Olaguer v. Military Commission No. 34 No.

34 is hereby made permanent and the said

respondents are permanently prohibited from
FACTS: further pursuing Criminal Case No. MC-34-1
against the petitioners. The sentence rendered
The respondent Chief of Staff of the AFP 3
by the respondent Military Commission No. 34
created the respondent Military Commission No.
imposing the death penalty on the petitioners is
34 to try criminal case filed against the
hereby vacated for being null and void, and all
petitioners.
the items or properties taken from the petitioners
An amended charge sheet was filed for seven
in relation to the said criminal case should be
(7) offenses, namely:
returned to them immediately.
(1) Unlawful possession of explosives and
RATIO:
incendiary devices;
(1) Military commissions or tribunals have no
(2) Conspiracy to assassinate President, and
jurisdiction to try civilians for alleged offenses
Mrs. Marcos;
when the civil courts are open and functioning.
(3) Conspiracy to assassinate cabinet members
Due process of law demands that in all criminal
Juan Ponce Enrile, Francisco Tatad and Vicente
prosecutions (where the accused stands to lose
Paterno;
either his life or his liberty), the accused shall be
(4) Conspiracy to assassinate Messrs. Arturo
entitled to, among others, a trial. Civilians like
Tangco, Jose Roo and Onofre Corpus;
(the) petitioner placed on trial for civil offenses
(5) Arson of nine buildings;
under general law are entitled to trial by judicial
(6) Attempted murder of Messrs. Leonardo
process, not by executive or military process.
Perez, Teodoro Valencia and Generals Romeo
(2) Judicial power exists only in the courts,
Espino and Fabian Ver; and
which have "exclusive power to hear and
(7) Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion,
determine those matters which affect the life or
and inciting to rebellion.
liberty or property of a citizen. In Toth v.
Pending the resolution of the Petition, the
Quarles, 40 the U.S. Supreme Court further
respondent Military Commission No. 34 passed
stressed that the assertion of military authority
sentence convicting the petitioners and imposed
over civilians cannot rest on the President's
upon them the penalty of death by electrocution.
power as Commander-in-Chief or on any theory
The thrust of petitioners arguments is that
of martial law.
military commissions have no jurisdiction to try
(3) Following the principle of separation of
civilians for offenses alleged to have been
powers underlying the existing constitutional
committed during the period of martial law. They
organization of the Government of the
also maintain that the proceedings before the
Philippines, the power and the duty of
respondent Military Commission No. 34 are in
interpreting the laws as when an individual
gross violation of their constitutional right to due
should be considered to have violated the law) is
process of law.
primarily a function of the judiciary. It is not, and
it cannot be the function of the Executive
ISSUE:
Department, through the military authorities. And
WON a military tribunal has the jurisdiction to try
as long as the civil courts in the land remain
civilians while the civil courts are open and
open and are regularly functioning, as they do
functioning
so today and as they did during the period of
martial law in the country, military tribunals
HELD:
cannot try and exercise jurisdiction over civilians
DISMISSED - the Petitions for habeas corpus
for offenses committed by them and which are
are for having become moot and academic.
properly cognizable by the civil courts.
GRANTED - The Petitions for certiorari and
(4) Respondent Military Commission No. 34
prohibition.
appears to have been rendered too hastily to the
DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL - The
prejudice to the petitioners, and in complete
creation of the respondent Military Commission
disregard of their constitutional right to adduce
No. 34 to try civilians like the petitioners is
evidence on their behalf. Thus, even assuming
hereby declared unconstitutional and all its
arguendo that the respondent Military
proceedings are deemed null and void. The
Commission No. 34 does have the jurisdiction to
temporary restraining order issued against the
try the petitioners, the Commission should be
respondents enjoining them from executing the
deemed ousted of its jurisdiction when, as
Decision of the respondent Military Commission
observed by the Solicitor General, 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.
Galman v. Sandiganbayan
FACTS:
Former Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino, Jr. was
killed from his plane that had just landed at the
Manila International Airport. His brain was
smashed by a bullet fired point-blank into the
back of his head by an assassin. The military
investigators reported within a span of three
hours that the man who shot Aquino (whose
identity was then supposed to be unknown and
was revealed only days later as Rolando
Galman) was a communist-hired gunman, and
that the military escorts gunned him down in
turn.
