G.R. No.

93177 August 2, 1991

B/GEN. JOSE COMENDADOR, B/GEN, MARIELO BLANDO, CAPT. DANILO
PIZARRO, CAPT. MANEL ISON, COL. LISITO SANC!EZ, LTC. ROMELINO GOJO,
LTC. ARSENIO TECSON, LTC. RA"AEL GAL#EZ, LTC. TIBRCIO "SILLERO, LTC.
ERICSON ARELIO, LTC. JACINTO LIGOT LTC. "RAN$LIN BRA%NER, MAJ.
AL"REDO OLI#EROS, MAJ. CESAR DE LA PERA, MAJ. LE#INO #ALENCIA, CAPT.
"LORENCIO "LORES, CAPT. JAIME JNIO, CAPT. DANILO LIM, CAPT. ELMER
AMON, CAPT. #ERGEL NACINO, &'( LT. JOE) SARROZA, petitioners,
vs.
GEN. RENATO S. DE #ILLA, C!IE" O" STA"", A"P, T!E PTI IN#ESTIGATING PANEL
COMPOSED O"* COL. MANEL S. MENDIOLA, COL. #IRTD NORBERTO L. DAGZA
MAJ. "ELI+ #. BALDONADO &'( MAJ. ESTELITO L. PORNEA &'( GENERAL
CORT,MARTIAL NO. 1- COMPOSED O"* B/GEN. DEMETRIO CAMA COL.
!ERMINIO A. MENDOZA, COL. ERNESTO B. ), COL. ROMEO ODI, COL. %ILL)
"LORENDO, COL. DION) A. #ENTRA &'( CAPT. "RANCISCO T. MALLILLIN,
respondents.
No. 9./2/ August 2, 1991
B/GEN. DEMETRIO CAMA, COL. !ERMIMO A. MENDOZA, COL. ERNESTO B. ),
COL. ROMEO ODI, COL. %ILL) "LORENDO, COL. DION) A. #ENTRA, &'( CAPT.
"RANCISCO T. MALLILLIN, petitioners,
vs.
!ON. MIANO C. ASNCION, P01s2(2'g Ju(g1, B0&'34 1/-, REGIONAL TRIAL
CORT, 5.C., LTC. JACINTO LIGOT PA., respondents.
No. 969-7 August 2, 1991
B/GEN. JOSE COMENDADOR, B/GEN. MARCELO BLANDO, CAPT. DANILO
PIZARRO PN, CAPT. MANEL ISON PN, LTC. ROMELINO GOJO PN 8M9, LTC.
ARSENIO TECSON PA, LTC. RA"AEL GAL#EZ PA, LTC. TIBRCIO "SILLERO PA,
LTC. ERICSON ARELIO PA, LTC. JACINTO LIGOT PA, LTC. "RAN$LIN BRA%NER
PA, MAJ. AL"REDO OLI#EROS PA, MAJ. CESAR DE LA PENA PN 8M9* MAJ.
LE#INO #ALENCIA PA, CAPT. "LORENCIO "LORES PA, CAPT. JAIME JNIO PA,
CAPT. DANILO LIM PA, CAPT. ELMER AMON PA" CAPT. #ERGEL NACINO, &'( LT.
JOE) SARROZA, petitioners,
vs.
B/GEN. DEMETRIO CAMA COL. !ERMINIO A. MENDOZA, COL. ERNESTO B. ),
COL. ROMEO ODI COL. %ILL) "LORENDO, COL. DION) A. #ENTRA, &'( CAPT.
"RANCISCO T. MALLILLIN PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS O" GENERAL CORT,
MARTIAL NO. 1-, respondents.
No. 97-.- August 2, 1991
A"P C!IE" O" STA"" LT. GEN. RODOL"O BIAZON, DEPT) C!IE" O" STA""
MAJOR GEN. ALE+ANDER AGIRRE, PNP DIRECTOR GENERAL MAJOR GEN.
CESAR NAZARENO &'( LT. COL. ALBERTO OLARIO, Co::&'(2'g O;;2310 o; t41
PNP/INP D1t1't2o' C1't10/J&2<, petitioners,
vs.
!ON. ANTONIO P. SOLANO, P01s2(2'g Ju(g1, R1g2o'&< T02&< Cou0t, 5u1=o' C2t>,
B0&'34 76, CAPTAIN RE)NALDO S. RA"AEL, 1 LT SER#ANDO A. BAOANAN PN8M9,
1 LT. %IL"REDO JIMENEZ PA" 1 LT. ATANACIO T. MACALAN JR PMM 2LT ELISEO T.
RASCO PC, 2LT JONAS CALLEJA PC, 2LT JAIRS JS GEL#EZON III PMM 2LT
JOSELITO CABREROS PMM 2LT MEMEL ROJAS PN8M9 &'( 2LT !ERMINIO L.
CANTACO PC, respondents.
Armando M. Marcelo and Rainier L. Madrid for petitioners Luisito Sanchez, Tiburcio
Fusillero, Ericson Aurelio, Levino Valencia, anilo Arnon Ver!el "acino, Florencio Flores,
#eni!no $unio and $oe% Sarroza.
Manuel &. Malvar for Rafael 'alvez and ann% Lim.
