CASE NO.

6
G.R. No. L-14078 March 7, 1919 RUBI, ET AL. (manguianes), plaintiffs, vs. THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO, defendant. MALCOLM, J.: In one of the cases which denote a landmark in American Constitutional History (Worcester vs. Georgia [1832], 6 Pet., 515), Chief Justice Marshall, the first luminary of American jurisprudence, began his opinion (relating to the status of an Indian) with words which, with a slight change in phraseology, can be made to introduce the present opinion This cause, in every point of view in which it can be placed, is of the deepest interest. The legislative power of state, the controlling power of the constitution and laws, the rights if they have any, the political existence of a people, the personal liberty of a citizen, are all involved in the subject now to be considered. To imitate still further the opinion of the Chief Justice, we adopt his outline and proceed first, to introduce the facts and the issues, next to give a history of the so called "non-Christians," next to compare the status of the "non-Christians" with that of the American Indians, and, lastly, to resolve the constitutional questions presented. I. INTRODUCTION. This is an application for habeas corpus in favor of Rubi and other Manguianes of the Province of Mindoro. It is alleged that the Maguianes are being illegally deprived of their liberty by the provincial officials of that province. Rubi and his companions are said to be held on the reservation established at Tigbao, Mindoro, against their will, and one Dabalos is said to be held under the custody of the provincial sheriff in the prison at Calapan for having run away form the reservation. The return of the Solicitor-General alleges: 1. That on February 1, 1917, the provincial board of Mindoro adopted resolution No. 25 which is as follows: The provincial governor, Hon. Juan Morente, Jr., presented the following resolution:
"Whereas several attempts and schemes have been made for the advancement of the non-Christian people of Mindoro, which were all a failure, "Whereas it has been found out and proved that unless some other measure is taken for the Mangyan work of this province, no successful result will be obtained toward educating these people. "Whereas it is deemed necessary to obliged them to live in one place in order to make a permanent settlement, "Whereas the provincial governor of any province in which non-Christian inhabitants are found is authorized, when such a course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order, to direct such inhabitants to take up their habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands to be selected by him and approved by the provincial board. "Whereas the provincial governor is of the opinion that the sitio of Tigbao on Lake Naujan is a place most convenient for the Mangyanes to live on, Now, therefore be it

"Resolved, that under section 2077 of the Administrative Code, 800 hectares of public land in the sitio of Tigbao on Naujan Lake be selected as a site for the permanent settlement of Mangyanes in Mindoro subject to the approval of the Honorable Secretary of the Interior, and "Resolved further, That Mangyans may only solicit homesteads on this reservation providing that said homestead applications are previously recommended by the provincial governor." 2. That said resolution No. 25 (series 1917) of the provincial board of Mindoro was approved by the Secretary of the Interior of February 21, 1917. 3. That on December 4, 1917, the provincial governor of Mindoro issued executive order No. 2 which says: "Whereas the provincial board, by Resolution No. 25, current series, has selected a site in the sitio of Tigbao on Naujan Lake for the permanent settlement of Mangyanes in Mindoro. "Whereas said resolution has been duly approve by the Honorable, the Secretary of the Interior, on February 21, 1917. "Now, therefore, I, Juan Morente, jr., provincial governor of Mindoro, pursuant to the provisions of section 2145 of the revised Administrative Code, do hereby direct that all the Mangyans in the townships of Naujan and Pola and the Mangyans east of the Baco River including those in the districts of Dulangan and Rubi's place in Calapan, to take up their habitation on the site of Tigbao, Naujan Lake, not later than December 31, 1917. "Any Mangyan who shall refuse to comply with this order shall upon conviction be imprisoned not exceed in sixty days, in accordance with section 2759 of the revised Administrative Code." 4. That the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro copied in paragraph 1 and the executive order of the governor of the same province copied in paragraph 3, were necessary measures for the protection of the Mangyanes of Mindoro

as well as the protection of public forests in which they roam, and to introduce civilized customs among them. 5. That Rubi and those living in his rancheria have not fixed their dwelling within the reservation of Tigbao and are liable to be punished in accordance with section 2759 of Act No. 2711. 6. That the undersigned has not information that Doroteo Dabalos is being detained by the sheriff of Mindoro but if he is so detained it must be by virtue of the provisions of articles Nos. 2145 and 2759 of Act No. 2711. It thus appears that the provincial governor of Mindoro and the provincial board thereof directed the Manguianes in question to take up their habitation in Tigbao, a site on the shore of Lake Naujan, selected by the provincial governor and approved by the provincial board. The action was taken in accordance with section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917, and was duly approved by the Secretary of the Interior as required by said action. Petitioners, however, challenge the validity of this section of the Administrative Code. This, therefore, becomes the paramount question which the court is called upon the decide. Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 reads as follows:
SEC. 2145. Establishment of non-Christina upon sites selected by provincial governor. With the prior approval of the Department Head, the provincial governor of any province in which non-Christian inhabitants are found is authorized, when such a course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order, to direct such inhabitants to take up their habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands to be selected by him an approved by the provincial board.

In connection with the above-quoted provisions, there should be noted section 2759 of the same Code, which read as follows:
SEC. 2759. Refusal of a non-Christian to take up appointed habitation. Any non-Christian who shall refuse to comply with the directions lawfully given by a provincial governor, pursuant to section two thousand one hundred and forty-five of this Code, to take up habitation upon a site designated by said governor shall upon conviction be imprisonment for a period not exceeding sixty days.

The substance of what is now found in said section 2145 is not new to Philippine law. The genealogical tree of this section, if we may be permitted to use such terminology, would read: Section 2077, Administrative Code of 1916; section 62, Act No. 1397; section 2 of various special provincial laws, notably of Act No. 547, specifically relating to the Manguianes; section 69, Act No. 387. Section 2145 and its antecedent laws make use of the term "non-Christians." This word, as will later be disclosed, is also found in varying forms in other laws of the Philippine Islands. In order to put the phrase in its proper category, and in order to understand the policy of the Government of the Philippine Islands with reference to the uncivilized elements of the Islands, it is well first of all to set down a skeleton history of the attitude assumed by the authorities towards these "non-Christians," with particular regard for the legislation on the subject. II. HISTORY. A. BEFORE ACQUISITION OF THE PHILIPPINE BY THE UNITED STATES. The most important of the laws of the Indies having reference to the subject at hand are compiled in Book VI, Title III, in the following language. LAW I. The Emperor Charles and the Prince, the governor, at Cigales, on March 21, 1551. Philip II at Toledo, on February 19, 1560. In the forest of Segovia on September 13, 1565. In the Escorial on November 10, 1568. Ordinance 149 of the poblaciones of 1573. In San Lorenzo, on May 20, 1578, THAT THE "INDIOS" BE REDUCED INTO "POBLACIONES" COMMUNITIES). In order that the indios may be instructed in the Sacred Catholic Faith and the evangelical law, and in order that they may forget the blunders of their ancient rites and ceremonies to the end that they may live in harmony and in a civilized manner, it has always been endeavored, with great care and special attention, to use all the means most convenient to the attainment of these purposes. To carry out this work with success, our Council of the Indies and other religious persons met at various times; the prelates of new Spain assembled by order of Emperor Charles V of glorious memory in the year one thousand five hundred and forty-six all of which meetings were actuated with a desire to serve God an our Kingdom. At these meetings it was resolved that indios be made to live in communities, and not to live in places divided and separated from one another by sierras and mountains, wherein they are deprived of all spiritual and temporal benefits and wherein they cannot profit from the aid of our ministers and from that which gives rise to those human necessities which men are obliged to give one another. Having realized that convenience of this resolution, our kings, our predecessors, by different orders, have entrusted and ordered the viceroys, presidents, and governors to execute with great care and moderation the concentration of the indios intoreducciones; and to deal with their doctrine with such forbearance and gentleness, without causing inconveniences, so that those who would not presently settle and who would see the good treatment and the protection of those already in settlements would, of their own accord, present themselves, and it is ordained that they be not required to pay taxes more than what is ordered. Because the above has been executed in the greater part of our Indies, we hereby order and decree that the same be complied with in all the remaining parts of the Indies, and the encomederos shall entreat compliance thereof in the manner and form prescribed by the laws of this title.

xxx LAW VIII.

xxx

xxx

Philip II at the Pardo, on December 1, 1573. Philip III at Madrid, October 10, 1618. THE "REDUCCTIONES" BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF THIS LAW. The places wherein the pueblos and reducciones shall be formed should have the facilities of waters. lands, and mountains, ingress and egress, husbandry and passageway of one league long, wherein the indios can have their live stock that they may not be mixed with those of the Spaniards. LAW IX. Philip II at Toledo, on February 19, 1956. THAT THE "INDIOS" IN "REDUCCIONES" BE NOT DEPRIVED OF THE LANDS PREVIOUSLY HELD BY THEM. With more good-will and promptness, the indios shall be concentrated in reducciones. Provided they shall not be deprived of the lands and granaries which they may have in the places left by them. We hereby order that no change shall be made in this respect, and that they be allowed to retain the lands held by them previously so that they may cultivate them and profit therefrom. xxx LAW XIII. THE SAME AS ABOVE. THAT THE "REDUCCIONES" BE NOT REMOVED WITHOUT ORDER OF THE KING, VICEROY, OR COURT.
No governor, or magistrate, or alcalde mayor, or any other court, has the right to alter or to remove the pueblos or the reducciones once constituted and founded, without our express order or that of the viceroy, president, or the royal district court, provided, however, that the encomenderos, priests, or indios request such a change or consent to it by offering or giving information to that en. And, because these claims are often made for private interests and not for those of the indios, we hereby order that this law be always complied with, otherwise the change will be considered fraudulently obtained. The penalty of one thousand pesos shall be imposed upon the judge or encomendero who should violate this law.

xxx

xxx

LAW XV. Philip III at Madrid, on October 10, 1618. THAT THERE BE MAYORS AND ALDERMEN IN THE "REDUCTIONES," WHO SHALL BE "INDIOS."
We order that in each town and reduccion there be a mayor, who should be an indio of the same reduccion; if there be more than eighty houses, there should be two mayors and two aldermen, also indios; and, even if the town be a big one, there should, nevertheless, be more than two mayors and four aldermen, If there be less than eighty indios but not less than forty, there should be not more than one mayor and one alderman, who should annually elect nine others, in the presence of the priests , as is the practice in town inhabited by Spaniards and indios. LAW XXI. Philip II, in Madrid, On May 2, 1563, and on November 25, 1578. At Tomar, on May 8, 1581. At Madrid, on January 10, 1589. Philip III, at Todesillas, on July 12, 1600. Philip IV, at Madrid, on October 1 and December 17, 1646. For this law and the one following, see Law I, Tit. 4, Book 7.

THAT IN THE TOWNS OF THE "INDIOS," THERE SHALL LIVE NO SPANIARDS, NEGROES, "MESTIZOS," AND MULATTOES.
We hereby prohibit and forbid Spaniards, negroes, mulattores, or mestizos to live to live in the reduccionesand towns and towns of the indios, because it has been found that some Spaniards who deal, trade, live, and associate with the indios are men of troublesome nature, of dirty ways of living; robbers, gamblers, and vicious and useless men; and, to avoid the wrongs done them, the indios would leave their towns and provinces; and the negroes, mestizos, and mulattoes, besides maltreating them and utilizing their services, contaminate them with their bad customs, idleness, and also some of their blunders and vices which may corrupt and pervert the goal which we desire to reach with regard to their salvation, increase, and tranquillity. We hereby order the imposition of grave penalties upon the commission of the acts above-mentioned which should not be tolerated in the towns, and that the viceroys, presidents, governors, and courts take great care in executing the law within their powers and avail themselves of the cooperation of the ministers who are truly honest. As regards the mestizos and Indian and Chinese half-breeds (zambaigos), who are children of indias and born among them, and who are to inherit their houses and haciendas, they all not be affected by this law, it appearing to be a harsh thing to separate them from their parents. (Law of the Indies, vol. 2, pp. 228, 229, 230, 231.)

A clear exposition of the purposes of the Spanish government, in its efforts to improve the condition of the less advanced

inhabitants of the Islands by concentrating them in "reducciones," is found in the Decree of the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands of January 14, 1881, reading as follows: It is a legal principle as well as a national right that every inhabitant of a territory recognized as an integral part of a nation should respect and obey the laws in force therein; while, on other hand, it is the duty to conscience and to humanity for all governments to civilize those backward races that might exist in the nation, and which living in the obscurity of ignorance, lack of all the nations which enable them to grasp the moral and material advantages that may be acquired in those towns under the protection and vigilance afforded them by the same laws. It is equally highly depressive to our national honor to tolerate any longer the separation and isolation of the nonChristian races from the social life of the civilized and Christian towns; to allow any longer the commission of depredations, precisely in the Island of Luzon wherein is located the seat of the representative of the Government of the, metropolis. It is but just to admit the fact that all the governments have occupied themselves with this most important question, and that much has been heretofore accomplished with the help and self-denial of the missionary fathers who have even sacrificed their lives to the end that those degenerate races might be brought to the principles of Christianity, but the means and the preaching employed to allure them have been insufficient to complete the work undertaken. Neither have the punishments imposed been sufficient in certain cases and in those which have not been guarded against, thus giving and customs of isolation. As it is impossible to consent to the continuation of such a lamentable state of things, taking into account the prestige which the country demands and the inevitable duty which every government has in enforcing respect and obedience to the national laws on the part of all who reside within the territory under its control, I have proceeded in the premises by giving the most careful study of this serious question which involves important interests for civilization, from the moral and material as well as the political standpoints. After hearing the illustrious opinions of all the local authorities, ecclesiastics, and missionaries of the provinces of Northern Luzon, and also after finding the unanimous conformity of the meeting held with the Archbishop of Manila, the Bishops of Jaro and Cebu, and the provincial prelates of the orders of the Dominicans, Agustinians, Recoletos, Franciscans, and Jesuits as also of the meeting of the Council of Authorities, held for the object so indicated, I have arrived at an intimate conviction of the inevitable necessity of proceeding in a practical manner for the submission of the said pagan and isolated races, as well as of the manner and the only form of accomplishing such a task. For the reasons above stated and for the purpose of carrying out these objects, I hereby promulgate the following:
DECREE.

1. All the indian inhabitants (indios) of the Islands of Luzon are, from this date, to be governed by the common law, save those exceptions prescribed in this decree which are bases upon the differences of instructions, of the customs, and of the necessities of the different pagan races which occupy a part of its territory. 2. The diverse rules which should be promulgated for each of these races which may be divided into three classes; one, which comprises those which live isolated and roaming about without forming a town nor a home; another, made up of those subdued pagans who have not as yet entered completely the social life; and the third, of those mountain and rebellious pagans shall be published in their respective dialects, and the officials, priests, and missionaries of the provinces wherein they are found are hereby entrusted in the work of having these races learn these rules. These rules shall have executive character, beginning with the first day of next April, and, as to their compliance, they must be observed in the manner prescribed below. 3. The provincial authorities in conjunction with the priests shall proceed, from now on, with all the means which their zeal may suggest to them, to the taking of the census of the inhabitants of the towns or settlement already subdued, and shall adopt the necessary regulations for the appointment of local authorities, if there be none as yet; for the construction of courts and schools, and for the opening or fixing up of means of communication, endeavoring, as regards the administrative organization of the said towns or settlements, that this be finished before the first day of next July, so that at the beginning of the fiscal year they shall have the same rights and obligations which affect the remaining towns of the archipelago, with the only exception that in the first two years they shall not be obliged to render personal services other than those previously indicated. 4. So long as these subdued towns or settlements are located infertile lands appropriate for cultivation, the inhabitants thereof shall not be obliged to move their dwelling-houses; and only in case of absolute necessity shall a new residence be fixed for them, choosing for this purpose the place most convenient for them and which prejudices the least their interest; and, in either of these cases, an effort must be made to establish their homes with the reach of the sound of the bell. 5. For the protection and defense of these new towns, there shall be established an armed force composed precisely of native Christian, the organization and service of which shall be determined in a regulations based upon that of the abolished Tercios de Policia (division of the Guardia Civil). 6. The authorities shall see to it that the inhabitants of the new towns understand all the rights and duties affecting them and the liberty which they have as to where and now they shall till their lands and sell the products thereof, with the only exception of the tobacco which shall be bought by the Hacienda at the same price and conditions allowed other producers, and with the prohibition against these new towns as well as the others from engaging in commerce of any other transaction with the rebellious indios, the violation of which shall be punished with deportation. 7. In order to properly carry out this express prohibition, the limits of the territory of the rebellious indiosshall be fixed;

and whoever should go beyond the said limits shall be detained and assigned governmentally wherever convenient. 8. For the purpose of assisting in the conversion of the pagans into the fraternity of the Catholic Church, all by this fact along be exempt for eight years from rendering personal labor. 9. The authorities shall offer in the name of the State to the races not subdued ( aetas and mountains igorrots the following advantages in returns for their voluntary submission: to live in towns; unity among their families; concession of good lands and the right to cultivate them in the manner they wish and in the way them deem most productive; support during a year, and clothes upon effecting submission; respect for their habits and customs in so far as the same are not opposed to natural law; freedom to decide of their own accord as to whether they want to be Christians or not; the establishment of missions and families of recognized honesty who shall teach, direct, protect, and give them security and trust them; the purchase or facility of the sale of their harvests; the exemption from contributions and tributes for ten years and from thequintas (a kind of tax) for twenty years; and lastly, that those who are governed by the local authorities as the ones who elect such officials under the direct charge of the authorities of the province or district. 10. The races indicated in the preceding article, who voluntarily admit the advantages offered, shall, in return, have the obligation of constituting their new towns, of constructing their town hall, schools, and country roads which place them in communication with one another and with the Christians; provided, the location of these towns be distant from their actual residences, when the latter do not have the good conditions of location and cultivations, and provided further the putting of families in a place so selected by them be authorized in the towns already constituted. 11. The armed force shall proceed to the prosecution and punishment of the tribes, that, disregarding the peace, protection, and advantages offered them, continue in their rebellious attitude on the first of next April, committing from now on the crimes and vexations against the Christian towns; and for the this purposes, the Captain General's Office shall proceed with the organization of the divisions of the Army which, in conjunction with the rural guards (cuadrilleros), shall have to enter the territory of such tribes. On the expiration of the term, they shall destroy their dwelling-houses, labors, and implements, and confiscate their products and cattle. Such a punishment shall necessarily be repeated twice a year, and for this purpose the military headquarters shall immediately order a detachment of the military staff to study the zones where such operations shall take place and everything conducive to the successful accomplishment of the same. 12. The chiefs of provinces, priests, and missioners, local authorities, and other subordinates to my authorities, local authorities, and other subordinates to may authority, civil as well as military authorities, shall give the most effective aid and cooperation to the said forces in all that is within the attributes and the scope of the authority of each. 13. With respect to the reduccion of the pagan races found in some of the provinces in the southern part of the Archipelago, which I intend to visit, the preceding provisions shall conveniently be applied to them. 14. There shall be created, under my presidency as Governor-General, Vice-Royal Patron, a council or permanent commission which shall attend to and decide all the questions relative to the application of the foregoing regulations that may be brought to it for consultations by the chiefs of provinces and priests and missionaries. 15. The secondary provisions which may be necessary, as a complement to the foregoing, in brining about due compliance with this decree, shall be promulgated by the respective official centers within their respective jurisdictions. (Gaceta de Manila, No. 15) (Diccionario de la Administracion, vol. 7, pp. 128-134.) B. AFTER ACQUISITON OF THE PHILIPPINES BY THE UNITED STATES. Ever since the acquisition of the Philippine Islands by the United States, the question as to the best method for dealing with the primitive inhabitants has been a perplexing one. 1. Organic law. The first order of an organic character after the inauguration of the American Government in the Philippines was President McKinley's Instructions to the Commission of April 7, 1900, later expressly approved and ratified by section 1 of the Philippine Bill, the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902. Portions of these instructions have remained undisturbed by subsequent congressional legislation. One paragraph of particular interest should here be quoted, namely: In dealing with the uncivilized tribes of the Islands, the Commission should adopt the same course followed by Congress in permitting the tribes of our North American Indians to maintain their tribal organization and government and under which many of these tribes are now living in peace and contentment, surrounded by civilization to which they are unable or unwilling to conform. Such tribal governments should, however, be subjected to wise and firm regulation; and, without undue or petty interference, constant and active effort should be exercised to prevent barbarous practices and introduce civilized customs. Next comes the Philippine Bill, the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, in the nature of an Organic Act for the Philippines. The purpose of section 7 of the Philippine Bill was to provide for a legislative body and, with this end in view, to name the prerequisites for the organization of the Philippine Assembly. The Philippine Legislature, composed of the Philippine Commission and the Philippine Assembly, was to have jurisdiction over the Christian portion of the Islands. The Philippine Commission was to retain exclusive jurisdiction of that part of said Islands inhabited by Moros or other non-Christian tribes. The latest Act of Congress, nearest to a Constitution for the Philippines, is the Act of Congress of August 29, 1916, commonly known as the Jones Law. This transferred the exclusive legislative jurisdiction and authority theretofore exercised by the Philippine Commission, to the Philippine Legislature (sec. 12). It divided the Philippine Islands into twelve senatorial districts,

the twelfth district to be composed of the Mountain Province, Baguio, Nueva Vizcaya, and the Department of Mindanao and Sulu. The Governor-General of the Philippine Islands was authorized to appoint senators and representatives for the territory which, at the time of the passage of the Jones Law, was not represented in the Philippine Assembly, that is, for the twelfth district (sec. 16). The law establish a bureau to be known as the "Bureau of non-Christian Tribes" which shall have general supervision over the public affairs of the inhabitants which are represented in the Legislature by appointed senators and representatives( sec. 22). Philippine organic law may, therefore, be said to recognized a dividing line between the territory not inhabited by Moros or other non-Christian tribes, and the territory which Moros or other non-Christian tribes, and the territory which is inhabited by Moros or other non-Christian tribes. 2. Statute law. Local governments in the Philippines have been provided for by various acts of the Philippine Commission and Legislature. The most notable are Acts Nos. 48 and 49 concerning the Province of Benguet and the Igorots; Act NO. 82, the Municipal Code; ;Act no. 83, the Provincial Government Act; Act No. 183, the Character of the city of Manila; Act No. 7887, providing for the organization and government of the Moro Province; Act No. 1396, the Special Provincial Government Act; Act No. 1397, the Township Government Act; Act No. 1667, relating to the organization of settlements; Act No. 1963, the Baguio charger; and Act No. 2408, the Organic Act of the Department of Mindanao and Sulu. The major portion of these laws have been carried forward into the Administrative Codes of 1916 an d1917. Of more particular interest are certain special laws concerning the government of the primitive peoples. Beginning with Act No. 387, sections 68-71, enacted on April 9, 1902, by the United States Philippine Commission, having reference to the Province of Nueva Vizcaya, Acts Nos. 4111, 422, 445, 500, 547, 548, 549, 550, 579, 753, 855, 1113, 1145, 4568, 1306 were enacted for the provinces of Abra, Antique, Bataan, Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur, Isabela. Lepanto-Bontoc, Mindoro, Misamis, Nueva Vizcaya, Pangasinan, Paragua (Palawan), Tarlac, Tayabas, and Zambales. As an example of these laws, because referring to the Manguianes, we insert Act No. 547: No. 547. AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF LOCAL CIVIL GOVERNMENTS FOR THE MANGUIANES IN THE PROVINCE OF MINDORO. By authority of the United States, be it enacted by the Philippine Commission, that :
SECTION 1. Whereas the Manguianes of the Provinces of Mindoro have not progressed sufficiently in civilization to make it practicable to bring them under any form of municipal government, the provincial governor is authorized, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, in dealing with these Manguianes to appoint officers from among them, to fix their designations and badges of office, and to prescribe their powers and duties: Provided, That the powers and duties thus prescribed shall not be in excess of those conferred upon township officers by Act Numbered Three hundred and eighty-seven entitled "An Act providing for the establishment of local civil Governments in the townships and settlements of Nueva Vizcaya." SEC. 2. Subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, the provincial governor is further authorized, when he deems such a course necessary in the interest of law and order, to direct such Manguianes to take up their habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands to be selected by him and approved by the provincial board. Manguianes who refuse to comply with such directions shall upon conviction be imprisonment for a period not exceeding sixty days. SEC. 3. The constant aim of the governor shall be to aid the Manguianes of his province to acquire the knowledge and experience necessary for successful local popular government, and his supervision and control over them shall be exercised to this end, an to the end that law and order and individual freedom shall be maintained. SEC. 4. When in the opinion of the provincial board of Mindoro any settlement of Manguianes has advanced sufficiently to make such a course practicable, it may be organized under the provisions of sections one to sixty-seven, inclusive, of Act Numbered three hundred and eighty-seven, as a township, and the geographical limits of such township shall be fixed by the provincial board. SEC. 5. The public good requiring the speedy enactment of this bill, the passage of the same is hereby expedited in accordance with section two of 'An Act prescribing the order of procedure by the Commission in the enactment of laws,' passed September twenty-sixth, nineteen hundred. SEC. 6. This Act shall take effect on its passage. Enacted, December 4, 1902.

