CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW I

JOHN WESLEY SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE

Case Number: 294
RICA MAE DI ÑO
Topic: VI. BILL OF RIGHTS, X. Writs Of Habeas Corpus, Kalikasan Habeas Data, And
Amparo
Case Name: Eodosio Lansang Rodolfo Del Rosario, And Bayani Alcala, Petitioners, vs.
Brigadier-General Eduardo M. Garcia
GR No.: L-33964
Date: December 11, 1971

I. Facts:

In the evening of August 21, 1971, at about 9 p.m., while the Liberal Party of the
Philippines was holding a public meeting at Plaza Miranda, Manila, for the presentation of its
candidates in the general elections scheduled for November 8, 1971, two hand grenades were
thrown at the platform where said candidates and other persons were. Eight persons were killed
and many more injured. Proclamation 889 was issued by the President suspending privilege of
writ of habeas corpus stating that there is a conspiracy of rebellion and insurrection in order to
forcibly seize political power. Petitions for writ of habeas corpus were filed by persons (13) who
have been arrested without a warrant.

It was stated that one of the safeguards of the proclamation was that it is to be applied to
persons caught in flagrante delicto. Incidentally, Proc. 889-A was issued as an amendment,
inserting the word “actually staging”. Proc. 889-B was also issued lifting the suspension of
privilege in 27 provinces, 3 sub-provinces and 26 cities. Proc. 889-C was issued restoring the
suspension in 13 provinces and cities (mostly in Mindanao). Proc. 889-D further lifted the
suspension in 7 provinces and 4 cities. Only 18 provinces and sub-provinces and 2 cities whose
privilege was suspended. Petitioners maintained that Proclamation No. 889 did not declare the
existence of actual "invasion insurrection or rebellion or imminent danger thereof, however it
became moot and academic since it was amended. Petitioners further contend that public safety
did not require the issuance of proclamations stating: (a) that there is no rebellion; (b) that, prior
to and at the time of the suspension of the privilege, the Government was functioning normally,
as were the courts; (c) that no untoward incident, confirmatory of an alleged July-August Plan,
has actually taken place after August 21, 1971; (d) that the President's alleged apprehension,
because of said plan, is non-existent and unjustified; and (e) that the Communist forces in the
Philippines are too small and weak to jeopardize public safety to such extent as to require the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

A resolution was issued by majority of the Court having tentatively arrived at a consensus
that it may inquire in order to satisfy itself of the existence of the factual bases for the
proclamations. Now the Court resolves after conclusive decision reached by majority.

II. Issues:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW I
JOHN WESLEY SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE
A. Whether or Not the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen requiring
suspension (of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus) belongs to the President and his
decision is final and conclusive upon the courts and upon all other persons.

B. Whether or Not public safety require the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus decreed in Proclamation No. 889-A.

III. Ruling:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Declaring that the President did not act arbitrarily in issuing Proclamation No. 889, as
amended, and that, accordingly, the same is not unconstitutional;

2. Dismissing the petitions in L-33964, L-33965, L-33982, L-34004, L-34013, L-34039

and L-34265, insofar as petitioners Teodosio Lansang, Bayani Alcala, Rogelio Arienda,
Vicentellao, Juan Carandang, Nemesio E. Prudente, Gerardo Tomas, Reynaldo Rimando,
Filomeno M. de Castro, Barcelisa C. de Castro and Antolin Oreta, Jr. are concerned;

3. The Court of First Instance of Rizal is hereby directed to act with utmost dispatch in
conducting the preliminary examination and/or investigation of the charges for violation
of the Anti-Subversion Act filed against herein petitioners Luzvimindo David, Victor
Felipe, Gary Olivar, Angelo de los Reyes, Rodolfo del Rosario and Teresito Sison, and to
issue the corresponding warrants of arrest, if probable cause is found to exist against
them, or, otherwise, to order their release; and

4. Should there be undue delay, for any reason whatsoever, either in the completion of the
aforementioned preliminary examination and/or investigation, or in the issuance of the
proper orders or resolution in connection therewith, the parties may by motion seek in
these proceedings the proper relief.

5. Without special pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.

IV. Ratio Decidendi:

The President has authority however it is subject to judicial review. Two conditions must
concur for the valid exercise of the authority to suspend the privilege to the writ (a) there must be
"invasion, insurrection, or rebellion" or "imminent danger thereof," and (b) "public safety" must
require the suspension of the privilege. President has three (3) courses of action: (a) to call out
the armed forces; (b) to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; and (c) to place the
Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. He had, already, called out the armed forces,
proved inadequate. Of the two other alternatives, the suspension of the privilege is the least
harsh.

Petitioners contention that CPP-NPA has no ability, is negatived by the killing of 5

mayors, 20 barrio captains and 3 chiefs of police; that there were fourteen (14) meaningful
bombing incidents in the Greater Manila Area in 1970. CPP has managed to infiltrate or establish
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW I
JOHN WESLEY SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE
and control nine major labor organizations; has exploited the (11) major student or youth
organizations; about thirty (30) mass organizations actively advancing the CPP.

The doctrine established in Barcelon and Montenegro was subsequently abandoned in

this case where the SC declared that it had the power to inquire into the factual basis of the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus by Marcos in Aug 1971 and to annul the
same if no legal ground could be established.

Accordingly, hearings were conducted to receive evidence on this matter, including two
closed-door sessions in which relevant classified information was divulged by the government to
the members of the SC and 3 selected lawyers of the petitioners. In the end, after satisfying itself
that there was actually a massive and systematic Communist-oriented campaign to overthrow the
government by force, as claimed by Marcos, the SC unanimously decided to uphold t5he
suspension of the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

In the end, after satisfying itself that there was actually a massive and systematic
Communist-oriented campaign to overthrow the government by force, as claimed by Marcos, the
SC unanimously decided to uphold the suspension of the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

V. Statement of Principle / Doctrine:

If the proclamation suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is valid and the
detainee is covered by the proclamation, the filing of a complaint or information against him
does not affect the suspension of said privilege, and, consequently, his release may not be
ordered.