Manuel E. Valenzuela for Arsenio Tecson
Mariano R. Santia!o for Alfredo (liveros.
Ricardo $.M. Rivera for Manuel )son.
*astillo, Laman, Tan and +antaleon for anilo +izarro.
Alfredo Lazaro for Romelino 'o,o.
Manuel A. #arcelona, $r. for $ose *omendador.
$onathan #.S. Rebon! and Efren *. *ara! for Marcelo #lando.
+ablito V. Sanidad for Fran-lin #ra.ner and Ericson Aurelio.
Efren *. Moncupa for All Tecson.
M.M. Lazaro / Associates for respondents Li!ot and )son .
#aldomero S.+. 'atbonton, $r. for $acinto Li!ot.
Salvador #. #ritanico for *esar de la +ena.
'ilbert R.T. Re%es for anilo +izarro.
+once Enrile, *a%etano, Re%es / Manalastas for petitioners in '.R. "o. 01233.
The Solicitor 'eneral for respondents.

CRZ, J.:p
These four cases have been consolidated because they involve practically the same
parties and related issues arising from the same incident.
The petitioners in G.R. Nos. 93177 and 99!" and the private respondents in G.R. Nos.
9#$%$ and 97!#! are officers of the &rmed 'orces of the (hilippines facing prosecution
for their alleged participation in the failed coup d4 etat that too) place on *ecember 1 to 9,
19"9.
The charges against them are violation of &rticles of +ar ,&+- 7 ,.utiny-, &+ 9
,/onduct 0nbecoming an 1fficer and a Gentleman- and &+ 9! ,2arious /rimes- in
relation to &rticle %!" of the Revised (enal /ode ,.urder-.
3n G.R. No. 93177, 4hich is a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, they are
5uestioning the conduct of the (re6Trial 3nvestigation (T3 (anel constituted to investigate
the charges against them and the creation of the General /ourt .artial G/. convened to
try them.
3n G.R. No. 99!", the petitioners, besides challenging the legality of G/. No. 1!, see)
certiorari against its ruling denying them the right to peremptory challenge as granted by
&rticle 1" of /om. &ct No. !$".
3n G.R. No. 9#$%$, the orders of the respondent 7udge of the Regional Trial /ourt of
8ue9on /ity are assailed on certiorari on the ground that he has no 7urisdiction over G/.
No. 1! and no authority either to set aside its ruling denying bail to the private
respondents.
3n G.R. No. 97!#!, certiorari is also sought against the decision of the Regional Trial /ourt
of 8ue9on /ity in a petition for habeas corpus directing the release of the private
respondents. :urisdictional ob7ections are li)e4ise raised as in G.R. No. 9#$%$.
3
;efore the charges 4ere referred to G/. No. 1!, a (re6Trial 3nvestigation (T3 (anel had
been constituted pursuant to 1ffice 1rder No. 1 dated :anuary 1!, 199$, to investigate
the petitioners in G.R. Nos. 93177 and 99!". The (T3 (anel issued a uniform subpoena
dated :anuary 3$, 199$, individually addressed to the petitioners, to 4it<
=ou are hereby directed to appear in person before the undersigned
(re6Trial 3nvestigating 1fficers on 25 Feb 06 0766 a.m. at 8ian!an 9all,
*amp *rame 8ue9on /ity, then and there to submit your counter6
affidavit and the affidavits of your 4itnesses, if any, in the pre6trial
investigation of the charge>charges against you for violence of &+s
???????????????. *1 N1T @0;.3T & .1T31N T1 *3@.3@@.
'ailure to submit the aforementioned counter6affidavits on the date
above specified shall be deemed a 4aiver of your right to submit
controverting evidence.
1n the same date, the petitioners ac)no4ledged receipt of a copy of the charge sheet,
s4orn statements of 4itnesses, and death and medical certificates of victims of the
rebellion.
&t the first scheduled hearing, the petitioners challenged the proceedings on various
grounds, prompting the (T3 (anel to grant them 1$ days 4ithin 4hich to file their
ob7ections in 4riting This 4as done through a .otion for @ummary *ismissal dated
'ebruary %1, 199$.
3n a resolution dated 'ebruary %7,199$, the (T3 (anel denied the motion and gave the
petitioners # days from notice to submit their respective counter6affidavits and the
affidavits of their 4itnesses.
1n .arch 7, 199$, the petitioners verbally moved for reconsideration of the foregoing
denial and the (T3 (anel gave them 7 days 4ithin 4hich to reduce their motion to 4riting.
This 4as done on .arch 1!,199$.
The petitioners no4 claim that there 4as no pre6trial investigation of the charges as
mandated by &rticle of +ar 71, 4hich provides<
&rt. 71. *har!es Action upon. A /harges and specifications must be
signed by a person sub7ect to military la4, and under the oath either that
he has personal )no4ledge of, or has investigated, the matters set forth
therein and that the same are true in fact, to the best of his )no4ledge
and belief.