All of these special laws, with the exception of Act No. 1306, were repealed by Act No. 1396 and 1397. The last named Act incorporated and embodied the provisions in general language. In turn, Act No. 1397 was repealed by the Administrative Code of 1916. The two Administrative Codes retained the provisions in questions. These different laws, if they of the non-Christian inhabitants of the Philippines and a settled and consistent practice with reference to the methods to be followed for their advancement. C. TERMINOLOGY. The terms made use of by these laws, organic and statutory, are found in varying forms.

"Uncivilized tribes" is the denomination in President McKinley's instruction to the Commission. The most commonly accepted usage has sanctioned the term "non-Christian tribes." These words are to be found in section 7 of the Philippine Bill and in section 22 of the Jones Law. They are also to be found in Act No. 253 of the Philippines Commission, establishing a Bureau of non-Christian Tribes and in Act No. 2674 of the Philippine Legislature, carried forward into sections 701-705 of the Administrative Code of 1917, reestablishing this Bureau. Among other laws which contain the phrase, there can be mentioned Acts Nos. 127, 128, 387, 547, 548, 549, 550, 1397, 1639, and 2551. "Non-Christian people," "non-Christian inhabitants," and "non-Christian Filipinos" have been the favorite nomenclature, in lieu of the unpopular word "tribes," since the coming into being of a Filipinized legislature. These terms can be found in sections 2076, 2077, 2390, 2394, Administrative Code of 1916; sections 701-705, 2145, 2422, 2426, Administrative Code of 1917; and in Acts Nos. 2404, 2435, 2444, 2674 of the Philippine Legislatures, as well as in Act No. 1667 of the Philippine Commission. The Administrative Code specifically provides that the term "non-Christian" shall include Mohammedans and pagans. (Sec. 2576, Administrative Code of 1917; sec. 2561, Administrative Code of 1916, taken from Act No. 2408, sec. 3.) D. MEANING OF TERM "NON-CHRISTIAN." If we were to follow the literal meaning of the word "non-Christian," it would of course result in giving to it a religious signification. Obviously, Christian would be those who profess the Christian religion, and non-Christians, would be those who do not profess the Christian religion. In partial corroboration of this view, there could also be cited section 2576 of the last Administrative Code and certain well-known authorities, as Zuiga, "Estadismo de las Islas Filipinas," Professor Ferdinand Blumentritt, "Philippine Tribes and Languages," and Dr. N. M. Saleeby, "The Origin of Malayan Filipinos." (See Blair & Robertson, "The Philippine Islands," 1493-1898, vol. III, p. 300, note; Craig-Benitez, "Philippine Progress prior to 1898," vol. I. p. 107.) Not content with the apparent definition of the word, we shall investigate further to ascertain what is its true meaning. In one sense, the word can have a geographical signification. This is plainly to be seen by the provisions of many laws. Thus, according to the Philippine Bill, the authority of the Philippine Assembly was recognized in the "territory" of the Islands not inhabited by Moros or other non-Christian tribes. Again, the Jones Law confers similar recognition in the authorization of the twelfth senatorial district for the "territory not now represented in the Philippine Assembly." The Philippines Legislature has, time and again, adopted acts making certain other acts applicable to that "part" of the Philippine Islands inhabited by Moros or other non-Christian tribes. Section 2145, is found in article XII of the Provincial Law of the Administrative Code. The first section of this article, preceding section 2145, makes the provisions of the article applicable only in specially organized provinces. The specially organized provinces are the Mountain Province, Nueva Vizcaya, Mindoro, Batanes, and Palawan. These are the provinces to which the Philippine Legislature has never seen fit to give all the powers of local self-government. They do not, however, exactly coincide with the portion of the Philippines which is not granted popular representation. Nevertheless, it is still a geographical description. It is well-known that within the specially organized provinces, there live persons some of who are Christians and some of whom are not Christians. In fact, the law specifically recognizes this. ( Sec. 2422, Administrative Code of 1917, etc.) If the religious conception is not satisfactory, so against the geographical conception is likewise inadquate. The reason it that the motive of the law relates not to a particular people, because of their religion, or to a particular province because of its location, but the whole intent of the law is predicated n the civilization or lack of civilization of the inhabitants. At most, "non-Christian" is an awkward and unsatisfactory word. Apologetic words usually introduce the term. "The so-called non-Christian" is a favorite expression. The Secretary of the Interior who for so many years had these people under his jurisdiction, recognizing the difficulty of selecting an exact designation, speaks of the "backward Philippine peoples, commonly known as the 'non-Christian tribes."' (See Hearings before the Committee on the Philippines, United States Senate, Sixty-third Congress, third session on H.R. 18459, An Act to declare the purpose of the People of the United States as to the future political status of the Philippine Islands and to provide a more autonomous government for the Islands, pp. 346, 351; letter of the Secretary of the Interior of June 30, 1906, circulated by the Executive Secretary.) The idea that the term "non-Christian" is intended to relate to degree of civilization, is substantiated by reference to legislative, judicial, and executive authority. The legislative intent is borne out by Acts Nos. 48, 253, 387, 1667, and 2674, and sections 701 et seq, and sections 2422 et seq, of the Administrative Code of 1917. For instance, Act No. 253 charged the Bureau of non-Christian tribes to conduct "systematic investigations with reference to non-Christian tribes . . . with special view to determining the most practicable means for bringing about their advancement in civilization and material property prosperity." As authority of a judicial nature is the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of United States vs. Tubban [Kalinga] ([1915], 29, Phil., 434). The question here arose as to the effect of a tribal marriage in connection with article 423 of the Penal code concerning the husband who surprises his wife in the act of adultery. In discussing the point, the court makes use of the following language: . . . we are not advised of any provision of law which recognizes as legal a tribal marriage of so-called non-Christians

or members of uncivilized tribes, celebrated within that province without compliance with the requisites prescribed by General Orders no. 68. . . . We hold also that the fact that the accused is shown to be a member of an uncivilized tribe, of a low order of intelligence, uncultured and uneducated, should be taken into consideration as a second marked extenuating circumstance. Of much more moment is the uniform construction of execution officials who have been called upon to interpret and enforce the law. The official who, as a member of the Philippine Commission, drafted much of the legislation relating to the so-called Christians and who had these people under his authority, was the former Secretary of the Interior. Under date of June 30, 1906, this official addressed a letter to all governor of provinces, organized under the Special Provincial Government Act, a letter which later received recognition by the Governor-General and was circulated by the Executive Secretary, reading as follows:
Sir: Within the past few months, the question has arisen as to whether people who were originally non-Christian but have recently been baptized or who are children of persons who have been recently baptized are, for the purposes of Act 1396 and 1397, to be considered Christian or non-Christians. It has been extremely difficult, in framing legislation for the tribes in these islands which are not advanced far in civilization, to hit upon any suitable designation which will fit all cases. The number of individual tribes is so great that it is almost out of the question to enumerate all of them in an Act. It was finally decided to adopt the designation 'non-Christians' as the one most satisfactory, but the real purpose of the Commission was not so much to legislate for people having any particular religious belief as for those lacking sufficient advancement so that they could, to their own advantage, be brought under the Provincial Government Act and the Municipal Code. The mere act of baptism does not, of course, in itself change the degree of civilization to which the person baptized has attained at the time the act of baptism is performed. For practical purposes, therefore, you will give the member of so-called "wild tribes" of your province the benefit of the doubt even though they may recently have embraced Christianity. The determining factor in deciding whether they are to be allowed to remain under the jurisdiction of regularly organized municipalities or what form of government shall be afforded to them should be the degree of civilization to which they have attained and you are requested to govern yourself accordingly. I have discussed this matter with the Honorable, the Governor-General, who concurs in the opinion above expressed and who will have the necessary instructions given to the governors of the provinces organized under the Provincial Government Act. (Internal Revenue Manual, p. 214.)

The present Secretary of the Interior, in a memorandum furnished a member of this court, has the following to say on the subject: As far as names are concerned the classification is indeed unfortunate, but while no other better classification has as yet been made the present classification should be allowed to stand . . . I believe the term carries the same meaning as the expressed in the letter of the Secretary of the Interior (of June 30, 1906, herein quoted). It is indicative of the degree of civilization rather than of religious denomination, for the hold that it is indicative of religious denomination will make the law invalid as against that Constitutional guaranty of religious freedom. Another official who was concerned with the status of the non-Christians, was the Collector of Internal Revenue. The question arose for ruling relatives to the cedula taxation of the Manobos and the Aetas. Thereupon, the view of the Secretary of the Interior was requested on the point, who, by return indorsement, agreed with the interpretation of the Collector of Internal Revenue. This Construction of the Collector of Internal Revenue can be found in circular letter No. 188 of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, dated June 11, 1907, reading as follows (Internal Revenue Manual, p. 214): The internal revenue law exempts "members of non-Christian tribes" from the payment of cedula taxes. The Collector of Internal Revenue has interpreted this provision of law to mean not that persons who profess some form of Christian worship are alone subject to the cedula tax, and that all other person are exempt; he has interpreted it to mean that all persons preserving tribal relations with the so-called non-Christian tribes are exempt from the cedula tax, and that all others, including Jews, Mohammedans, Confucians, Buddists, etc., are subject to said tax so long as they live in cities or towns, or in the country in a civilized condition. In other words, it is not so much a matter of a man's form of religious worship or profession that decides whether or not he is subject to the cedula tax; it is more dependent on whether he is living in a civilized manner or is associated with the mountain tribes, either as a member thereof or as a recruit. So far, this question has not come up as to whether a Christian, maintaining his religious belief, but throwing his lot and living with a non-Christian tribe, would or would not be subject to the cedula tax. On one occasion a prominent Hebrew of Manila claimed to this office that he was exempt from the cedula tax, inasmuch as he was not a Christian. This Office, however, continued to collect cedula taxes from all the Jews, East Indians, Arabs, Chinamen, etc., residing in Manila. Quite a large proportion of the cedula taxes paid in this city are paid by men belonging to the nationalities mentioned. Chinamen, Arabs and other s are quite widely scattered throughout the Islands, and a condition similar to that which exist in Manila also exists in most of the large provincial towns. Cedula taxes are therefore being collected by this Office in all parts of these Islands on the broad ground that civilized people are subject to such taxes, and non-civilized people preserving their tribal relations are not subject thereto. (Sgd.) JNO. S. HORD, Collector of Internal Revenue. On September 17, 1910, the Collector of Internal Revenue addressed circular letter No. 327, approved by the Secretary of Finance and Justice, to all provincial treasurers. This letter in part reads:

In view of the many questions that have been raised by provincial treasurers regarding cedula taxes due from members of non-Christian tribes when they come in from the hills for the purposes of settling down and becoming members of the body politic of the Philippine Islands, the following clarification of the laws governing such questions and digest of rulings thereunder is hereby published for the information of all concerned: Non-Christian inhabitants of the Philippine Islands are so classed, not by reason of the fact that they do not profess Christianity, but because of their uncivilized mode of life and low state of development. All inhabitants of the Philippine Islands classed as members of non-Christian tribes may be divided into three classes in so far as the cedula tax law is concerned . . . Whenever any member of an non-Christian tribe leaves his wild and uncivilized mode of life, severs whatever tribal relations he may have had and attaches himself civilized community, belonging a member of the body politic, he thereby makes himself subject to precisely the same law that governs the other members of that community and from and after the date when he so attaches himself to the community the same cedula and other taxes are due from him as from other members thereof. If he comes in after the expiration of the delinquency period the same rule should apply to him as to persons arriving from foreign countries or reaching the age of eighteen subsequent to the expiration of such period, and a regular class A, D, F, or H cedula, as the case may be, should be furnished him without penalty and without requiring him to pay the tax for former years. In conclusion, it should be borne in mind that the prime factors in determining whether or not a man is subject to the regular cedula tax is not the circumstance that he does or does not profess Christianity, nor even his maintenance of or failure to maintain tribal relations with some of the well known wild tribes, but his mode of life, degree of advancement in civilization and connection or lack of connection with some civilized community. For this reason so called "Remontados" and "Montescos" will be classed by this office as members of non-Christian tribes in so far as the application of the Internal Revenue Law is concerned, since, even though they belong to no well recognized tribe, their mode of life, degree of advancement and so forth are practically the same as those of the Igorrots and members of other recognized non-Christina tribes.
Very respectfully, (Sgd.) ELLIS CROMWELL, Collector of Internal Revenue,

Approved: (Sgd.) GREGORIO ARANETA, Secretary of Finance and Justice. The two circular above quoted have since been repealed by Bureau of Internal Revenue Regulations No. 1, promulgated by Venancio Concepcion, Acting Collector of Internal Revenue, and approved on April 16, 1915, by Honorable Victorino Mapa, Secretary of Finance and Justice. Section 30 of the regulations is practically a transcript of Circular Letter No. 327. The subject has come before the Attorney-General for consideration. The Chief of Constabulary request the opinion of the Attorney-General as to the status of a non-Christian who has been baptized by a minister of the Gospel. The precise questions were these: "Does he remain non-Christian or is he entitled to the privileges of a Christian? By purchasing intoxicating liquors, does he commit an infraction of the law and does the person selling same lay himself liable under the provision of Act No. 1639?" The opinion of Attorney-General Avancea, after quoting the same authorities hereinbefore set out, concludes: In conformity with the above quoted constructions, it is probable that is probable that the person in question remains a non-Christian, so that, in purchasing intoxicating liquors both he and the person selling the same make themselves liable to prosecution under the provisions of Act No. 1639. At least, I advise you that these should be the constructions place upon the law until a court shall hold otherwise. Solicitor-General Paredes in his brief in this case says: With respect to the meaning which the phrase non-Christian inhabitants has in the provisions of the Administrative code which we are studying, we submit that said phrase does not have its natural meaning which would include all non-Christian inhabitants of the Islands, whether Filipino or strangers, civilized or uncivilized, but simply refers to those uncivilized members of the non-Christian tribes of the Philippines who, living without home or fixed residence, roam in the mountains, beyond the reach of law and order . . . The Philippine Commission in denominating in its laws that portion of the inhabitants of the Philippines which live in tribes as non-Christian tribes, as distinguished from the common Filipinos which carry on a social and civilized life, did not intended to establish a distinction based on the religious beliefs of the individual, but, without dwelling on the difficulties which later would be occasioned by the phrase, adopted the expression which the Spanish legislation employed to designate the uncivilized portion of the inhabitants of the Philippines. The phrase 'non-Christian inhabitants' used in the provisions of articles 2077 and 2741 of Act No. 2657 (articles 2145 and 2759) should be understood as equivalent to members of uncivilized tribes of the Philippines, not only because this is the evident intention of the law, but because to give it its lateral meaning would make the law null and unconstitutional as making distinctions base the religion of the individual. The Official Census of 1903, in the portion written by no less an authority than De. David P. Barrows, then "Chief of the Bureau

of non-Christian Tribes," divides the population in the Christian or Civilized Tribes, and non-Christian or Wild Tribes. (Census of the Philippine Islands [1903], vol. 1, pp. 411 et seq). The present Director of the Census, Hon. Ignacio Villamor, writes that the classification likely to be used in the Census now being taken is: "Filipinos and Primitive Filipinos." In a Pronouncing Gazetteer and Geographical Dictionary of the Philippine Islands, prepared in the Bureau of Insular Affairs, War Department, a subdivision under the title non-Christian tribes is, "Physical and Political Characteristics of the non-Christian Tribes," which sufficiently shows that the terms refers to culture and not to religion. In resume, therefore, the Legislature and the Judiciary, inferentially, and different executive officials, specifically, join in the proposition that the term "non-Christian" refers, not to religious belief, but, in a way , to geographical area, and, more directly, to natives of the Philippine Islands of a law grade of civilization, usually living in tribal relationship apart from settled communities. E. THE MANGUIANES. The so-called non-Christians are in various state approaching civilization. The Philippine Census of 1903 divided them into four classes. Of the third class, are the Manguianes (or Mangyans) of Mindoro. Of the derivation of the name "Manguian" Dr. T. H. Pardo de Tavera in his Etimilogia de los nombres de Rozas de Filipinas, says:
In Tagalog, Bicol, and Visaya, Manguian signifies "savage," "mountainer," "pagan," "negro." It may be that the use of this word is applicable to a great number of Filipinos, but nevertheless it has been applied only to certain inhabitants of Mindoro. Even in primitive times without doubt this name was given to those of that island who bear it to-day, but its employed in three Filipino languages shows that the radical ngian had in all these languages a sense to-day forgotten. In Pampango this ending still exists and signifies "ancient," from which we can deduce that the name was applied to men considered to be the ancient inhabitants, and that these men were pushed back into the interior by the modern invaders, in whose language they were called the "ancients."

The Manguianes are very low in culture. They have considerable Negrito blood and have not advanced beyond the Negritos in civilization. They are a peaceful, timid, primitive, semi-nomadic people. They number approximately 15,000. The manguianes have shown no desire for community life, and, as indicated in the preamble to Act No. 547, have not progressed sufficiently in civilization to make it practicable to bring them under any form of municipal government. (See Census of the Philippine (Islands [1903], vol. I, pp. 22, 23, 460.) III. COMPARATIVE THE AMERICAN INDIANS. Reference was made in the Presidents' instructions to the Commission to the policy adopted by the United States for the Indian Tribes. The methods followed by the Government of the Philippines Islands in its dealings with the so-called non-Christian people is said, on argument, to be practically identical with that followed by the United States Government in its dealings with the Indian tribes. Valuable lessons, it is insisted, can be derived by an investigation of the American-Indian policy. From the beginning of the United States, and even before, the Indians have been treated as "in a state of pupilage." The recognized relation between the Government of the United States and the Indians may be described as that of guardian and ward. It is for the Congress to determine when and how the guardianship shall be terminated. The Indians are always subject to the plenary authority of the United States. Chief Justice Marshall in his opinion in Worcester vs. Georgia, hereinbefore mentioned, tells how the Congress passed an Act in 1819 "for promoting those humane designs of civilizing the neighboring Indians." After quoting the Act, the opinion goes on "This act avowedly contemplates the preservation of the Indian nations as an object sought by the United States, and proposes to effect this object by civilizing and converting them from hunters into agriculturists." A leading case which discusses the status of the Indians is that of the United States vs. Kagama ([1886], 118 U.S., 375). Reference is herein made to the clause of the United States Constitution which gives Congress "power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes." The court then proceeds to indicate a brief history of the position of the Indians in the United States (a more extended account of which can be found in Marshall's opinion in Worcester vs. Georgia, supra), as follows: The relation of the Indian tribes living within the borders of the United States, both before and since the Revolution, to the people of the United States, has always been an anomalous one and of a complex character. Following the policy of the European Governments in the discovery of American towards the Indians who were found here, the colonies before the Revolution and the States and the United States since, have recognized in the Indians a possessory right to the soil over which they roamed and hunted and established occasional villages. But they asserted an ultimate title in the land itself, by which the Indian tribes were forbidden to sell or transfer it to other nations or peoples without the consent of this paramount authority. When a tribe wished to dispose of its lands, or any part of it, or the State or the United States wished to purchase it, a treaty with the tribe was the only mode in which this could be done. The United States recognized no right in private persons, or in other nations, to make such a purchase by treaty or otherwise. With the Indians themselves these relation are equally difficult to define. They were, and always have been, regarded as having a semi-independent position when they preserved their tribal relations; not as States, not as nation not a possessed of the fall attributes of sovereignty, but as a separate people, with the power of regulating their internal and social relations, and thus far not brought under the laws of the Union or of the State within whose limits they resided.

