Case Title: Aquino v.

Enrile
G.R. No. L-35546
Date: September 17, 1974
Ponente: Chief Justice Querube Makalintal

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) Does 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 with the declaration of martial law?

Rule
In In Re Moyer, martial rule was proclaimed in Colorado on March 23, 1904. Application for a
writ of habeas corpus was filed with the State Supreme Court on April 14, 1904, seeking the
release of Moyer who had been detained under the Colorado governor's proclamation. On June 6,
1904 the complaint was dismissed and the petitioner was remanded to the custody of the military
authorities. The Court held that as an incident to the proclamation of martial law, the petitioner's
arrest and detention were lawful. Moyer subsequently brought an action for damages for his
imprisonment from March 30 to June 15, 1904. The complaint was dismissed by the Circuit
Court. On writ of error, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, holding that "So long as such arrests
are made in good faith and in the honest belief that they are needed in order to head the
insurrection off, the governor is the final judge and cannot be subjected to an action after he is
out of office, on the ground that he had no reasonable ground for his belief."

Analysis
Five (5) Justices held that the issue is a political question, hence, not subject to judicial inquiry,
while four (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 the 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.

Conclusion
The petitions aver in substance that on September 21, 1972 the President of the Philippines
placed the country under martial law (Proclamation 1081); that on various dates from September
22 to September 30, 1972, the petitioners or the persons in whose behalf the applications were
made were arrested by the military authorities and detained, some at Fort Bonifacio in Makati,
Rizal, others at Camp Aguinaldo and still others at Camp Crame, both in Quezon City; and that
the arrest and detention of the petitioners were illegal, having been effected without a valid order
of a competent court of justice.