President was constrained to create a Fact
Finding Board to investigate due to large
masses of people who joined in the ten-day
period of national mourning yearning for the
truth, justice and freedom.
The fact is that both majority and minority
reports were one in rejecting the military version
stating that "the evidence shows to the contrary
that Rolando Galman had no subversive
affiliations. Only the soldiers in the staircase with
Sen. Aquino could have shot him; that Ninoy's
assassination was the product of a military
conspiracy, not a communist plot. Only
difference between the two reports is that the
majority report found all the twenty-six private
respondents above-named in the title of the
case involved in the military conspiracy; " while
the chairman's minority report would exclude
nineteen of them.
Then Pres. Marcos stated that evidence shows
that Galman was the killer.
Petitioners pray for issuance of a TRO enjoining
respondent court from rendering a decision in
the two criminal cases before it, the Court
resolved by nine-to-two votes 11 to issue the
restraining order prayed for. The Court also
granted petitioners a five-day period to file a
reply to respondents' separate comments and
respondent Tanodbayan a three-day period to
submit a copy of his 84-page memorandum for
the prosecution.
But ten days later, the Court by the same nine-
to-two-vote ratio in reverse, resolved to dismiss
the petition and to lift the TRO issued ten days
earlier enjoining the Sandiganbayan from
rendering its decision. The same Court majority
denied petitioners' motion for a new 5-day period
counted from receipt of respondent
Tanodbayan's memorandum for the prosecution
(which apparently was not served on them).
Thus, petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration, alleging that the dismissal did
not indicate the legal ground for such action and
urging that the case be set for a full hearing on
the merits that the people are entitled to due
process.
However, respondent Sandiganbayan issued its
decision acquitting all the accused of the crime
charged, declaring them innocent and totally
absolving them of any civil liability. Respondents
submitted that with the Sandiganbayan's verdict
of acquittal, the instant case had become moot
and academic. Thereafter, same Court majority
denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration for
lack of merit.
Hence, petitioners filed their motion to admit
their second motion for reconsideration alleging
that respondents committed serious irregularities
constituting mistrial and resulting in miscarriage
of justice and gross violation of the constitutional
rights of the petitioners and the sovereign
people of the Philippines to due process of law.
ISSUES:
(1) WON petitioner was deprived of his rights as
an accused.
(2) WON there was a violation of the double
jeopardy clause.
RULING: Petitioners' second motion for
reconsideration is granted - ordering a re-trial of
the said cases which should be conducted with
deliberate dispatch and with careful regard for
the requirements of due process.
Deputy Tanodbayan Manuel Herrera (made his
expose 15 months later when former Pres. was
no longer around) affirmed the allegations in the
second motion for reconsideration that he
revealed that the Sandiganbayan Justices and
Tanodbayan prosecutors were ordered by
Marcos to whitewash the Aquino-Galman
murder case. Malacaang wanted dismissal to
the extent that a prepared resolution was sent to
the Investigating Panel. Malacaang Conference
planned a scenario of trial where the former
President ordered then that the resolution be
revised by categorizing the participation of each
respondent; decided that the presiding justice,
Justice Pamaran, (First Division) would
personally handle the trial. A conference was
held in an inner room of the Palace. Only the
First Lady and Presidential Legal Assistant
Justice Lazaro were with the President. The
conferees were told to take the back door in
going to the room where the meeting was held,
presumably to escape notice by the visitors in
the reception hall waiting to see the President.
During the conference, and after an agreement
was reached, Pres. Marcos told them 'Okay,
mag moro-moro na lamang kayo;' and that on
their way out of the room Pres. Marcos
expressed his thanks to the group and uttered 'I
know how to reciprocate'.
