G.R. Nos. 147773-74.

February 18, 2008 (Case Brief / Digest)

Title: The Matter of the Petition for the Issuance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus for Dr.
Aurora Parong et al. vs. Minister Juan Ponce Enrile et al.

Facts: On July 6, 1982, a raid led by Lt. Col. Miguel Coronel and his team resulted in the
arrest of nine individuals, including Dr. Aurora Parong, at her residence in Bayombong,
Nueva Viscaya. They were detained for allegedly engaging in subversive activities linked to
the Communist Party of the Philippines (CCP). The arrest was made without a warrant, with
only a search warrant for “subversive documents, firearms, and other paraphernalia.” The
subsequent days saw the arrest of five more individuals linked to the same activities. These
arrests were part of a series of actions taken by the government under the Marcos regime to
suppress alleged subversive activities. By August 10, 1982, all 14 detainees were
transferred to undisclosed locations. Josefina Garcia-Padilla filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus and mandamus on behalf of the detainees on August 13, 1982, alleging
unlawful arrests and detention without charges or warrants, denial of constitutional rights,
and the issuance of a vague and thus illegal search warrant.

Procedural Posture: The petition led to the Supreme Court of the Philippines issuing a writ
of habeas corpus, requiring the respondents to present the detainees and justify their
detention. The government, representing the respondents, argued that the detainees were
held under a valid Presidential Commitment Order (PCO) issued pursuant to Proclamation
No. 2045, which continued the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus for
offenses related to insurrection, rebellion, and subversion.

Issues:
1. Was the arrest and continued detention of the petitioners without a warrant legal?
2. Does the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus justify denying the
detainees’ constitutional right to counsel, and the right against self-incrimination?
3. Can the issuance of a Presidential Commitment Order (PCO) override the requirement for
formal charges and a warrant of arrest?
4. Is the denial of the detainees’ right to bail constitutional under the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus?

Court’s Decision:
1. The Court found the initial arrests to be lawful, as they were conducted with the
petitioners allegedly committing subversive activities, which can be considered as offenses
committed “in flagrante delicto.”
2. The Court held that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus also

© 2024 - batas.org | 1
 G.R. Nos. 147773-74. February 18, 2008 (Case Brief / Digest)

entails limitations on other rights to ensure public safety and order, including some
restrictions on the right to counsel and against self-incrimination.
3. The Court ruled that the issuance of a PCO by the President, as a measure to address
national security threats, is constitutional, thus validating the detentions without prior
judicial warrants of arrest.
4. The Court decided that during the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus, the right to bail can be lawfully suspended for offenses related to insurrection,
rebellion, or subversion.

Doctrine: The decision reiterates that the President, under the Constitution, has the
authority to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and issue Presidential
Commitment Orders (PCOs) in response to national security threats, such as insurrection,
rebellion, and subversion. The Court also recognized limits on certain constitutional rights
during such periods of suspension.

Class Notes:
– Arrest without warrant: Legally permissible when the person is committing an offense in
the presence of the arresting officer or for offenses involving national security under the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
– Suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus: Allows for preventive detention
and the issuance of PCOs by the President during national emergencies or threats, such as
rebellion or insurrection.
– Right to Counsel and Against Self-Incrimination: These rights can be limited during the
period when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended for reasons of national
security.
– Right to Bail: Can be suspended for individuals detained under PCOs for offenses related
to national security during the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

Historical Background: This case occurred during the Marcos regime in the Philippines, a
period marked by political unrest and the suppression of perceived subversive activities
against the government. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and
the issuance of PCOs were tactics used by the government to detain individuals accused of
rebellion, insurrection, and subversion without immediate recourse to judicial review,
reflecting tensions between national security and individual liberties.

© 2024 - batas.org | 2