Aquino v

Aquino v. Enrile, 59 SCRA 183, September 17, 1974

En Banc (all Justices wrote their opinion)

Petitioners are: Ninoy, Mitra, F. Rordrigo, N. Rama, J. Roces, Locsin, Fadul, Galang, Go Eng Guan, Maximo Soliven, Constantino, Luis Mauricio, Jose Diokno and wife, Carmen, Voltaire Garcia (case were withdrawn bec. Petitioner died), Yuyitung, Tan Chin Hian, Doronila, Mercado, Abaya, Granada, Beltran, Bren Guiao, Cusipag, Ordonez, Almario, Baun, Guiao and T. Guiao (also died) and Rondon.

Respondents are: Enrile as Sec. Natl Defense, Espino as Chief of Staff AFP, Ramos as Chief, Phil. Constabulary

FACTS

According to Chief Justice Makalintal:

These nine cases are all about the petitions for habeas corpus, the petitioners having been arrested and detained unlawfully by the military by virtue of Proclamation no. 1081 dated September 21, 1972 through the President exercising his powers he assumed by virtue of Martial Law.

The petitioners were arrested pursuant to Gen. Order no 2 for participants or for having giving aid and comfort in the conspiracy to seize political and state power in the country and to take over the Government by force (September 22, 1972).

The provision of the 1935 constitution reads the President shall be commander-in-chief of all armed forces in 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 writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Art VII Section 10(2)Accdg to Castro, J.:

On Sept 21 1972, the country was placed under Martial Law. From Sept 22 to 30, petitioners were arrested by the military authorities and detained, some at Fort Bonifacio, Rizal, Camp Aguinaldo and Camp Crame. They aver that the arrest and detention were illegal having been effected without valid order of a court of justice. Writ of habeas corpus were directed by the Court directing respondents to produce the bodies of the petitioners in Court. Respondents, through the Solicitor General, answered that such arrests were legally ordered by the President pursuant to Proclamation of Martial Law as participant or as having giving aid and comfort in the conspiracy to seize political and state power and to take the government by force. Hearings were held on 26 and 29 September and October 6. Meanwhile, some of the petitioners, with leave of Court, withdrew their petitions, others were released from custody under certain restrictive conditions. Voltaire died after his release, the action was deemed abated.

Only Diokno AND Benigno Aquino was still in military custody (September 9, 1972the date of the supposed promulgation of the nine cases.) On September 11 1972, the petitioner Diokno was released. Eleven members voted to dismiss Dioknos petition as being moot and academic except Castro, who find Dioknos derogatory imputations grave and highly insulting.

On August 23 1973, petitioner Ninoy filed an action for certiorari and prohibition with this Court, alleging that on 11 August 1973 charges of murder, subversion and illegal possession of firearm were filed against him, that his trial held on August 27, 29, 31 was illegal because the proclamation of Martial law was unconstitutional and that he could not expect a fair trial because the President could reverse any judgment of acquittal by the military court and sentence him to death. Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. vs. Military Commission No. 2

On the other hand, December 28 1973, Jose Diokno filed a motion to withdraw his petition filed in his behalf, imputing the (1) delay in the disposition of the case, (2) that the decision of the Court in the Ratification cases contrary to the Courts ruling that the 1973 Constitution was not validly ratified and (3) the action of the members of the Court taking an oath to the new Constitution and which becomes a different court in which he filed his petition.

Diokno asserts that a conscience that allows man to rot behind bars for more than one year and three months without trialof course, without any charges at allis a conscience that has become stunted, if not stultified.. and I can not continue to entrust my case to them; and I have become thoroughly convinced that our quest for justice in my case is futile.

Issue(s):

1. Whether or not this court may inquire into the validity of Proclamation no 1081. Is the existence of conditions claimed to justify the exercise of power to declare martial law subject to judicial inquiry? Is the question political or justiciable in character?

Ruling:

YES. Five justices held that the question is political and should not be determined by court. (Makasiar, Antonio, Esguerra, Fernandez and Aquino) Fernandez adds that as a member of the 1973 Convention he believes that the as a member of the Convention, they have put an imprimatur on the proposition of the validity of a martial law proclamation Barredo believes that political question are not per se beyond the courts jurisdiction, judicial power vested in it by the Constitution being all-embracing and plenary but as a matter of policy should abstain from interfering with the Executives Proclamation. Esguerra finds that the declaration of martial law is final and conclusive upon the courts. Antonio finds that there is no dispute as to the existence of a state of rebellion and on that premise emphasizes the factor of necessity for the exercise of the president under the 1935 Constitution to declare martial law.

