CASE Number: G.R. No.
L-61388 | 1983-04-20 o no criminal charges have as of yet been
CASE Name: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR DR.
AURORA PARONG, NORBERTO PORTUGUESE, SABINO
PADILLA, FRANCIS DIVINAGRACIA, IMELDA DE LOS
SANTOS, BENJAMIN PINEDA, ZENAIDA MALLARI,
MARIANO SORIANO, TITO TANGUILIG, LETTY BALLOGAN,
BIENVENIDA GARCIA, EUFRONIO ORTIZ, JR., JUANITO
GRANADA and TOM VASQUEZ. JOSEFINA GARCIA-PADILLA,
petitioner, vs. MINISTER JUAN PONCE ENRILE, GEN.
FABIAN C. VER, GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, and LT. COL.
MIGUEL CORONEL, respondents.
Ponente: DE CASTRO, J.:
FACTS
nine (9) of the fourteen (14) detainees herein
were arrested when three (3) teams of the PC/INP
of conducted a raid at the residence of Dra.
Aurora Parong who were having a conference. 4
other detainees were arrested the next day
the (14) detainees were all detained at the PC/INP
Command Headquarters, Bayombong, Nueva
Viscaya until their transfer to an undisclosed
places.
petition for the writ of habeas corpus and
mandamus filed by Josefina Garcia-Padilla,
mother of detained petitioner Sabino G. Padilla, Jr.
The mandamus aspect of the instant petition has,
however, become moot and academic, the
whereabouts of petitioners having already
become known to petitioner Josefina Garcia-
Padilla.
Petitioner: arrest of petitioners was patently
unlawful and illegal since it was effected without
any warrant of arrest; that the PC/INP raiding
team which made the arrest were only armed
with a search warrant
o nowhere in said warrant was authority
given to make arrests, much less
detention; that the search warrant which
authorized respondents to seize
"subversive documents, firearms of
assorted calibers, medicine and other
subversive paraphernalia" in the house
and clinic of Dra. Aurora Parong was a
roving and general warrant and is,
therefore, illegal per se because it does
not state specifically the things that are to
be seized
filed against any of the detainees; there is
no judgment, decree, decision or order
from a court of law which would validate
the continued detention of the petitioner;
that while it is true that a purported
telegram stating the issuance of a
Presidential Commitment Order (PCO)
was shown to the detainees on or about
July 11 and 12, 1982, but counsel and the
detainees have not yet been given a copy
of such PCO, nor notified of its contents,
raising a doubt whether such
commitment order has in fact been
issued.
respondents are denying the detainees their
constitutional right to counsel, averring that the
detainees were allowed regular visits by counsel
and relatives during their period of detention
ISSUES
1. Whether or not petitioners' detention is legal
2. Whether or not the issuance of a Presidential
Commitment Order (PCO) has provided the legal basis
of the detention of herein detainees following their
arrest for Proclamation No. 2045 covered offenses
HELD (including the Ratio Decidendi)
(1) Yes
Prior thereto to the arrest, the detainees were
identified as members of the Communist Party of
the Philippines (CCP) engaging in subversive
activities and using the house of detainee Dra.
Aurora Parong in Bayombong, Nueva Viscaya, as
their headquarters.
Caught in flagrante delicto, the nine (9) detainees
mentioned scampered towards different
directions leaving on top of their conference table
numerous subversive documents, periodicals,
pamphlets, books, correspondence, stationaries,
and other papers, including a plan on how they
would infiltrate the youth and student sector
(code-named YORK).
Also found were one (1) .38 cal. revolver with
eight (8) live bullets, nineteen (19) rounds of
ammunition for M16 armalite, eighteen thousand
six hundred fifty pesos (P18,650.00) cash believed
to be CPP/NPA funds, assorted medicine packed
 and ready for distribution, and sizeable quantity
of printing paraphernalia, which were then seized.
There is no doubt that circumstances attendant in
the arrest of the herein detainees fall under a
situation where arrest is lawful even without a
judicial warrant as specifically provided for under
Section 6(a), Rules 113 of the Rules of Court and
allowed under existing jurisprudence on the
matter. As provided therein, a peace officer or a
private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person when the person to be arrested has
committed or actually committing, or is about to
commit an offense in his presence.
The arrest of persons involved in the rebellion
whether as its fighting armed elements, or for
committing non-violent acts but in furtherance of
the rebellion, is more an act of capturing them in
the course of an armed conflict, to quell the
rebellion, than for the purpose of immediately
prosecuting them in court for a statutory offense.
The arrest, therefore, need not follow the usual
procedure in the prosecution of offenses which
requires the determination by a judge of the
existence of probable cause before the issuance
of a judicial warrant of arrest and the granting of
bail if the offense is bailable. Obviously, the
absence of a judicial warrant is no legal
impediment to arresting or capturing persons
committing overt acts of violence against goarrest
and detention of persons ordered by the
President through the issuance of Presidential
Commitment Order (PCO) is merely preventive
government forces, or any other milder acts but
equally in pursuance of the rebellious movement.
(2) No. Political Question
reverting to the ruling of Montenegro vs.