The Court then said that the then President
(code-named Olympus) had stage-managed in
and from Malacaang Palace "a scripted and
predetermined manner of handling and
disposing of the Aquino-Galman murder case;"
and that "the prosecution in the Aquino-Galman
case and the Justices who tried and decided the
same acted under the compulsion of some
pressure which proved to be beyond their
capacity to resist. Also predetermined the final
outcome of the case" of total absolution of the
twenty-six respondents-accused of all criminal
and civil liability. Pres. Marcos came up with a
public statement aired over television that
Senator Aquino was killed not by his military
escorts, but by a communist hired gun. It was,
therefore, not a source of wonder that President
Marcos would want the case disposed of in a
manner consistent with his announced theory
thereof which, at the same time, would clear his
name and his administration of any suspected
guilty participation in the assassination. such a
procedure would be a better arrangement
because, if the accused are charged in court
and subsequently acquitted, they may claim the
benefit of the doctrine of double jeopardy and
thereby avoid another prosecution if some other
witnesses shall appear when President Marcos
is no longer in office.
More so was there suppression of vital evidence
and harassment of witnesses. The
disappearance of witnesses two weeks after
Ninoy's assassination. According to J. Herrera,
"nobody was looking for these persons because
they said Marcos was in power. The assignment
of the case to Presiding Justice Pamaran; no
evidence at all that the assignment was indeed
by virtue of a regular raffle, except the
uncorroborated testimony of Justice Pamaran
himself. The custody of the accused and their
confinement in a military camp, instead of in a
civilian jail. The monitoring of proceedings and
developments from Malacaang and by
Malacaang personnel. The partiality of
Sandiganbayan betrayed by its decision: That
President Marcos had wanted all of the twenty-
six accused to be acquitted may not be denied.
In rendering its decision, the Sandiganbayan
overdid itself in favoring the presidential
directive. Its bias and partiality in favor of the
accused was clearly obvious. The evidence
presented by the prosecution was totally ignored
and disregarded.
The record shows that the then President
misused the overwhelming resources of the
government and his authoritarian powers to
corrupt and make a mockery of the judicial
process in the Aquino-Galman murder cases.
"This is the evil of one-man rule at its very
worst." Our Penal Code penalizes "any
executive officer who shall address any order or
suggestion to any judicial authority with respect
to any case or business coming within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice."
Impartial court is the very essence of due
process of law. This criminal collusion as to the
handling and treatment of the cases by public
respondents at the secret Malacaang
conference (and revealed only after fifteen
months by Justice Manuel Herrera) completely
disqualified respondent Sandiganbayan and
voided ab initio its verdict. The courts would
have no reason to exist if they were allowed to
be used as mere tools of injustice, deception
and duplicity to subvert and suppress the truth.
More so, in the case at bar where the people
and the world are entitled to know the truth, and
the integrity of our judicial system is at stake.
There was no double jeopardy. Courts'
Resolution of acquittal was a void judgment for
having been issued without jurisdiction. No
double jeopardy attaches, therefore. A void
judgment is, in legal effect, no judgment at all.
By it no rights are divested. It neither binds nor
bars anyone. All acts and all claims flowing out
of it are void.
Motion to Disqualify/Inhibit should have been
resolved ahead. In this case, petitioners' motion
for reconsideration of the abrupt dismissal of
their petition and lifting of the TRO enjoining the
Sandiganbayan from rendering its decision had
been taken cognizance of by the Court which
had required the respondents', including the
Sandiganbayan's, comments. Although no
restraining order was issued anew, respondent
Sandiganbayan should not have precipitately
issued its decision of total absolution of all the
accused pending the final action of this Court. All
of the acts of the respondent judge manifest
grave abuse of discretion on his part amounting
to lack of jurisdiction which substantively
prejudiced the petitioner.
With the declaration of nullity of the proceedings,
the cases must now be tried before an impartial
court with an unbiased prosecutor. Respondents
accused must now face trial for the crimes
charged against them before an impartial court
with an unbiased prosecutor with all due
process.
The function of the appointing authority with the
mandate of the people, under our system of
government, is to fill the public posts. Justices
and judges must ever realize that they have no
constituency, serve no majority nor minority but
serve only the public interest as they see it in
accordance with their oath of office, guided only
the Constitution and their own conscience and
honor.