"o char!e .ill be referred to a !eneral court:martial for trial until after a
thorou!h and impartial investi!ation thereof shall have been made. This
investi!ation .ill include in;uiries as to the truth of the matter set forth
in said char!es, form of char!es, and .hat disposition of the case
should be made in the interest of ,ustice and discipline. At such
investi!ation full opportunit% shall be !iven to the accused to cross:
e<amine .itnesses a!ainst him if the% are available and to present
an%thin! he ma% desire in his o.n behalf, either in defense or
miti!ation, and the investi!atin! officer shall e<amine available
.itnesses re;uested b% the accused. )f the char!es are for.arded after
such investi!ation, the% shall be accompanied b% a statement of the
substance of the testimon% ta-en on both sides. ,Bmphasis supplied.-
They also allege that the initial hearing of the charges consisted merely of a roll call and
that no prosecution 4itnesses 4ere presented to reaffirm their affidavits. 4hile the motion
for summary dismissal 4as denied, the motion for reconsideration remains unresolved to
date and they have not been able to submit their counter6affidavits.
&t the hearing of .ay 1#, 199$, the petitioners in G.R. No. 99!" manifested that they
4ere eCercising their right to raise peremptory challenges against the president and
members of G/. No.1!. They invo)ed &rticle 1" of /om. &ct No. !$" for this purpose.
G/. No. 1! ruled, ho4ever, that peremptory challenges had been discontinued under
(.*. No. 39.
3n G.R. No. 9#$%$, Dtc :acinto Digot applied for bail on :une #, 199$, but the application
4as denied by G/. No.1!. Ee thereupon filed 4ith the Regional Trial /ourt of 8ue9on
/ity a petition for certiorari and mandamus 4ith prayer for provisional liberty and a 4rit of
preliminary in7unction. &fter considering the petition and the ans4er thereto filed by the
president and members of G/. No.1!, :udge .aCimiano /. &suncion issued an order
granting provisional liberty to Digot.
1n :uly %", 199$, Digot filed an urgent omnibus motion to enforce the order for his release
and to declare in contempt the commanding officer of the (/>3N( :ail for disobey Fng the
said order. Ee later also complained that Generals *e 2illa and &guirre had refused to
release him Gpending final resolution of the appeal to be ta)enG to this /ourt.
&fter hearing, the trial court reiterated its order for the provisional liberty of Digot, as 4ell
as of intervenors Dtc 'ran)lin ;ra4ner, Dt>/ol. &rsenio Tecson and .a7. &lfredo 1liveros,
and later of additional intervenors Dtc Romelino Go7o and /apt. .anuel 3son.
1n &ugust %%, 199$, the trial court rendered 7udgment inter alia<
,a- *eclaring, that @ection 13, &rticle 333 of the /onstitution granting the
right to bail to all persons 4ith the defined eCception is applicable and
covers all military men facing court6martial proceedings. &ccordingly, the
assailed orders of General /ourt6 .artial No. 1! denying bail to
petitioner and intervenors on the mista)en assumption that bail does not
apply to military men facing court6martial proceedings on the ground
that there is no precedent, are hereby set aside and declared null and
void. Respondent General /ourt6.artial No. 1! is hereby directed to
conduct proceedings on the applications of bail of the petitioner,
intervenors and 4hich may as 4ell include other persons facing charges
before General /ourt6.artial No. 1!.
(ending the proceedings on the applications for bail before General
/ourt6.artial No. 1!, this /ourt reiterates its orders of release on the
provisional liberty of petitioner :acinto Digot as 4ell as intervenors
'ran)lin ;ra4ner and &rsenio Tecson.
1n 'ebruary 1", 1991, the private respondents in G.R. No. 97!#! filed 4ith this /ourt a
petition for habeas corpus on the ground that they 4ere being detained in /amp /rame
4ithout charges. The petition 4as referred to the Regional Trial /ourt of 8ue9on /ity,
4here it 4as raffled to respondent :udge &ntonio (. @olano. 'inding after hearing that no
formal charges had been filed against the petitioners after more than a year after their
arrest, the trial court ordered their release.
33
The /ourt has eCamined the records of this case and rules as follo4s.
3t appears that the petitioners in G.R. Nos. 93177 and 99!" 4ere given several
opportunities to present their side at the pre6trial investigation, first at the scheduled
hearing of 'ebruary 1%, 199$, and then again after the denial of their motion of 'ebruary
%1, 199$, 4hen they 4ere given until .arch 7, 199$, to submit their counter6affidavits. 1n
that date, they filed instead a verbal motion for reconsideration 4hich they 4ere again
as)ed to submit in 4riting. This they did on .arch 13, 199$. The motion 4as in effect
denied 4hen the (T3 (anel resolved to recommend that the charges be referred to the
General /ourt .artial for trial.
The said petitioners cannot no4 claim they have been denied due process because the
investigation 4as resolved against them o4ing to their o4n failure to submit their counter6
affidavits. They had been eCpressly 4arned 3n the subpoena sent them that Gfailure to
submit the aforementioned counter6affidavits on the date above specified shall be deemed
a 4aiver of ,their- right to submit controverting evidence.G They chose not to heed the
4arning. &s their motions appeared to be dilatory, the (T3 (anel 4as 7ustified in referring
the charges to G/. No. 1! 4ithout 4aiting for the petitioners to submit their defense.
*ue process is satisfied as long as the party is accorded an opportunity to be heard. 3f it is
not availed of, it is deemed 4aived or forfeited 4ithout violation of the ;ill of Rights.
