EN BANC

G.R. No. L-61016 April 26, 1983

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF

HORACIO R. MORALES, JR., petitioner,
vs.
MINISTER JUAN PONCE ENRILE, GEN. FABIAN C. VER and
COL. GALILEO KINTANAR, respondents.

G.R. No. L-61107 April 26, 1983

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF

ANTONIO C. MONCUPA, JR. ANTONIO C. MONCUPA, JR.,
petitioner,
vs.
MINISTER JUAN PONCE ENRILE, GEN. FABIAN C. VER and
COL. GALILEO KINTANAR, respondents.

Lorenzo M. Tañada, Augusto Sanchez, Jejomar Binay and

Antonio Quintos for petitioners.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

CONCEPCION, JR., J.:

1. The petitions are without merit and are hereby DISMISSED.

2. Petitioners were arrested on April 21, 1982 at about 9:45 a.m.

while they were riding together in a motor vehicle on Laong-Laan
Street, Quezon City, by elements of Task Force Makabansa of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines. Since their arrest, they have been
under detention. Petitioner Morales filed his petition for habeas
corpus with this Court on July 9, 1982, while petitioner Moncupa
filed his on July 19, 1982. On July 20, 1982 petitioners, together
with several others, were charged with rebellion (Art. 134, Revised
Penal Code) before the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Criminal
Case No. Q-21091 filed by the City Fiscal of Quezon City. The trial
of the case has yet to be terminated. The continued detention of
petitioners to answer for the offense charged is therefore legal.

3. Petitioners allege that they were arrested without any warrant of

arrest; that their constitutional rights were violated, among them
the right to counsel, the right to remain silent, the right to a speedy
and public trial, and the right to bail. They also air the charge that
they were subjected to maltreatment and torture; that they did not
have the opportunity to present their defense before the inquest
fiscal and therefore asked this Court to order the reinvestigation of
the charges against them. Acting on such plea, this Court in a
resolution en banc  dated July 22, 1982 ordered the City Fiscal of
Quezon City to conduct such reinvestigation and at the same time
appointed him "to act as commissioner of this Court and receive
evidence of the charges made by petitioners before this Court of
alleged torture and violation of their constitutional rights,
particularly the right to counsel." On September 28, 1982, the City
Fiscal submitted his report on the reinvestigation affirming the
existence of a prima facie case for rebellion against petitioners and
several others. And on February 8, 1983 he submitted to this Court
the transcript of the notes taken at the reception of the evidence on
the charges of petitioners.

4. If petitioners had been arrested in a communist country, they

would have no rights to speak of. However, the Philippines is a
republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them. 1 We have a
Constitution framed by a constitutional convention and duly ratified
by the people. We subscribe to the rule of law. We believe in human
rights and we protect and defend them. Petitioners are entitled to
the full enjoyment of all the rights granted to them by law. And this
Court stands as the guarantor of those rights.

5. Our Constitution provides:

SEC. 20. No person shall be compelled to be a witness

against himself. Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right to remain
silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right.
 No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other
means which vitiates the free will shall be used against
him. Any confession obtained in violation of this section
shall be inadmissible in evidence. 2

6. After a person is arrested and his custodial investigation begins a

confrontation arises which at best may be termed unequal. The
detainee is brought to an army camp or police headquarters and
there questioned and cross-examined not only by one but as many
investigators as may be necessary to break down his morale. He
finds himself in a strange and un familiar surrounding, and every
person he meets he considers hostile to him. The investigators are
well-trained and seasoned in their work. They employ all the
methods and means that experience and study has taught them to
extract the truth, or what may pass for it, out of the detainee. Most
detainees are unlettered and are not aware of their constitutional
rights. And even if they were, the intimidating and coercive
presence of the officers of the law in such an atmosphere
overwhelms them into silence. Section 20 of the Bill of Rights seeks
to remedy this imbalance.

7. At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the

arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he
must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any. He shall be informed of
his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that
any statement he might make could be used against him. The
person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his
lawyer, a relative, or anyone he chooses by the most expedient
means-by telephone if possible or by letter or messenger. It shall be
the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is
accomplished. No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless
it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested, by
any person on his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition
either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. The right
to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless
made with the assistance of counsel. Any statement obtained in
violation of the procedure herein laid down, whether exculpatory or
inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.
8. During the period of his detention, he shall have the right to
confer with his counsel at any hour of the day or, in urgent cases,
of the night, alone and privately, in the jail or any other place of
custody. 3

Arrest

9. Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may

be forthcoming to answer for the commission of an offense. 4

10. An arrest may be made with or without a warrant.

SEC. 3. The right of the people to be secure in their

persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature
and for any purpose shall not be violated, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined by the judge, or such
other responsible officer as may be authorized by law,
after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized. 5

11. Our Constitution clearly defines the persons who may issue a
warrant of arrest and limits them to a "judge, or such other
responsible officer as may be authorized by law." It also lays down
in unmistakable terms the procedure required before a search
warrant or warrant of arrest may issue.

