Power to proclaim martial law – Limitations

Open Court Doctrine - Civilians cannot be tried by military courts if the civil courts are
open and functioning. If the civil courts are not functioning, then civilians can be tried
by the military courts. Martial law usually contemplates a case where the courts are
already closed, and the civil institutions have already crumbled, i.e. a "theater of war."
If the courts are still open, the President can just suspend the privilege and achieve
the same effect.

Olaguer vs Military Commission (10 November 2017)

Petitioner: Eduardo B. Olaguer

Respondents: Military Commission No. 34

Facts:
 In December 1979, Petitioner Olaguer and other nine (9) petitioners were arrested
by military authorities, initially detained at Camp Crame, and subsequently
transferred to detention center at Camp Bagong Diwa except for Olaguer who
remained in Crame. All petitioners are civilians.
 In May 1980, petitioners were charged for criminal case of subversion.
 In June 1980, the CSAFP created Military Commission 34 to try the criminal case
filed against the petitioners, which was later changed to different offenses of
unlawful possession of explosives and incendiary devices; conspiracy to
assassinate several persons including the President and Mrs. Marcos, some
Cabinet Members; arson; arson; attempted murder; and conspiracy to commit
rebellion, and inciting rebellion.
 In August 1980, the petitioners filed in the Supreme Court a petition for prohibition
and habeas corpus. They sought to enjoin the respondent Military Commission No.
34 from proceeding with the trial of their case and sought their release from
detention by way of a writ of habeas corpus.
 Petitioners contended that military commissions have no jurisdiction to try civilians
for offenses alleged to have been committed during the period of martial law. They
also maintain that the proceedings before the respondent Military Commission No.
34 are in gross violation of their constitutional right to due process of law.
 Respondents contend otherwise.
 Pending the resolution of the petition, in December 1981, the respondent Military
Commission No. 34 passed sentence convicting the petitioners and imposed upon
them the penalty of death by electrocution.
 The petitioners filed a second petition seeking to enjoin the respondents from
implementing the judgment of conviction rendered by the respondent Military
Commission No. 34 because the same is null and void. SC issued a TRO enjoining
the execution of the judgement.
 Martial Law was lifted in January 1981, dissolving the military tribunals and the
petitioners were gradually released before or after February 1986.

Issue: Whether a military tribunal has the jurisdiction to try civilians while the civil
courts are open and functioning.
Ruling:
 In a previous case (Aquino, Jr. vs. Military Commission No. 2), the Court ruled in
the affirmative. The Military Commission has jurisdiction to hear the cases against
civilians. The military tribunals were given jurisdiction exclusive of the civil courts
over crimes against public order, violations of the Anti-Subversion Act and laws on
firearms, and other crimes directly related to rebellion.
 The reality of rebellion and existence of martial law during that time gave the martial
law administrator, or President Marcos, ample means to quell rebellion and restore
civil order.
 Martial law creates an exception to the general rule of exclusive subjection to the
civil jurisdiction, and renders offenses against the law of war, as well as those of a
civil character, triable, by military tribunals.
 The immunity of civilians from military jurisdiction must give way in areas governed
by martial law. When it is absolutely imperative for public safety, legal processes
can be superseded, and military tribunals authorized to exercise the jurisdiction
normally vested in courts.
 However, in this case, the Supreme Court held that military tribunals have no
jurisdiction to try civilians for alleged offenses when the civil courts are open
and functioning.
 In criminal prosecutions, when the accused stands to lose either his life or liberty,
shall be entitled to a trial by judicial process and not by military process. Military
tribunals are not courts within the PH judicial system.
 Judicial power is vested by the Constitution exclusively in the Supreme Court and
in such inferior courts as are duly established by law. Judicial power exists only in
the courts.
 As long as the civil courts in the land remain open and are regularly functioning, as
they did during the period of martial law, military tribunals cannot try and exercise
jurisdiction over civilians for offenses committed by them and which are properly
cognizable by the civil courts.
 The imprimatur for this observation is found in Section 18, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution, to wit —

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.