The opinion then continues: It seems to us that this (effect of the law) is within the competency of Congress. These Indian tribes are the wards of the nation. The are communities dependent on the United States. dependent largely for their daily food. Dependent for their political rights. They owe no allegiance to the States, and receive from the no protection. Because of the local ill feeling, the people of the States where they are found are often their deadliest enemies. From their very weakness and helplessness, so largely due to the course of dealing of the Federal Government with them and the treaties in which it has been promised, there arise the duty of protection, and with it the power. This has always been recognized by the Executive and by Congress, and by this court, whenever the question has arisen . . . The power of the General Government over these remnants of race once powerful, now weak and diminished in numbers, is necessary to their protection, as well as to the safety of those among whom they dwell. it must exist in that government, because it never has existed anywhere else, because the theater of its exercise is within the geographical limits of the United States, because it has never been denied, and because it alone can enforce its laws on all the tribes. In the later case of United States vs. Sandoval ([1913], 231 U.S., 28) the question to be considered was whether the status of the Pueblo Indians and their lands was such that Congress could prohibit the introduction of intoxicating liquor into those lands notwithstanding the admission of New Mexico to statehood. The court looked to the reports of the different superintendent charged with guarding their interests and founds that these Indians are dependent upon the fostering care and protection of the government "like reservation Indians in general." Continuing, the court said "that during the Spanish dominion, the Indians of the pueblos were treated as wards requiring special protection, where subjected to restraints and official supervisions in the alienation of their property." And finally, we not the following: "Not only does the Constitution expressly authorize Congress to regulate commerce with the Indians tribes, but long-continued legislative and executive usage and an unbroken current of judicial decisions have attributed to the United States as a superior and civilized nation the power and the duty of exercising a fostering care and protection over all dependent Indian communities within its borders, whether within its original territory or territory subsequently acquired, and whether within or without the limits of a state." With reference to laws affecting the Indians, it has been held that it is not within the power of the courts to overrule the judgment of Congress. For very good reason, the subject has always been deemed political in nature, not subject to the jurisdiction of the judicial department of the government. (Matter of Heff [1905], 197 U.S., 488; U.S. vs. Celestine [1909], 215 U.S., 278; U.S. vs. Sandoval, supra; Worcester vs. Georgia, supra; U.S. vs. Rogers [1846], 4 How., 567; the Cherokee Tobacco [1871], 11 Wall, 616; Roff vs. Burney [1897], 168 U.S., 218; Thomasvs. Gay [1898], 169 U.S.., 264; Lone Wolf vs. Hitchcock[1903], 187 U.S., 553; Wallace vs. Adams [1907], 204 U.S., 415; Conley vs. Bollinger [1910], 216 U.S., 84; Tiger vs. Western Invest. Co. [1911], 221 U.S., 286; U.S. vs. Lane [1913], 232 U.S.., 598; Cyr vs. Walker (1911], 29 Okla, 281; 35 L.R.A. [N. S.], 795.) Whenever, therefore, the United States sets apart any public land as an Indian reservation, it has full authority to pass such laws and authorize such measures as may be necessary to give to the Indians thereon full protection in their persons and property. (U.S. vs. Thomas [1894], 151 U.S., 577.) All this borne out by long-continued legislative and executive usage, and an unbroken line of judicial decisions. The only case which is even remotely in point and which, if followed literally, might result in the issuance of habeas corpus, is that of United States vs. Crook ([1879], Fed. Cas. No. 14891). This was a hearing upon return to a writ of habeas corpus issued against Brigadier General George Crook at the relation of Standing Bear and other Indians, formerly belonging to the Ponca Tribe of Indians. The petition alleged in substance that the relators are Indians who have formerly belonged to the Ponca tribe of Indians, now located in the Indian Territory; that they had some time previously withdrawn from the tribe, and completely severed their tribal relations therewith, and had adopted the general habits of the whites, and were then endeavoring to maintain themselves by their own exertions, and without aid or assistance from the general government; that whilst they were thus engaged, and without being guilty of violating any of the laws of the United States, they were arrested and restrained of their liberty by order of the respondent, George Crook. The substance of the return to the writ was that the relators are individual members of, and connected with, the Ponca tribe of Indians; that they had fled or escaped form a reservation situated some place within the limits of the Indian Territory had departed therefrom without permission from the Government; and, at the request of the Secretary of the Interior, the General of the Army had issued an order which required the respondent to arrest and return the relators to their tribe in the Indian Territory, and that, pursuant to the said order, he had caused the relators to be arrested on the Omaha Indian Territory. The first question was whether an Indian can test the validity of an illegal imprisonment by habeas corpus. The second question, of much greater importance, related to the right of the Government to arrest and hold the relators for a time, for the purpose of being returned to the Indian Territory from which it was alleged the Indian escaped. In discussing this question, the court reviewed the policy the Government had adopted in its dealing with the friendly tribe of Poncase. Then, continuing, the court said: "Laws passed for the government of the Indian country, and for the purpose of regulating trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, confer upon certain officers of the Government almost unlimited power over the persons who go upon the reservations without lawful authority . . . Whether such an extensive discretionary power is wisely vested in the commissioner of Indian affairs or not , need not be questioned. It is enough to know that the power rightfully exists, and, where existing, the exercise of the power must be upheld." The decision concluded as follows: The reasoning advanced in support of my views, leads me to conclude:
1. that an Indian is a 'person' within the meaning of the laws of the United States, and has, therefore, the right to sue out a writ of habeas corpus in a federal court, or before a federal judge, in all cases where he may be confined or in custody under color of authority of the United States or where he is restrained of liberty in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States. 2. That General George Crook, the respondent, being commander of the military department of the Platte, has the custody of the relators, under color of authority of the United States, and in violation of the laws therefore.

3. That n rightful authority exists for removing by force any of the relators to the Indian Territory, as the respondent has been directed to do. 4. that the Indians possess the inherent right of expatriation, as well as the more fortunate white race, and have the inalienable right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," so long as they obey the laws and do not trespass on forbidden ground. And, 5. Being restrained of liberty under color of authority of the United States, and in violation of the laws thereof, the relators must be discharged from custody, and it is so ordered.

As far as the first point is concerned, the decision just quoted could be used as authority to determine that Rubi, the Manguian petitioner, a Filipino, and a citizen of the Philippine Islands, is a "person" within the meaning of the Habeas Corpus Act, and as such, entitled to sue out a writ in the Philippine courts. (See also In re Race Horse [1895], 70 Fed., 598.) We so decide. As to the second point the facts in the Standing Bear case an the Rubi case are not exactly identical. But even admitting similarity of facts, yet it is known to all that Indian reservations do exist in the United States, that Indians have been taken from different parts of the country and placed on these reservation, without any previous consultation as to their own wishes, and that, when once so located, they have been made to remain on the reservation for their own good and for the general good of the country. If any lesson can be drawn form the Indian policy of the United States, it is that the determination of this policy is for the legislative and executive branches of the government and that when once so decided upon, the courts should not interfere to upset a carefully planned governmental system. Perhaps, just as may forceful reasons exists for the segregation as existed for the segregation of the different Indian tribes in the United States. IV. CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS. A. DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER. The first constitutional objection which confronts us is that the Legislature could not delegate this power to provincial authorities. In so attempting, it is contended, the Philippine Legislature has abdicated its authority and avoided its full responsibility. That the maxim of Constitutional Law forbidding the delegation of legislative power should be zealously protected, we agree. An understanding of the rule will, however, disclose that it has not bee violated in his instance. The rule has nowhere been better stated than in the early Ohio case decided by Judge Ranney, and since followed in a multitude of case, namely: "The true distinction therefore is between the delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring an authority or discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first cannot be done; to the later no valid objection can be made." (Cincinnati, W. & Z. R. Co. vs. Comm'rs. Clinton County [1852], 1 Ohio S.t, 88.) Discretion, as held by Chief Justice Marshall in Wayman vs. Southard ([1825], 10 Wheat., 1) may be committed by the Legislature to an executive department or official. The Legislature may make decisions of executive departments of subordinate official thereof, to whom t has committed the execution of certain acts, final on questions of fact. (U.S. vs. Kinkead [1918], 248 Fed., 141.) The growing tendency in the decision is to give prominence to the "necessity" of the case. Is not all this exactly what the Legislature has attempted to accomplish by the enactment of section 21454 of the Administrative Code? Has not the Legislature merely conferred upon the provincial governor, with the approval of the provincial board and the Department Head, discretionary authority as to the execution of the law? Is not this "necessary"? The case of West vs. Hitchock, ([1906], 205 U.S., 80) was a petition for mandamus to require the Secretary of the Interior to approve the selection and taking of one hundred and sixty acres by the relator out of the lands ceded to the United States by the Wichita and affiliated bands of Indians. Section 463 of the United States Revised Statutes provided: "The Commissioner of Indian Affairs shall, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, and agreeably to such regulations as the President may prescribe, have the management of all Indian affairs, and of all matters arising out to the Indian relations." Justice Holmes said: "We should hesitate a good deal, especially in view of the long established practice of the Department, before saying that this language was not broad enough to warrant a regulation obviously made for the welfare of the rather helpless people concerned. The power of Congress is not doubted. The Indians have been treated as wards of the nation. Some such supervision was necessary, and has been exercised. In the absence of special provisions naturally it would be exercised by the Indian Department." (See also as corroborative authority, it any is needed, Union Bridge Co. vs. U.S. [1907], 204 U.S.., 364, reviewing the previous decisions of the United States Supreme Court: U.S. vs. Lane [1914], 232 U.S., 598.) There is another aspect of the question, which once accepted, is decisive. An exception to the general rule. sanctioned by immemorial practice, permits the central legislative body to delegate legislative powers to local authorities. The Philippine Legislature has here conferred authority upon the Province of Mindoro, to be exercised by the provincial governor and the provincial board. Who but the provincial governor and the provincial board, as the official representatives of the province, are better qualified to judge "when such as course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order?" As officials charged with the administration of the province and the protection of its inhabitants, who but they are better fitted to select sites which have the conditions most favorable for improving the people who have the misfortune of being in a backward state? Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is not an unlawful delegation of legislative power by the Philippine Legislature to provincial official and a department head.

B. RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION The attorney de officio, for petitioners, in a truly remarkable brief, submitted on behalf of his unknown clients, says that "The statute is perfectly clear and unambiguous. In limpid English, and in words as plain and unequivocal as language can express, it provides for the segregation of 'non-Christians' and none other." The inevitable result, them, is that the law "constitutes an attempt by the Legislature to discriminate between individuals because of their religious beliefs, and is, consequently, unconstitutional." Counsel's premise once being conceded, his arguments is answerable the Legislature must be understood to mean what it has plainly expressed; judicial construction is then excluded; religious equality is demanded by the Organic Law; the statute has violated this constitutional guaranty, and Q. E. D. is invalid. But, as hereinbefore stated, we do not feel free to discard the long continued meaning given to a common expression, especially as classification of inhabitants according to religious belief leads the court to what it should avoid, the nullification of legislative action. We hold that the term "non-Christian" refers to natives of the Philippines Islands of a low grade of civilization, and that section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917, does not discriminate between individuals an account of religious differences. C. LIBERTY; DUE PROCESS OF LAW; EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. The third constitutional argument is grounded on those portions of the President's instructions of to the Commission, the Philippine Bill, and the Jones Law, providing "That no law shall be enacted in said Islands which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny to any person therein the equal protection of the laws." This constitutional limitation is derived from the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and these provisions, it has been said "are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality." (Yick Wo vs.Hopkins [1886], 118 U.S., 356.) The protection afforded the individual is then as much for the non-Christian as for the Christian. The conception of civil liberty has been variously expressed thus: Every man may claim the fullest liberty to exercise his faculties, compatible with the possession of like liberty by every other. (Spencer, Social Statistics, p. 94.) Liberty is the creature of law, essentially different from that authorized licentiousness that trespasses on right. That authorized licentiousness that trespasses on right. It is a legal and a refined idea, the offspring of high civilization, which the savage never understood, and never can understand. Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint; the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have . . . that man is free who is protected from injury. (II Webster's Works, p. 393.) Liberty consists in the ability to do what one caught to desire and in not being forced to do what one ought not do desire. (Montesque, spirit of the Laws.) Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is no unrestricted license to ac according to one's own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others. (Field, J., in Crowley vs. Christensen [1890], 137 U.S., 86.) Liberty does not import "an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others . . . There is, of course, a sphere with which the individual may asserts the supremacy of his own will, and rightfully dispute the authority of any human government especially of any free government existing under a written Constitution to interfere with the exercise of that will. But it is equally true that in very well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members, the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand." (Harlan, J., In Jacobson vs. Massachusetts [1905] 197 U.S., 11.) Liberty is freedom to do right and never wrong; it is ever guided by reason and the upright and honorable conscience of the individual. (Apolinario Mabini.) Civil Liberty may be said to mean that measure of freedom which may be enjoyed in a civilized community, consistently with the peaceful enjoyment of like freedom in others. The right to Liberty guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude. The term cannot be dwarfed into mere freedom from physical restraint of the person of the citizen, but is deemed to embrace the right of man to enjoy the faculties with which he has been endowed by this Creator, subject only to such restraints as are necessary for the common welfare. As enunciated in a long array of authorities including epoch-making decisions of the United States Supreme Court, Liberty includes the right of the citizens to be free to use his faculties in all lawful ways; to live an work where he will; to earn his livelihood by an lawful calling; to pursue any avocations, an for that purpose. to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out these purposes to a successful conclusion. The chief elements of the guaranty are the right to contract, the right to choose one's employment, the right to labor, and the right of locomotion. In general, it may be said that Liberty means the opportunity to do those things which are ordinarily done by free men. One

thought which runs through all these different conceptions of Liberty is plainly apparent. It is this: "Liberty" as understood in democracies, is not license; it is "Liberty regulated by law." Implied in the term is restraint by law for the good of the individual and for the greater good of the peace and order of society and the general well-being. No man can do exactly as he pleases. Every man must renounce unbridled license. The right of the individual is necessarily subject to reasonable restraint by general law for the common good. Whenever and wherever the natural rights of citizen would, if exercises without restraint, deprive other citizens of rights which are also and equally natural, such assumed rights must yield to the regulation of law. The Liberty of the citizens may be restrained in the interest of the public health, or of the public order and safety, or otherwise within the proper scope of the police power. (See Hall vs. Geiger-Jones [1916], 242 U.S., 539; Hardie-Tynes Manufacturing Co. vs.Cruz [1914], 189 Al., 66.) None of the rights of the citizen can be taken away except by due process of law. Daniel Webster, in the course of the argument in the Dartmouth College Case before the United States Supreme Court, since a classic in forensic literature, said that the meaning of "due process of law" is, that "every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, an immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society." To constitute "due process of law," as has been often held, a judicial proceeding is not always necessary. In some instances, even a hearing and notice are not requisite a rule which is especially true where much must be left to the discretion of the administrative officers in applying a law to particular cases. (See McGehee, Due Process of Law, p. 371.) Neither is due process a stationary and blind sentinel of liberty. "Any legal proceeding enforced by public authority, whether sanctioned by age and customs, or newly devised in the discretion of the legislative power, in furtherance of the public good, which regards and preserves these principles of liberty and justice, must be held to be due process of law." (Hurtado vs. California [1883], 110, U.S., 516.) "Due process of law" means simply . . . "first, that there shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the legislative department of the Government; second, that this law shall be reasonable in its operation; third, that it shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed; and fourth, that it shall be applicable alike to all the citizens of the state or to all of a class." (U.S. vs. Ling Su Fan [1908], 10 Phil., 104, affirmed on appeal to the United States Supreme Court. 1) "What is due process of law depends on circumstances. It varies with the subject-matter and necessities of the situation." (Moyer vs. Peablody [1909], 212 U. S., 82.) The pledge that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws is not infringed by a statute which is applicable to all of a class. The classification must have a reasonable basis and cannot be purely arbitrary in nature. We break off with the foregoing statement, leaving the logical deductions to be made later on. D. SLAVERY AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. The fourth constitutional contention of petitioner relates to the Thirteen Amendment to the United States Constitution particularly as found in those portions of Philippine Organic Law providing "That slavery shall not exist in said Islands; nor shall involuntary servitude exist except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." It is quite possible that the Thirteenth Amendment, since reaching to "any place subject to" the "jurisdiction" of the United States, has force in the Philippine. However this may be, the Philippine Legislature has, by adoption, with necessary modifications, of sections 268 to 271 inclusive of the United States Criminal Code, prescribed the punishment for these crimes. Slavery and involuntary servitude, together wit their corollary, peonage, all denote "a condition of enforced, compulsory service of one to another." (Hodges vs. U.S. [1906], 203 U.S., 1.) The term of broadest scope is possibly involuntary servitude. It has been applied to any servitude in fact involuntary, no matter under what form such servitude may have been disguised. (Bailey vs. Alabama [1910], 219 U.S., 219.) So much for an analysis of those constitutional provisions on which petitioners rely for their freedom. Next must come a description of the police power under which the State must act if section 2145 is to be held valid. E. THE POLICE POWER. Not attempting to phrase a definition of police power, all that it is necessary to note at this moment is the farreaching scope of the power, that it has become almost possible to limit its weep, and that among its purposes is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, peace, morals, education, and good order of the people, and to legislate so as to increase the industries of the State, develop its resources and add to is wealth and prosperity. (See Barbier vs. Connolly [1884], 113 U.S., 27.) What we are not interested in is the right of the government to restrain liberty by the exercise of the police power. "The police power of the State," one court has said, . . . "is a power coextensive with self-protection, and is not inaptly termed the 'law of overruling necessity.' It may be said to be that inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society." (Lake View vs. Rose Hill Cemetery Co. [1873], 70 Ill., 191.) Carried onward by the current of legislation, the judiciary rarely attempt to dam the on rushing power of legislative discretion, provided the purposes of the law do not go beyond the great principles that mean security for the public welfare or do not arbitrarily interfere with the right of the individual. The Government of the Philippine Islands has both on reason and authority the right to exercise the sovereign police power in the promotion of the general welfare and the public interest. "There can be not doubt that the exercise of the police power of the Philippine Government belongs to the Legislature and that this power is limited only by the Acts of Congress and those fundamental principles which lie at the foundation of all republican forms of government." (Churchill and Tait vs. Rafferty [1915], 32 Phil., 580; U.S. vs. Pompeya [1915], 31 Phil., 245.) With the foregoing approximation of the applicable basic principles before us, before finally deciding whether any constitutional provision has indeed been violated by section 2145 of the Administrative Code, we should endeavor to ascertain the intention of the Legislature in enacting this section. If legally possible, such legislative intention should be effectuated.

F. LEGISLATIVE INTENT. The preamble of the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro which set apart the Tigbao reservation, it will be remembered, assigned as reasons fort the action, the following: (1) The failure of former attempts for the advancement of the non-Christian people of the province; and (2) the only successfully method for educating the Manguianes was to oblige them to live in a permanent settlement. The Solicitor-General adds the following; (3) The protection of the Manguianes; (4) the protection of the public forests in which they roam; (5) the necessity of introducing civilized customs among the Manguianes. The present Secretary of the Interior says of the Tigbao reservation and of the motives for its selection, the following: To inform himself of the conditions of those Manguianes who were taken together to Tigbao, the Secretary of the Interior on June 10 to 13, 1918, made a trip to the place. There he found that the site selected is a good one; that creditable progress has been made in the clearing of forests, construction of buildings, etc., that there appears to be encouraging reaction by the boys to the work of the school the requirements of which they appear to meet with enthusiastic interest after the first weeks which are necessarily a somewhat trying period for children wholly unaccustomed to orderly behaviour and habit of life. He also gathered the impression that the results obtained during the period of less than one year since the beginning of the institution definitely justify its continuance and development. Of course, there were many who were protesting against that segregation. Such was naturally to be expected. But the Secretary of the Interior, upon his return to Manila, made the following statement to the press: "It is not deemed wise to abandon the present policy over those who prefer to live a nomadic life and evade the influence of civilization. The Government will follow its policy to organize them into political communities and to educate their children with the object of making them useful citizens of this country. To permit them to live a wayfaring life will ultimately result in a burden to the state and on account of their ignorance, they will commit crimes and make depredation, or if not they will be subject to involuntary servitude by those who may want to abuse them." The Secretary of the Interior, who is the official charged with the supervision of all the non-Christian people, has adopted as the polaris of his administration "the advancement of the non-Christian elements of our population to equality and unification with the highly civilized Christian inhabitants." This is carried on by the adoption of the following measures: (a) Pursuance of the closer settlement policy whereby people of seminomadic race are induced to leave their wild habitat and settle in organized communities. (b) The extension of the public school system and the system of public health throughout the regions inhabited by the non-Christian people. (c) The extention of public works throughout the Mohammedan regions to facilitate their development and the extention of government control. (d) Construction of roads and trials between one place and another among non-Christians, to promote social and commercial intercourse and maintain amicable relations among them and with the Christian people. (e) Pursuance of the development of natural economic resources, especially agriculture. ( f ) The encouragement of immigration into, and of the investment of private capital in, the fertile regions of Mindanao and Sulu. The Secretary adds: To attain the end desired, work of a civilizing influence have been continued among the non-Christian people. These people are being taught and guided to improve their living conditions in order that they may fully appreciate the benefits of civilization. Those of them who are still given to nomadic habits are being persuaded to abandon their wild habitat and settle in organized settlements. They are being made to understand that it is the purpose of the Government to organize them politically into fixed and per manent communities, thus bringing them under the control of the Government, to aid them to live and work, protect them from involuntary servitude and abuse, educate their children, and show them the advantages of leading a civilized life with their civilized brothers. In short, they are being impressed with the purposes and objectives of the Government of leading them to economic, social, and political equality, and unification with the more highly civilized inhabitants of the country. (See Report of the Department for 1917.) The fundamental objective of governmental policy is to establish friendly relations with the so-called non-Christians, and to promote their educational, agricultural, industrial, and economic development and advancement in civilization. (Note Acts Nos. 2208, 2404, 2444.) Act No. 2674 in reestablishing the Bureau of non-Christian Tribes, defines the aim of the Government towards the non-Christian people in the following unequivocal terms: It shall be the duty of the Bureau of non-Christian Tribes to continue the work for advancement and liberty in favor of the region inhabited by non-Christian Filipinos and foster by all adequate means and in a systematical, rapid, and complete manner the moral, material, economic, social, and political development of those regions, always having in view the aim of rendering permanent the mutual intelligence between, and complete fusion of, all the Christian and non-Christian elements populating the provinces of the Archipelago. (Sec. 3.) May the Manguianes not be considered, as are the Indians in the United States, proper wards of the Filipino people? By the