12. A Presidential Arrest and Commitment Order is a warrant of

arrest issued by the President of the Philippines. 6 Its issuance
must therefore comply with the requirements of the Constitution, in
the same manner and to the same extent, as a warrant of arrest
issued by a judge issuance must therefore comply with the
requirements of the Constitution, in the same manner and to the
same extent, as a warrant of arrest by a judge.

13. An arrest may also be made without a warrant.

 SEC. 6. Arrest without warrant — When lawful.— A peace
officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest
a person:

(a) When the person to be arrested has committed, is

actually committing, or is about to commit an offense in
his presence;

(b) When an offense has in fact been committed, and he

has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be
arrested has committed it;

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has

escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to another.7

14. Care should be exercised in making an arrest without a

warrant. Where there is no justification for the arrest, the public
officer could be criminally liable for arbitrary detention 8 or unlawful
arrest 9 or for some other offense.

15. The petitioners claim they were arrested without a warrant. The
Memorandum to the President dated April 21, 1982 from Gen.
Fabian C. Ver, Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
wherein he reported the arrest of petitioners, the subversive
documents seized from them and the results of the ensuing tactical
interrogation, with a recommendation for the issuance of a
Presidential Arrest and Commitment Order, was approved by the
President only on April 23, 1982. Indeed, therefore, petitioners were
arrested without a warrant. However, months before their arrest,
petitioners were already under surveillance on suspicion of
committing rebellion. From the results of the said surveillance, the
evidence then at hand, and the documents seized from them at the
time of their arrest, it would appear that they had committed or
were actually committing the offense of rebellion. Their arrest
without a warrant for the said offense is therefore clearly justified.

Procedure after Arrest

16. After a person is arrested either without a warrant or by virtue
of a warrant of arrest issued by a judge or by virtue of a Presidential
Arrest and Commitment Order, the proper complaint or information
against him must be filed with the courts of justice within the time
prescribed by law, to wit:

FURTHER AMENDING ARTICLE 125 OF THE REVISED

PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED (PRESIDENTIAL DECREE
NO. 1404)

WHEREAS, the periods within which arrested persons

shall be delivered to the judicial authorities as provided
in Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, are
on occasions inadequate to enable the government to file
within the said periods the criminal information against
persons arrested for certain crimes against national
security and public order.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS,

President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of
the powers vested in me by the Constitution, and in the
interest of national security as well as public safety and
order, do hereby decree and order as part of the law of
the land the following amendment to Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended:

SECTION 1. Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as

amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

ART. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained

persons. -The penalties provided in the next
preceding article shall be imposed upon the
public officer or employee who shall detain any
person for some legal ground and shall fail to
deliver such person to the proper judicial
authorities within the period of: six hours, for
crimes or offenses punishable by light
penalties, or their equivalent; nine hours, for
crimes or offenses punishable by correctional
penalties, or their equivalent; and eighteen
 hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by
afflictive or capital penalties, or their
equivalent; Provided, however, That the
President may, in the interest of national
security and public order, authorize by
Executive Order longer periods, which in no
case shall exceed 30 days, or for as long as the
conspiracy to commit the crime against
national security and public order continues or
is being implemented, for the delivery of
persons arrested for crimes or offenses against
public order as defined in Title III, Book 11 of
this Code, namely: Articles 134, 136, 138, 139,
141, 142, 143, 144, 146 and 147, and for acts
in violation of Republic Act No. 1700 as
amended by Presidential Decree No. 885,
taking into consideration the gravity of the
offense or offenses, the number of persons
arrested, the threat to national security or to
public safety and order, and/or the occurrence
of a public calamity or other emergency
situation preventing the early investigation of
the cases and the filing of the corresponding
information before the civil courts.

In every case, the person detained shall be

informed of the cause of his detention and
shall be allowed, upon his request, to
communicate and confer at any time with his
attorney or counsel, and to be visited by his
immediate relatives.