Four on the side of justiciability: Castro, Fernando, Teehanke and Munoz Palma. The constitutional sufficiency may be inquired into by court and would thus apply the principle laid down by Lansang although the case refers to the power of President to suspend habeas corpus. The recognition of justiciability in Lansang is there distinguished from the power of judicial review and is limited to ascertaining whether 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 the act. The Test is whether in suspending the writ of habeas corpus, the president he did or did not acted arbitrarily (bias, capricious). Applying the test, the Justices find no arbitrariness in the Presidents proclamation of martial law pursuant to the 1935 Constitution. The bases for the suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus, with regards to the existence of a state rebellion in the country, had not disappeared but had even worsened.

The question of the validity of the 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.

The political or justiciable question controversy has become moot and purposeless as a consequence of the referendum of July 27-28, 1973. The question which was overwhelmingly voted upon by a majority of voters, even between 15 and 18 years of age in affirmative: Under the 1973 Constitution, the President, if he so desires, can continue in office beyond 1973 and finish the reforms he initiated under martial law?

***If you want a more nakaka-nosebleed facts of the Case, refer to page 326 up to 336

2. Whether or not the petitions for writ of habeas corpus should be suspended contending that the proclamation of Martial Law was unconstitutional.

YES. The petitions should be dismissed with respect to petitioners who have been released from detention but have not withdrawn their petitions because they are still subject to certain restrictions. Implicit in the state of martial law is the suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus with respect to persons arrested or detained for acts related to the basic objective of the proclamation: to suppress invasion, insurrection, rebellion or to safeguard public safety against imminent danger thereof.

RULING SUMMARIZED (Castro):

1. That the proclamation of Martial Law in September 1972 by the President was within the 1932 Constitution

2. That because the Communist rebellion had not been abated and instead the subversion had proliferated throughout the country, the imposition of martial law was an imperative of national survival.

3. that the arrest and detention of the persons who were participants or gave aid and comfort in the conspiracy to seize political and state power in the country and to take over the Government by force were not unconstitutional nor arbitrary

4. that subsumed in the declaration of martial law is the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus

5. that the fact that the regular courts are open cannot be accepted as evidence that rebellion and insurrection no longer imperil the safety of the state

6. that actual armed combat has been and still raging in parts of Mindanao, Bicol and Cagayan

7. that the hosts of doubts with respect to the validity of the ratification and effectivity of the 1973 Constitution has been dispelled by the national referendum of July 1973

8. that the issue of the validity and constitutionality of the arrest and detention of all the petitioners and of the restrictions imposed upon those who were freed, is now foreclosed by the transitory provision of 1973 CONSTITUTION (Article XVII Sec 3 (2)) which validates all acts made by the President.

**Habeas Corpus- the purpose of the writ is to inquire into the cause or reason why a person is being restrained of his liberty against his will and if there is no legal and/or valid justification shown for such restraint the writ will forthwith issue to restore to that person his liberty or freedom.

Javellana vs. Executive Secretary

Facts:

The Plebiscite CaseOn March 16, 1967, Congress of the Philippines passed Resolution No. 2, as amended by Resolution No. 4, calling for a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments to the Philippine Constitution. Said Resolution was implemented by Republic Act No. 6132, for the election of delegates of the said Convention. Hence, the 1971 Constitutional Convention began to perform its functions on June 1, 1971. While the Convention was in session on September 21, 1972, the President issued Proclamation No. 1081 placing the entire Philippines under Martial Law.

On November 29, 1972, the Convention approved its Proposed Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. The next day, November 30, 1972, the President of the Philippines issued Presidential Decree No. 73, which is an order for setting and appropriating of funds for a plebiscite for the ratification or rejection of the proposed Constitution as drafted by the 1971 Constitutional Convention.

On December 7, 1972, Charito Planas filed a case against the Commission on Elections, the Treasurer of the Philippines and the Auditor General, to enjoin said respondents or their agents from implementing Presidential Decree No. 73, on the grounds that the President does not have the legislative authority to call a plebiscite and the appropriation of public funds for the purpose are lodged exclusively by the Constitution in Congress and there is no proper submission to the people of said Proposed Constitution set for January 15, 1973, there being no freedom of speech, press and assembly, and there being no sufficient time to inform the people of the contents thereof.