There 4as in our vie4 substantial compliance 4ith &rticle of +ar 71 by the (T3 (anel.
.oreover, it is no4 settled that Geven a failure to conduct a pre6trial investigation does not
deprive a general court6 martial of 7urisdiction.G +e so held in Arula v. Espino,
1
thus<
CCC CCC CCC
;ut even a failure to conduct a pre6trial investigation does not deprive a
general court6martial of 7urisdiction.
The better accepted concept of pre6trial investigation is that it is
directory, not mandatory, and in no 4ay affects the 7urisdiction of a
court6martial. 3n Eumphrey v. @mith, 33 0.@. 9#, 93 D ed 9" ,19!9-,
the /ourt said<
+e do not thin) that the pre6trial investigation
procedure by &rticle 7$ ,The (hilippine counter6part is
article of 4ar 71, /ommon4ealth &ct !$"- can
properly be construed as an indispensable pre6
re5uisite to the eCercise of the &rmy General court
martial 7urisdiction.. The &rticle does serve important
functions in the administration of court6martial
procedures and does provide safeguards to an
accused. 3ts language is clearly such that a defendant
could ob7ect to trial in the absence of the re5uired
investigation. 3n that event the court6martial could
itself postpone trial pending the investigation. &nd the
military revie4ing authorities could consider the same
contention, reversing a court6 martial conviction 4here
failure to comply 4ith &rticle 7$ has substantially
in7ured an accused. ;ut 4e are not persuaded that
/ongress intended to ma)e other4ise valid court6
martial 7udgments 4holly void because pre6trial
investigations fall short of the standards prescribed by
&rticle 7$. That /ongress has not re5uired analogous
pre6trial procedure for Navy court6martial is an
indication that the investigatory plan 4as not intended
to be eCalted to the 7urisdictional level.
CCC CCC CCC
@hortly after enactment of &rticle 7$ in 19%$ the
:udge &dvocate General of the &rmy did hold that
4here there had been no pre6trial investigation, court6
martial proceedings 4ere void ab initio. ;ut this
holding has been eCpressly repudiated in later
holdings of the :udge &dvocate General. This later
interpretation has been that the pre6trial re5uirements
of &rticle 7$ are directory, not mandatory, and in no
4ay effect the 7urisdiction of a court6martial. The +ar
*epartmentFs interpretation 4as pointedly called to
the attention of /ongress in 19!7 after 4hich
/ongress amended &rticle 7$ but left unchanged the
language here under consideration. compensable
pre6re5uisite to the eCercise of &rmy general court6
martial 7urisdiction
& trial before a general court6martial convened 4ithout any pretrial
investigation under article of 4ar 71 4ould of course be altogether
irregular but the court6martial might nevertheless have 7urisdiction.
@ignificantly, this rule is similar to the one obtaining in criminal
procedure in the civil courts to the effect that absence of preliminary
investigation does not go into the 7urisdiction of the court but merely to
the regularity of the proceedings.
&s to 4hat la4 should govern the conduct of the preliminary investigation, that issue 4as
resolved more than t4o years ago in 8apunan v. e Villa,
2
4here 4e declared<
The /ourt finds that, contrary to the contention of petitioners, there 4as
substantial compliance 4ith the re5uirements of la4 as provided in the
&rticles of +ar and (.*. No. 77, as amended by (.*. No. 911. The
amended charge sheets, charging petitioners and their co6respondents
4ith mutiny and conduct unbecoming an officer, 4ere signed by .a7.
&ntonio Rui9, a person sub7ect to military la4, after he had investigated
the matter through an evaluation of the pertinent records, including the
reports of respondent &'( ;oard of 1fficers, and 4as convinced of the
truth of the testimonies on record. The charge sheets 4ere s4orn to by
.a7. Rui9, the Gaccuser,G in accordance 4ith and in the manner provided
under &rt. 71 of the &rticles of +ar. /onsidering that (.*. No. 77, as
amended by (.*. No. 911, is only of suppletory application, the fact that
the charge sheets 4ere not certified in the manner provided under said
decrees, i.e., that the officer administering the oath has personally
eCamined the affiant and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily
eCecuted and understood its affidavit, does not invalidate said charge
sheets. Thereafter, a Gpretrial investigationG 4as conducted by
respondent .a7. ;aldonado, 4herein, pursuant to (.*. No. 77, as
amended by (.*. No. 911, petitioners 4ere subpoenaed and re5uired to
file their counter6affidavit. Eo4ever, instead of doing so, they filed an
untitled pleading see)ing the dismissal of the charges against them.
That petitioners 4ere not able to confront the 4itnesses against them
4as their o4n doing, for they never even as)ed .a7. ;aldonado to
subpoena said 4itnesses so that they may be made to ans4er
clarificatory 5uestions in accordance 4ith (. *, No. 77, as amended by
(.*. No. 911.
The petitioners also allege that G/. No. 1! has not been constitute in accordance 4ith
&rticle " of the &rticles of +ar because General 1rder No. .6, 4hich supposedly
convened the body, 4as not signed by Gen. Renato de 2illa as /hief of @taff.