fostering care of a wise Government, may not these unfortunates advance in the "habits and arts of civilization?" Would it be advisable for the courts to intrude upon a plan, carefully formulated, and apparently working out for the ultimate good of these people? In so far as the Manguianes themselves are concerned, the purpose of the Government is evident. Here, we have on the Island of Mindoro, the Manguianes, leading a nomadic life, making depredations on their more fortunate neighbors, uneducated in the ways of civilization, and doing nothing for the advancement of the Philippine Islands. What the Government wished to do by bringing than into a reservation was to gather together the children for educational purposes, and to improve the health and morals was in fine, to begin the process of civilization. this method was termed in Spanish times, "bringing under the bells." The same idea adapted to the existing situation, has been followed with reference to the Manguianes and other peoples of the same class, because it required, if they are to be improved, that they be gathered together. On these few reservations there live under restraint in some cases, and in other instances voluntarily, a few thousands of the uncivilized people. Segregation really constitutes protection for the manguianes. Theoretically, one may assert that all men are created free and equal. Practically, we know that the axiom is not precisely accurate. The Manguianes, for instance, are not free, as civilized men are free, and they are not the equals of their more fortunate brothers. True, indeed, they are citizens, with many but not all the rights which citizenship implies. And true, indeed, they are Filipinos. But just as surely, the Manguianes are citizens of a low degree of intelligence, and Filipinos who are a drag upon the progress of the State. In so far as the relation of the Manguianes to the State is concerned, the purposes of the Legislature in enacting the law, and of the executive branch in enforcing it, are again plain. Settlers in Mindoro must have their crops and persons protected from predatory men, or they will leave the country. It is no argument to say that such crimes are punished by the Penal Code, because these penalties are imposed after commission of the offense and not before. If immigrants are to be encouraged to develop the resources of the great Islands of Mindoro, and its, as yet, unproductive regions, the Government must be in a position to guarantee peace and order. Waste lands do not produce wealth. Waste people do not advance the interest of the State. Illiteracy and thriftlessness are not conducive to homogeneity. The State to protect itself from destruction must prod on the laggard and the sluggard. The great law of overwhelming necessity is all convincing. To quote again from the instructive memorandum of the Secretary of the Interior: Living a nomadic and a wayfaring life and evading the influence of civilization, they (the manguianes) are engaged in the works of destruction burning and destroying the forests and making illegal caigins thereon. Not bringing any benefit to the State but instead injuring and damaging its interests, what will ultimately become of these people with the sort of liberty they wish to preserve and for which they are now fighting in court? They will ultimately become a heavy burden to the State and on account of their ignorance they will commit crimes and make depredations, or if not they will be subjected to involuntary servitude by those who may want to abuse them. There is no doubt in my mind that this people a right conception of liberty and does not practice liberty in a rightful way. They understand liberty as the right to do anything they will going from one place to another in the mountains, burning and destroying forests and making illegal caigins thereon. Not knowing what true liberty is and not practising the same rightfully, how can they allege that they are being deprived thereof without due process of law? xxx xxx xxx

But does the Constitutional guaranty that 'no person shall be deprived of his liberty without due process of law' apply to a class of persons who do not have a correct idea of what liberty is and do not practise liberty in a rightful way? To say that it does will mean to sanction and defend an erroneous idea of such class of persons as to what liberty is. It will mean, in the case at bar, that the Government should not adopt any measures looking to the welfare and advancement of the class of persons in question. It will mean that this people should be let along in the mountains and in a permanent state of savagery without even the remotest hope of coming to understand liberty in its true and noble sense. In dealing with the backward population, like the Manguianes, the Government has been placed in the alternative of either letting them alone or guiding them in the path of civilization. The latter measure was adopted as the one more in accord with humanity and with national conscience. xxx xxx xxx

The national legislation on the subject of non-Christian people has tended more and more towards the education and civilization of such people and fitting them to be citizens. The progress of those people under the tutelage of the Government is indeed encouraging and the signs of the times point to a day which is not far distant when they will become useful citizens. In the light of what has already been accomplished which has been winning the gratitude of most of the backward people, shall we give up the noble work simply because a certain element, believing that their personal interests would be injured by such a measure has come forward and challenged the authority of the Government to lead this people in the pat of civilization? Shall we, after expending sweat, treasure, and even blood only to redeem this people from the claws of ignorance and superstition, now willingly retire because there has been

erroneously invoked in their favor that Constitutional guaranty that no person shall be deprived of his liberty without due process of law? To allow them to successfully invoke that Constitutional guaranty at this time will leave the Government without recourse to pursue the works of civilizing them and making them useful citizens. They will thus left in a permanent state of savagery and become a vulnerable point to attack by those who doubt, nay challenge, the ability of the nation to deal with our backward brothers. The manguianes in question have been directed to live together at Tigbao. There they are being taught and guided to improve their living conditions. They are being made to understand that they object of the government is to organize them politically into fixed and permanent communities. They are being aided to live and work. Their children are being educated in a school especially established for them. In short, everything is being done from them in order that their advancement in civilization and material prosperity may be assured. Certainly their living together in Tigbao does not make them slaves or put them in a condition compelled to do services for another. They do not work for anybody but for themselves. There is, therefore, no involuntary servitude. But they are compelled to live there and prohibited from emigrating to some other places under penalty of imprisonment. Attention in this connection is invited to the fact that this people, living a nomadic and wayfaring life, do not have permanent individual property. They move from one place to another as the conditions of living warrants, and the entire space where they are roving about is the property of the nation, the greater part being lands of public domain. Wandering from one place to another on the public lands, why can not the government adopt a measure to concentrate them in a certain fixed place on the public lands, instead of permitting them to roam all over the entire territory? This measure is necessary both in the interest of the public as owner of the lands about which they are roving and for the proper accomplishment of the purposes and objectives of the government. For as people accustomed to nomadic habit, they will always long to return to the mountains and follow a wayfaring life, and unless a penalty is provinced for, you can not make them live together and the noble intention of the Government of organizing them politically will come to naught. G. APPLICATION AND CONCLUSION. Our exhaustive study should have left us in a position to answer specific objections and to reach a general conclusion. In the first place, it is argued that the citizen has the right, generally speaking, to go where he pleases. Could be not, however, be kept away from certain localities ? To furnish an example from the Indian legislation. The early Act of Congress of 1802 (2 U.S. Stat. at L., p. 141) Indian reservation. Those citizens certainly did not possess absolute freedom of locomotion. Again the same law provided for the apprehension of marauding Indians. Without any doubt, this law and other similar were accepted and followed time and again without question. It is said that, if we hold this section to be constitutional, we leave this weak and defenseless people confined as in a prison at the mercy of unscrupulous official. What, it is asked, would be the remedy of any oppressed Manguian? The answer would naturally be that the official into whose hands are given the enforcement of the law would have little or not motive to oppress these people; on the contrary, the presumption would all be that they would endeavor to carry out the purposes of the law intelligently and patriotically. If, indeed, they did ill-treat any person thus confined, there always exists the power of removal in the hands of superior officers, and the courts are always open for a redress of grievances. When, however, only the validity of the law is generally challenged and no particular case of oppression is called to the attention of the courts, it would seems that the Judiciary should not unnecessarily hamper the Government in the accomplishment of its laudable purpose. The question is above all one of sociology. How far, consistently with freedom, may the right and liberties of the individual members of society be subordinated to the will of the Government? It is a question which has assailed the very existence of government from the beginning of time. Now purely an ethical or philosophical subject, nor now to be decided by force, it has been transferred to the peaceful forum of the Judiciary. In resolving such an issue, the Judiciary must realize that the very existence of government renders imperatives a power to restrain the individual to some extent, dependent, of course, on the necessities of the class attempted to be benefited. As to the particular degree to which the Legislature and the Executive can go in interfering with the rights of the citizen, this is, and for a along time to come will be, impossible for the courts to determine. The doctrines of laissez faire and of unrestricted freedom of the individual, as axioms of economics and political theory, are of the past. The modern period has shown as widespread belief in the amplest possible demonstration of governmental activity. The courts unfortunately have sometimes seemed to trial after the other two branches of the government in this progressive march. Considered, therefore, purely as an exercise of the police power, the courts cannot fairly say that the Legislature has exceeded its rightful authority. it is, indeed, an unusual exercise of that power. But a great malady requires an equally drastic remedy. Further, one cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered without when the degree of civilization of the Manguianes is considered. They are restrained for their own good and the general good of the Philippines. Nor can one say that due process of law has not been followed. To go back to our definition of due process of law and equal protection of the law, there exists a law ; the law seems to be reasonable; it is enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed; and it applies alike to all of a class. As a point which has been left for the end of this decision and which, in case of doubt, would lead to the determination that section 2145 is valid. it the attitude which the courts should assume towards the settled policy of the Government. In a late decision with which we are in full accord, Gambles vs. Vanderbilt University (200 Southwestern Reporter, 510) the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Tennessee writes:

We can seen objection to the application of public policy as a ratio decidendi. Every really new question that comes before the courts is, in the last analysis, determined on that theory, when not determined by differentiation of the principle of a prior case or line of cases, or by the aid of analogies furnished by such prior case. In balancing conflicting solutions, that one is perceived to tip the scales which the court believes will best promote the public welfare in its probable operation as a general rule or principle. But public policy is not a thing inflexible. No court is wise enough to forecast its influence in all possible contingencies. Distinctions must be made from time to time as sound reason and a true sense of justice may dictate." Our attempt at giving a brief history of the Philippines with reference to the so-called non-Christians has been in vain, if we fail to realize that a consistent governmental policy has been effective in the Philippines from early days to the present. The idea to unify the people of the Philippines so that they may approach the highest conception of nationality. If all are to be equal before the law, all must be approximately equal in intelligence. If the Philippines is to be a rich and powerful country, Mindoro must be populated, and its fertile regions must be developed. The public policy of the Government of the Philippine Islands is shaped with a view to benefit the Filipino people as a whole. The Manguianes, in order to fulfill this governmental policy, must be confined for a time, as we have said, for their own good and the good of the country. Most cautiously should the power of this court to overrule the judgment of the Philippine Legislature, a coordinate branch, be exercised. The whole tendency of the best considered case is toward non-interference on the part of the courts whenever political ideas are the moving consideration. Justice Holmes, in one of the aphorisms for which he is justly famous, said that "constitutional law, like other mortal contrivances, has to take some chances." (Blinn vs. Nelson [1911], 222 U.S., 1.) If in the final decision of the many grave questions which this case presents, the courts must take "a chance," it should be with a view to upholding the law, with a view to the effectuation of the general governmental policy, and with a view to the court's performing its duty in no narrow and bigoted sense, but with that broad conception which will make the courts as progressive and effective a force as are the other departments of the Government. We are of the opinion that action pursuant to section 2145 of the Administrative Code does not deprive a person of his liberty without due process of law and does not deny to him the equal protection of the laws, and that confinement in reservations in accordance with said section does not constitute slavery and involuntary servitude. We are further of the opinion that section 2145 of the Administrative Code is a legitimate exertion of the police power, somewhat analogous to the Indian policy of the United States. Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917 is constitutional. Petitioners are not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their liberty. Habeas corpus can, therefore, not issue. This is the true ruling of the court. Costs shall be taxes against petitioners. So ordered.

CASE NO. 7
Meyer v. State of Nebraska ERROR TO THE SUPREME. COURT OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA No. 325 Argued: February 23, 1923 --- Decided: June 4, 1923 MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court. Plaintiff in error was tried and convicted in the District Court for Hamilton County, Nebraska, under an information which charged that, on May 25, 1920, while an instructor in Zion Parochial School, he unlawfully taught the subject of reading in the German language to Raymond Parpart, a child of ten years, who had not attained [p397] and successfully passed the eighth grade. The information is based upon "An act relating to the teaching of foreign languages in the State of Nebraska," approved April 9, 1919, which follows [Laws 1919, c. 249.]:
Section 1. No person, individually or as a teacher, shall, in any private, denominational, parochial or public school, teach any subject to any person in any language other than the English language. Sec. 2. Languages, other than the English language, may be taught as languages only after a pupil shall have attained and successfully passed the eighth grade as evidenced by a certificate of graduation issued by the county superintendent of the county in which the child resides. Sec. 3. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be subject to a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars ($25), nor more than one hundred dollars ($100) or be confined in the county jail for any period not exceeding thirty days for each offense. Sec. 4. Whereas, an emergency exists, this act shall be in force from and after its passage and approval.

The Supreme Court of the State affirmed the judgment of conviction. 107 Neb. 657. It declared the offense charged and established was "the direct and intentional teaching of the German language as a distinct subject to a child who had not passed the eighth grade," in the parochial school maintained by Zion Evangelical Lutheran Congregation, a collection of Biblical stories being used therefor. And it held that the statute forbidding this did not conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment, but was a valid exercise of the police power. The following excerpts from the opinion sufficiently indicate the reasons advanced to support the conclusion. The salutary purpose of the statute is clear. The legislature had seen the baneful effects of permitting foreigners, [p398] who had taken residence in this country, to rear and educate their children in the language of their native land. The result of that condition was found to be inimical to our own safety. To allow the children of foreigners, who had emigrated here, to be taught from early childhood the language of the country of their parents was to rear them with that language as their mother tongue. It was to educate them so that they must always think in that language, and, as a consequence, naturally inculcate in them the ideas and sentiments foreign to the best interests of this country. The statute, therefore, was intended not only to require that the education of all children be conducted in the English language, but that, until they had grown into that language and until it had become a part of them, they should not in the schools be taught any other language. The obvious purpose of this statute was that the English language should be and become the mother tongue of all children reared in this state. The enactment of such a statute comes reasonably within the police power of the state. Pohl v. State, 132 N.E. (Ohio) 20; State v. Bartels,181 N.W. (Ia.) 508. It is suggested that the law is an unwarranted restriction, in that it applies to all citizens of the state and arbitrarily interferes with the rights of citizens who are not of foreign ancestry, and prevents them, without reason, from having their children taught foreign languages in school. That argument is not well taken, for it assumes that every citizen finds himself restrained by the statute. The hours which a child is able to devote to study in the confinement of school are limited. It must have ample time for exercise or play. Its daily capacity for learning is comparatively small. A selection of subjects for its education, therefore, from among the many that might be taught, is obviously necessary. The legislature no doubt had in mind the practical operation of the law. The law affects few citizens, except those of foreign lineage.[p399] Other citizens, in their selection of studies, except perhaps in rare instances, have never deemed it of importance to teach their children foreign languages before such children have reached the eighth grade. In the legislative mind, the salutary effect of the statute no doubt outweighed the restriction upon the citizens generally, which, it appears, was a restriction of no real consequence. The problem for our determination is whether the statute, as construed and applied, unreasonably infringes the liberty guaranteed to the plaintiff in error by the Fourteenth Amendment. "No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered[p400] with, under the guise of protecting the public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the State to effect. Determination by the legislature of what constitutes proper exercise of police power is not final or conclusive, but is subject to supervision by the courts. Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133, 137.

The American people have always regarded education and acquisition of knowledge as matters of supreme importance which should be diligently promoted. The Ordinance of 1787 declares, Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. Corresponding to the right of control, it is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life, and nearly all the States, including Nebraska, enforce this obligation by compulsory laws. Practically, education of the young is only possible in schools conducted by especially qualified persons who devote themselves thereto. The calling always has been regarded as useful and honorable, essential, indeed, to the public welfare. Mere knowledge of the German language cannot reasonably be regarded as harmful. Heretofore it has been commonly looked upon as helpful and desirable. Plaintiff in error taught this language in school as part of his occupation. His right thus to teach and the right of parents to engage him so to instruct their children, we think, are within the liberty of the Amendment. The challenged statute forbids the teaching in school of any subject except in English; also the teaching of any other language until the pupil has attained and successfully passed the eighth grade, which is not usually accomplished before the age of twelve. The Supreme Court of the State has held that "the so-called ancient or dead languages" are not "within the spirit or the purpose of [p401] the act." Nebraska District of Evangelical Lutheran Synod v. McKelvie, 187 N.W. 927. Latin, Greek, Hebrew are not proscribed; but German, French, Spanish, Italian and every other alien speech are within the ban. Evidently the legislature has attempted materially to interfere with the calling of modern language teachers, with the opportunities of pupils to acquire knowledge, and with the power of parents to control the education of their own. It is said the purpose of the legislation was to promote civic development by inhibiting training and education of the immature in foreign tongues and ideals before they could learn English and acquire American ideals, and "that the English language should be and become the mother tongue of all children reared in this State." It is also affirmed that the foreign born population is very large, that certain communities commonly use foreign words, follow foreign leaders, move in a foreign atmosphere, and that the children are thereby hindered from becoming citizens of the most useful type, and the public safety is imperiled. That the State may do much, go very far, indeed, in order to improve the quality of its citizens, physically, mentally and morally, is clear; but the individual has certain fundamental rights which must be respected. The protection of the Constitution extends to all, to those who speak other languages as well as to those born with English on the tongue. Perhaps it would be highly advantageous if all had ready understanding of our ordinary speech, but this cannot be coerced by methods which conflict with the Constitution -- a desirable end cannot be promoted by prohibited means. For the welfare of his Ideal Commonwealth, Plato suggested a law which should provide: That the wives of our guardians are to be common, and their children are to be common, and no parent is to know his own child, [p402] nor any child his parent. . . . The proper officers will take the offspring of the good parents to the pen or fold, and there they will deposit them with certain nurses who dwell in a separate quarter; but the offspring of the inferior, or of the better when they chance to be deformed, will be put away in some mysterious, unknown place, as they should be. In order to submerge the individual. and develop ideal citizens, Sparta assembled the males at seven into barracks and intrusted their subsequent education and training to official guardians. Although such measures have been deliberately approved by men of great genius, their ideas touching the relation between individual and State were wholly different from those upon which our institutions rest, and it hardly will be affirmed that any legislature could impose such restrictions upon the people of a State without doing violence to both letter and spirit of the Constitution. The desire of the legislature to foster a homogeneous people with American ideals prepared readily to understand current discussions of civic matters is easy to appreciate. Unfortunate experiences during the late war and aversion toward every characteristic of truculent adversaries were certainly enough to quicken that aspiration. But the means adopted, we think, exceed the limitations upon the power of the State and conflict with rights assured to plaintiff in error. The interference is plain enough, and no adequate reason therefor in time of peace and domestic tranquility has been shown.
The power of the State to compel attendance at some school and to make reasonable regulations for all schools, including a requirement that they shall give instructions in English, is not questioned. Nor has challenge been made of the State's power to prescribe a curriculum for institutions which it supports. Those matters are not within the present controversy. Our concern is with the prohibition approved by the Supreme Court. Adams v.[p403] Tanner, supra, p. 594, pointed out that mere abuse incident to an occupation ordinarily useful is not enough to justify its abolition, although regulation may be entirely proper. No emergency has arisen which renders knowledge by a child of some language other than English so clearly harmful as to justify its inhibition with the consequent infringement of rights long freely enjoyed. We are constrained to conclude that the statute as applied is arbitrary and without reasonable relation to any end within the competency of the State. As the statute undertakes to interfere only with teaching which involves a modern language, leaving complete freedom as to other matters, there seems no adequate foundation for the suggestion that the purpose was to protect the child's health by limiting his mental activities. It is well known that proficiency in a foreign language seldom comes to one not instructed at an early age, and experience shows that this is not injurious to the health, morals or understanding of the ordinary child. The judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.Reversed. [See the separate opinion of MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, concurred in by MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND, in the next case, at p. 412, infra.]