On December 23, 1972, the President announced the postponement of the plebiscite for the ratification or rejection of the Proposed Constitution. The Court deemed it fit to refrain, for the time being, from deciding the aforementioned case.

In the afternoon of January 12, 1973, the petitioners in Case G.R. No. L-35948 filed an "urgent motion," praying that said case be decided "as soon as possible, preferably not later than January 15, 1973." The next day, January 13, 1973, the Court issued a resolution requiring the respondents to comment and file an answer to the said "urgent motion" not later than Tuesday noon, January 16, 1973." When the case was being heard, the Secretary of Justice called on and said that, upon instructions of the President, he is delivering a copy of Proclamation No. 1102, which had just been signed by the President earlier that morning. Proclamation No. 1102, declares that Citizen Assemblies referendum was conducted, and that the result shows that more than 95% of the members of the Citizens Assemblies are in favor of the new Constitution and majority also answered that there was no need for a plebiscite and that the vote of the Citizens Assemblies should be considered as a vote in a plebiscite. The then President of the Philippines, Marcos, hereby certify and proclaim that the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention has been ratified by an overwhelming majority of all of the votes cast by the members of the Citizens Assemblies throughout the Philippines, and has thereby come into effect.The Ratification CaseOn January 20, 1973, Josue Javellana filed case against the Executive Secretary and the Secretaries of National Defense, Justice and Finance, to restrain said respondents "and their subordinates or agents from implementing any of the provisions of the propose Constitution not found in the present Constitution" referring to that of 1935.

Javellana alleged that the President had announced "the immediate implementation of the New Constitution, thru his Cabinet, respondents including," and that the latter "are acting without, or in excess of jurisdiction in implementing the said proposed Constitution" upon the ground: "that the President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, is without authority to create the Citizens Assemblies"; that the same "are without power to approve the proposed Constitution ..."; "that the President is without power to proclaim the ratification by the Filipino people of the proposed Constitution"; and "that the election held to ratify the proposed Constitution was not a free election, hence null and void."

Issue:

1. Whether or not the issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 involves a justiciable or political question.

2. Whether or not the proposed new or revised Constitution been ratified to said Art. XV of the 1935 Constitution.

3. Whether or not the proposed Constitution aforementioned been approved by a majority of the people in Citizens' Assemblies allegedly held throughout the Philippines.

4. Whether or not the people acquiesced in the proposed Constitution.

5. Whether or not the parties are entitled to any relief.

Ruling:

The court was severely divided on the following issues raised in the petition: but when the crucial question of whether the petitioners are entitled to relief, six members of the court (Justices Makalintal, Castro, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra) voted to dismiss the petition. Concepcion, together Justices Zaldivar, Fernando and Teehankee, voted to grant the relief being sought, thus upholding the 1973 Constitution.First Issue On the first issue involving the political-question doctrine Justices Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee and myself, or six (6) members of the Court, hold that the issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 presents a justiciable and non-political question. Justices Makalintal and Castro did not vote squarely on this question, but, only inferentially, in their discussion of the second question. Justice Barredo qualified his vote, stating that "inasmuch as it is claimed there has been approval by the people, the Court may inquire into the question of whether or not there has actually been such an approval, and, in the affirmative, the Court should keep hands-off out of respect to the people's will, but, in negative, the Court may determine from both factual and legal angles whether or not Article XV of the 1935 Constitution been complied with." Justices Makasiar, Antonio, Esguerra, or three (3) members of the Court hold that the issue is political and "beyond the ambit of judicial inquiry."

Second IssueOn the second question of validity of the ratification, Justices Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee and myself, or six (6) members of the Court also hold that the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention was not validly ratified in accordance with Article XV, section 1 of the 1935 Constitution, which provides only one way for ratification, i.e., "in an election or plebiscite held in accordance with law and participated in only by qualified and duly registered voters.

Justice Barredo qualified his vote, stating that "(A)s to whether or not the 1973 Constitution has been validly ratified pursuant to Article XV, I still maintain that in the light of traditional concepts regarding the meaning and intent of said Article, the referendum in the Citizens' Assemblies, specially in the manner the votes therein were cast, reported and canvassed, falls short of the requirements thereof. In view, however, of the fact that I have no means of refusing to recognize as a judge that factually there was voting and that the majority of the votes were for considering as approved the 1973 Constitution without the necessity of the usual form of plebiscite followed in past ratifications, I am constrained to hold that, in the political sense, if not in the orthodox legal sense, the people may be deemed to have cast their favorable votes in the belief that in doing so they did the part required of them by Article XV, hence, it may be said that in its political aspect, which is what counts most, after all, said Article has been substantially complied with, and, in effect, the 1973 Constitution has been constitutionally ratified."Justices Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra, or three (3) members of the Court hold that under their view there has been in effect substantial compliance with the constitutional requirements for valid ratification.