SEC. 2. All acts, executive order, proclamations,

Presidential Decrees, General Orders, Letters of
Instruction, rules and regulations, or parts thereof,
inconsistent with the provisions of this decree are hereby
repealed or modified accordingly.
 SEC. 3. Transitory provision.-Pending the preparation
and promulgation by the President of the Executive Order
referred to in Section 1 hereof, the detention of persons
arrested for any of the abovementioned offenses against
public order shall continue to be governed by the
provisions of General Orders No. 2, dated September 22,
1972 as amended by General Order Nos. 60 and 62,
dated September 24, 1977 and October 22, 1977,
respectively.

SEC 4. This decree shall take effect immediately.

Done in the City of Manila this 9th day of June, in the

year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-eight."

17. Failure of the public officer to do so without any valid reason

would constitute a violation of Art. 125, Revised Penal Code, as
amended. And the person detained would be entitled to be released
on a writ of habeas corpus,  unless he is detained under subsisting
process issued by a competent court. 10

Power of the Courts

18. The writ of habeas corpus has often been referred to as the

great writ of liberty. It is the most expeditious way of securing the
release of one who has been illegally detained. The privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus may be suspended, but not the writ itself.

19. The Bill of Rights provides:

SECTION 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or

property without due process of law, nor shall any person
be denied the equal protection of the laws.

20. In Lansang vs.Garcia, 42 SCRA 448,473,We said:

In our resolution of October 5, 1972, We stated that 'a

majority of the court 'had 'tentatively  arrived at a
consensus that it may inquire in order to satisfy itself of
the existence of the factual bases for the issuance of
 Presidential Proclamations Nos. 889 and 889A ... and
thus determine the constitutional sufficiency of such
bases in the light of the requirements of Article III, sec.
1, par. 14, and Article VII, sec. 10, par. 2, of the
Philippine Constitution ...' Upon further deliberation, the
members of the Court are now unanimous in the
conviction that it has the authority to inquire into the
existence of said factual bases in order to determine the
constitutional sufficiency thereof.

21. We reiterate this doctrine.

22. Furthermore, We hold that under the judicial power of review

and by constitutional mandate, in all petitions for habeas
corpus  the court must inquire into every phase and aspect of
petitioner's detention from the moment petitioner was taken into
custody up to the moment the court passes upon the merits of the
petition. Only after such a scrutiny can the court satisfy itself that
the due process clause of our Constitution has in fact been
satisfied.

23. The submission that a person may be detained indefinitely

without any charges and the courts cannot inquire into the legality
of the restraint goes against the spirit and letter of the Constitution
and does violence to the basic precepts of human rights and a
democratic society.

The Right to Bail

24. Next to life a man loves his freedom. Some men love their
freedom even more than their life.

25. In all criminal prosecutions the accused is presumed innocent.

Because of this presumption and inasmuch as every man has a
natural desire to be free, our Constitution laid down the right to bail
in these words:

SEC. 18. All persons, except those charged with capital

offenses when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before
 conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties. Excessive
bail shall not be required. 11

26. Although martial law was terminated on January 17, 1981, by

virtue of Proclamation No. 2045 of the President of the Philippines,
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus continues to be suspended
in the two autonomous regions in Mindanao and in all other places
with respect to certain offenses, thus:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS,

President/Prime Minister of the Philippines, by virtue of
the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby
revoke Proclamation No. 1081 (Proclaiming a State of
Martial Law in the Philippines) and Proclamation No.
1104 (Declaring the Continuation of Martial Law) and
proclaim the termination of the state of martial law
throughout the Philippines; Provided, that the call to the
Armed Forces of the Philippines to prevent or suppress
lawless violence, insurrection, rebellion and subversion
shall continue to be in force and effect; and Provided that
in the two autonomous regions in Mindanao, upon the
request of the residents therein, the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall continue; and
in all other places the suspension of the privilege of the
writ shall also continue with respect to persons at
present detained as well as others who may hereafter be
similarly detained for the crimes of insurrection or
rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit
such crimes, and for all other crimes and offenses
committed by them in furtherance of or on the occasion
therefore, or incident thereto, or in connection
therewith. ... (Presidential Proclamation No. 2045).

27. Normally, rebellion being a non-capital offense is bailable. But

because the privilege of the writ of  habeas corpus  remains
suspended "with respect to persons at present detained as well as
other who may hereafter be similarly detained for the crimes of
insurrection or rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to
commit such crimes, and for all other crimes and offenses
committed by them in furtherance of or on the occasion thereof, or
incident thereto, or in connection therewith," the natural
consequence is that the right to bail for the commission of anyone
of the said offenses is also suspended. To hold otherwise would
defeat the very purpose of the suspension. Therefore, where the
offense for which the detainee was arrested is anyone of the said
offenses he has no right to bail even after the charges are filed in
court.

