Lansang vs Garcia
FACTS: While the Liberal Party of the Philippines was holding a public meeting at Plaza Miranda, for the presentation of its candidates in the general election, two hand grenades were thrown. As a consequence, eight persons were killed and many more were injured. President Marcos then issued Proclamation No.889, suspending the writ of habeas corpus for persons presently detained, as well as others who might may be similarly detained for the crimes of insurrection or rebellion, and all other crimes and offenses by them in furtherance or incident incident thereto, or in connecton with. Petitions for writ of habeas corpus were filed by persons who have been arrested without a warrant and then detained. Such persons also assail the validity of Proclamation No. 889 and their detention. Nine days after, the President issue Proclamation No. 889-A, ammending the previous proclamation. In this proclamation, the President suspends the privilege of t hr writ of habeas corpus for the persons presently detained, as well as other who may be silarly detained for the crimes of insurrection or rebellion, and other overt acts committed by them in furtherance. Soon after, Proclamation No. 889-B, Proclamation No. 889-C and Proclamation No. 889-D lifted the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in some cities and provinces of the country. As a result, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is still suspended in 18 provinces, 2 sub-provinces and 18 cities. ISSUE: 1. Whether or not the court had authority to and should inquire into the factual bases required by the Constitution for the suspension of the writ? 2. Whether or not the President acted arbitrarily when he issued Proclamation No. 889? HELD: 1. Yes. Two (2) conditions must concur for the valid exercise of the authority to suspend the privilege to the writ, to wit: (a) there must be "invasion, insurrection, insurrection, or rebellion" or — pursuant to paragraph (2), section 10 of Art. VII of the Constitution — "imminent danger thereof," and (b) "public safety" must require the suspension of the privilege. |The Presidential Proclamation under consideration declares declares that there has been and there is actually a state of rebellion and that "public safety requires that immediate and effective action be taken in order to maintain peace and order, secure the safety of the people and preserve the authority of t he State.||| State.||| Indeed, the grant of power to suspend the privilege is neither absolute nor unqualified. The authority conferred by the Constitution, both under the Bill of Rights and under the Executive Department, is limited and conditional. The precept in the Bill of Rights establishes a general rule, as well as an exception thereto. What is more, it postulates the former in the negative , evidently to stress its importance, by providing that "(t)he privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be be suspended . . . ." It is only by way of exception that it permits the suspension of the privilege "in
cases of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion" — or, under Art. VII of the Constitution, "imminent danger thereof" — "when the public safety requires it, in any of which events the same may be suspended wherever during such period the necessity for such suspension shall exist." For from being full and plenary, the authority to suspend the privilege of the writ is thus circumscribed, confined and restricted, not only by the prescribed setting or the conditions essential to its existence, but, also, as regards the time when and the place where it may be exercised. These factors and the aforementioned setting or conditions mark, establish and define the extent, the confines and the limits of said power, beyond which it does not exist. And, like the limitations and restrictions imposed by the Fundamental Law upon the legislative department, adherence thereto and compliance therewith may, within proper bounds, be inquired into by courts of justice.||| 2. No. Petitioners contention that CPP-NPA has no ability, is negated by the killing of 5 mayors, 20 barrio captains and 3 chiefs of police; that there were fourteen meaningful bombing incidents in the Greater Manila Area in 1970. CPP has also managed to infiltrate or establish and control nine major labor organizations; has exploited the eleven major student or youth organizations; about thirty mass organizations actively advancing the CPP.
Considering that the President was in possession of various data — except those related to events that happened after August 21, 1971 — when the Plaza Miranda bombing took place, the Court is not prepared to hold that the Executive had acted arbitrarily or gravely abused his discretion when he then concluded that public safety and national security required the suspension of the privilege of the writ, particularly if the NPA were to strike simultaneously with violent demonstrations staged by the 245 KM chapters, all over the P hilippines, with the assistance and cooperation of the dozens of CPP front organizations, and the bombing of water mains and conduits, as well as electric power plants and installations — a possibility which, no matter how remote, he was bound to forestall, and a danger he was under obligation to anticipate and arrest. He had consulted his advisers and sought their views. He had reason to feel that the situation was critical — as, indeed, it was — and demanded immediate action. This he took believing in good faith that public safety required it. And, in the light of the circumstances adverted to above, he had substantial grounds to entertain such belief. Moreover, the President could have declared a general suspension of the privilege. Instead, Proclamation No. 889 limited the suspension to persons detained "for crimes of insurrection or rebellion, and all other crimes and offenses committed by them in furtherance or on the occasion thereof, or incident thereto, or in connection therewith." Even this was further limited by Proclamation No. 889-A, which withdrew from the coverage of the suspension persons detained for other crimes and offenses committed "on the occasion" of the insurrection or rebellion, or "incident thereto, or in connection therewith." In case of invasion, insurrection or rebellion or imminent danger thereof, the President has, under the Constitution, three (3) courses of action open to him, namely: (a) to call out the armed forces; (b) to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; and (c) to place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. He had, already, called out the armed forces, which measure, however, proved inadequate to attain the desired result. Of the two (2) other alternatives, the suspension of the privilege is the least harsh.