Third IssueOn the third question of acquiescence by the Filipino people in the aforementioned proposed Constitution, no majority vote has been reached by the Court.Four (4) of its members, namely, Justices Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra hold that "the people have already accepted the 1973 Constitution."Two (2) members of the Court, namely, Justice Zaldivar and myself hold that there can be no free expression, and there has even been no expression, by the people qualified to vote all over the Philippines, of their acceptance or repudiation of the proposed Constitution under Martial Law.

Justice Fernando states that "(I)f it is conceded that the doctrine stated in some American decisions to the effect that independently of the validity of the ratification, a new Constitution once accepted acquiesced in by the people must be accorded recognition by the Court, I am not at this stage prepared to state that such doctrine calls for application in view of the shortness of time that has elapsed and the difficulty of ascertaining what is the mind of the people in the absence of the freedom of debate that is a concomitant feature of martial law."

Three (3) members of the Court express their lack of knowledge and/or competence to rule on the question. Justices Makalintal and Castro are joined by Justice Teehankee in their statement that "Under a regime of martial law, with the free expression of opinions through the usual media vehicle restricted, (they) have no means of knowing, to the point of judicial certainty, whether the people have accepted the Constitution."

Fourth IssueOn the fourth question of relief, six (6) members of the Court, namely, Justices Makalintal, Castro, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra voted to DISMISS the petition. Justice Makalintal and Castro so voted on the strength of their view that "(T)he effectivity of the said Constitution, in the final analysis, is the basic and ultimate question posed by these cases to resolve which considerations other than judicial, and therefore beyond the competence of this Court, are relevant and unavoidable."Four (4) members of the Court, namely, Justices Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee and myself voted to deny respondents' motion to dismiss and to give due course to the petitions.Fifth IssueFour (4) members of the Court, namely, Justices Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra hold that it is in force by virtue of the people's acceptance thereof;Four (4) members of the Court, namely, Justices Makalintal, Castro, Fernando and Teehankee cast no vote thereon on the premise stated in their votes on the third question that they could not state with judicial certainty whether the people have accepted or not accepted the Constitution; andTwo (2) members of the Court, namely, Justice Zaldivar and myself voted that the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention is not in force; with the result that there are not enough votes to declare that the new Constitution is not in force.

ACCORDINGLY, by virtue of the majority of six (6) votes of Justices Makalintal, Castro, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra with the four (4) dissenting votes of the Chief Justice and Justices Zaldivar, Fernando and Teehankee, all the aforementioned cases are hereby dismissed. This being the vote of the majority, there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect. It is so ordered.

OR

FACTS:

On January 20, 1973, Josue Javellana filed a prohibition case to restrain respondents from implementing any of the provisions of the proposed constitution not found in the present constitution. Javellana maintained that the respondents are acting without or in excess of jurisdiction in implementing proposed constitution and that the president is without power to proclaim the ratification of the constitution. Similar actions were filed by Vidal Tan, Gerardo Roxas, among others. Petitioners pray for the nullification of Proclamation 1102 (Citizens Assemblies) and any order, decree, and proclamation which are similar in objective.

ISSUES:

1. Is the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 justiciable?

2. Was the constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention ratified validly in compliance to applicable laws?

3. Was the proposed Constitution acquiesced by the people?

4. Are the petitioners entitled relief?

5. Is the proposed Constitution in force?

HELD:

Whether a constitutional amendment has been properly adopted according to an existing constitution is a judicial question as it is the absolute duty of the judiciary to determine whether the Constitution has been amended in the manner required by the constitution. The Constitution proposed by the 1971 Convention was not validly ratified in accordance with Article XV section 1 of the 1935 Constitution which provides only one way for ratification (election or plebiscite held in accordance with law and only with qualified voters). Due to the environmental and social conditions in the Philippines (i.e. martial law) the Court cannot honestly say that the people acquiesced to the proposed Constitution. The majority ruled to dismiss the cases as the effectivity of the proposed Constitution is the basic issue posed by the cases which considerations other than judicial are relevant and unavoidable. The new constitution is in force as there are not enough votes to say otherwise.