&rticle of +ar No. " reads<
&rt. ". 'eneral *ourts:Martial. A The (resident of the (hilippines, the
/hief of @taff of the &rmed 'orces of the (hilippines, the /hief of
/onstabulary and, 4hen empo4ered by the (resident, the commanding
officer of a ma7or command or tas) force, the commanding officer of a
division, the commanding officer of a military area, the superintendent of
the .ilitary &cademy, the commanding officer of a separate brigade or
body of troops may appoint general courts6martialH but 4hen any such
commander is the accuser or the prosecutor of the person or persons to
be tried, the court shall be appointed by superior competent authority. ...
+hile it is true that General 1rder No. .6 4as not signed by Gen. *e 2illa, there is no
doubt that he authori9ed it because the order itself said it 4as issued G;y /ommand of
General *e 2illaG and it has not been sho4n to be spurious. &s observed by the @olicitor
General, the @ummary *isposition 'orm sho4ed that Gen. *e 2illa, as /hief of @taff, &'(,
actually constituted G/. No. 1! and appointed its president and members. 3t is significant
that General *e 2illa has not disauthori9ed or revo)ed or in any 4ay diso4ned the said
order, as he 4ould certainly have done if his authority had been improperly invo)ed. 1n
the contrary, as the principal respondent in G.R. No. 93177, he sustained General 1rder
No. . in the /omment filed for him and the other respondents by the @olicitor General.
/oming no4 to the right to peremptory challenge, 4e note that this 4as originally provided
for under &rticle 1" of /om. &ct No. !$" ,&rticles of +ar-, as amended by Rep. &ct No.
%!%, on :une 1%, 19!", to 4it<
&rt. 1". *hallen!es. A .embers of general or special courts6martial
may be challenged by the accused or the trial 7udge advocate for cause
stated to the court. The court shall determine the relevancy and validity
thereof, and shall not receive a challenge to more than one member at a
time. /hallenges by the trial 7udge advocate shall ordinarily be
presented and decided before those by the accused are offered. Bach
side shall be entitled to the peremptory challenge, but the la4 member
of the court shall not be challenged eCcept for cause.
The history of peremptory challenge 4as traced in Martelino v. Ale,andro,
3
thus<
3n the early formative years of the infant (hilippine &rmy, after the
passage in 193# of /ommon4ealth &ct No. 1 ,other4ise )no4n as the
National *efense &ct-, eCcept for a handful of (hilippine @cout officers
and graduates of the 0nited @tates military and naval academies 4ho
4ere on duty 4ith the (hilippine &rmy, there 4as a complete dearth of
officers learned in military la4, its aside from the fact that the officer
corps of the developing army 4as numerically made e5uate for the
demands of the strictly military aspects of the national defense program.
;ecause of these considerations it 4as then felt that peremptory
challenges should not in the mean4hile be permitted and that only
challenges for cause, in any number, 4ould be allo4ed. Thus &rticle 1"
of the &rticles of +ar ,/ommon4ealth &ct No. !$"-, as 4orded on
@eptember 1!, 193", the date of the approval of the &ct, made no
mention or reference to any peremptory challenge by either the trial
7udge advocate of a court6 martial or by the accused. &fter *ecember
17,19#", 4hen the .anual for /ourts6.artial of the (hilippine &rmy
became effective, the :udge &dvocate GeneralFs @ervice of the
(hilippine &rmy conducted a continuing and intensive program of
training and education in military la4, encompassing the length and
breadth of the (hilippines. This program 4as pursued until the outbrea)
of +orld +ar 11 in the (acific on *ecember 7, 19!1. &fter the formal
surrender of :apan to the allies in 19!#, the officer corps of the &rmed
'orces of the (hilippines had eCpanded to a very large number, and a
great many of the officers had been indoctrinated in military la4. 3t 4as
in these environmental circumstances that &rticle of +ar 1" 4as
amended on :une 1%,19!" to entitle Geach sideG to one peremptory
challenge, 4ith the sole proviso that Gthe la4 member of court shall not
be challenged eCcept for cause.
1n @eptember %7,197%, (resident .arcos issued General 1rder No. ", empo4ering the
/hief of @taff of the &rmed 'orces to create military tribunals Gto try and decide cases of
military personnel and such other cases as may be referred to them.
1n November 7,197%, he promulgated (.*. No. 39 ,Governing the /reation, /omposition,
:urisdiction, (rocedure, and other matters relevant to military Tribunals-. This decree
disallo4ed the peremptory challenge, thus<
No peremptory challenge shall be allo4ed. /hallenges for cause may
be entertained to insure impartiality and good faith. /hallenges shall
immediately be heard and determined by a ma7ority of the members
eCcluding the challenged member. & tie vote does not dis5ualify the
challenged member. & successfully challenged member shall be
immediately replaced.
1n :une 11, 197", (resident .arcos promulgated (.*. No. 1!9", or the National @ecurity
/ode, 4hich 4as a compilation and codification of decrees, general orders, D13 and
policies intended Gto meet the continuing threats to the eCistence, security and stability of
the @tate.G The modified rule on challenges under (.*. No. 39 4as embodied in this
decree.
1n :anuary 17,19"1, (resident .arcos issued (roc. No. %$!# proclaiming the termination
of the state of martial la4 throughout the (hilippines. The proclamation revo)ed General
1rder No. " and declared the dissolution of the military tribunals created pursuant thereto
upon final determination of the cases pending therein.
