GARCIA-PADILLA V ENRILE

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 place.

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”.

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

No criminal charges have as of yet been 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

RULING:

(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
rebyellion, 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
preventivevernment forces, or any other milder acts but equally in pursuance of the
rebellious movement.

(2) No answer. Political Question

Reverting to the ruling of Montenegro vs. Castañeda 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 Castañeda 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.

The questioned power of the president to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus 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’s 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, rejoin their comrades in the field
thereby jeopardizing the success of government efforts to end the invasion,
rebellion or insurrection.