G.R. No. L-49579




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-49579 January 15, 1981 JOSE MA. SISON, JULIET SISON, BERNABE BUSCAYNO, MILA BUSCAYNO, PETER MUTUC EDGAR PILAPIL, EDUARDO LINGAT JOAQUIN RIVERA, LEONILA LUMBANG and JUANITO CANLAS petitioners, vs. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Minister of National Defense; GEN. ROMEO C. ESPINO. Chief of Staff, AFP GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, Chief of the Philippine Constabulary; SPECIAL MILITARY COMMISSION NO. 1; COL. MANUEL CASACLANG, Military Trial Counsel for Special Military Commission No. 1; COL. MIGUEL V. AURE Officer-In-Charge, 5th CSU MAJOR MARIO S. HIDALGO, Commanding Officer, Bicutan Rehabilitation Center; and CAPT. MELCHOR 1. ACOSTA, Officer-in- Charge, Military Security Unit, respondents. FERNANDEZ, J.: This is a petition for habeas corpus, prohibition and mandamus, seeking the following relief: WHEREFORE, the petitioners respectfully pray this Honorable Court: 1. To issue a writ of habeas corpus, requiring the respondents to produce their bodies before this Honorable Court on a day which it will fix and for them to show cause why the petitioners should not be released; 2. To issue a writ of temporary restraining order enjoining the respondent MILITARY COMMISSION and the respondent TRIAL COUNSEL from proceeding with the trial of the petitioners which it is scheduled in January, 1979, until further orders of this Honorable Court, in the same manner that said anciliary relief was granted by this Honorable Court to their co-accused in Criminal Case No. SMC-1-1 in the latter's petition for habeas corpus, in the case of Luneta, et al., v. SMC 1, et al., G.R. No. L-49473; 3. That the petitioners be ordered released on bail after they have filed their respective bail bonds; 4. That after due hearing, a writ of prohibition issue, enjoining the respondents and all persons acting in their names, or in their behalf, or under their orders, to desist from proceeding with the trial of the petitioners; 5. That, if after due hearing, the remedy of the writ of prohibition is not granted, the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issue, ordering the respondent TRIAL COUNSEL to strike out from the Charge Sheet in Criminal Case SMC-1-1 the allegations that the petitioners are "Officers and/or leaders of the Communist Party of the Philippines CPP and/or its Military Arm, the New Peoples Army (NPA)"; to order the respondent TRIAL COUNSEL to amend the Charge Sheet, so that the particular participation of each of the accused in the .alleged crime of rebellion, is specified; ordering the respondent MINISTER or his subordinates to allow the petitioners to examine copy, or photograph the items listed in Item (.'!) of the Prayer, in the petition of Luneta, et al., supra. 6. That, after due hearing, the respondents be ordered to release the petitioners, in the enjoyment of their constitutional right to the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. 7. That after due hearing, the writ of temporary restraining order, if issued by this Honorable Court be made permanent; and 8. That, the petitioners be granted such other and other reliefs to which they may be entitled in law and equity. 1 The petitioners are civilians originally accused before Military Commission No. I of the crime of rebellion under two (2) Charge Sheets docketed as Criminal Case No. MC-1-92 later reduced to one Amended Charge Sheet, accusing said petitioners of rebellion under Article 134, in relation to Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code. The case against the petitioners was transferred to Military Commission No. 24. Later said case was re-assigned to Special Military Commission No. 1. Some of the petitioners were released for humanitarian reasons and the rest are still detained. The petitioners contend that they are illegally detained because: 1. Military Commissions have no jurisdiction inasmuch as G.O. No. 8 and P. D. No. 39 implementing it, are unconstitutional on the ground that in removing the judicial power of civil courts over civilians charged with crimes defined by the municipal penal laws and transferring the same to military commissions, the military was made supreme over civilian authority in gross violation of Section 8, Article 11 of the Constitution and of Section 1, Article X thereof which vests judicial power exclusively in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts which may be established by law; 2. Petitioners are civilians who are not civilian retainers to the camp of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Hence under the Articles of War, Commonwealth Act, No. 408, as amended, the petitioners are not subject to military law and are not under the jurisdiction petition of military commissions; 3. Granting arguendo that G.O. No. 8 and P.D. No. 39 are parts of the law of the land and not unconstitutional, their enforcement is illegal because they were not published in the Official Gazette as required by Article 2 of the New Civil Code and Section I I of the Revised Administrative Code; 4. There should be adherence to the "open court rule". In as much as Civil courts of the Philippines continue to function normally and without interruption under martial law, the removal of a substantial part of the judicial power of the civil courts by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the transfer thereof to military commissions was in gross violation of Section 1, Article VIII of the 1935 Constitution and of Section 8, Articles Il of present constitution because the military is placed supreme over the civilian. authority; and 5. The law member of Military Commission No. 1 is disqualified to participate in the trial of the petitioners because he violated the constitutional rights of the accused to due process by extracting from some of them confessions through torture. He adversely prejudged "he defense of confession extorted through torture. The main issues raised by the petitioners have been previously ruled upon by this Court. Hence this petition has no merit and should be dismissed. The arrest, search and seizure orders against the petitioners were issued by virtue of Proclamation No. 1081 and General Order No. 2, both of which have been declared valid and constitutional. The authority of the President and persons acting under his authority to cause the arrest or detention of those involved in crimes against national security has been upheld. 2 In Aquino vs. Military Commission No. 2, G. R. No. L-37364, May 9, 1975, 3 the Supreme Court held that the continued existence of these military tribunals and the exercise by them of jurisdiction over civilians during the period of martial law are within the contemplation and intendment of Section 3, paragraph 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution. These are tribunals of special and restricted jurisdiction created under the stress of an emergency and national security. The pro-procedure before the military commissions as prescribed in Presidential Decree No. 39, assures observance of the fundamental requirements of procedural due process, due notice, an essentially fair and impartial trial and reasonable opportunity for the preparation of the defense. The President of the Philippines has announced that the military tribunals are being phased out. It is reported that the Ministry of Justice is now taking steps to transfer cases pending before the military tribunals to the civil courts. Hence the issues raised by the petitioners have become moot and academic. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Fernando, C. J., Barredo, Makasiar, Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur. Aquino, J., concur in the result. Concepcion J., is on leave. Separate Opinions TEEHANKEE, J., concurring and dissenting: I concur with the Court's judgment insofar as it holds that "the issues raised by the petitioners have become moot and academic" because of the phaseout of the military tribunals and the transfer of cases pending therein to the civil courts. In- sofar as the main opinion reiterates the ruling in Aquino vs. Military Commission No. 2 (63 SCRA 546) and dismisses the petition for lack of merit, I reiterate by reference my dissents in said case and in Buscayno vs. Enrile, L- 47185, resolved by the Court on this same date. Separate Opinions TEEHANKEE, J., concurring and dissenting: I concur with the Court's judgment insofar as it holds that "the issues raised by the petitioners have become moot and academic" because of the phaseout of the military tribunals and the transfer of cases pending therein to the civil courts. In- sofar as the main opinion reiterates the ruling in Aquino vs. Military Commission No. 2 (63 SCRA 546) and dismisses the petition for lack of merit, I reiterate by reference my dissents in said case and in Buscayno vs. Enrile, L- 47185, resolved by the Court on this same date. Footnotes 1 Rollo, pp. 52-54. 2 Aquino vs. Enrile, 59 SCRA 183. 3 63 SCRA 546. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation