UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW

Constitutional Law 1 Law 121

Prof. Dante Gatmaytan

Olaguer v. Military Commission

2 consolidated petitions questioning the jurisdiction of the military tribunal courts to try the petitioners cases while the
civil courts are open and functioning.

FACTS:

Dec 1979 the petitioners were charged for subversion and were detained at Camp Crame in Quezon Ciry and
were subsequently transferred to Camp Bagong Diwa except petitioner Olaguer who remained in Crame.
June 1980: Chief of Staff of the AFP created Military Commission No. 34 to try the criminal cases of the
petitioners. The commission amended their charge and filed 7 other offenses against them.
The petitioners in the course of the proceedings went to the Supreme Court to file a petition for prohibition and
habeas corpus
o Argued that the military commissions have no jurisdiction to try civilians for offenses alleged to have
been committed during the martial law. And that the commission violated their right to due process of
the law.
Dec. 1984 (pending resolution of petition) the Military commission no. 34 passed sentence convicting the
petitioners of the offenses filed against them with a punishment of death by electrocution.
Petitioners then filed petitions for habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition and mandamus and also a writ of
preliminary injunction. -> Court issued TRO afterwards
BUT on Jan 17 1981: President Ferdinand Marcos issued Proc. 2045 lifting martial law in the Philippines and
revoking General Order No. 8 which created military tribunals. And on Jan 23 of the same year the petitioners
were subsequently released.
o THUS, petition for habeas corpus is deemed MOOT AND ACADEMIC

ISSUE/HELD/RATIO:

W/N military commissions or tribunals have the jurisdiction to try civilians for offenses allegedly committed during
martial when civil courts are open and functioning? NO

Aquino, Jr. v Military Commission No. 2 Doctrine

o Military court has been lawfully constituted and has been validly vested with jurisdiction to try cases
against civilians.
o Due process guaranteed by the Constitution is not guarantee of any particular form of tribunal in cases.
Petitioners argue that this doctrine should be abandoned, or modified accordingly thus court looked into recent
jurisprudence using the Aquino, Jr doctrine.
o De Guzman v. Hon Leopando military officer wanted to transfer his case from the civil courts to the
military courts. Court dismissed petition due to lack of merit
o Animas v. Minister of National Defense Court ordered the transfer of the criminal proceedings to the
civil courts after noting that with martial law having been lifted in the country in 1981, all cases pending
before the military tribunals should, as a general rule, be transferred to the civil courts
The court also looked at the dissenting opinion of CJ Tehankee and Justice Munoz-Palma in Aquino Jr regarding
the violation of due process. They stated that due process of law demands that in all criminal prosecutions the
accused shall be entitled to trial.
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW
Constitutional Law 1 Law 121
Prof. Dante Gatmaytan

o Trial contemplated by the due process clause is trial by judicial process NOT executive military process.
o Military commissions or tribunals are NOT courts within the Philippine judicial system.
By vesting military tribunals which is under the Executive department violates the principle of separation of
powers because judicial power is vested only in the judiciary.
Even assuming arguendo, that the military commission No. 34 does have the jurisdiction, it should be ousted of
its jurisdiction.
o The solicitor general also observed that during the trial in the military courts the petitioners were
deprived of due process because the death penalty imposed upon the petitioners by the Military
Commission No. 34 appears to have been rendered too hastily and to the prejudice to the petitioners.
o Once there is deprivation of constitutional right the tribunal that rendered judgment is deemed ousted
of jurisdiction.
Proclamation No. 2045 lifted martial law and therefore abolished all military tribunals created in pursuant to the
national emergency and in turn divests the Military Commission No. 34 of its supposed authority to try civilians.
o In Aquino, Jr. there is a theory that military tribunals have the jurisdiction to try civilians AS LONG AS
the period of national emergency lasrs.
o Court finds that Proc. No. 2045 is an acknowledgement on the part of the Executive Department of the
Government that the national emergency no longer exists.
Court also reiterates that under SEC. 18 ART. VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, as long as the civil courts in the
land are open and functioning, military tribunals cannot try and exercise jurisdiction over civilians for offenses
committed by them,
o A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning
of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military
courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the
privilege of the writ (Sec. 18 Art. VII)
A military commission or tribunal cannot try and exercise jurisdiction, even during the period of martial law,
over civilians for oenses allegedly committed by them as long as the civil courts are open and functioning, and
that any judgment rendered by such body relating to a civilian is null and void for lack of jurisdiction on the part
of the military tribunal concerned.
AQUINO JR DOCTRINE IS ABANDONED.