(.*. No. 39 4as issued to implement General 1rder No. " and the other general orders
mentioned therein. +ith the termination of martial la4 and the dissolution of the military
tribunals created thereunder, the reason for the eCistence of (.*. No. 39 ceased
automatically.
3t is a basic canon of statutory construction that 4hen the reason of the la4 ceases, the
la4 itself ceases. *essante ratione le!is, cessat ipsa le<. This principle is also eCpressed
in the maCim ratio le!is est anima7 the reason of la4 is its soul.
&pplying these rules, 4e hold that the 4ithdra4al of the right to peremptory challenge in D
(.*. No. 39 became ineffective 4hen the apparatus of martial la4 4as dismantled 4ith the
issuance of (roclamation No. %$!#, &s a result, the old rule embodied in &rticle 1" of
/om. &ct No. !$" 4as automatically revived and no4 again allo4s the right to peremptory
challenge.
+e do not agree 4ith the respondents in G.R. No. 99!" that the right to peremptory
challenge remains 4ithdra4n under (.*. No. 39. To repeat for emphasis, this decree 4as
itself 4ithdra4n 4hen martial la4 4as lifted on :anuary 17, 19"1. 3ndeed, even if not so
4ithdra4n, it could still be considered no longer operative, having been cast out under the
ne4 dispensation as, in the 4ords of the 'reedom /onstitution, one of the Gini5uitous
vestiges of the previous regime.
The military tribunal 4as one of the most oppressive instruments of martial la4. 3t is
curious that the present government should invo)e the rules of that discredited body to
7ustify its action against the accused officers.
The /ourt reali9es that the recognition of the right to peremptory challenge may be
eCploited by a respondent in a court6martial trial to delay the proceedings and defer his
deserved (unishment. 3t is hoped that the accused officers in the cases at bar 4ill not be
so motivated. &t any rate, the 4isdom of /om. &ct No. !$", in the light of present
circumstances, is a matter addressed to the la46ma)ers and not to this /ourt. The
7udiciary can only interpret and apply the la4s 4ithout regard to its o4n misgivings on their
adverse effects. This is a problem only the political departments can resolve.
The petitioners in G.R. Nos. 9#$%$ and 97!#! 5uestion the propriety of the petition for
certiorari and mandamus and the petition for habeas corpus filed by the private
respondents 4ith the Regional Trial /ourts of 8ue9on /ity. 3t is argued that since the
private respondents are officers of the &rmed 'orces accused of violations of the &rticles
of +ar, the respondent courts have no authority to order their release and other4ise
interfere 4ith the court6martial proceedings.
The petitioners further contend that under @ec. 9,3- of ;( 1 %9, the /ourt of &ppeals is
vested 4ith GeCclusive appellate 7urisdiction over all final 7udgments, decisions,
resolutions, orders, or a4ards of Regional Trial /ourts and 5uasi67udicial agencies,
instrumentalities, boards or commissions.G Rather irrelevantly, the petitioners also cite the
case of =an! v. *ourt of Appeals
-
4here this /ourt held that Gappeals from the
(rofessional Regulation /ommission are no4 eCclusively cogni9able by the /ourt of
&ppeals.
3t should be noted that the aforecited provision and the case cited refer to ordinary
appeals and not to the remedies employed by the accused officers before the respondent
courts.
3n Martelino, 4e observed as follo4s<
3t is true that civil courts as a rule eCercise no supervision or correcting
po4er over the proceedings of courts6martial, and that mere errors in
their proceedings are not open to consideration. The single in5uiry, the
test, is 7urisdiction. ;ut it is e5ually true that in the eCercise of their
undoubted discretion, courts6martial may commit such an abuse of
discretion A 4hat in the language of Rule # is referred to as Ggrave
abuse of discretionG A as to give rise to a defect in their 7urisdiction.
This is precisely the point at issue in this action suggested by its nature
as one for certiorari and prohibition ... .
The Regional Trial /ourt has concurrent 7urisdiction 4ith the /ourt of &ppeals and the
@upreme /ourt over petitions for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus against inferior
courts and other bodies and on petitions for habeas corpus and ;uo .arranto.
.
3n the
absence of a la4 providing that the decisions, orders and ruling of a court6martial or the
1ffice of the /hief of @taff can be 5uestioned only before the /ourt of &ppeals and the
@upreme /ourt, 4e hold that the Regional Trial /ourt can eCercise similar 7urisdiction.
+e find that the right to bail invo)ed by the private respondents in G.R. Nos. 9#$%$ has
traditionally not been recogni9ed and is not available in the military, as an eCception to the
general rule embodied in the ;ill of Rights. This much 4as suggested in &rula, 4here 4e
observed that Gthe right to a speedy trial is given more emphasis in the military 4here the
right to bail does not eCist.
The 7ustification for this eCception 4as 4ell eCplained by the @olicitor General as follo4s<
The uni5ue structure of the military should be enough reason to eCempt
military men from the constitutional coverage on the right to bail.
&side from structural peculiarity, it is vital to note that mutinous soldiers
operate 4ithin the frame4or) of democratic system, are allo4ed the
fiduciary use of firearms by the government for the discharge of their
duties and responsibilities and are paid out of revenues collected from
the people. &ll other insurgent elements carry out their activities outside
of and against the eCisting political system.
