Olaguer v Military Commission No. 34 (Constitution)

Olaguer v Military Commission No. 34

GR No. L-54558 May 22, 1987

Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.cralaw

The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.cralaw

The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.cralaw

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 of habeas corpus.cralaw

The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion.cralaw

During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.cralaw

GANCAYCO, J:

FACTS:

·       June 13. 1980 -the respondent Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines 3 created the respondentMilitary Commission No 34 to try criminal case filed against the petitioners.

·       July 30, 1980 - an amendedcharge sheet was filed for seven (7) offenses, namely:

(1) Unlawful possession of explosives and incendiarydevices;

(2) Conspiracy to assassinate President, and Mrs. Marcos;

(3) Conspiracy to assassinate cabinetmembers Juan Ponce Enrile, Francisco Tatad and Vicente Paterno;

(4) Conspiracy to assassinate Messrs. ArturoTangco, Jose Roño and Onofre Corpus;

(5) Arson of nine buildings;

(6) Attempted murder of Messrs. LeonardoPerez, Teodoro Valencia and Generals Romeo Espino and Fabian Ver; and

(7) Conspiracy and proposal tocommit rebellion, and inciting to rebellion.

·       December 4, 1984 - pending the resolution of the Petition, the respondent Military Commission No. 34 passedsentence convicting the petitioners and imposed upon them the penalty of death by electrocution.

·       The thrust of petitioner’s arguments is that military commissions have no jurisdiction to try civiliansfor offenses alleged to have been committed during the period of martial law. They also maintain that theproceedings before the respondent Military Commission No. 34 are in gross violation of their constitutional right todue process of law.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a military tribunal has the jurisdiction to try civilians while the civil courts are open and functioning

HELD:

WHEREFORE,

DISMISSED - the Petitions for habeas corpus are for having become moot and academic.

GRANTED - The Petitions for certiorari and prohibition.

DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL - The creation of the respondent Military Commission No. 34 to try civilians like the petitioners is hereby declared unconstitutional and all its proceedings are deemed null and void. The temporary restraining order issued against the respondents enjoining them from executing the Decision of the respondent Military Commission No. 34 is hereby made permanent and the said respondents are permanently prohibited from further pursuing Criminal Case No. MC-34-1 against the petitioners. The sentence rendered by the respondent Military Commission No. 34 imposing the death penalty on the petitioners is hereby vacated for being null and void, and all the items or properties taken from the petitioners in relation to the said criminal case should be returned to them immediately.

RATIO:

(1) Military commissions or tribunals have no jurisdiction to try civilians for alleged offenses when the civil courts are open and functioning.Due process of law demands that in all criminal prosecutions (where the accused stands to lose either his life or his liberty), the accused shall be entitled to, among others, a trial. Civilians like (the) petitioner placed on trial for civil offenses under general law are entitled to trial by judicial process, not by executive or military process.

(2) Judicial power exists only in the courts, which have "exclusive power to hear and determine those matters which affect the life or liberty or property of a citizen.” In Toth v. Quarles, 40 the U.S. Supreme Court furtherstressed that the assertion of military authority over civilians cannot rest on the President's power as Commander-in-Chief or on any theory of martial law.

(3) Following the principle of separation of powers underlyingthe existing constitutional organization of the Government of the Philippines, the power and the duty of interpretingthe laws as when an individual should be considered to have violated the law) is primarily a function of the judiciary. It is not, and it cannot be the function of the Executive Department, through the military authorities. And as long as the civil courts in the land remain open and are regularly functioning, as they do so today and as they did during the period of martial law in the country, military tribunals cannot try and exercise jurisdiction over civilians for offenses committed by them and which are properly cognizable by the civil courts.

(4) Respondent Military Commission No. 34 appears to have been rendered too hastily to the prejudice to the petitioners, and in complete disregard of their constitutional right to adduce evidence on their behalf.Thus, even assuming arguendo that the respondent Military Commission No. 34 does have the jurisdiction to try the petitioners, the Commission should be deemed ousted of its jurisdiction when, as observed by the SolicitorGeneral, the said tribunal acted in disregard of the constitutional rights of the accused. Indeed, it is well-settled that once a deprivation of a constitutional right is shown to exist, the tribunal that rendered the judgment in question is deemed ousted of jurisdiction.

(5) Proclamation No. 2045 (dated January 17, 1981) officially lifting martial law in the Philippines and abolishing all military tribunals created pursuant to the national emergency effectively divests the respondent Military Commission No. 34 (and all military tribunals for that matter) of its supposed authority to try civilians, including the herein petitioners. The said proclamation states:

"The military tribunals created pursuant thereto are hereby dissolved upon final determination of case's pending therein which may not be transferred to the civil courts without irreparable prejudice to the state in view of the rules on double jeopardy, or other circumstances which render prosecution of the cases difficult, if not impossible."

(6) Certainly, the rule of stare decisis is entitled to respect because stability in jurisprudence is desirable. Nonetheless, reverence for precedent, simply as precedent, cannot prevail when constitutionalism and the public interest demand otherwise. Thus, a doctrine which should be abandoned or modified should be abandoned or modified accordingly. After all, more important than anything else is that this Court should be right.