CASE NO. 8
G.R. No. L-31195 June 5, 1973 PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS EMPLOYMENT ORGANIZATION, NICANOR TOLENTINO, FLORENCIO, PADRIGANO RUFINO, ROXAS MARIANO DE LEON, ASENCION PACIENTE, BONIFACIO VACUNA, BENJAMIN PAGCU and RODULFO MUNSOD, petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS CO., INC. and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents. MAKASIAR, J.: The petitioner Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization (hereinafter referred to as PBMEO) is a legitimate labor union composed of the employees of the respondent Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc., and petitioners Nicanor Tolentino, Florencio Padrigano, Rufino Roxas, Mariano de Leon, Asencion Paciente, Bonifacio Vacuna, Benjamin Pagcu and Rodulfo Munsod are officers and members of the petitioner Union. Petitioners claim that on March 1, 1969, they decided to stage a mass demonstration at Malacaang on March 4, 1969, in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police, to be participated in by the workers in the first shift (from 6 A.M. to 2 P.M.) as well as those in the regular second and third shifts (from 7 A.M. to 4 P.M. and from 8 A.M. to 5 P.M., respectively); and that they informed the respondent Company of their proposed demonstration. The questioned order dated September 15, 1969, of Associate Judge Joaquin M. Salvador of the respondent Court reproduced the following stipulation of facts of the parties parties 3. That on March 2, 1969 complainant company learned of the projected mass demonstration at Malacaang in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig Police Department to be participated by the first shift (6:00 AM-2:00 PM) workers as well as those working in the regular shifts (7:00 A.M. to 4:00 PM and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM) in the morning of March 4, 1969; 4. That a meeting was called by the Company on March 3, 1969 at about 11:00 A.M. at the Company's canteen, and those present were: for the Company: (1) Mr. Arthur L. Ang (2) Atty. S. de Leon, Jr., (3) and all department and section heads. For the PBMEO (1) Florencio Padrigano, (2) Rufino Roxas, (3) Mariano de Leon, (4) Asencion Paciente, (5) Bonifacio Vacuna and (6) Benjamin Pagcu. 5. That the Company asked the union panel to confirm or deny said projected mass demonstration at Malacaang on March 4, 1969. PBMEO thru Benjamin Pagcu who acted as spokesman of the union panel, confirmed the planned demonstration and stated that the demonstration or rally cannot be cancelled because it has already been agreed upon in the meeting. Pagcu explained further that the demonstration has nothing to do with the Company because the union has no quarrel or dispute with Management; 6. That Management, thru Atty. C.S. de Leon, Company personnel manager, informed PBMEO that the demonstration is an inalienable right of the union guaranteed by the Constitution but emphasized, however, that any demonstration for that matter should not unduly prejudice the normal operation of the Company. For which reason, the Company, thru Atty. C.S. de Leon warned the PBMEO representatives that workers who belong to the first and regular shifts, who without previous leave of absence approved by the Company, particularly , the officers present who are the organizers of the demonstration, who shall fail to report for work the following morning (March 4, 1969) shall be dismissed, because such failure is a violation of the existing CBA and, therefore, would be amounting to an illegal strike; 7. That at about 5:00 P.M. on March 3, 1969, another meeting was convoked Company represented by Atty. C.S. de Leon, Jr. The Union panel was composed of: Nicanor Tolentino, Rodolfo Munsod, Benjamin Pagcu and Florencio Padrigano. In this afternoon meeting of March 3, 1969, Company reiterated and appealed to the PBMEO representatives that while all workers may join the Malacaang demonstration, the workers for the first and regular shift of March 4, 1969 should be excused from joining the demonstration and should report for work; and thus utilize the workers in the 2nd and 3rd shifts in order not to violate the provisions of the CBA, particularly Article XXIV: NO LOCKOUT NO STRIKE'. All those who will not follow this warning of the Company shall be dismiss; De Leon reiterated the Company's warning that the officers shall be primarily liable being the organizers of the mass demonstration. The union panel countered that it was rather too late to change their plans inasmuch as the Malacaang demonstration will be held the following morning; and 8. That a certain Mr. Wilfredo Ariston, adviser of PBMEO sent a cablegram to the Company which was received 9:50 A.M., March 4, 1969, the contents of which are as follows: 'REITERATING REQUEST EXCUSE DAY SHIFT EMPLOYEES JOINING DEMONSTRATION MARCH 4, 1969.' (Pars. 3-8, Annex "F", pp. 42-43, rec.) Because the petitioners and their members numbering about 400 proceeded with the demonstration despite the pleas of the respondent Company that the first shift workers should not be required to participate in the demonstration and that the workers in the second and third shifts should be utilized for the demonstration from 6 A.M. to 2 P.M. on March 4, 1969, respondent Company prior notice of the mass demonstration on March 4, 1969, with the respondent Court, a charge against petitioners and other employees who composed the first shift, charging them with a "violation of Section 4(a)-6 in relation to Sections 13 and 14, as well as Section 15, all of Republic Act No. 875, and of the CBA providing for 'No Strike

and No Lockout.' " (Annex "A", pp. 19-20, rec.). The charge was accompanied by the joint affidavit of Arthur L. Ang and Cesareo de Leon, Jr. (Annex "B", pp. 21-24, rec.). Thereafter, a corresponding complaint was filed, dated April 18, 1969, by Acting Chief Prosecutor Antonio T. Tirona and Acting Prosecutor Linda P. Ilagan (Annex "C", pp. 25-30, rec.) In their answer, dated May 9, 1969, herein petitioners claim that they did not violate the existing CBA because they gave the respondent Company prior notice of the mass demonstration on March 4, 1969; that the said mass demonstration was a valid exercise of their constitutional freedom of speech against the alleged abuses of some Pasig policemen; and that their mass demonstration was not a declaration of strike because it was not directed against the respondent firm (Annex "D", pp. 31-34, rec.) After considering the aforementioned stipulation of facts submitted by the parties, Judge Joaquin M. Salvador, in an order dated September 15, 1969, found herein petitioner PBMEO guilty of bargaining in bad faith and herein petitioners Florencio Padrigano, Rufino Roxas, Mariano de Leon, Asencion Paciente, Bonifacio Vacuna, Benjamin Pagcu, Nicanor Tolentino and Rodulfo Munsod as directly responsible for perpetrating the said unfair labor practice and were, as a consequence, considered to have lost their status as employees of the respondent Company (Annex "F", pp. 42-56, rec.) Herein petitioners claim that they received on September 23, 1969, the aforesaid order (p. 11, rec.); and that they filed on September 29, 1969, because September 28, 1969 fell on Sunday (p. 59, rec.), a motion for reconsideration of said order dated September 15, 1969, on the ground that it is contrary to law and the evidence, as well as asked for ten (10) days within which to file their arguments pursuant to Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Rules of the CIR, as amended (Annex "G", pp. 57-60, rec. ) In its opposition dated October 7, 1969, filed on October 11, 1969 (p. 63, rec.), respondent Company averred that herein petitioners received on September 22, 1969, the order dated September 17 (should be September 15), 1969; that under Section 15 of the amended Rules of the Court of Industrial Relations, herein petitioners had five (5) days from September 22, 1969 or until September 27, 1969, within which to file their motion for reconsideration; and that because their motion 1 for reconsideration was two (2) days late, it should be accordingly dismissed, invoking Bien vs. Castillo, which held among others, that a motion for extension of the five-day period for the filing of a motion for reconsideration should be filed before the said five-day period elapses (Annex "M", pp. 61-64, rec.). Subsequently, herein petitioners filed on October 14, 1969 their written arguments dated October 11, 1969, in support of their motion for reconsideration (Annex "I", pp. 65-73, rec.). In a resolution dated October 9, 1969, the respondent en banc dismissed the motion for reconsideration of herein petitioners for being pro forma as it was filed beyond the reglementary period prescribed by its Rules (Annex "J", pp. 7475, rec.), which herein petitioners received on October 28, 196 (pp. 12 & 76, rec.). At the bottom of the notice of the order dated October 9, 1969, which was released on October 24, 1969 and addressed to the counsels of the parties (pp. 75-76, rec.), appear the requirements of Sections 15, 16 and 17, as amended, of the Rules of the Court of Industrial Relations, that a motion for reconsideration shall be filed within five (5) days from receipt of its decision or order and that an appeal from the decision, resolution or order of the C.I.R., sitting en banc, shall be perfected within ten (10) days from receipt thereof (p. 76, rec.). On October 31, 1969, herein petitioners filed with the respondent court a petition for relief from the order dated October 9, 1969, on the ground that their failure to file their motion for reconsideration on time was due to excusable negligence and honest mistake committed by the president of the petitioner Union and of the office clerk of their counsel, attaching thereto the affidavits of the said president and clerk (Annexes "K", "K-1" and "K-2", rec.). Without waiting for any resolution on their petition for relief from the order dated October 9, 1969, herein petitioners filed on November 3, 1969, with the Supreme Court, a notice of appeal (Annex "L", pp. 88-89, rec.). There is need of briefly restating basic concepts and principles which underlie the issues posed by the case at bar. (1) In a democracy, the preservation and enhancement of the dignity and worth of the human personality is the central core as well as the cardinal article of faith of our civilization. The inviolable character of man as an individual must be 2 "protected to the largest possible extent in his thoughts and in his beliefs as the citadel of his person." (2) The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of liberty, equality and security "against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, and the scorn and derision of 3 those who have no patience with general principles." In the pithy language of Mr. Justice Robert Jackson, the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to withdraw "certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts . One's rights to life, liberty and property, to free speech, or free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the 4 outcome of no elections." Laski proclaimed that "the happiness of the individual, not the well-being of the State, was the criterion by which its behaviour was to be judged. His interests, not its power, set the limits to the authority it was entitled 5 to exercise." (3) The freedoms of expression and of assembly as well as the right to petition are included among the immunities reserved by the sovereign people, in the rhetorical aphorism of Justice Holmes, to protect the ideas that we abhor or hate more than the ideas we cherish; or as Socrates insinuated, not only to protect the minority who want to talk, but also to

benefit the majority who refuse to listen. And as Justice Douglas cogently stresses it, the liberties of one are the liberties 7 of all; and the liberties of one are not safe unless the liberties of all are protected. (4) The rights of free expression, free assembly and petition, are not only civil rights but also political rights essential to man's enjoyment of his life, to his happiness and to his full and complete fulfillment. Thru these freedoms the citizens can participate not merely in the periodic establishment of the government through their suffrage but also in the administration of public affairs as well as in the discipline of abusive public officers. The citizen is accorded these rights so that he can appeal to the appropriate governmental officers or agencies for redress and protection as well as for the imposition of the lawful sanctions on erring public officers and employees. (5) While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights over property rights is 8 recognized. Because these freedoms are "delicate and vulnerable, as well as supremely precious in our society" and the "threat of sanctions may deter their exercise almost as potently as the actual application of sanctions," they "need 9 breathing space to survive," permitting government regulation only "with narrow specificity." Property and property rights can be lost thru prescription; but human rights are imprescriptible. If human rights are extinguished by the passage of time, then the Bill of Rights is a useless attempt to limit the power of government and ceases to be an efficacious shield against the tyranny of officials, of majorities, of the influential and powerful, and of oligarchs political, economic or otherwise. In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are 10 essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political institutions; and such priority "gives these liberties the 11 sanctity and the sanction not permitting dubious intrusions." The superiority of these freedoms over property rights is underscored by the fact that a mere reasonable or rational relation between the means employed by the law and its object or purpose that the law is neither arbitrary nor 12 discriminatory nor oppressive would suffice to validate a law which restricts or impairs property rights. On the other hand, a constitutional or valid infringement of human rights requires a more stringent criterion, namely existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent. So it has been stressed in the main opinion of Mr. Justice Fernando in Gonzales vs. Comelec and reiterated by the writer of the opinion in Imbong vs. 13 Ferrer. It should be added that Mr. Justice Barredo inGonzales vs. Comelec, supra, like Justices Douglas, Black and 14 Goldberg in N.Y. Times Co. vs. Sullivan, believes that the freedoms of speech and of the press as well as of peaceful assembly and of petition for redress of grievances are absolute when directed against public officials or "when exercised 15 in relation to our right to choose the men and women by whom we shall be governed," even as Mr. Justice Castro relies 16 on the balancing-of-interests test. Chief Justice Vinson is partial to the improbable danger rule formulated by Chief Judge Learned Hand, viz. whether the gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free 17 expression as is necessary to avoid the danger. II The respondent Court of Industrial Relations, after opining that the mass demonstration was not a declaration of strike, concluded that by their "concerted act and the occurrence temporary stoppage of work," herein petitioners are guilty bargaining in bad faith and hence violated the collective bargaining agreement with private respondent Philippine Blooming Mills Co., inc.. Set against and tested by foregoing principles governing a democratic society, such conclusion cannot be sustained. The demonstration held petitioners on March 4, 1969 before Malacaang was against alleged abuses of some Pasig policemen, not against their employer, herein private respondent firm, said demonstrate was purely and completely an exercise of their freedom expression in general and of their right of assembly and petition for redress of grievances in particular before appropriate governmental agency, the Chief Executive, again the police officers of the municipality of Pasig. They exercise their civil and political rights for their mutual aid protection from what they believe were police excesses. As matter of fact, it was the duty of herein private respondent firm to protect herein petitioner Union and its members fro the harassment of local police officers. It was to the interest herein private respondent firm to rally to the defense of, and take up the cudgels for, its employees, so that they can report to work free from harassment, vexation or peril and as consequence perform more efficiently their respective tasks enhance its productivity as well as profits. Herein respondent employer did not even offer to intercede for its employees with the local police. Was it securing peace for itself at the expenses of its workers? Was it also intimidated by the local police or did it encourage the local police to terrorize or vex its workers? Its failure to defend its own employees all the more weakened the position of its laborers the alleged oppressive police who might have been all the more emboldened thereby subject its lowly employees to further indignities. In seeking sanctuary behind their freedom of expression well as their right of assembly and of petition against alleged persecution of local officialdom, the employees and laborers of herein private respondent firm were fighting for their very survival, utilizing only the weapons afforded them by the Constitution the untrammelled enjoyment of their basic human rights. The pretension of their employer that it would suffer loss or damage by reason of the absence of its employees from 6 o'clock in the morning to 2 o'clock in the afternoon, is a plea for the preservation merely of their property rights. Such apprehended loss or damage would not spell the difference between the life and death of the firm or its owners or its management. The employees' pathetic situation was a stark reality abused, harassment and persecuted as they believed they were by the peace officers of the municipality. As above intimated, the condition in which the employees found themselves vis-a-vis the local police of Pasig, was a matter that vitally affected their right to individual existence as well as that of their families. Material loss can be repaired or adequately compensated. The debasement of the human being broken in morale and brutalized in spirit-can never be fully evaluated in monetary terms. The wounds fester and the scars remain to humiliate him to his dying day, even as he cries in anguish for retribution, denial of which is like rubbing salt on bruised tissues.

As heretofore stated, the primacy of human rights freedom of expression, of peaceful assembly and of petition for 18 redress of grievances over property rights has been sustained. Emphatic reiteration of this basic tenet as a coveted boon at once the shield and armor of the dignity and worth of the human personality, the all-consuming ideal of our enlightened civilization becomes Our duty, if freedom and social justice have any meaning at all for him who toils so that capital can produce economic goods that can generate happiness for all. To regard the demonstration against police officers, not against the employer, as evidence of bad faith in collective bargaining and hence a violation of the collective bargaining agreement and a cause for the dismissal from employment of the demonstrating employees, stretches unduly the compass of the collective bargaining agreement, is "a potent means of inhibiting speech" and therefore inflicts a moral 19 as well as mortal wound on the constitutional guarantees of free expression, of peaceful assembly and of petition. The collective bargaining agreement which fixes the working shifts of the employees, according to the respondent Court Industrial Relations, in effect imposes on the workers the "duty ... to observe regular working hours." The strain construction of the Court of Industrial Relations that a stipulated working shifts deny the workers the right to stage mass demonstration against police abuses during working hours, constitutes a virtual tyranny over the mind and life the workers and deserves severe condemnation. Renunciation of the freedom should not be predicated on such a slender ground. The mass demonstration staged by the employees on March 4, 1969 could not have been legally enjoined by any court, such an injunction would be trenching upon the freedom expression of the workers, even if it legally appears to be illegal 20 picketing or strike. The respondent Court of Industrial Relations in the case at bar concedes that the mass demonstration was not a declaration of a strike "as the same not rooted in any industrial dispute although there is concerted act and the occurrence of a temporary stoppage work." (Annex "F", p. 45, rec.). The respondent firm claims that there was no need for all its employees to participate in the demonstration and that they suggested to the Union that only the first and regular shift from 6 A.M. to 2 P.M. should report for work in order that loss or damage to the firm will be averted. This stand failed appreciate the sine qua non of an effective demonstration especially by a labor union, namely the complete unity of the Union members as well as their total presence at the demonstration site in order to generate the maximum sympathy for the validity of their cause but also immediately action on the part of the corresponding government agencies with jurisdiction over the issues they raised against the local police. Circulation is 21 one of the aspects of freedom of expression. If demonstrators are reduced by one-third, then by that much the circulation of the issues raised by the demonstration is diminished. The more the participants, the more persons can be apprised of the purpose of the rally. Moreover, the absence of one-third of their members will be regarded as a substantial indication of disunity in their ranks which will enervate their position and abet continued alleged police persecution. At any rate, the Union notified the company two days in advance of their projected demonstration and the company could have made arrangements to counteract or prevent whatever losses it might sustain by reason of the absence of its workers for one day, especially in this case when the Union requested it to excuse only the day-shift employees who will join the demonstration on March 4, 1969 which request the Union reiterated in their telegram received by the company at 9:50 in the morning of March 4, 1969, the day of the mass demonstration (pp. 42-43, rec.). There was a lack of human understanding or compassion on the part of the firm in rejecting the request of the Union for excuse from work for the day shifts in order to carry out its mass demonstration. And to regard as a ground for dismissal the mass demonstration held against the Pasig police, not against the company, is gross vindictiveness on the part of the employer, which is as unchristian as it is unconstitutional. III The respondent company is the one guilty of unfair labor practice. Because the refusal on the part of the respondent firm to permit all its employees and workers to join the mass demonstration against alleged police abuses and the subsequent separation of the eight (8) petitioners from the service constituted an unconstitutional restraint on the freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom petition for redress of grievances, the respondent firm committed an unfair labor practice defined in Section 4(a-1) in relation to Section 3 of Republic Act No. 875, otherwise known as the Industrial Peace Act. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 8 guarantees to the employees the right "to engage in concert activities for ... mutual aid or protection"; while Section 4(a-1) regards as an unfair labor practice for an employer interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise their rights guaranteed in Section Three." We repeat that the obvious purpose of the mass demonstration staged by the workers of the respondent firm on March 4, 1969, was for their mutual aid and protection against alleged police abuses, denial of which was interference with or restraint on the right of the employees to engage in such common action to better shield themselves against such alleged police indignities. The insistence on the part of the respondent firm that the workers for the morning and regular shift should not participate in the mass demonstration, under pain of dismissal, was as heretofore stated, "a potent means of 22 inhibiting speech." Such a concerted action for their mutual help and protection deserves at least equal protection as the concerted action of employees in giving publicity to a letter complaint charging bank president with immorality, nepotism, favoritism an 23 discrimination in the appointment and promotion of ban employees. We further ruled in the Republic Savings Bank case, supra, that for the employees to come within the protective mantle of Section 3 in relation to Section 4(a-1) on Republic Act No. 875, "it is not necessary that union activity be involved or that collective bargaining be contemplated," as 24 long as the concerted activity is for the furtherance of their interests. As stated clearly in the stipulation of facts embodied in the questioned order of respondent Court dated September 15, 1969, the company, "while expressly acknowledging, that the demonstration is an inalienable right of the Union guaranteed by the Constitution," nonetheless emphasized that "any demonstration for that matter should not unduly prejudice the normal operation of the company" and "warned the PBMEO representatives that workers who belong to the first and regular shifts, who without previous leave of absence approved by the Company, particularly the officers present who are the organizers of the demonstration, who shall fail to report for work the following morning (March 4, 1969) shall

be dismissed, because such failure is a violation of the existing CBA and, therefore, would be amounting to an illegal strike (;)" (p. III, petitioner's brief). Such threat of dismissal tended to coerce the employees from joining the mass demonstration. However, the issues that the employees raised against the local police, were more important to them because they had the courage to proceed with the demonstration, despite such threat of dismissal. The most that could happen to them was to lose a day's wage by reason of their absence from work on the day of the demonstration. One day's pay means much to a laborer, more especially if he has a family to support. Yet, they were willing to forego their one-day salary hoping that their demonstration would bring about the desired relief from police abuses. But management was adamant in refusing to recognize the superior legitimacy of their right of free speech, free assembly and the right to petition for redress. Because the respondent company ostensibly did not find it necessary to demand from the workers proof of the truth of the alleged abuses inflicted on them by the local police, it thereby concedes that the evidence of such abuses should properly be submitted to the corresponding authorities having jurisdiction over their complaint and to whom such complaint may be referred by the President of the Philippines for proper investigation and action with a view to disciplining the local police officers involved. On the other hand, while the respondent Court of Industrial Relations found that the demonstration "paralyzed to a large extent the operations of the complainant company," the respondent Court of Industrial Relations did not make any finding as to the fact of loss actually sustained by the firm. This significant circumstance can only mean that the firm did not sustain any loss or damage. It did not present evidence as to whether it lost expected profits for failure to comply with purchase orders on that day; or that penalties were exacted from it by customers whose orders could not be filled that day of the demonstration; or that purchase orders were cancelled by the customers by reason of its failure to deliver the materials ordered; or that its own equipment or materials or products were damaged due to absence of its workers on March 4, 1969. On the contrary, the company saved a sizable amount in the form of wages for its hundreds of workers, cost of fuel, water and electric consumption that day. Such savings could have amply compensated for unrealized profits or damages it might have sustained by reason of the absence of its workers for only one day. IV Apart from violating the constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly as well as the right to petition for redress of grievances of the employees, the dismissal of the eight (8) leaders of the workers for proceeding with the demonstration and consequently being absent from work, constitutes a denial of social justice likewise assured by the fundamental law to these lowly employees. Section 5 of Article II of the Constitution imposes upon the State "the promotion of social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all of the people," which guarantee is emphasized by the other directive in Section 6 of Article XIV of the Constitution that "the State shall afford protection to labor ...". Respondent Court of Industrial Relations as an agency of the State is under obligation at all times to give meaning and substance to these constitutional guarantees in favor of the working man; for otherwise these constitutional safeguards would be merely a lot of "meaningless constitutional patter." Under the Industrial Peace Act, the Court of Industrial Relations is enjoined to effect the policy of the law "to eliminate the causes of industrial unrest by encouraging and protecting the exercise by employees of their right to self-organization for the purpose of collective bargaining and for the promotion of their moral, social and economic well-being." It is most unfortunate in the case at bar that respondent Court of Industrial Relations, the very governmental agency designed therefor, failed to implement this policy and failed to keep faith with its avowed mission its raison d'etre as ordained and directed by the Constitution. V It has been likewise established that a violation of a constitutional right divests the court of jurisdiction; and as a consequence its judgment is null and void and confers no rights. Relief from a criminal conviction secured at the sacrifice of constitutional liberties, may be obtained through habeas corpus proceedings even long after the finality of the judgment. Thus, habeas corpus is the remedy to obtain the release of an individual, who is convicted by final judgment through a 25 forced confession, which violated his constitutional right against self-incrimination; or who is denied the right to present 26 evidence in his defense as a deprivation of his liberty without due process of law, even after the accused has already 27 served sentence for twenty-two years. Both the respondents Court of Industrial Relations and private firm trenched upon these constitutional immunities of petitioners. Both failed to accord preference to such rights and aggravated the inhumanity to which the aggrieved workers claimed they had been subjected by the municipal police. Having violated these basic human rights of the laborers, the Court of Industrial Relations ousted itself of jurisdiction and the questioned orders it issued in the instant case are a nullity. 28 Recognition and protection of such freedoms are imperative on all public offices including the courts as well as private citizens and corporations, the exercise and enjoyment of which must not be nullified by mere procedural rule promulgated by the Court Industrial Relations exercising a purely delegate legislative power, when even a law enacted by Congress must yield to the untrammelled enjoyment of these human rights. There is no time limit to the exercise of the freedoms. The right to enjoy them is not exhausted by the delivery of one speech, the printing of one article or the staging of one demonstration. It is a continuing immunity to be invoked and exercised when exigent and expedient whenever there are errors to be rectified, abuses to be denounced, inhumanities to be condemned. Otherwise these guarantees in the Bill of Rights would be vitiated by rule on procedure prescribing the period for appeal. The battle then would be reduced to a race for time. And in such a contest between an employer and its laborer, the latter eventually loses because he cannot employ the best an dedicated counsel who can defend his interest with the required diligence and zeal, bereft as he is of 28 the financial resources with which to pay for competent legal services. -a VI

The Court of Industrial Relations rule prescribes that motion for reconsideration of its order or writ should filed within five (5) days from notice thereof and that the arguments in support of said motion shall be filed within ten (10) days from the date of filing of such motion for reconsideration (Sec. 16). As above intimated, these rules of procedure were promulgated 29 by the Court of Industrial Relations pursuant to a legislative delegation. The motion for reconsideration was filed on September 29, 1969, or seven (7) days from notice on September 22, 1969 of the order dated September 15, 1969 or two (2) days late. Petitioners claim that they could have filed it on September 28, 1969, but it was a Sunday. Does the mere fact that the motion for reconsideration was filed two (2) days late defeat the rights of the petitioning employees? Or more directly and concretely, does the inadvertent omission to comply with a mere Court of Industrial Relations procedural rule governing the period for filing a motion for reconsideration or appeal in labor cases, promulgated pursuant to a legislative delegation, prevail over constitutional rights? The answer should be obvious in the light of the aforecited cases. To accord supremacy to the foregoing rules of the Court of Industrial Relations over basic human rights sheltered by the Constitution, is not only incompatible with the basic tenet of constitutional government that the Constitution is superior to any statute or subordinate rules and regulations, but also does violence to natural reason and logic. The dominance and superiority of the constitutional right over the aforesaid Court of Industrial Relations procedural rule of necessity should be affirmed. Such a Court of Industrial Relations rule as applied in this case does not implement or reinforce or strengthen the constitutional rights affected,' but instead constrict the same to the point of nullifying the enjoyment thereof by the petitioning employees. Said Court of Industrial Relations rule, promulgated as it was pursuant to a mere legislative delegation, is unreasonable and therefore is beyond the authority granted by the Constitution and the law. A period of five (5) days within which to file a motion for reconsideration is too short, especially for the aggrieved workers, who usually do not have the ready funds to meet the necessary expenses therefor. In case of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, a period of fifteen (15) days has been fixed for the filing of the motion for re hearing or reconsideration (See. 10, Rule 51; Sec. 1, Rule 52; Sec. 1, Rule 56, Revised Rules of Court). The delay in the filing of the motion for reconsideration could have been only one day if September 28, 1969 was not a Sunday. This fact accentuates the unreasonableness of the Court of Industrial are concerned. It should be stressed here that the motion for reconsideration dated September 27, 1969, is based on the ground that the order sought to be reconsidered "is not in accordance with law, evidence and facts adduced during the hearing," and likewise prays for an extension of ten (10) days within which to file arguments pursuant to Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Rules of the Court of Industrial Relations (Annex "G", pp. 57-60, rec.); although the arguments were actually filed by the herein petitioners on October 14, 1969 (Annex "I", pp. 70-73, rec.), long after the 10-day period required for the filing of such supporting arguments counted from the filing of the motion for reconsideration. Herein petitioners received only on October 28, 1969 the resolution dated October 9, 1969 dismissing the motion for reconsideration for being pro forma since it was filed beyond the reglementary period (Annex "J", pp. 74-75, rec.) It is true that We ruled in several cases that where a motion to reconsider is filed out of time, or where the arguments in suppf such motion are filed beyond the 10 day reglementary period provided for by the Court of Industrial Relations rules, 29 the order or decision subject of -a reconsideration becomes final and unappealable. But in all these cases, the constitutional rights of free expression, free assembly and petition were not involved. It is a procedural rule that generally all causes of action and defenses presently available must be specifically raised in the complaint or answer; so that any cause of action or defense not raised in such pleadings, is deemed waived. However, a constitutional issue can be raised any time, even for the first time on appeal, if it appears that the determination of the constitutional issue is necessary to a decision of the case, the very lis mota of the case without the resolution of which no 30 final and complete determination of the dispute can be made. It is thus seen that a procedural rule of Congress or of the Supreme Court gives way to a constitutional right. In the instant case, the procedural rule of the Court of Industrial Relations, a creature of Congress, must likewise yield to the constitutional rights invoked by herein petitioners even before the institution of the unfair labor practice charged against them and in their defense to the said charge. In the case at bar, enforcement of the basic human freedoms sheltered no less by the organic law, is a most compelling 30 reason to deny application of a Court of Industrial Relations rule which impinges on such human rights. -a It is an accepted principle that the Supreme Court has the inherent power to "suspend its own rules or to except a 30 particular case from its operation, whenever the purposes of justice require." -b Mr. Justice Barredo in his concurring 30 opinion in Estrada vs. Sto. Domingo. -c reiterated this principle and added that Under this authority, this Court is enabled to cove with all situations without concerning itself about procedural niceties that do not square with the need to do justice, in any case, without further loss of time, provided that the right of the parties to a full day in court is not substantially impaired. Thus, this Court may treat an appeal as a certiorari and vice-versa. In other words, when all the material facts are spread in the records before Us, and all the parties have been duly heard, it matters little that the error of the court a quo is of judgment or of jurisdiction. We can then and there render the appropriate judgment. Is within the contemplation of this doctrine that as it is perfectly legal and within the power of this Court to strike down in an appeal acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or committed with grave abuse of discretion, it cannot be beyond the admit of its authority, in appropriate cases, to reverse in a certain proceed in any error of judgment of a court a quo which cannot be exactly categorized as a flaw of jurisdiction. If there can be any doubt, which I do not entertain, on whether or not the errors this Court has found in the decision of the Court of Appeals are short of being jurisdiction nullities or excesses, this Court would still be on firm legal grounds should it choose to reverse said decision here and now even if such errors can be considered as mere mistakes of judgment or only as faults in the exercise of jurisdiction, so as to avoid the unnecessary return of this case to the lower court for the sole purpose of pursuing 30 the ordinary course of an appeal. (Emphasis supplied). -d

Insistence on the application of the questioned Court industrial Relations rule in this particular case at bar would an unreasoning adherence to "Procedural niceties" which denies justice to the herein laborers, whose basic human freedoms, including the right to survive, must be according supremacy over the property rights of their employer firm which has been given a full hearing on this case, especially when, as in the case at bar, no actual material damage has be demonstrated as having been inflicted on its property rights. If We can disregard our own rules when justice requires it, obedience to the Constitution renders more imperative the suspension of a Court of Industrial Relations rule that clash with the human rights sanctioned and shielded with resolution concern by the specific guarantees outlined in the organic law. It should be stressed that the application in the instant case Section 15 of the Court of Industrial Relations rules relied upon by herein respondent firm is unreasonable and therefore such application becomes unconstitutional as it subverts the human rights of petitioning labor union and workers in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances revealed by the record. The suspension of the application of Section 15 of the Court of Industrial Relations rules with reference to the case at is also authorized by Section 20 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, the C.I.R. charter, which enjoins the Court of Industrial Relations to "act according to justice and equity and substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities or legal forms ..." On several occasions, We emphasized this doctrine which was re-stated by Mr. Justice Barredo, speaking for the Court, 30 in the 1970 case of Kapisanan, etc. vs. Hamilton, etc., et. al., -e thus: As to the point that the evidence being offered by the petitioners in the motion for new trial is not "newly discovered," as such term is understood in the rules of procedure for the ordinary courts, We hold that such criterion is not binding upon the Court of Industrial Relations. Under Section 20 of Commonwealth Act No. 103, 'The Court of Industrial Relations shall adopt its, rules or procedure and shall have such other powers as generally pertain to a court of justice: Provided, however, That in the hearing, investigation and determination of any question or controversy and in exercising any duties and power under this Act, the Court shall act according to justice and equity and substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities or legal forms and shall not be bound by any technical rules of legal evidence but may inform its mind in such manner as it may deem just and equitable.' By this provision the industrial court is disengaged from the rigidity of the technicalities applicable to ordinary courts. Said court is not even restricted to the specific relief demanded by the parties but may issue such orders as may be deemed necessary or expedient for the purpose of settling the dispute or dispelling any doubts that may give rise to future disputes. (Ang Tibay v. C.I.R., G.R. No. 46496, Feb. 17, 1940; Manila Trading & Supply Co. v. Phil. Labor, 71 Phil. 124.) For these reasons, We believe that this provision is ample enough to have enabled the respondent court to consider whether or not its previous ruling that petitioners constitute a minority was founded on fact, without regard to the technical meaning of newly discovered evidence. ... (Alonso v. Villamor, 16 Phil. 315; Chua Kiong v. Whitaker, 46 Phil. 578). (emphasis supplied.) To apply Section 15 of the Court of Industrial Relations rules with "pedantic rigor" in the instant case is to rule in effect that the poor workers, who can ill-afford an alert competent lawyer, can no longer seek the sanctuary of human freedoms secured to them by the fundamental law, simply because their counsel erroneously believing that he received a copy of the decision on September 23, 1969, instead of September 22, 1969 - filed his motion for reconsideration September 29, 1969, which practically is only one day late considering that September 28, 1969 was a Sunday. Many a time, this Court deviated from procedure technicalities when they ceased to be instruments of justice, for the attainment of which such rules have been devised. Summarizing the jurisprudence on this score, Mr. Justice Fernando, 30 speaking for a unanimous Court in Palma vs. Oreta, -f Stated: As was so aptly expressed by Justice Moreland in Alonso v. Villamor (16 Phil. 315 [1910]. The Villamor decision was cited with approval in Register of Deeds v. Phil. Nat. Bank, 84 Phil. 600 [1949]; Potenciano v. Court of Appeals, 104 Phil. 156 [1958] and Uy v. Uy, 14243, June 30, 1961, 2 SCRA 675.), decided as far back as 1910, "technicality. when it deserts its proper-office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts." ( Ibid., p, 322.) To that norm, this Court has remained committed. The late Justice Recto in Blanco v. Bernabe, (63 Phil. 124 [1936]) was of a similar mind. For him the interpretation of procedural rule should never "sacrifice the ends justice." While "procedural laws are no other than technicalities" view them in their entirety, 'they were adopted not as ends themselves for the compliance with which courts have organized and function, but as means conducive to the realization the administration of the law and of justice (Ibid., p.,128). We have remained steadfastly opposed, in the highly rhetorical language Justice Felix, to "a sacrifice of substantial rights of a litigant in altar of sophisticated technicalities with impairment of the sacred principles of justice." (Potenciano v. Court of Appeals, 104 Phil. 156, 161 [1958]). As succinctly put by Justice Makalintal, they "should give way to the realities of the situation." (Urbayan v. Caltex, L-15379, Aug. 31, 1962, 5 SCRA 1016, 1019). In the latest decision in point promulgated in 1968, (Udan v. Amon, (1968, 23 SCRA citing McEntee v. Manotok, L-14968, Oct. 27, 1961, 3 SCRA 272.) Justice Zaldivar was partial to an earlier formulation of Justice Labrador that rules of procedure "are not to be applied in a very rigid, technical sense"; but 30 are intended "to help secure substantial justice." (Ibid., p. 843) ... -g Even if the questioned Court of Industrial Relations orders and rule were to be given effect, the dismissal or termination of the employment of the petitioning eight (8) leaders of the Union is harsh for a one-day absence from work. The respondent Court itself recognized the severity of such a sanction when it did not include the dismissal of the other 393 employees who are members of the same Union and who participated in the demonstration against the Pasig police. As a matter of fact, upon the intercession of the Secretary of Labor, the Union members who are not officers, were not dismissed and only the Union itself and its thirteen (13) officers were specifically named as respondents in the unfair labor practice charge filed against them by the firm (pp. 16-20, respondent's Brief; Annexes "A", "B" and "C", pp. 20-30, rec.).

Counsel for respondent firm insinuates that not all the 400 or so employee participated in the demonstration, for which reason only the Union and its thirteen (13) officers were specifically named in the unfair labor practice charge (p. 20, respondent's brief). If that were so, then many, if not all, of the morning and regular shifts reported for work on March 4, 1969 and that, as a consequence, the firm continued in operation that day and did not sustain any damage. The appropriate penalty if it deserves any penalty at all should have been simply to charge said one-day absence against their vacation or sick leave. But to dismiss the eight (8) leaders of the petitioner Union is a most cruel penalty, since as aforestated the Union leaders depend on their wages for their daily sustenance as well as that of their respective families aside from the fact that it is a lethal blow to unionism, while at the same time strengthening the oppressive hand of the petty tyrants in the localities. Mr. Justice Douglas articulated this pointed reminder: The challenge to our liberties comes frequently not from those who consciously seek to destroy our system of Government, but from men of goodwill good men who allow their proper concerns to blind them to the fact that what they propose to accomplish involves an impairment of liberty. ... The Motives of these men are often commendable. What we must remember, however, is that preservation of liberties does not depend on motives. A suppression of liberty has the same effect whether the suppress or be a reformer or an outlaw. The only protection against misguided zeal is a constant alertness of the infractions of the guarantees of liberty contained in our Constitution. Each surrender of liberty to the demands of the moment makes easier another, larger surrender. The battle over the Bill of Rights is a never ending one. ... The liberties of any person are the liberties of all of us. ... In short, the Liberties of none are safe unless the liberties of all are protected. ... But even if we should sense no danger to our own liberties, even if we feel secure because we belong to a group that is important and respected, we must recognize that our Bill of Rights is a code of fair play for the less 31 fortunate that we in all honor and good conscience must be observe. The case at bar is worse. Management has shown not only lack of good-will or good intention, but a complete lack of sympathetic understanding of the plight of its laborers who claim that they are being subjected to indignities by the local police, It was more expedient for the firm to conserve its income or profits than to assist its employees in their fight for their freedoms and security against alleged petty tyrannies of local police officers. This is sheer opportunism. Such opportunism and expediency resorted to by the respondent company assaulted the immunities and welfare of its employees. It was pure and implement selfishness, if not greed. Of happy relevance is the 1967 case of Republic Savings Bank vs. C.I.R., where the petitioner Bank dismissed eight (8) employees for having written and published "a patently libelous letter ... to the Bank president demanding his resignation on the grounds of immorality, nepotism in the appointment and favoritism as well as discrimination in the promotion of bank employees." Therein, thru Mr. Justice Castro, We ruled: It will avail the Bank none to gloat over this admission of the respondents. Assuming that the latter acted in their individual capacities when they wrote the letter-charge they were nonetheless protected for they were engaged in concerted activity, in the exercise of their right of self organization that includes concerted activity for mutual aid and protection, (Section 3 of the Industrial Peace Act ...) This is the view of some members of this Court. For, as has been aptly stated, the joining in protests or demands, even by a small group of employees, if in furtherance of their interests as such, is a concerted activity protected by the Industrial Peace Act. It is not necessary that union activity be involved or that collective bargaining be contemplated. (Annot., 6 A.L.R. 2d 416 [1949]). xxx xxx xxx Instead of stifling criticism, the Bank should have allowed the respondents to air their grievances. xxx xxx xxx The Bank defends its action by invoking its right to discipline for what it calls the respondents' libel in giving undue publicity to their letter-charge. To be sure, the right of self-organization of employees is not unlimited (Republic Aviation Corp. vs. NLRB 324 U.S. 793 [1945]), as the right of the employer to discharge for cause (Philippine Education Co. v. Union of Phil. Educ. Employees, L-13773, April 29, 1960) is undenied. The Industrial Peace Act does not touch the normal exercise of the right of the employer to select his employees or to discharge them. It is directed solely against the abuse of that right by interfering with the countervailing right of self organization (Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB 313 U.S. 177 [1941])... xxx xxx xxx In the final sum and substance, this Court is in unanimity that the Bank's conduct, identified as an interference with the employees' right of self-organization or as a retaliatory action, and/or as a refusal to bargain collectively,
32

constituted an unfair labor practice within the meaning and intendment of section 4(a) of the Industrial Peace Act. 33 (Emphasis supplied.) If free expression was accorded recognition and protection to fortify labor unionism in the Republic Savings case, supra, where the complaint assailed the morality and integrity of the bank president no less, such recognition and protection for free speech, free assembly and right to petition are rendered all the more justifiable and more imperative in the case at bar, where the mass demonstration was not against the company nor any of its officers. WHEREFORE, judgement is hereby rendered: (1) setting aside as null and void the orders of the respondent Court of Industrial Relations dated September 15 and October 9, 1969; and (2) directing the re instatement of the herein eight (8) petitioners, with full back pay from the date of their separation from the service until re instated, minus one day's pay and whatever earnings they might have realized from other sources during their separation from the service. With costs against private respondent Philippine Blooming Company, Inc.

CASE NO. 25
G.R. No. L-68955 September 4, 1986 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUBEN BURGOS y TITO, defendant-appellant. GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao del Sur, 11 th Judicial Region, Digos, Davao del Sur convicting defendant- appellant Ruben Burgos y Tito of The crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms in Furtherance of Subversion. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, finding the guilt of accused Ruben Burgos sufficiently established beyond reasonable doubt, of the offense charges , pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 9, in relation to General Order No. 6, dated September 22, 1972, and General Order No. 7, dated September 23, 1972, in relation further to Presidential Decree No. 885, and considering that the firearm subject of this case was not used in the circumstances as embraced in paragraph I thereof, applying the provision of indeterminate sentence law, accused Ruben Burgos is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal maximum, as minimum penalty, to reclusion perpetua, as maximum penalty, pursuant to sub-paragraph B, of Presidential Decree No. 9, as aforementioned, with accessory penalties, as provided for by law. As a result of this judgment, the subject firearm involved in this case (Homemade revolver, caliber .38, Smith and Wesson, with Serial No. 8.69221) is hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government, to be disposed of in accordance with law. Likewise, the subversive documents, leaflets and/or propaganda seized are ordered disposed of in accordance with law. The information charged the defendant-appellant with the crime of illegal possession of firearm in furtherance of subversion in an information which reads as follows: That in the afternoon of May 13, 1982 and thereabout at Tiguman, Digos, Davao del Sur, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Court, the above- named accused with intent to possess and without the necessary license, permit or authority issued by the proper government agencies, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously keep, possess, carry and have in his possession, control and custody one (1) homemade revolver, caliber .38, make Smith and Wesson, with Serial No. 8.69221, which firearm was issued to and used by the accused at Tiguman, Digos, Davao del Sur, his area of operations by one Alias Commander Pol for the New People's Army (NPA), a subversive organization organized for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines through lawless and violent means, of which the accused had knowledge, and which firearm was used by the accused in the performance of his subversive tasks such as the recruitment of New Members to the NPA and collection of contributions from the members. CONTRARY TO LAW. The evidence for the prosecution is summarized in the decision of the lower court as follows: xxx xxx xxx . . . Through the testimony of Pat. Pepito Bioco, and Sgt. Romeo Taroy, it appears that by virtue of an intelligent information obtained by the Constabulary and INP units, stationed at Digos, Davao del Sur, on May 12, 1982, one Cesar Masamlok personally and voluntarily surre0ndered to the authorities at about 9:00 o'clock A.M. at Digos, Davao del Sur Constabulary Headquarters, stating that he was forcibly recruited by accused Ruben Burgos as member of the NPA, threatening him with the use of firearm against his life, if he refused. Along with his recruitment, accused was asked to contribute one (1) chopa of rice and one peso (P1.00) per month, as his contribution to the NPA TSN, page 5, Hearing-October 14, 1982). Immediately, upon receipt of said information, a joint team of PC-INP units, composed of fifteen (15) members, headed by Captain Melchesideck Bargio, (PC), on the following day, May 13, 1982, was dispatched at Tiguman; Davao del Sur, to arrest accused Ruben Burgos. The team left the headquarter at 1:30 P.M., and arrived at Tiguman, at more or less 2:00 o'clock PM where through the help of Pedro Burgos, brother of accused, the team was able to locate accused, who was plowing his field. (TSN, pages 6-7, Hearing-October 14, 1982). Right in the house of accused, the latter was caned by the team and Pat. Bioco asked accused about his firearm, as reported by Cesar Masamlok. At first accused denied possession of said firearm but later, upon question profounded by Sgt. Alejandro Buncalan with the wife of the accused, the latter pointed to a place below their house where a gun was buried in the ground. (TSN, page 8, Hearing-October 14, 1982). Pat. Bioco then verified the place pointed by accused's wife and dug the grounds, after which he recovered the firearm, Caliber .38 revolver, marked as Exhibit "A" for the prosecution.

After the recovery of the firearm, accused likewise pointed to the team, subversive documents which he allegedly kept in a stock pile of qqqcogon at a distance of three (3) meters apart from his house. Then Sgt. Taroy accordingly verified beneath said cogon grass and likewise recovered documents consisting of notebook colored maroon with spiral bound, Exhibit "B" for the prosecution; a pamphlet consisting of eight (8) leaves, including the front and back covers entitled Ang Bayan, Pahayagan ng Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas, Pinapatnubayan ng Marxismo, Leninismo Kaisipang Mao qqqZedong dated December 31, 1980, marked as Exhibit "C", and another pamphlet Asdang Pamantalaang Masa sa Habagatang Mindanao, March and April 1981 issue, consisting of ten (10) pages, marked as Exhibit "D" for the prosecution. Accused, when confronted with the firearm Exhibit "A", after its recovery, readily admitted the same as issued to him by Nestor Jimenez, otherwise known as a certain Alias Pedipol, allegedly team leader of the sparrow unit of New People's Army, responsible in the liquidation of target personalities, opposed to NPA Ideological movement, an example was the killing of the late Mayor Llanos and Barangay Captain of Tienda Aplaya Digos, Davao del Sur. (TSN, pages 1-16, Hearing-October 14,1982). To prove accused's subversive activities, Cesar Masamlok, a former NPA convert was presented, who declared that on March 7, 1972, in his former residence at Tiguman Digos, Davao del Sur, accused Ruben Burgos, accompanied by his companions Landrino Burgos, Oscar Gomez and Antonio Burgos, went to his house at about 5:00 o'clock P.M. and called him downstair. Thereupon, accused told Masamlok, their purpose was to ask rice and one (1) peso from him, as his contribution to their companions, the NPA of which he is now a member. (TSN, pages 70, 71, 72, Hearing-January 4, 1983). Accused and his companions told Masamlok, he has to join their group otherwise, he and his family will be killed. He was also warned not to reveal anything with the government authorities. Because of the threat to his life and family, Cesar Masamlok joined the group. Accused then told him, he should attend a seminar scheduled on April 19, 1982. Along with this invitation, accused pulled gut from his waistline a .38 caliber revolver which Masamlok really saw, being only about two (2) meters away from accused, which make him easily Identified said firearm, as that marked as Exhibit "A" for the prosecution. (TSN, pages 72, 73, and 74, Hearing-January 4, 1983). On April 19, 1982, as previously invited, Masamlok, accompanied by his father, Matuguil Masamlok, Isabel Ilan and Ayok Ides went to the house of accused and attended the seminar, Those present in the seminar were: accused Ruben Burgos, Antonio Burgos, Oscar Gomez, Landrino Burgos, alias Pedipol and one alias Jamper. The first speaker was accused Ruben Burgos, who said very distinctly that he is an NPA together with his companions, to assure the unity of the civilian. That he encouraged the group to overthrow the government, emphasizing that those who attended the seminar were already members of the NPA, and if they reveal to the authorities, they will be killed. Accused, while talking, showed to the audience pamphlets and documents, then finally shouted, the NPA will be victorious. Masamlok likewise Identified the pamphlets as those marked as Exh. exhibits "B", "C", and "D" for the prosecution. (TSN, pages 75, 76 and 77, Hearing-January 4, 1983) Other speakers in said meeting were Pedipol, Jamper and Oscar Gomez, who likewise expounded their own opinions about the NPA. It was also announced in said seminar that a certain Tonio Burgos, will be responsible for the collection of the contribution from the members. (TSN, pages 78-79, Hearing- January 4, 1983) On May 12, 1982, however, Cesar Masamlok surrendered to Captain Bargio of the Provincial Headquarters of the Philippine Constabulary, Digos, Davao del Sur. Assistant Provincial Fiscal Panfilo Lovitos was presented t prove that on May 19, 1982, he administered the subscription of th extra-judicial confession of accused Ruben Burgos, marked as Exhibit "E " for the prosecution, consisting of five (5) pages. Appearing voluntarily in said office, for the subscription of his confession, Fiscal Lovitos, realizing that accused was not represented by counsel, requested the services of Atty. Anyog, whose office is adjacent to the Fiscal's Office, to assist accused in the subscription of his extra-judicial statement. Atty. Anyog assisted accused in the reading of his confession from English to Visayan language, resulting to the deletion of question No. 19 of the document, by an inserted certification of Atty. Anyog and signature of accused, indicating his having understood, the allegations of his extra-judicial statement. Fiscal Lovitos, before accused signed his statement, explained to him his constitutional rights to remain silent, right to counsel and right to answer any question propounded or not. With the aid of Atty. Anyog, accused signed his confession in the presence of Atty. Anyog and Fiscal Lovitos, without the presence of military authorities, who escorted the accused, but were sent outside the cubicle of Fiscal Lovitos while waiting for the accused. (TSN, pages 36-40, nearing November 15, 1982) Finally, in order to prove illegal possession by accused of the subject firearm, Sgt. Epifanio Comabig in-charge of firearms and explosives, NCO Headquarter, Philippine Constabulary, Digos, Davao del Sur, was presented and testified, that among the lists of firearm holders in Davao del Sur, nothing was listed in the name of accused

Ruben Burgos, neither was his name included among the lists of persons who applied for the licensing of the firearm under Presidential Decree No. 1745. After the above-testimony the prosecution formally closed its case and offered its exhibits, which were all admitted in evidence, despite objection interposed by counsel for accused, which was accordingly overruled. On the other hand, the defendant-appellant's version of the case against him is stated in the decision as follows: From his farm, the military personnel, whom he said he cannot recognize, brought him to the PC Barracks at Digos, Davao del Sur, and arrived there at about 3:00 o'clock, on the same date. At about 8:00 o'clock P.M., in the evening, he was investigated by soldiers, whom he cannot Identify because they were wearing a civilian attire. (TSN, page 14 1, Hearing-June 15, 1983) The investigation was conducted in the PC barracks, where he was detained with respect to the subject firearm, which the investigator, wished him to admit but accused denied its ownership. Because of his refusal accused was mauled, hitting him on the left and right side of his body which rendered him unconscious. Accused in an atmosphere of tersed solemnity, crying and with emotional attachment, described in detail how he was tortured and the ordeals he was subjected. He said, after recovery of his consciousness, he was again confronted with subject firearm, Exhibit "A", for him to admit and when he repeatedly refused to accept as his own firearm, he was subjected to further prolong (sic) torture and physical agony. Accused said, his eyes were covered with wet black cloth with pungent effect on his eyes. He was undressed, with only blindfold, pungent water poured in his body and over his private parts, making his entire body, particularly his penis and testicle, terribly irritating with pungent pain. All along, he was investigated to obtain his admission, The process of beating, mauling, pain and/or ordeal was repeatedly done in similar cycle, from May 13 and 14, 1982. intercepted only whenever he fell unconscious and again repeated after recovery of his senses, Finally on May 15, 1982, after undergoing the same torture and physical ordeal he was seriously warned, if he will still adamantly refuse to accept ownership of the subject firearm, he will be salvaged, and no longer able to bear any further the pain and agony, accused admitted ownership of subject firearm. After his admission, the mauling and torture stopped, but accused was made to sign his affidavit marked as Exhibit "E" for the prosecution, consisting of five (5) pages, including the certification of the administering officer, (TSN, pages 141-148, Hearing-June 15, 1983) In addition to how he described the torture inflicted on him, accused, by way of explanation and commentary in details, and going one by one, the allegations and/or contents of his alleged extrajudicial statement, attributed his answers to those questions involuntarily made only because of fear, threat and intimidation of his person and family, as a result of unbearable excruciating pain he was subjected by an investigator, who, unfortunately he cannot Identify and was able to obtain his admission of the subject firearm, by force and violence exerted over his person. To support denial of accused of being involved in any subversive activities, and also to support his denial to the truth of his alleged extra-judicial confession, particularly questions Nos. 35, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47, along with qqqs answers to those questions, involving Honorata Arellano ahas Inday Arellano, said Honorata Arellano appeared and declared categorically, that the above-questions embraced in the numbers allegedly stated in the extrajudicial confession of accused, involving her to such NPA personalities, as Jamper, Pol, Anthony, etc., were not true because on the date referred on April 28, 1982, none of the persons mentioned came to her house for treatment, neither did she meet the accused nor able to talk with him. (TSN, pages 118- 121, Hearing-May 18, 1983) She, however, admitted being familiar with one Oscar Gomez, and that she was personally charged with subversion in the Office of the Provincial Commander, Philippine Constabulary, Digos, Davao del Sur, but said charge was dismissed without reaching the Court. She likewise stated that her son, Rogelio Arellano, was likewise charged for subversion filed in the Municipal Trial Court of Digos, Davao del Sur, but was likewise dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. (TSN, pages 121-122, in relation to her crossexamination, Hearing-May 18, 1983) To support accused's denial of the charge against him, Barangay Captain of Tiguman, Digos, Davao del Sur, Salvador qqqGalaraga was presented, who declared, he was not personally aware of any subversive activities of accused, being his neighbor and member of his barrio. On the contrary, he can personally attest to his good character and reputation, as a law abiding citizen of his barrio, being a carpenter and farmer thereat. (TSl pages 128-129, Hearing-May 18, 1983) He however, admitted in cross-examination, that there were a lot of arrests made by the authorities in his barrio involving subversive activities but they were released and were not formally charged in Court because they publicly took their oath of allegiance with the government. (TSN, pages 133-134, in relation to page 136, HearingMay 18, 1983)

Finally, to support accused's denial of the subject firearm, his wife, Urbana Burgos, was presented and who testified that the subject firearm was left in their house by Cesar Masamlok and one Pedipol on May 10, 1982. It was night time, when the two left the gun, alleging that it was not in order, and that they will leave it behind, temporarily for them to claim it later. They were the ones who buried it. She said, her husband, the accused, was not in their house at that time and that she did not inform him about said firearm neither did she report the matter to the authorities, for fear of the life of her husband. (TSN, page 24, November 22, 1983) On cross-examination, she said, even if Masamlok during the recovery of the firearm, was wearing a mask, she can still Identify him. (TSN, page 6, Hearing-November 22, 1983) After the above-testimony, accused through counsel formally rested his case in support of accused's through counsel manifestation for the demurrer to evidence of the prosecution, or in the alternative for violation merely of simple illegal possession of firearm, 'under the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4, reflected in the manifestation of counsel for accused. (TSN, pages 113-114, Hearing-May 18, 1983) Accused-appellant Ruben Burgos now raises the following assignments of error, to wit: I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT (SIC) THE ARREST OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT WITHOUT VALID WARRANT TO BE LAWFUL. II THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THE SEARCH IN THE HOUSE OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR FIREARM WITHOUT VALID WARRANT TO BE LAWFUL. III THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR VIOLATION OF P.D. No. 9 IN RELATION TO GENERAL ORDERS NOS. 6 AND 7 Was the arrest of Ruben Burgos lawful? Were the search of his house and the subsequent confiscation of a firearm and documents allegedly found therein conducted in a lawful and valid manner? Does the evidence sustaining the crime charged meet the test of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt? The records of the case disclose that when the police authorities went to the house of Ruben Burgos for the purpose of arresting him upon information given by Cesar Masamlok that the accused allegedly recruited him to join the New People's Army (NPA), they did not have any warrant of arrest or search warrant with them (TSN, p. 25, October 14, 1982; and TSN, p. 61, November 15, 1982). Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall not be violated, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge, or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law, after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The constitutional provision is a safeguard against wanton and unreasonable invasion of the privacy and liberty of a citizen as to his person, papers and effects. This Court explained in Villanueva vs. Querubin (48 SCRA 345) why this right is so important: It is deference to one's personality that lies at the core of this right, but it could be also looked upon as a recognition of a constitutionally protected area, primarily one's home, but not necessarily thereto confined. (Cf. Hoffa v. United States, 385 US 293 [19661) What is sought to be guarded is a man's prerogative to choose who is allowed entry to his residence. In that haven of refuge, his individuality can assert itself not only in the choice of who shall be welcome but likewise in the kind of objects he wants around him. There the state, however powerful, does not as such have access except under the circumstances above noted, for in the traditional formulation, his house, however humble, is his castle. Thus is outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by government, which is called upon to refrain from any invasion of his dwelling and to respect the privacies of his life, (Cf. Schmerber v. California, 384 US 757 [1966], Brennan, J. and Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616, 630 [1886]). In the same vein, Landynski in his authoritative work (Search and Seizure and the Supreme Court [1966], could fitly characterize this constitutional right as the embodiment of a 'spiritual concept: the belief that to value the privacy of home and person and to afford its constitutional protection against the long reach of government is no legs than to value human dignity, and that his privacy must not be disturbed except in case of overriding social need, and then only under stringent procedural safeguards.' (Ibid, p. 47). The trial court justified the arrest of the accused-appelant without any warrant as falling under one of the instances when arrests may be validly made without a warrant. Rule 113, Section 6 * of the Rules of Court, provides the exceptions as follows: a) When the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is about to commit an offense in his presence; b) When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it;

c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. The Court stated that even if there was no warrant for the arrest of Burgos, the fact that "the authorities received an urgent report of accused's involvement in subversive activities from a reliable source (report of Cesar Masamlok) the circumstances of his arrest, even without judicial warrant, is lawfully within the ambit of Section 6-A of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court and applicable jurisprudence on the matter." If the arrest is valid, the consequent search and seizure of the firearm and the alleged subversive documents would become an incident to a lawful arrest as provided by Rule 126, Section 12, which states: A person charged with an offense may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense. The conclusions reached by the trial court are erroneous. Under Section 6(a) of Rule 113, the officer arresting a person who has just committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense must have personal knowledge of that fact. The offense must also be committed in his presence or within his view. (Sayo v. Chief of Police, 80 Phil. 859). There is no such personal knowledge in this case. Whatever knowledge was possessed by the arresting officers, it came in its entirety from the information furnished by Cesar Masamlok. The location of the firearm was given by the appellant's wife. At the time of the appellant's arrest, he was not in actual possession of any firearm or subversive document. Neither was he committing any act which could be described as subversive. He was, in fact, plowing his field at the time of the arrest. The right of a person to be secure against any unreasonable seizure of his body and any deprivation of his liberty is a most basic and fundamental one. The statute or rule which allows exceptions to the requirement of warrants of arrest is strictly construed. Any exception must clearly fall within the situations when securing a warrant would be absurd or is manifestly unnecessary as provided by the Rule. We cannot liberally construe the rule on arrests without warrant or extend its application beyond the cases specifically provided by law. To do so would infringe upon personal liberty and set back a basic right so often violated and so deserving of full protection. The Solicitor General is of the persuasion that the arrest may still be considered lawful under Section 6(b) using the test of reasonableness. He submits that. the information given by Cesar Masamlok was sufficient to induce a reasonable ground that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. In arrests without a warrant under Section 6(b), however, it is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime. A crime must in fact or actually have been committed first. That a crime has actually been committed is an essential precondition. It is not enough to suspect that a crime may have been committed. The fact of the commission of the offense must be undisputed. The test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator. In this case, the accused was arrested on the sole basis of Masamlok's verbal report. Masamlok led the authorities to suspect that the accused had committed a crime. They were still fishing for evidence of a crime not yet ascertained. The subsequent recovery of the subject firearm on the basis of information from the lips of a frightened wife cannot make the arrest lawful, If an arrest without warrant is unlawful at the moment it is made, generally nothing that happened or is discovered afterwards can make it lawful. The fruit of a poisoned tree is necessarily also tainted. More important, we find no compelling reason for the haste with which the arresting officers sought to arrest the accused. We fail to see why they failed to first go through the process of obtaining a warrant of arrest, if indeed they had reasonable ground to believe that the accused had truly committed a crime. There is no showing that there was a real apprehension that the accused was on the verge of flight or escape. Likewise, there is no showing that the whereabouts of the accused were unknown, The basis for the action taken by the arresting officer was the verbal report made by Masamlok who was not required to subscribe his allegations under oath. There was no compulsion for him to state truthfully his charges under pain of criminal prosecution. (TSN, p. 24, October 14, 1982). Consequently, the need to go through the process of securing a search warrant and a warrant of arrest becomes even more clear. The arrest of the accused while he was plowing his field is illegal. The arrest being unlawful, the search and seizure which transpired afterwards could not likewise be deemed legal as being mere incidents to a valid arrest. Neither can it be presumed that there was a waiver, or that consent was given by the accused to be searched simply because he failed to object. To constitute a waiver, it must appear first that the right exists; secondly, that the person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of such a right; and lastly, that said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right (Pasion Vda. de Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil. 689). The fact that the accused failed to object to the entry into his house does not amount to a permission to make a search therein (Magoncia v. Palacio, 80 Phil. 770). As pointed out by Justice Laurel in the case of Pasion Vda. de Garcia V. Locsin (supra)

xxx xxx xxx . . . As the constitutional guaranty is not dependent upon any affirmative act of the citizen, the courts do not place the citizen in the position of either contesting an officer's authority by force, or waiving his constitutional rights; but instead they hold that a peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not a consent or an invitation thereto, but is merely a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law. (56 C.J., pp. 1180, 1181). We apply the rule that: "courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights and that we do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights." (Johnson v. Zerbst 304 U.S. 458). That the accused-appellant was not apprised of any of his constitutional rights at the time of his arrest is evident from the records:

A CALAMBA:
Q When you went to the area to arrest Ruben Burgos, you were not armed with an arrest warrant? A None Sir. Q Neither were you armed with a search warrant? A No Sir. Q As a matter of fact, Burgos was not present in his house when you went there? A But he was twenty meters away from his house. Q Ruben Burgos was then plowing his field? A Yes Sir. Q When you called for Ruben Burgos you interviewed him? A Yes Sir. Q And that you told him that Masamlok implicated him? A No Sir. Q What did you tell him? A That we received information that you have a firearm, you surrender that firearm, first he denied but when Sgt. Buncalan interviewed his wife, his wife told him that it is buried, I dug the firearm which was wrapped with a cellophane. Q In your interview of Burgos you did not remind him of his rights under the constitution considering that he was purposely under arrest? A I did not. Q As a matter of fact, he denied that he has ever a gun? A Yes Sir. Q As a matter of fact, the gun was not in his possession? A It was buried down in his horse. Q As a matter of fact, Burgos did not point to where it was buried? A Yes Sir. (TSN, pp. 25-26, Hearing-October 14, 1982)

Considering that the questioned firearm and the alleged subversive documents were obtained in violation of the accused's constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, it follows that they are inadmissible as evidence. There is another aspect of this case. In proving ownership of the questioned firearm and alleged subversive documents, the prosecution presented the two arresting officers who testified that the accused readily admitted ownership of the gun after qqqs wife pointed to the place where it was buried. The officers stated that it was the accused himself who voluntarily pointed to the place where the alleged subversive documents were hidden. Assuming this to be true, it should be recalled that the accused was never informed of his constitutional rights at the time of his arrest. So that when the accused allegedly admitted ownership of the gun and pointed to the location of the subversive documents after questioning, the admissions were obtained in violation of the constitutional right against selfincrimination under Sec. 20 of Art. IV of the Bill of Rights winch provides: No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right.. . . The Constitution itself mandates that any evidence obtained in violation of this right is inadmissible in evidence. Consequently, the testimonies of the arresting officers as to the admissions made by the appellant cannot be used against him. The trial court validly rejected the extra-judicial confession of the accused as inadmissible in evidence. The court stated that the appellant's having been exhaustively subjected to physical terror, violence, and third degree measures may not have been supported by reliable evidence but the failure to present the investigator who conducted the investigation gives rise to the "provocative presumption" that indeed torture and physical violence may have been committed as stated. The accused-appellant was not accorded his constitutional right to be assisted by counsel during the custodial interrogation. The lower court correctly pointed out that the securing of counsel, Atty. Anyog, to help the accused when he subscribed under oath to his statement at the Fiscal's Office was too late. It could have no palliative effect. It cannot cure the absence of counsel at the time of the custodial investigation when the extrajudicial statement was being taken.

With the extra-judicial confession, the firearm, and the alleged subversive documents inadmissible in evidence against the accused-appellant, the only remaining proof to sustain the charge of Illegal Possession of Firearm in Furtherance of Subversion is the testimony of Cesar Masamlok. We find the testimony of Masamlok inadequate to convict Burgos beyond reasonable doubt. It is true that the trial court found Masamlok's testimony credible and convincing. However, we are not necessarily bound by the credibility which the trial court attaches to a particular witness. As stated in People vs.. Cabrera (100 SCRA 424): xxx xxx xxx . . .Time and again we have stated that when it comes to question of credibility the findings of the trial court are entitled to great respect upon appeal for the obvious reason th+at it was able to observe the demeanor, actuations and deportment of the witnesses during the trial. But we have also said that this rule is not absolute for otherwise there would be no reversals of convictions upon appeal. We must reject the findings of the trial court where the record discloses circumstances of weight and substance which were not properly appreciated by the trial court. The situation under which Cesar Masamlok testified is analogous to that found in People vs. Capadocia (17 SCRA 98 1): . . . The case against appellant is built on Ternura's testimony, and the issue hinges on how much credence can be accorded to him. The first consideration is that said testimony stands uncorroborated. Ternura was the only witness who testified on the mimeographing incident. . . . xxx xxx xxx . . .He was a confessed Huk under detention at the time. He knew his fate depended upon how much he cooperated with the authorities, who were then engaged in a vigorous anti-dissident campaign. As in the case of Rodrigo de Jesus, whose testimony We discounted for the same reason, that of Ternura cannot be considered as proceeding from a totally unbiased source. . . . In the instant case, Masamlok's testimony was totally uncorroborated. Considering that Masamlok surrendered to the military certainly his fate depended on how eagerly he cooperated with the authorities. Otherwise, he would also be charged with subversion. The trade-off appears to be his membership in the Civil Home Defense Force. (TSN, p. 83, January 4, 1983). Masamlok may be considered as an interested witness. It can not be said that his testimony is free from the opportunity and temptation to be exaggerated and even fabricated for it was intended to secure his freedom. Despite the fact that there were other persons present during the alleged NPA seminar of April 19, 1982 i.e., Masamlok's father ,Matuguil Masamlok, Isabel Ilan and Ayok Ides (TSN, p. 74, January 4, 1983) who could have corroborated Cesar Masamlok's testimony that the accused used the gun in furtherance of subversive activities or actually engaged in subversive acts, the prosecution never presented any other witness. This Court is, therefore, constrained to rule that the evidence presented by the prosecution is insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As held in the case of People vs. Baia (34 SCRA 347): It is evident that once again, reliance can be placed on People v. Dramayo (42 SCRA 59), where after stressing that accusation is not, according to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt, it was made clear: 'Only if the judge below and the appellate tribunal could arrive at a conclusion that the crime had been committed precisely by the person on trial under such an exacting test should the sentence be one of conviction. It is thus required that every circumstance favoring his innocence be duly taken into account. The proof against him must survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment. The conscience must be satisfied that on the defendant could be laid the responsibility for the offense charged; that not only did he perpetrate the act but that it amounted to a crime. What is required then is moral certainty.' ( Ibid, 64. Cf. People v. Alvarez, 55 SCRA 81; People v. Joven, 64 SCRA 126; People vs. Ramirez, 69 SCRA 144; People vs. Godov 72 SCRA 69; People v. Lopez, 74 SCRA 205; People v. Poblador, 76 SCRA 634; People v. Quiazon, 78 SCRA 513; People v. Nazareno, 80 SCRA 484; People vs. Gabilan 115 SCRA 1; People v. Gabiana, 117 SCRA 260; and People vs. Ibanga 124 SCRA 697). We are aware of the serious problems faced by the military in Davao del Sur where there appears to be a well-organized plan to overthrow the Government through armed struggle and replace it with an alien system based on a foreign ideology. The open defiance against duly constituted authorities has resulted in unfortunate levels of violence and human suffering publicized all over the country and abroad. Even as we reiterate the need for all freedom loving citizens to assist the military authorities in their legitimate efforts to maintain peace and national security, we must also remember the dictum in Morales vs. Enrile (1 21 SCRA 538, 569) when this Court stated: While the government should continue to repel the communists, the subversives, the rebels, and the lawless with an the means at its command, it should always be remembered that whatever action is taken must always be within the framework of our Constitution and our laws.

