Political Law 2 Digest (some).docx - AQUINO VS MILITARY COMMISSION NO.2 G.R NO L-37364 MAY 9 1975 FACTS Following the proclamation of martial law in the

Political Law 2 Digest (some).docx - AQUINO VS MILITARY...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 38 pages.

AQUINO VS. MILITARY COMMISSION NO.2 G.R. NO. L-37364 MAY 9, 1975 FACTS: Following the proclamation of martial law in the Philippines, Benigno S. Aquino Jr. was arrested on 23 September 1972, pursuant to General Order 2- A of the President for complicity in a conspiracy to seize political and state power in the country and to take over the Government. He was detained at Fort Bonifacio in Rizal province. On 25 September 1972, he sued for a writ of habeas corpus in which he questioned the legality of the proclamation of martial law and his arrest and detention. The Supreme Court issued a writ of habeas corpus, returnable to it, and required the Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philipines, the Secretary of National Defense, etc. to file their respective answers, after which the case was heard. Thereafter, the parties submitted their memoranda. Aquino's last Reply memorandum was dated 30 November 1972. On 17 September 1974, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld the validity of martial law and the arrest and detention of Aquino. The original petition in the case was filed on 23 August 1973. It sought to restrain the Military Commission from proceeding with the hearing and trial of Aquino on 27 August 1973. Because of the urgency of the petition, the Supreme Court called a hearing on Sunday, August 26, on the question of whether with its membership of only 9 Justices, it had a quorum to take cognizance of the petition in view of the constitutional questions involved. At that hearing, the Court asked the parties to agree to seek from the Military Commission a postponement of Aquino's trial the following day. The purpose was to relieve the Court of the pressure of having to decide the question of quorum without adequate time to do so. When the proceedings before the Military Commission opened the following day, however, Aquino questioned the fairness of the trial and announced that he did not wish to participate in the proceedings even as he discharged both his defense counsel of choice and his military defense counsel. The proceedings were thereupon adjourned to another day. In the meantime, for Aquino's assurance, a Special Committee, composed of a retired Justice of the Supreme Court, to be designated by the Chief Justice, as Chairman, and four (4) members to be designated respectively by petitioner, the President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Secretary of Justice and the Secretary of National Defense, was created to reinvestigate the charges against Aquino. The Secretaries of Justice and National Defense designated their representatives but Aquino refused to name his. The Chief Justice asked former Justice J. B. L. Reyes but the latter declined, as he also declined in his capacity as President of the IBP to designate a representative to the Committee. As a result, with only two of its
members designated, the Special Committee has not been able to function.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture