Garcia-Padilla v.

Enrile
121 SCRA 472

FACTS:
The case is an application for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus on
behalf of 14 detainees. Sabino Padilla and 8 others out of the 14 detainees
were then having a conference in the dining room at Dr. Parong's residence.
Prior thereto, all the 14 detainees were under surveillance as they were then
identified as members of the Communist Party of the Philippines. engaging
in subversive activities. They were arrested and later transferred to a facility
only the PCs know, hence, the present petition of Josefina, mother of
Sabina, for writ of habeas corpus.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the arrests done to the present detainees are valid

HELD:
The suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus raises a political,
not a judicial, question and that the right to bail cannot be invoked during
such a period. PD 1836 and LOI 1211 have vested, assuming a law is
necessary, in the President the power of preventive arrest incident to the
suspension of the privilege of the writ. In addition, however, it should be
noted that the PCO has been replaced by Preventive Detention Action (PDA)
pursuant to PD 1877. As provided for in the said decree, a PDA constitute
an authority to arrest and preventively detain persons committing the
aforementioned crimes, for a period of one year, with the cause or causes of
their arrest subjected to review by the President or the by the Review
Committee created for the purpose.
 Reversal of the Lansang Doctrine & Reinstatement of the Montenegro Doctrine
In July 1982, Sabino Padilla, together w/ 8 others who were having a conference in a
house in Bayombong, NV, were arrested by members of the PC. The raid of the house
was authorized by a search warrant issued by Judge Sayo. Josefina, mother of Sabino,
opposed the arrest averring that no warrant of arrest was issued but rather it was just a
warrant of arrest hence the arrest of her son and the others was w/o just cause. Sabino
and companions together with 4 others were later transferred to a facility only the PCs
know. Josefina petitioned the court for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus.
ISSUE: Whether or not the arrests done against Sabino et al is valid.
HELD: In a complete about face, the SC decision in the Lansang Case was reversed
and the ruling in the Barcelon Case & the Montenegro Case was again reinstated. The
questioned power of the president to suspend the privilege of the WoHC was once
again held as discretionary in the president. The SC again reiterated that the suspension
of the writ was a political question to be resolved solely by the president. It was also
noted that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus must, indeed,
carry with it the suspension of the right to bail, if the government’s campaign to suppress
the rebellion is to be enhanced and rendered effective. If the right to bail may be
demanded during the continuance of the rebellion, and those arrested, captured and
detained in the course thereof will be released, they would, without the least doubt,
rejoin their comrades in the field thereby jeopardizing the success of government efforts
to bring to an end the invasion, rebellion or insurrection.

NOTE: This ruling was abrogated by Sec 18, Art 7 of the 1987 Constitution which
expressly constitutionalized the Lansang Doctrine. Note as well that under Art 3 (Sec 13)
of the Constitution it is stated that “the right to bail shall not be impaired even if the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.”