[G.R. No. 2808. September 30, 1905. ] FELIX BARCELN, !et"t"o#er, $. %A&I% '. BA(ER, 'R., AN% ')N %E *)+!SN, Repo#-e#t FAC*S. This case was an application for a writ of habeas corpus, to bring before the honorable court the person of said Felix Barcelon which was alleged to be detained and restrained of his liberty at the town of Batangas, in the Province of Batangas, and that the detention and restraint of the said applicant is wholly without legal authority and not under or by virtue of any process process issued by any court or magistrate. magistrate. Respondents Respondents admit that they they are detaining the body of the said Felix Barcelon, but deny the right of the court to inquire into into the the reas reason onss ther theref efor or by virt virtue ue of the the reso resolu luti tion on issu issued ed by the the Phil Philip ippi pine ne ommission and the executive order of the !overnor"!eneral suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the Provinces of avite and Batangas# and that the suspension was in accordance with the provisions of $ection % of the act of the ongress &nown as 'The Philippine Bill(, the Philippine ommission and the !overnor"!eneral basing such suspension upon the fact that certain organi)ed bands of ladrones in said provinces were in open insurrection against the constituted authorities# and the said bands, or parts of them, and some of their leaders, were still in open resistance resistance to the constituted authorities. ISS/E *hether or not the +udicial department department of the !overnment may investigate the facts upon which the legislative and executive branches of the !overnment acted in providing for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the province of avite and Batangas. )EL% -. t is the duty of the legislative branch of the !overnment to ma&e such laws and regulations as will effectually conserve peace and good order and protect the lives and 1
property of the citi)ens of the $tate. t is the duty of the !overnor"!eneral to ta&e such steps as he deems wise and necessary for the purpose of enforcing such laws. /very delay and obstacle which prevents a strict enforcement of laws under the conditions mentioned necessarily tends to +eopardi)e public interests and the safety of the whole people f the +udicial department of the !overnment, or any officer in the !overnment, .
has a right to contest the orders of the President or of the !overnor"!eneral under the conditions above supposed, before complying with such orders, then the hands of the President or the !overnor"!eneral may be tied until the very ob+ect of the rebels or insurrectos or invaders has been accomplished. n this case, ongress had authority to provide that the President, or the !overnor"!eneral, with the approval of the Philippine ommission, might suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion, insurrection, or invasion, when the public safety might require it. The conclusion set forth in the said resolution and the said executive order, as to the fact that there existed in the Provinces of avite and Batangas open insurrection against the constituted authorities, was a conclusion entirely within the discretion of the legislative and executive branches of the !overnment, after an investigation of the facts. That one branch of the 0nited $tates !overnment in the Philippine slands has no right to interfere or inquire into, for the purpose of nullifying the same, the discretionary acts of another independent department of the !overnment. The doctrine has been recogni)ed in this case, that whenever the onstitution or a statute gives a discretionary power to any person, to be exercised by him upon his own opinion of certain facts, such person is to be considered the sole and exclusive +udge of the existence of those facts. The authority to suspend the privilege of writ of habeas corpus is exclusively vested in the legislative and executive branches of the government and their decision is final and conclusive upon the 1udicial 2epartment and upon all persons. Therefore, the application for the writ of habeas corpus is denied.
2