CCC CCC CCC
National security considerations should also impress upon this
Eonorable /ourt that release on bail of respondents constitutes a
damaging precedent. 3magine a scenario of say 1,$$$ putschists
roaming the streets of the .etropolis on bail, or if the assailed :uly
%#,199$ 1rder 4ere sustained, on GprovisionalG bail. The sheer number
alone is already discomforting. ;ut, the truly dis5uieting thought is that
they could freely resume their heinous activity 4hich could very 4ell
result in the overthro4 of duly constituted authorities, including this
Eonorable /ourt, and replace the same 4ith a system consonant 4ith
their o4n concept of government and 7ustice.
The argument that denial from the military of the right to bail 4ould violate the e5ual
protection clause is not acceptable. This guaranty re5uires e5ual treatment only of
persons or things similarly situated and does not apply 4here the sub7ect of the treatment
is substantially different from others. The accused officers can complain if they are denied
bail and other members of the military are not. ;ut they cannot say they have been
discriminated against because they are not allo4ed the same right that is eCtended to
civilians.
1n the contention of the private respondents in G.R. No. 97!#! that they had not been
charged after more than one year from their arrest, our finding is that there 4as
substantial compliance 4ith the re5uirements of due process and the right to a speedy
trial.
The petition for habeas corpus 4as directly filed 4ith this /ourt on 'ebruary 1", 1991, and
4as referred to the Regional Trial /ourt of 8ue9on /ity for raffle, hearing and decision. 3t
4as heard on 'ebruary %, 1991, by the respondent court, 4here the petitioners submitted
the charge memorandum and specifications against the private respondents dated
:anuary 3$, 1991. 1n 'ebruary 1%, 1991, pursuant to 1ffice 1rder No. 31691, the (T3
panel 4as created and initial investigation 4as scheduled on .arch 1%, 1991 at %<$$ p.m.
1n .arch %$, 1991, the private respondents received the copies of the charges, charge
sheets and specifications and 4ere re5uired to submit their counter6affidavits on or before
&pril 11, 1991. There 4as indeed a delay of more than one year in the investigation and
preparation of the charges against the private respondents. Eo4ever, this 4as eCplained
by the @olicitor General thus<
... The &'( @pecial 3nvestigating /ommittee 4as able to complete it
pre6charge investigation only after one ,1- year because hundreds of
officers and thousands of enlisted men 4ere involved in the failed coup.
&ll of them, as 4ell as other 4itnesses, had to be intervie4ed or
investigated, and these inevitably too) months to finish. The pre6charge
investigation 4as rendered doubly difficult by the fact that those
involved 4ere dispersed and scattered throughout the (hilippines. 3n
some cases, command units, such as the @cout Rangers, have already
been disbanded. &fter the charges 4ere completed, the same still had
to pass revie4 and approval by the &'( /hief of @taff.
+hile accepting this eCplanation, the /ourt nevertheless must reiterate the follo4ing
admonition<
This /ourt as protector of the rights of the people, must stress the point
that if the participation of petitioner in several coup attempts for 4hich
he is confined on orders of &d7utant General :orge &gcaoili cannot be
established and no charges can be filed against him or the eCistence of
a prima facie case 4arranting trial before a military commission is
4anting, it behooves respondent then .a7or General Rodolfo ;ia9on
,no4 General- to release petitioner. Respondents must also be
reminded that even if a military officer is arrested pursuant to &rticle 7$
of then &rticles of +ar, indefinite confinement is not sanctioned, as
&rticle 71 thereof mandates that immediate steps must be ta)en to try
the person accused or to dissmiss the charge and release him. &ny
officer 4ho is responsible for unnecessary delay in investigating or
carrying the case to a final conclusion may even be punished as a court
martial may direct.
6
3t should be noted, finally, that after the decision 4as rendered by :udge @olano on
'ebruary %, 1991, the government filed a notice of appeal ad cautelam and a motion for
reconsideration, the latter 4as ultimately denied, after hearing, on .arch !, 1991. The !"6
hour period for appeal under Rule !1, @ection 1", of the Rules of /ourt did not run until
after notice of such denial 4as received by the petitioners on .arch 1%, 1991. /ontrary to
the private respondentsF contention, therefore, the decision had not yet become final and
eCecutory 4hen the special civil action in G.R. No. 97!#! 4as filed 4ith this /ourt on
.arch 1%, 1991.
333
Regarding the propriety of the petitions at bar, it is 4ell to reiterate the follo4ing
observations of the /ourt in &rula<
The referral of charges to a court6martial involves the eCercise of
7udgment and discretion ,&+ 71-. & petition for certiorari, in order to
prosper, must be based on 7urisdictional grounds because, as long as
the respondent acted 4ith 7urisdiction, any error committed by him or it
in the eCercise thereof 4ill amount to nothing more than an error of
7udgment 4hich may be revie4ed or corrected only by appeal. Bven an
abuse of discretion is not sufficient by itself to 7ustify the issuance of a
4rit of certiorari.
