1) Petitioners filed writs of habeas corpus after being arrested and detained without charge under Proclamation 1081 placing the Philippines under martial law.
2) The court held that the existence of conditions claimed to justify martial law are a political question not subject to judicial inquiry. However, any inquiry into the factual bases for martial law has become moot.
3) The court also held that the detention of petitioners was legal under the declaration of martial law, as the privilege of habeas corpus is suspended for those arrested for acts related to suppressing rebellion or safeguarding public safety, in order to prioritize national survival.
1) Petitioners filed writs of habeas corpus after being arrested and detained without charge under Proclamation 1081 placing the Philippines under martial law.
2) The court held that the existence of conditions claimed to justify martial law are a political question not subject to judicial inquiry. However, any inquiry into the factual bases for martial law has become moot.
3) The court also held that the detention of petitioners was legal under the declaration of martial law, as the privilege of habeas corpus is suspended for those arrested for acts related to suppressing rebellion or safeguarding public safety, in order to prioritize national survival.
1) Petitioners filed writs of habeas corpus after being arrested and detained without charge under Proclamation 1081 placing the Philippines under martial law.
2) The court held that the existence of conditions claimed to justify martial law are a political question not subject to judicial inquiry. However, any inquiry into the factual bases for martial law has become moot.
3) The court also held that the detention of petitioners was legal under the declaration of martial law, as the privilege of habeas corpus is suspended for those arrested for acts related to suppressing rebellion or safeguarding public safety, in order to prioritize national survival.
1) Petitioners filed writs of habeas corpus after being arrested and detained without charge under Proclamation 1081 placing the Philippines under martial law.
2) The court held that the existence of conditions claimed to justify martial law are a political question not subject to judicial inquiry. However, any inquiry into the factual bases for martial law has become moot.
3) The court also held that the detention of petitioners was legal under the declaration of martial law, as the privilege of habeas corpus is suspended for those arrested for acts related to suppressing rebellion or safeguarding public safety, in order to prioritize national survival.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., et al. v.
HON JUAN conspiracy to seize political and
PONCE ENRILE, et al. 59 SCRA 183 | September 17, 1974 state power in the country and to Ponente: MAKALINTAL, C.J. take over the Government by FACTS: force…” General Order No. 2 was Enrile (then Minister of National Defense), pursuant issued by the President in the to the order of Marcos issued and ordered the arrest of a number of individuals including Benigno exercise of the power he assumed Aquino Jr even without any charge against them. by virtue of Proclamation 1081 Hence, Aquino and some others filed for habeas corpus against Juan Ponce Enrile. Enrile’s answer placing the entire country under contained a common and special affirmative defense martial law. that the arrest is valid pursuant to Marcos’ declaration of Martial Law. ISSUES: ISSUE: 1) Is the existence of conditions 1. Whether Aquino’s detention is legal in accordance claimed to justify the exercise of the to the declaration of Martial Law. 2. Whether the petitions for writ of habeas corpus power to declare martial law subject should be suspended contending that the to judicial inquiry?; and proclamation of Martial Law was unconstitutional. 2) Is the detention of the petitioners HELD: legal in accordance with the 1. YES. The Constitution provides that in case of invasion, insurrection or rebellion, or imminent declaration of martial law? danger against the state, when public safety requires it, the President may suspend the privilege of the writ HELD: of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part therein under Martial Law. In the case at bar, the 5 Justices held that the issue is a state of rebellion plaguing the country has not yet political question, hence, not subject disappeared, therefore, there is a clear and imminent danger against the state. The arrest is then a valid to judicial inquiry, while 4 Justices exercise pursuant to the President’s order. held that the issue is a justiciable 2. YES. The petitions should be dismissed with one. However, any inquiry by this respect to petitioners who have been released from Court in the present cases into the detention but have not withdrawn their petitions because they are still subject to certain restrictions. constitutional sufficiency of the Implicit in the state of martial law is the suspension factual bases for the proclamation of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus with respect to persons arrested or detained for acts related to the of martial law has become moot and basic objective of the proclamation: to suppress academic. Implicit in the state of invasion, insurrection, rebellion or to safeguard martial law is the suspension of the public safety against imminent danger thereof. privilege of the writ of habeas Aquino v. Enrile corpus with respect to persons 59 SCRA 183 arrested or detained for acts related FACTS: to the basic objective of the The cases are all petitions for proclamation, which is to suppress habeas corpus, the petitioners invasion, insurrection or rebellion, having been arrested and detained or to safeguard public safety against by the military by virtue of imminent danger thereof. The Proclamation 1081. The petitioners preservation of society and national were arrested and held pursuant to survival takes precedence. The General Order No.2 of the President proclamation of martial law “for being participants or for having automatically suspends the privilege given aid and comfort in the of the writ as to the persons referred to in this case.