28. The crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to

commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in
furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct
attacks on the life of the State.

29. Just as an individual has right to self-defense when his life is

endangered, so does the State. The suspension of the privilege of
the writ is to enable the State to hold in preventive imprisonment
pending investigation and trial those persons who plot against it
and commit acts that endanger the State's very existence. For this
measure of self-defense to be effective, the right to bail must also be
deemed suspended with respect to these offenses.

30. However, there is a difference between preventive and punitive

imprisonment. Where the filing of charges in court or the trial of
such charges already filed becomes protracted without any
justifiable reason, the detention becomes punitive in character and
the detainee regains his right to freedom.

The Charges of Torture

31. When petitioners charged in their petitions that they had been
tortured and maltreated, the Court decided to appoint the City
Fiscal of Quezon City to hear the charges and to receive the
evidence. Not because We are an investigating body. Nor are We a
trier of facts. But because petitioners' charges are material and
relevant to the petitions before Us.

32. As mentioned earlier, the Court Commissioner submitted the

transcript of the proceedings held before him. We will not pass
upon the merits of the torture charges. However, they should be
filed before the body which has jurisdiction over them as provided
for in Presidential Decrees Nos. 1822, 1822-A and 1850.

33. The present form of our government, to all intents and

purposes, merged the executive and legislative branches into one.
Members of parliament are at the same time cabinet ministers.
Under the system of checks and balances ordained by the
Constitution, the judiciary serves as the check and balance to the
merged executive and legislative branches. The judiciary is therefore
called upon to express its thoughts on areas outside the traditional
and narrow confines of decision making, with the end in view that
together we may explore the free market of Ideas and arrive at what
is best for our country and our people.

34. Our people cry out for a better life. They want more food in their
stomachs, roofs over their heads, health services for themselves and
their families, education for their children, and other necessities
that make life worth living. They cannot be denied. They want it and
they want it now. Timely indeed are the thrusts of the KKK and the
BLISS programs.

35. However, we cannot lead them to a truly better life, unless we

achieve complete peace in our land; and we cannot have complete
peace unless we improve the administration of justice.

36. It was a wise man who once said: "Tell me how a country's poor
receive their justice and I will tell you how stable its government
is." 12

37. Whenever we speak of the administration of justice we refer to

four principal areas: the preservation of peace and order which is
the primary task of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the
National Integrated Police, both under the Ministry of Defense; the
investigation and prosecution of offenses and the administration of
our penal system which are under the Ministry of Justice; the
application and interpretation of laws and the trial and adjudication
of cases which fall under the jurisdiction of the courts; and
appearance as counsel for the government particularly in appealed
criminal cases and as counsel for the Commission on Elections,
Securities and Exchange Commission, and others, which is the
responsibility of the Office of the Solicitor General. In everyone of
these areas much can be done to achieve our ultimate goal-that in
this fair land of ours, no man, no matter how humble, no matter
how poor shall thirst for justice.

38. Our machinery of justice should be geared towards helping and

protecting the poor among us. Not knowing their rights, not having
the means to pay for the services of a lawyer, possessing no
influence whatsoever, they are invariably the victims of injustice.
The affluent can take care of themselves. They are better aware of
their rights, they have influence, and they can engage the services
of the best counsel. But the poor can only pray to God and hope to
find relief in the system of justice established by their government.

39. We must open all avenues for complaints and keep them open
so that the grievance procedure may be made more readily available
to the masses of our people. Only by knowing their needs can we
give them what they rightfully deserve.

40. It is undeniable that throughout the length and breadth of our

land, lawlessness and disorder have increased and continue to
increase to undesirable proportions. It is wishful thinking to believe
otherwise. An efforts must be exerted now to reverse the trend. We
cannot afford any delay. And we should begin by bringing to the bar
of justice the culprits in particular who burned and destroyed
public property, and attacked, kidnapped and killed public
functionaries. For the questions may validly be asked: If the
government cannot protect public property, how can it protect
private property? If the government cannot guarantee the safety and
lives of its officials, how can it guarantee the safety and lives of
private individuals?