&s in that case, 4e find that the respondents in G.R. No. 93177 have not acted 4ith grave
abuse of discretion or 4ithout or in eCcess of 7urisdiction to 7ustify the intervention of the
/ourt and the reversal of the acts complained of by the petitioners. @uch action is
indicated, ho4ever, in G.R. No. 99!", 4here 4e find that the right to peremptory
challenge should not have been denied, and in G.R. Nos. 9#$%$ and 97!#!, 4here the
private respondents should not have been ordered released.
&//1R*3NGD=, in G.R. No. 93177, the petition is *3@.3@@B* for lac) of merit. 3n G.R.
No. 99!", the petition is GR&NTB*, and the respondents are *3RB/TB* to allo4 the
petitioners to eCercise the right of peremptory challenge under &rticle 1" of the &rticles of
+ar. 3n G.R. Nos. 9#$%$ and 97!#!, the petitions are also GR&NTB*, and the orders of
the respondent courts for the release of the private respondents are hereby RB2BR@B*
and @BT &@3*B. No costs.
@1 1R*BRB*.
Fernan, *.$., "arvasa, Melencio:9errera, 'utierrez, $r., +aras, Feliciano, 'anca%co,
+adilla, #idin, 'ri>o:A;uino, Medialdea, Re!alado and avide, $r., $$., concur.


S1?&0&t1 O?2'2o's

SARMIENTO, J., concurring<
3 concur 4ith the ponencia of my esteemed colleague, .r. :ustice /ru9, but 3 dissent
insofar as he 4ould deny bail to accused military personnel.
The /onstitution eCplicitly grants the right to bail to Gall personsG before conviction, 4ith
the only eCception of Gthose charged 4ith offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua 4hen
evidence of guilt is strong.G
1
The /harter also states that GITJhe right to bail shall not be
impaired even if the 4rit of habeas corpus is suspended.G
2
To deny the military officers
here concerned of the right to bail is to circumscribe the inclusive meaning of Gall personsG
A the coverage of the right.
3 believe that military officers fall 4ithin GpersonsG.
The picture con7ured up by the @olicitor General of Ga scenario of say 1,$$$ putschists
roaming the streets of the .etropolis on bail, or if the assailed :uly %#, 199$ 1rder 4ere
sustained, on GprovisionalG bail ItJhe sheer number alone is already discomforting . . . IbJut,
the truly dis5uieting thought is that they could freely resume their heinous activity 4hich
could very 4ell result in the overthro4 of duly constituted authorities, including this
Eonorable /ourt, and replace the same 4ith a system consonant 4ith their o4n concept
of government and 7ustice.G
3
;ut 4ould a scenario of 1,$$$ murderers or drug pushers
roaming the streets of the metropolis 7ustify a denial of the right to bailK +ould not that
dar) picture painted by the @olicitor General be reproduced by 1,$$$ Ge5ually dangerousG
elements of societyK
+e gave bail @enator Bnrile and General ;ra4ner. 3 find no reason 4hy the petitioners
should not be granted the same right.
The ma7ority 4ould point to tradition, supposed to be firmly settled, as an argument to
deny bail. 3 submit, ho4ever, that tradition is no argument. 'irst, the /onstitution does not
say it. @econd, 4e are a government of la4s, not tradition.
3f there are precedents that attest to the contrary, 3 submit that a reeCamination is in order.


S1?&0&t1 O?2'2o's
SARMIENTO, J., concurring<
3 concur 4ith the ponencia of my esteemed colleague, .r. :ustice /ru9, but 3 dissent
insofar as he 4ould deny bail to accused military personnel.
The /onstitution eCplicitly grants the right to bail to Gall personsG before conviction, 4ith
the only eCception of Gthose charged 4ith offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua 4hen
evidence of guilt is strong.G
1
The /harter also states that GITJhe right to bail shall not be
impaired even if the 4rit of habeas corpus is suspended.G
2
To deny the military officers
here concerned of the right to bail is to circumscribe the inclusive meaning of Gall personsG
A the coverage of the right.
3 believe that military officers fall 4ithin GpersonsG.
The picture con7ured up by the @olicitor General of Ga scenario of say 1,$$$ putschists
roaming the streets of the .etropolis on bail, or if the assailed :uly %#, 199$ 1rder 4ere
sustained, on GprovisionalG bail ItJhe sheer number alone is already discomforting . . . IbJut,
the truly dis5uieting thought is that they could freely resume their heinous activity 4hich
could very 4ell result in the overthro4 of duly constituted authorities, including this
Eonorable /ourt, and replace the same 4ith a system consonant 4ith their o4n concept
of government and 7ustice.G
3
;ut 4ould a scenario of 1,$$$ murderers or drug pushers
roaming the streets of the metropolis 7ustify a denial of the right to bailK +ould not that
dar) picture painted by the @olicitor General be reproduced by 1,$$$ Ge5ually dangerousG
elements of societyK
+e gave bail @enator Bnrile and General ;ra4ner. 3 find no reason 4hy the petitioners
should not be granted the same right.
The ma7ority 4ould point to tradition, supposed to be firmly settled, as an argument to
deny bail. 3 submit, ho4ever, that tradition is no argument. 'irst, the /onstitution does not
say it. @econd, 4e are a government of la4s, not tradition.
3f there are precedents that attest to the contrary, 3 submit that a reeCamination is in order.