Castaneda that the President's decision to
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
is "final and conclusive upon the courts, and all
other persons."
under LOI 1211, a Presidential Commitment
Order, the issuance of which is the exclusive
prerogative of the President under the
Constitution, may not be declared void by the
courts, under the doctrine of "political question,"
as has been applied in the Baker and Castaneda
cases, on any ground, let alone its supposed
violation of the provision of LOI 1211, thus
diluting, if not abandoning, the doctrine of the
Lansang case. The supreme mandate received by
the President from the people and his oath to do
justice to every man should be sufficient
guarantee, without need of judicial overseeing,
against commission by him of an act of
arbitrariness in the discharge particularly of those
duties imposed upon him for the protection of
public safety which in itself includes the
protection of life, liberty and property. This Court
is not possessed with the attribute of infallibility
that when it reviews the acts of the President in
the exercise of his exclusive power, for possible
fault of arbitrariness, it would not itself go so far
as to commit the self-same fault.
From uber: The questioned power of the president to
suspend the privilege of the WoHC was once again held as
discretionary in the president. The SC again reiterated that
the suspension of the writ was a political question to be
resolved solely by the president. It was also noted that the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
must, indeed, carry with the suspension of the right to
bail, if the government campaign to the rebellion is to be
enhanced and rendered effective. If the right to bail may
be demanded during the continuance of the rebellion,
and those arrested, captured and detained in the course
thereof will be released, they would, without the least
doubt, their comrades in the field thereby jeopardizing
the success of government efforts to bring to an end the
invasion, rebellion or insurrection.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the instant petition should be, as it
is hereby dismissed.
Note from uber: This ruling was abrogated by Sec 18, Art 7
of the 1987 Constitution which expressly
constitutionalized the Lansang Doctrine. Note as well that
under Art 3 (Sec 13) of the Constitution it is stated that
the right to bail shall not be impaired even if the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended
FACTS
motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioner
Garcia Padilla.
The stress is on the continuing validity of Garcia v.
Lansang as well as the existence of the right to
bail even with the suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus.
 The motion asserted further that the suspension
of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does
not vest the President with the power to issue
warrants of arrest or presidential commitment
orders, and that even it be assumed that he has
such a power, the Supreme Court may review its
issuance when challenged.
It was finally alleged that since petitioners were
not caught in flagrante delicto, their arrest was
illegal and void.
ISSUES
1. whether or not the suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus vests the President with
the power to issue warrants of arrest or
presidential commitment orders
HELD (including the Ratio Decidendi)
PCO has been replaced by Preventive Detention
Action (PDA), pursuant to PD No. 1877.
a PDA constitute an authority to arrest and
preventively detain persons committing the
aforementioned crimes, for a period not
exceeding one (1) year, with the cause or causes
of their arrest subjected to review by the
President or by the Review Committee created for
that purpose."
the crimes of subversion and rebellion are
continuing offenses.
Presidential Decree No. 1877 limits the duration
of the preventive detention action for the period
not exceeding one year
The persons who were detained by virtue of
Presidential Commitment Order (PCO) issued on
July 12, 1982, and in whose behalf the above-
captioned cases was filed have been released
detention by the military authorities concerned
There is no question, therefore, that the force and
effectivity of a presidential commitment order
issued as far back as July 12, 1982 had ceased to
have any force or effect.
RULING: WHEREFORE, pursuant to Section 8 of
Presidential Decree No. 1877 and Section 8 of the Rules
and Regulations Implementing Presidential Decree No.
1877-A, the motion for reconsideration should have been
granted, and the writ of habeas corpus ordering the
release of the detainees covered by such Section 8 issued,
but in the light of the foregoing manifestation as to
Norberto Portuguese, Sabino Padilla, Francis Divinagracia,
Imelda de los Santos, Benjamin Pineda, Zenaida Mallari,
Mariano Soriano, Tito Tanguilig, Letty Ballogan,
Bienvenido Garcia, Eufronio Ortiz, Jr., Juanito Granada,
and Tom Vasquez, having been released, the petition as to
them has been declared moot and academic. As to Dr.
Aurora Parong, since a warrant of arrest against her was
issued by the municipal court of Bayombong on August 4,
1982, for illegal possession of firearm and ammunitions,
the petition is likewise declared moot and academic.
FACTS: In July 1982, Sabino Padilla, together w/ 8 others
who were having a conference in a house in Bayombong,
NV, were arrested by members of the PC. The raid of the
house was authorized by a search warrant issued by Judge
Sayo. Josefina, mother of Sabino, opposed the arrest
averring that no warrant of arrest was issued but rather it
was just a warrant of arrest hence the arrest of her son
and the others was w/o just cause. Sabino and
companions together with 4 others were later transferred
to a facility only the PCs know. Josefina petitioned the
court for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus.
ISSUE: Whether or not the arrests done against Sabino et
al is valid.
HELD: In a complete about face, the SC decision in the
Lansang Case was reversed and the ruling in the Barcelon
Case & the Montenegro Case was again reinstated. The
questioned power of the president to suspend the
privilege of the WoHC was once again held as
discretionary in the president. The SC again reiterated that
the suspension of the writ was a political question to be
resolved solely by the president. It was also noted that the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
must, indeed, carry with it the suspension of the right to
bail, if the governments campaign to suppress the
rebellion is to be enhanced and rendered effective. If the
right to bail may be demanded during the continuance of
the rebellion, and those arrested, captured and detained
in the course thereof will be released, they would,
without the least doubt, rejoin their comrades in the field
thereby jeopardizing the success of government efforts to
bring to an end the invasion, rebellion or insurrection.
NOTE: This ruling was abrogated by Sec 18, Art 7 of the
1987 Constitution which expressly constitutionalized the
Lansang Doctrine. Note as well that under Art 3 (Sec 13)
of the Constitution it is stated that the right to bail shall
not be impaired even if the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus is suspended.