City of Manila vs. Chinese Community of
Manila
FACTS:
Plaintiff City of Manila presented a petition in the
Court of First Instance praying that certain lands
be expropriated for the purpose of constructing a
public improvement, namely, extension of Rizal
Avenue. Defendants Communidad de Chinos de
Manila alleged that it was a corporation
organized and existing under and by virtue of
the laws of Philippine Islands, having the benefit
and general welfare of the Chinese Community
in the City of Manila; that it was the owner of two
parcels of land described in the complaint; that it
denied that it was necessary that said parcels be
expropriated for street purposes; that existing
street and roads furnished ample means of
communication for the public in the district
covered by such proposed expropriation; that if
the construction of the street or road should be
considered a public necessity, other roads were
available; resting places of the dead would be
disturbed; that a Torrens title for the lands in
question exists. Defendant alleged that it was
not necessary for plaintiff to acquire parcels of
land in question, that a portion of the lands are
used as a cemetery, and that the land had
become quasi-public property of a benevolent
association, dedicated and used for the burial of
the dead, and the plaintiff deemed it necessary
to extend Rizal Avenue, defendant had offered a
right of way for the said extension over other
land, without cost to plaintiff, in order for the
cemetery not to be distorted, and that the land is
free of charge.
Plaintiff alleged that expropriation was
necessary. Judge decided that there was no
necessity for expropriation, and absolved the
defendants from liability. Plaintiff appealed.
Plaintiff contends that under the law, it has
authority to expropriate land, it may expropriate
any land it may desire; that the only function of
the court is to ascertain the value of the land;
that neither the court nor owners of the land can
inquire into the advisable purpose of purpose of
expropriation or ask any questions concerning
the necessities therefor; that courts are mere
appraisers of the land involved; that City of
Manila has authority.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not courts may
inquire into, and hear proof upon the
necessity of expropriation
2. No. Ruling of CFI is affirmed. There are two
2. Whether or not City of Manila
has right of expropriation over property
in question
RULING:
1. Yes. Decisions depend largely
upon particular constitutional or
statutory provisions. If legislature under
proper authority should grant
expropriation of a certain or particular
parcel of land for some specified public
purpose, that courts would be without
jurisdiction to inquire into the purpose of
that legislation. Right of expropriation is
not an inherent power in a municipal
corporation, and before it can exercise
the right, some law must exist conferring
the power upon it. When courts come to
determine the question, they must find
that (a) that a law or authority exists for
the exercise of the right of eminent
domain, but (b) also that the right or
authority is being exercised in
accordance with the law. If the necessity
for the exercise of the right in a
particular case, that then in that case,
the courts will not go behind the action
of the legislature and make inquiry
concerning the necessity. In the case of
Wheeling vs Toledo, the court said:
when the statute does not designate
the property to be taken nor how may be
taken, then the necessity of taking
particular property is a question for the
courts. Where the application to
condemn or expropriate is made directly
to the court, question should be raised
and decided in limene. The necessity
and expediency of exercising the right of
eminent domain are questions political
and not judicial in character.
Determination of those questions
belongs to sovereign power; the
legislative department is final and
conclusive, and the courts have no
power to review it. Legislature may
designate the particular property to be
condemned, and its determination
cannot be reviewed by courts.
conditions imposed upon the authority conceded
to the plaintiffs: first, the land must be private;
and second, purpose must be public. If the
courts find neither contentions exist, it cannot be
contended that right is being exercised in
accordance with law. Defendants state that the
Chinese cemetery is public, and the city of
Manila cannot expropriate public property. Public
cemeteries are used by the general community,
or neighborhood, or church, while private
cemeteries are used by a family, or a small
portion of the community or neighborhood.
Where a cemetery is open to the public, no part
of the ground can be taken for other public uses,
and the immunity extends to unimproved and
unoccupied parts which are held in good faith for
future use. The Chinese cemetery is established
under governmental authority. The Spanish
Governor-General said that the cemetery and
general hospital are for indigent chinese and are
founded and maintained by spontaneous and
fraternal contribution of their protector,
merchants and industrials, benefactors of
mankind, in consideration of their services to the
Government and must necessarily be adjusted
to the taste and traditional practices of those
born and educated in China. The cemetery is a
public property, therefore the city of Manila has
no authority to expropriate it.