41. The investigation and prosecution of cases should be further

improved so that only meritorious cases shall reach the courts,
thus contributing to the unclogging of court dockets. Many criminal
cases initiated by complainants are just harassment suits and
should never have been filed in court. In the process, it is required
that all fiscals be appointed in a permanent capacity. Their security
of tenure is the foundation stone of their independence. Our penal
system should be further updated to make more effective the
rehabilitation of criminals. Let us do away with instances of first
offenders who serve sentence in order to be reformed but who come
out instead as hardened criminals.

42. And with the judicial revamp just effected under B.P. 129, the
trial and decision making process has been modified and vastly
improved to achieve better results. But it must be remembered that
courts which are not filled are as good as no courts at all. Therefore,
more appointments to the existing vacancies should be made.

43. One lesson our people have learned-painfully but well-is that
politics and a good administration of justice-like oil and water-do
not mix; that when politics infiltrates the administration of justice,
injustice is often the outcome. In some jurisdictions of the United
States, there are sheriffs (peace officers) and district attorneys
(prosecutors) who are elected by the voters and who run for office as
the candidates of a political party. In the Philippines such a system
would never work because in our culture we have values peculiarly
our own-value like  "utang na loob", "compadre", "pakikisama",
"tayu-tayo", "bigayan", "bata ko", "amo ko", and the "god- father
mentality". Values like these have derailed and may derail the
administration of justice. Political followers commit abuses in the
belief that come what may their political bosses would shield them
from punishment. Can you imagine how criminal cases would be
investigated and prosecuted if fiscals (prosecutors) were chosen by
election? How would our laws be enforced if policemen and
members of the Armed Forces were elected by the people? And yet
the heads of the Ministries of Justice and Defense and the Office of
the Solicitor General are all active politicians.

44. The burdens of office fall heavily on their shoulders. Perhaps it

is time we relieve them of the additional burdens that being
politicians entail. Our Constitution foresaw the need for heads of
ministries who are not active politicians in providing that ". . . . At
least a majority of the Members of the Cabinet who are heads of
ministries shall come from the Regional Representations of
the Batasang Pambansa.  . . ." 13
45. The campaign against venality in office-malfeasance,
misfeasance and nonfesance should be pursued with renewed vigor.
For graft and corruption are like termites gnawing away the
foundation of government. The harm done is sometimes not
realized; or even if realized, under- estimated. In the process let us
remember to stress preventive measures to save public property
from loss.

46. The communist threat remains a nagging problem of

government. Whether Marxist, Maoist, Leninist, aided by the New
People's Army, rebels, radicals, and lawless elements, they all have
but one aim-one single purpose-one defined objective: to bring
down by violence the Government of the Republic of the Philippines
and to forcibly seize political power in order that they may replace
our existing political, social, economic, and legal order with an
entirely new one based on communism.

47. Once before, in the early fifties, communists threatened the

established order. They were driven back by the Armed Forces,
mainly because of the support of our people. We must keep,
strengthen and solidify the sympathy, faith, loyalty, and trust in the
government of our brothers in the rural areas. Guns and bullets
alone will not do it. We can accomplish this only by giving them
better government. It is a condition sine qua non to achieve success
in the fight against subversion.

48. By and large, the Armed Forces are composed of good and
disciplined men. However, there are those who are not worthy of the
uniforms they wear. Not a few have enriched themselves by abusing
the powers of their position. Some are involved in extortion,
smuggling, and kidnapping for ransom. There are others who
maintain gambling, drug rings, and prostitution dens. And still
others have committed robbery, rape, murder, and other offenses.
The campaign to rid the organization of such misfits should be
carried out with missionary zeal. For indeed victims of abuse are
often alienated from the government.

49. The Filipinos are a God-loving and a God-fearing people. We

believe in peace and freedom. We believe in the family and its strong
ties. We can never willingly accept communism and what it stands
for.

50. While the government should continue to repel the communists,

the subversives, the rebels, and the lawless with all the means at its
command, it should always be remembered that whatever action is
taken must always be within the framework of our Constitution and
our laws.

51. When the judgment of history is written, as leaders of our

people, we shall be asked to account not only for what we did, not
only for what we did not do, but also for what visions we have today
of our tomorrow.

52. What will be our answer?

53. WHEREFORE, as aforestated, the petitions should be, as they

are hereby, DISMISSED. With costs against the petitioners.

54. SO ORDERED.

Aquino, J., concurs in the result.

Guerrero, J., I concur in the dismissal of the petitions.

Plana, J., Escolin J., Vasquez, J., concurs in the result.

Relova, J., I concur and will also add my own views in a separate
opinion.