conducted far from the battle fronts. They
cannot be counteracted effectively unless recognized and dealt
with in that context.
Secondly, my view, which coincides with that of other members of
the Court as stated in their opinions, is that the question of
validity of Proclamation No. 1081 has been foreclosed by the
transitory provision of the 1973 Constitution [Art. XVII, Sec. 3(2)]
that "all proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions, and acts
promulgated, issued, or done by the incumbent President shall be
part of the law of the land and shall remain valid, legal, binding
and effective even after ... the ratification of this Constitution ..."
To be sure, there is an attempt in these cases to resuscitate the
issue of the effectivity of the new Constitution. All that, however,
is behind us now. The question has been laid to rest by our
decision in Javellana vs. Executive Secretary (L-36142, 50 SCRA 30,
March 31, 1973), and of course by the existing political realities
both in the conduct of national affairs and in our relations with
other countries.
On the effect of the transitory provision Justice Muñoz Palma
withholds her assent to any sweeping statement that the same in
effect validated, in the constitutional sense, all "such
proclamations, decrees, instructions, and acts promulgated,
issued, or done by the incumbent President." All that she
concedes is that the transitory provision merely gives them "the
imprimatur of a law but not of a constitutional mandate," and as
such therefore "are subject to judicial review when proper under
the Constitution.
Finally, the political-or-justiciable question controversy indeed,
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 purposeless as a
consequence of the general referendum of July 27-28, 1973. The
question propounded to the voters was: "Under the (1973)
Constitution, the President, if he so desires, can continue in office
beyond 1973. Do you want President Marcos to continue beyond
1973 and finish the reforms he initiated under Martial Law?" The
overwhelming majority of those who cast their ballots, including
citizens between 15 and 18 years, voted affirmatively on the
proposal. The question was thereby removed from the area of
presidential power under the Constitution and transferred to the
seat of sovereignty itself. Whatever may be the nature of the
exercise of that power by the President in the beginning —
whether or not purely political and therefore non-justiciable —
this Court is precluded from applying its judicial yardstick to the
act of the sovereign.
2. With respect to the petitioners who have been released from
detention but have not withdrawn their petitions because they
are still subject to certain restrictions,5 the ruling of the Court is
that the petitions should be dismissed. The power to detain
persons even without charges for acts related to the situation
which justifies the proclamation of martial law, such as the
existence of a state of rebellion, necessarily implies the power
(subject, in the opinion of the Justices who consider Lansang
applicable, to the same test of arbitrariness laid down therein), to
impose upon the released detainees conditions or restrictions
which are germane to and necessary to carry out the purposes of
the proclamation. Justice Fernando, however, "is for easing the
restrictions on the right to travel of petitioner Rodrigo" and others
similarly situated and so to this extent dissents from the ruling of
the majority; while Justice Teehankee believes that those
restrictions do not constitute deprivation of physical liberty within
the meaning of the constitutional provision on the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus.
It need only be added that, to my mind, implicit in a state of
martial law is the suspension of the said privilege 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 take precedence. On this particular point, that is,
that the proclamation of martial law automatically suspends the
privilege of the writ as to the persons referred to, the Court is
practically unanimous. Justice Fernando, however, says that to
him that is still an open question; and Justice Muñoz Palma
qualifiedly dissents from the majority in her separate opinion, but
for the reasons she discusses therein votes for the dismissal of the
petitions.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING AND FOR THE REASONS STATED
BY THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT IN THEIR SEPARATE OPINIONS,
JUDGMENT IS HEREBY RENDERED DISMISSING ALL THE PETITIONS,
EXCEPT THOSE WHICH HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY WITHDRAWN BY
THE RESPECTIVE PETITIONERS WITH THE APPROVAL OF THIS
COURT, AS HEREINABOVE MENTIONED. NO COSTS.
Makasiar, Esguerra, Fernandez, Muñoz Palma and Aquino, JJ.,
concur.
Prefatory Note

(written on September 12, 1974)

My separate opinion below in the nine cases at bar was handed to

Chief Justice Querube C. Makalintal on Monday, September 9,
1974, for promulgation (together with the individual opinions of
the Chief Justice and the other Justices) on September 12 (today)
as agreed upon by the Court.

On September 11 the petitioner Jose W. Diokno was released

from military custody. The implications of this supervening event
were lengthily discussed by the Court in its deliberations in the
afternoon. Eleven members thereafter voted to dismiss Diokno's
petition as being "moot and academic;" I cast the lone dissenting
vote. Although perhaps in the strictest technical sense that
accords with conventional legal wisdom, the petition has become
"moot" because Diokno has been freed from physical
confinement, I am nonetheless persuaded that the grave issues of
law he has posed and the highly insulting and derogatory
imputations made by him against the Court and its members
constitute an inescapable residue of questions of transcendental
dimension to the entire nation and its destiny and to the future of
the Court — questions that cannot and should not be allowed to
remain unresolved and unanswered.

I have thus not found it needful nor even advisable to recast my

separate opinion or change a word of it.

I invite the reader to assess my 38-page separate opinion which

immediately follows, in the light of the foregoing context and
factual setting.

FRED RUIZ CASTRO

Associate Justice.

SEPARATE OPINION

(written before Sept. 9, 1974)

L-35539, L-35546, L-35538, L-35540, L-35567, L-35556,

L-35571, L-35573, and L-35547