Buscayno v. Military Commissions Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 25
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Bernabe Buscayno, also known as Commander Dante, and Jose Ma. Sison, also known as Amado Guerrero, were alleged subversives and leaders of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its military arms, the New People's Army (NPA) and Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (HMB). They were sought by authorities for their alleged conspiracy to overthrow the government by force. Buscayno was charged with subversion and murder, with specific allegations including providing firearms and shelter to NPA members and participating in the killing of a barrio captain. Sison and his wife, Juliet Sison, along with others, were charged with rebellion for allegedly organizing and operating vessels to procure firearms for the CPP and NPA, and with subversion for being officers and leaders of the CPP and its front organizations, aiming to overthrow the government and establish a totalitarian regime with foreign support. 2. Procedural History: Buscayno was arrested on August 26, 1976, and subsequently faced charges before Military Commission No. 2 for subversion and murder. He waived his right to be present and have counsel during arraignment and opted not to present evidence, leading to a conviction and a death sentence, which was later reopened by the President. His initial petition for habeas corpus and prohibition in this Court (L-47185) was dismissed on January 15, 1981. The Sison spouses were arrested on November 10, 1977, and faced charges before Military Commission No. 1 (rebellion) and Military Commission No. 6 (subversion), and Jose Ma. Sison was also charged with subversion before Military Commission No. 25. Their joint petition for habeas corpus, prohibition, and mandamus (L-49579) was also dismissed by this Court on January 15, 1981. Despite the dismissal of previous petitions and the termination of martial law, Proclamation No. 2045 allowed for the continued detention of individuals like the petitioners for rebellion and subversion. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, Bernabe Buscayno and the Sison spouses, filed an omnibus petition for habeas corpus, prohibition, and mandamus. They sought to declare the decision convicting Buscayno of subversion and murder void, arguing he was denied his constitutional right to present evidence. They also prayed for the dismissal of rebellion and subversion charges due to double jeopardy, and for an injunction against Military Commissions Nos. 1, 6, and 25 from proceeding with their trials. Additionally, they requested bail and a temporary restraining order against the military commissions and the Review Board of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The Court addressed the issues of illegal detention, the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the jurisdiction of military tribunals, the alleged repeal of the Anti-Subversion Law, and the plea of double jeopardy, ultimately finding no legal basis for the petitioners' claims and dismissing the petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is available to the petitioners. Whether the military commissions have jurisdiction to try civilians. Whether the proceedings before the military commissions violated the petitioners' right to due process, specifically the right to present evidence. Whether the charges of rebellion and subversion are barred by double jeopardy. Whether Republic Act No. 1700 (Anti-Subversion Law) was repealed by Presidential Decree No. 885. Whether rebellion and subversion are distinct offenses.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The restraining order is lifted. The petitioners are not entitled to the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, nor to bail, as they are detained for rebellion and subversion, offenses for which the privilege of the writ remains suspended under Proclamation No. 2045. Military tribunals have jurisdiction over civilians, and their proceedings are not violative of due process. The defense of double jeopardy cannot be invoked as the cases against the petitioners have not yet been terminated. The Anti-Subversion Law was not repealed in a manner that would extinguish criminal liability for acts committed prior to the effectivity of its successor decree.
Ratio Decidendi
On the availability of Habeas Corpus: The Court reiterated that Proclamation No. 2045, which terminated martial law, explicitly provided for the continuation of the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus with respect to persons detained for rebellion, subversion, conspiracy, or proposal to commit such crimes, and offenses committed in connection therewith. Since the petitioners are detained for rebellion and subversion, they are not entitled to the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Consequently, as the privilege of the writ is suspended, they are also not entitled to bail, citing Lansang vs. Garcia. The continued confinement of the petitioners is sanctioned by the proclamation. On the Jurisdiction of Military Tribunals: The Court reaffirmed its consistent ruling that military tribunals have jurisdiction to try civilians, particularly in cases involving subversion and rebellion, especially during the period when martial law was in effect or its residual effects continued. This jurisdiction was upheld in previous cases such as Aquino vs. Ponce Enrile and Gamaua vs. Espino. The proceedings in military commissions, when conducted in accordance with law, are not violative of procedural due process and would not be vitiated by partiality. The Court emphasized that it generally does not exercise supervisory jurisdiction over military commissions in the same manner it does over civil courts. On Due Process and the Right to Present Evidence: The Court held that the issue of whether Buscayno was denied his constitutional right to present evidence should first be passed upon by the reviewing military authority, not directly by the Supreme Court at that stage. The Court noted that Buscayno had repeatedly waived his right to present evidence and had been given multiple opportunities to do so, which he failed to avail himself of. The Court reiterated that interlocutory rulings and proceedings of military commissions are generally not subject to review by the Supreme Court, unlike those of civil courts, unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction. On Double Jeopardy: The Court explained that for double jeopardy to attach, three requisites must be met: (1) a valid complaint or information; (2) filed in a court of competent jurisdiction; and (3) the accused must have pleaded to the charge and been convicted, acquitted, or the case dismissed without his express consent. Since no case against the petitioners had been terminated by final conviction, acquittal, or dismissal without their consent, they could not invoke the rule on double jeopardy. The Court clarified that the rebellion and subversion charges were distinct offenses, and the overt acts alleged in each charge were different, thus preventing the application of the rule against being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. On the Repeal of the Anti-Subversion Law: The Court found no merit in Juliet Sison's contention that her liability for subversion was extinguished by the repeal of Republic Act No. 1700 by Presidential Decree No. 885. The Court pointed out that Presidential Decree No. 885 contained a saving or transitory clause, explicitly providing that acts committed in violation of Republic Act No. 1700 before the effectivity of the decree shall be prosecuted and punished under the former Act. This is analogous to the saving clause in Article 366 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court also clarified that the purpose of the organization, not its specific mention in a law, is the decisive factor in determining if it is subversive. On the Distinction Between Rebellion and Subversion: The Court distinguished rebellion from subversion, noting that rebellion involves a public uprising and taking up arms against the government, while subversion, as defined under Republic Act No. 1700 and Presidential Decree No. 885, pertains to being an officer or ranking leader of a subversive organization like the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its military arm, the New People's Army (NPA), with the objective of overthrowing the government, often with foreign assistance. The Court cited People vs. Hernandez to state that rebellion is distinct from participation or membership in an organization committed to overthrow the government. The overt acts alleged in the rebellion charge were distinct from those alleged in the subversion charge, which focused on membership and leadership in subversive organizations.
Main Doctrine
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended with respect to persons detained for rebellion and subversion, and therefore, they are not entitled to bail. Military tribunals have jurisdiction to try civilians, and their proceedings are not violative of due process. The pendency of cases before military commissions means that the defense of double jeopardy cannot be invoked.