Violations of human rights do not help in overcoming a rebellion. A cavalier attitude towards constitutional liberties and protections will only fan the increase of subversive activities instead of containing and suppressing them. WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The accusedappellant is hereby ACQUITTED, on grounds of reasonable doubt, of the crime with which he has been charged. The subject firearm involved in this case (homemade revolver, caliber .38, Smith and Wesson, with Serial No. 8.69221) and the alleged subversive documents are ordered disposed of in accordance with law. Cost de oficio. SO ORDERED. Feria (Chairman), Fernan, Alampay and Paras, JJ., concur.

Footnotes * The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure have made clearer the exceptions when an arrest may be made without warrant. Rule 113, Section 5 provides: Arrest without warrant when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense, (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest Police station or i jail and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 11 2, Section 7. 6a 17a).

CASE NO. 26
TERRY v. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) 392 U.S. 1 TERRY v. OHIO. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. No. 67. Argued December 12, 1967. Decided June 10, 1968. A Cleveland detective (McFadden), on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, observed two strangers (petitioner and another man, Chilton) on a street corner. He saw them proceed alternately back and forth along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window, which they did for a total of about 24 times. Each completion of the route was followed by a conference between the two on a corner, at one of which they were joined by a third man (Katz) who left swiftly. Suspecting the two men of "casing a job, a stick-up," the officer followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store. The officer approached the three, identified himself as a policeman, and asked their names. The men "mumbled something," whereupon McFadden spun petitioner around, patted down his outside clothing, and found in his overcoat pocket, but was unable to remove, a pistol. The officer ordered the three into the store. He removed petitioner's overcoat, took out a revolver, and ordered the three to face the wall with their hands raised. He patted down the outer clothing of Chilton and Katz and seized a revolver from Chilton's outside overcoat pocket. He did not put his hands under the outer garments of Katz (since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a weapon), or under petitioner's or Chilton's outer garments until he felt the guns. The three were taken to the police station. Petitioner and Chilton were charged with carrying [392 U.S. 1, 2] concealed weapons. The defense moved to suppress the weapons. Though the trial court rejected the prosecution theory that the guns had been seized during a search incident to a lawful arrest, the court denied the motion to suppress and admitted the weapons into evidence on the ground that the officer had cause to believe that petitioner and Chilton were acting suspiciously, that their interrogation was warranted, and that the officer for his own protection had the right to pat down their outer clothing having reasonable cause to believe that they might be armed. The court distinguished between an investigatory "stop" and an arrest, and between a "frisk" of the outer clothing for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of crime. Petitioner and Chilton were found guilty, an intermediate appellate court affirmed, and the State Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that "no substantial constitutional question" was involved. Held: 1. The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, "protects people, not places," and therefore applies as much to the citizen on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere. Pp. 8-9. 2. The issue in this case is not the abstract propriety of the police conduct but the admissibility against petitioner of the evidence uncovered by the search and seizure. P. 12. 3. The exclusionary rule cannot properly be invoked to exclude the products of legitimate and restrained police investigative techniques; and this Court's approval of such techniques should not discourage remedies other than the exclusionary rule to curtail police abuses for which that is not an effective sanction. Pp. 13-15. 4. The Fourth Amendment applies to "stop and frisk" procedures such as those followed here. Pp. 16-20. (a) Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. P. 16. (b) A careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing in an attempt to find weapons is a "search" under that Amendment. P. 16. 5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous [392 U.S. 1, 3] regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed. Pp. 20-27. (a) Though the police must whenever practicable secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required. P. 20. (b) The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate. Pp. 21-22. (c) The officer here was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions. P. 22. (d) An officer justified in believing that an individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed may, to neutralize the threat of physical harm, take necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon. P. 24. (e) A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies of the situation. Pp. 25-26.

(f) An officer may make an intrusion short of arrest where he has reasonable apprehension of danger before being possessed of information justifying arrest. Pp. 26-27. 6. The officer's protective seizure of petitioner and his companions and the limited search which he made were reasonable, both at their inception and as conducted. Pp. 27-30. (a) The actions of petitioner and his companions were consistent with the officer's hypothesis that they were contemplating a daylight robbery and were armed. P. 28. (b) The officer's search was confined to what was minimally necessary to determine whether the men were armed, and the intrusion, which was made for the sole purpose of protecting himself and others nearby, was confined to ascertaining the presence of weapons. Pp. 29-30. 7. The revolver seized from petitioner was properly admitted into evidence against him, since the search which led to its seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 30-31. Affirmed. [392 U.S. 1, 4] Louis Stokes argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Jack G. Day. Reuben M. Payne argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was John T. Corrigan. Briefs of amici curiae, urging reversal, were filed by Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, Michael Meltsner, Melvyn Zarr, and Anthony G. Amsterdam for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., and by Bernard A. Berkman, Melvin L. Wulf, and Alan H. Levine for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. Briefs of amici curiae, urging affirmance, were filed by Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Ralph S. Spritzer, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Mervyn Hamburg for the United States; by Louis J. Lefkowitz, pro se, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Maria L. Marcus and Brenda Soloff, Assistant Attorneys General, for the Attorney General of New York; by Charles Moylan, Jr., Evelle J. Younger, and Harry Wood for the National District Attorneys' Assn., and by James R. Thompson for Americans for Effective Law Enforcement. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents serious questions concerning the role of the Fourth Amendment in the confrontation on the street between the citizen and the policeman investigating suspicious circumstances. Petitioner Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to the statutorily prescribed term of one to three years in the penitentiary. 1 Following [392 U.S. 1, 5] the denial of a pretrial motion to suppress, the prosecution introduced in evidence two revolvers and a number of bullets seized from Terry and a codefendant, Richard Chilton, 2 by Cleveland Police Detective Martin McFadden. At the hearing on the motion to suppress this evidence, Officer McFadden testified that while he was patrolling in plain clothes in downtown Cleveland at approximately 2:30 in the afternoon of October 31, 1963, his attention was attracted by two men, Chilton and Terry, standing on the corner of Huron Road and Euclid Avenue. He had never seen the two men before, and he was unable to say precisely what first drew his eye to them. However, he testified that he had been a policeman for 39 years and a detective for 35 and that he had been assigned to patrol this vicinity of downtown Cleveland for shoplifters and pickpockets for 30 years. He explained that he had developed routine habits of observation over the years and that he would "stand and watch people or walk and watch people at many intervals of the day." He added: "Now, in this case when I looked over they didn't look right to me at the time." His interest aroused, Officer McFadden took up a post of observation in the entrance to a store 300 to 400 feet [392 U.S. 1, 6] away from the two men. "I get more purpose to watch them when I seen their movements," he testified. He saw one of the men leave the other one and walk southwest on Huron Road, past some stores. The man paused for a moment and looked in a store window, then walked on a short distance, turned around and walked back toward the corner, pausing once again to look in the same store window. He rejoined his companion at the corner, and the two conferred briefly. Then the second man went through the same series of motions, strolling down Huron Road, looking in the same window, walking on a short distance, turning back, peering in the store window again, and returning to confer with the first man at the corner. The two men repeated this ritual alternately between five and six times apiece - in all, roughly a dozen trips. At one point, while the two were standing together on the corner, a third man approached them and engaged them briefly in conversation. This man then left the two others and walked west on Euclid Avenue. Chilton and Terry resumed their measured pacing, peering, and conferring. After this had gone on for 10 to 12 minutes, the two men walked off together, heading west on Euclid Avenue, following the path taken earlier by the third man. By this time Officer McFadden had become thoroughly suspicious. He testified that after observing their elaborately casual and oft-repeated reconnaissance of the store window on Huron Road, he suspected the two men of "casing a job, a stick-up," and that he considered it his duty as a police officer to investigate further. He added that he feared "they may have a gun." Thus, Officer McFadden followed Chilton and Terry and saw them stop in front of Zucker's store to talk to the same man who had conferred with them earlier on the street corner. Deciding that the situation was ripe for direct action. Officer McFadden approached the three men, identified [392 U.S. 1, 7] himself as a police officer and asked for their names. At this point his knowledge was confined to what he had observed. He was not acquainted with any of the three men by name or by sight, and he had received no information concerning them from any other source. When the men "mumbled something" in response to his inquiries, Officer McFadden grabbed petitioner Terry, spun him around so that they were facing the other two, with Terry between McFadden and the others, and patted down the outside of his clothing. In the left breast pocket of Terry's overcoat Officer McFadden felt a pistol. He reached inside the overcoat pocket, but was unable to remove the gun. At this point, keeping Terry between himself and the others, the officer ordered all three men to enter Zucker's store. As they went in, he removed Terry's overcoat completely, removed a .38-caliber revolver from the

pocket and ordered all three men to face the wall with their hands raised. Officer McFadden proceeded to pat down the outer clothing of Chilton and the third man, Katz. He discovered another revolver in the outer pocket of Chilton's overcoat, but no weapons were found on Katz. The officer testified that he only patted the men down to see whether they had weapons, and that he did not put his hands beneath the outer garments of either Terry or Chilton until he felt their guns. So far as appears from the record, he never placed his hands beneath Katz' outer garments. Officer McFadden seized Chilton's gun, asked the proprietor of the store to call a police wagon, and took all three men to the station, where Chilton and Terry were formally charged with carrying concealed weapons. On the motion to suppress the guns the prosecution took the position that they had been seized following a search incident to a lawful arrest. The trial court rejected this theory, stating that it "would be stretching the facts beyond reasonable comprehension" to find that Officer [392 U.S. 1, 8] McFadden had had probable cause to arrest the men before he patted them down for weapons. However, the court denied the defendants' motion on the ground that Officer McFadden, on the basis of his experience, "had reasonable cause to believe . . . that the defendants were conducting themselves suspiciously, and some interrogation should be made of their action." Purely for his own protection, the court held, the officer had the right to pat down the outer clothing of these men, who he had reasonable cause to believe might be armed. The court distinguished between an investigatory "stop" and an arrest, and between a "frisk" of the outer clothing for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of crime. The frisk, it held, was essential to the proper performance of the officer's investigatory duties, for without it "the answer to the police officer may be a bullet, and a loaded pistol discovered during the frisk is admissible." After the court denied their motion to suppress, Chilton and Terry waived jury trial and pleaded not guilty. The court adjudged them guilty, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Judicial District, Cuyahoga County, affirmed. State v. Terry, 5 Ohio App. 2d 122, 214 N. E. 2d 114 (1966). The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed their appeal on the ground that no "substantial constitutional question" was involved. We granted certiorari, 387 U.S. 929 (1967), to determine whether the admission of the revolvers in evidence violated petitioner's rights under the Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). We affirm the conviction. I. The Fourth Amendment provides that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . ." This inestimable right of [392 U.S. 1, 9] personal security belongs as much to the citizen on the streets of our cities as to the homeowner closeted in his study to dispose of his secret affairs. For, as this Court has always recognized, "No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law." Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891). We have recently held that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places," Katz v. United States,389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967), and wherever an individual may harbor a reasonable "expectation of privacy," id., at 361 (MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring), he is entitled to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion. Of course, the specific content and incidents of this right must be shaped by the context in which it is asserted. For "what the Constitution forbids is not all searches and seizures, but unreasonable searches and seizures." Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 222 (1960). Unquestionably petitioner was entitled to the protection of the Fourth Amendment as he walked down the street in Cleveland. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964); Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253 (1960); Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98 (1959); United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (1948); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925). The question is whether in all the circumstances of this on-the-street encounter, his right to personal security was violated by an unreasonable search and seizure. We would be less than candid if we did not acknowledge that this question thrusts to the fore difficult and troublesome issues regarding a sensitive area of police activity - issues which have never before been squarely [392 U.S. 1, 10] presented to this Court. Reflective of the tensions involved are the practical and constitutional arguments pressed with great vigor on both sides of the public debate over the power of the police to "stop and frisk" - as it is sometimes euphemistically termed - suspicious persons. On the one hand, it is frequently argued that in dealing with the rapidly unfolding and often dangerous situations on city streets the police are in need of an escalating set of flexible responses, graduated in relation to the amount of information they possess. For this purpose it is urged that distinctions should be made between a "stop" and an "arrest" (or a "seizure" of a person), and between a "frisk" and a "search."3 Thus, it is argued, the police should be allowed to "stop" a person and detain him briefly for questioning upon suspicion that he may be connected with criminal activity. Upon suspicion that the person may be armed, the police should have the power to "frisk" him for weapons. If the "stop" and the "frisk" give rise to probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime, then the police should be empowered to make a formal "arrest," and a full incident "search" of the person. This scheme is justified in part upon the notion that a "stop" and a "frisk" amount to a mere "minor inconvenience and petty indignity," 4 which can properly be imposed upon the [392 U.S. 1, 11] citizen in the interest of effective law enforcement on the basis of a police officer's suspicion. 5 On the other side the argument is made that the authority of the police must be strictly circumscribed by the law of arrest and search as it has developed to date in the traditional jurisprudence of the Fourth Amendment. 6 It is contended with some force that there is not - and cannot be - a variety of police activity which does not depend solely upon the voluntary cooperation of the citizen and yet which stops short of an arrest based upon probable cause to make such an arrest. The heart of the Fourth Amendment, the argument runs, is a severe requirement of specific justification for any intrusion upon protected personal security, coupled with a highly developed system of judicial controls to enforce upon the agents of the State the commands of the Constitution. Acquiescence by the courts in the compulsion inherent [392 U.S. 1, 12] in the field interrogation practices at issue here, it is urged, would constitute an abdication of judicial control over, and indeed an encouragement of, substantial interference with liberty and personal security by police officers whose judgment is necessarily colored by their primary involvement in "the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime." Johnson v.

United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14 (1948). This, it is argued, can only serve to exacerbate police-community tensions in the crowded centers of our Nation's cities. 7 In this context we approach the issues in this case mindful of the limitations of the judicial function in controlling the myriad daily situations in which policemen and citizens confront each other on the street. The State has characterized the issue here as "the right of a police officer . . . to make an on-the-street stop, interrogate and pat down for weapons (known in street vernacular as `stop and frisk')." 8But this is only partly accurate. For the issue is not the abstract propriety of the police conduct, but the admissibility against petitioner of the evidence uncovered by the search and seizure. Ever since its inception, the rule excluding evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment has been recognized as a principal mode of discouraging lawless police conduct. See Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 391 -393 (1914). Thus its major thrust is a deterrent one, see Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 629 -635 (1965), and experience has taught that it is the only effective deterrent to police misconduct in the criminal context, and that without it the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures would be a mere "form of words." Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655(1961). The rule also serves another vital function - "the imperative of judicial integrity." Elkins [392 U.S. 1, 13] v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 222 (1960). Courts which sit under our Constitution cannot and will not be made party to lawless invasions of the constitutional rights of citizens by permitting unhindered governmental use of the fruits of such invasions. Thus in our system evidentiary rulings provide the context in which the judicial process of inclusion and exclusion approves some conduct as comporting with constitutional guarantees and disapproves other actions by state agents. A ruling admitting evidence in a criminal trial, we recognize, has the necessary effect of legitimizing the conduct which produced the evidence, while an application of the exclusionary rule withholds the constitutional imprimatur. The exclusionary rule has its limitations, however, as a tool of judicial control. It cannot properly be invoked to exclude the products of legitimate police investigative techniques on the ground that much conduct which is closely similar involves unwarranted intrusions upon constitutional protections. Moreover, in some contexts the rule is ineffective as a deterrent. Street encounters between citizens and police officers are incredibly rich in diversity. They range from wholly friendly exchanges of pleasantries or mutually useful information to hostile confrontations of armed men involving arrests, or injuries, or loss of life. Moreover, hostile confrontations are not all of a piece. Some of them begin in a friendly enough manner, only to take a different turn upon the injection of some unexpected element into the conversation. Encounters are initiated by the police for a wide variety of purposes, some of which are wholly unrelated to a desire to prosecute for crime. 9 Doubtless some [392 U.S. 1, 14] police "field interrogation" conduct violates the Fourth Amendment. But a stern refusal by this Court to condone such activity does not necessarily render it responsive to the exclusionary rule. Regardless of how effective the rule may be where obtaining convictions is an important objective of the police, 10 it is powerless to deter invasions of constitutionally guaranteed rights where the police either have no interest in prosecuting or are willing to forgo successful prosecution in the interest of serving some other goal. Proper adjudication of cases in which the exclusionary rule is invoked demands a constant awareness of these limitations. The wholesale harassment by certain elements of the police community, of which minority groups, particularly Negroes, frequently complain, 11 will not be [392 U.S. 1, 15] stopped by the exclusion of any evidence from any criminal trial. Yet a rigid and unthinking application of the exclusionary rule, in futile protest against practices which it can never be used effectively to control, may exact a high toll in human injury and frustration of efforts to prevent crime. No judicial opinion can comprehend the protean variety of the street encounter, and we can only judge the facts of the case before us. Nothing we say today is to be taken as indicating approval of police conduct outside the legitimate investigative sphere. Under our decision, courts still retain their traditional responsibility to guard against police conduct which is overbearing or harassing, or which trenches upon personal security without the objective evidentiary justification which the Constitution requires. When such conduct is identified, it must be condemned by the judiciary and its fruits must be excluded from evidence in criminal trials. And, of course, our approval of legitimate and restrained investigative conduct undertaken on the basis of ample factual justification should in no way discourage the employment of other remedies than the exclusionary rule to curtail abuses for which that sanction may prove inappropriate. Having thus roughly sketched the perimeters of the constitutional debate over the limits on police investigative conduct in general and the background against which this case presents itself, we turn our attention to the quite narrow question posed by the facts before us: whether it is always unreasonable for a policeman to seize a person and subject him to a limited search for weapons unless there is probable cause for an arrest. [392 U.S. 1, 16] Given the narrowness of this question, we have no occasion to canvass in detail the constitutional limitations upon the scope of a policeman's power when he confronts a citizen without probable cause to arrest him. II. Our first task is to establish at what point in this encounter the Fourth Amendment becomes relevant. That is, we must decide whether and when Officer McFadden "seized" Terry and whether and when he conducted a "search." There is some suggestion in the use of such terms as "stop" and "frisk" that such police conduct is outside the purview of the Fourth Amendment because neither action rises to the level of a "search" or "seizure" within the meaning of the Constitution. 12 We emphatically reject this notion. It is quite plain that the Fourth Amendment governs "seizures" of the person which do not eventuate in a trip to the station house and prosecution for crime - "arrests" in traditional terminology. It must be recognized that whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person. And it is nothing less than sheer torture of the English language to suggest that a careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing all over his or her body in an attempt to find weapons is not a "search." Moreover, it is simply fantastic to urge that such a procedure [392 U.S. 1, 17] performed in public by a policeman while the citizen stands helpless, perhaps facing a wall with his hands raised, is a "petty indignity." 13 It is a serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person, which may inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment, and it is not to be undertaken lightly. 14 The danger in the logic which proceeds upon distinctions between a "stop" and an "arrest," or "seizure" of the person, and between a "frisk" and a "search" is two-fold. It seeks to isolate from constitutional scrutiny the initial stages of the contact between the policeman and the citizen. And by suggesting a rigid all-or-nothing model of justification and regulation under the Amendment, it obscures the utility of limitations upon the scope, as well as the initiation, of police action as a means of

constitutional regulation. 15 This Court has held in [392 U.S. 1, 18] the past that a search which is reasonable at its inception may violate the Fourth Amendment by virtue of its intolerable intensity and scope. Kremen v. United States, 353 U.S. 346 (1957); Go-Bart Importing Co. v. [392 U.S. 1, 19] United States, 282 U.S. 344, 356 -358 (1931); see United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 586 -587 (1948). The scope of the search must be "strictly tied to and justified by" the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 310 (1967) (MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, concurring); see, e. g., Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367 -368 (1964); Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 30 -31 (1925). The distinctions of classical "stop-and-frisk" theory thus serve to divert attention from the central inquiry under the Fourth Amendment - the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security. "Search" and "seizure" are not talismans. We therefore reject the notions that the Fourth Amendment does not come into play at all as a limitation upon police conduct if the officers stop short of something called a "technical arrest" or a "full-blown search." In this case there can be no question, then, that Officer McFadden "seized" petitioner and subjected him to a "search" when he took hold of him and patted down the outer surfaces of his clothing. We must decide whether at that point it was reasonable for Officer McFadden to have interfered with petitioner's personal security as he did. 16 And in determining whether the seizure and search were "unreasonable" our inquiry [392 U.S. 1, 20] is a dual one - whether the officer's action was justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place. III. If this case involved police conduct subject to the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment, we would have to ascertain whether "probable cause" existed to justify the search and seizure which took place. However, that is not the case. We do not retreat from our holdings that the police must, whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures through the warrant procedure, see, e. g., Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967); Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96 (1964); Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610 (1961), or that in most instances failure to comply with the warrant requirement can only be excused by exigent circumstances, see, e. g., Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294(1967) (hot pursuit); cf. Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367 -368 (1964). But we deal here with an entire rubric of police conduct - necessarily swift action predicated upon the on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat - which historically has not been, and as a practical matter could not be, subjected to the warrant procedure. Instead, the conduct involved in this case must be tested by the Fourth Amendment's general proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures. 17 Nonetheless, the notions which underlie both the warrant procedure and the requirement of probable cause remain fully relevant in this context. In order to assess the reasonableness of Officer McFadden's conduct as a general proposition, it is necessary "first to focus upon [392 U.S. 1, 21] the governmental interest which allegedly justifies official intrusion upon the constitutionally protected interests of the private citizen," for there is "no ready test for determining reasonableness other than by balancing the need to search [or seize] against the invasion which the search [or seizure] entails." Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 534 -535, 536-537 (1967). And in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. 18 The scheme of the Fourth Amendment becomes meaningful only when it is assured that at some point the conduct of those charged with enforcing the laws can be subjected to the more detached, neutral scrutiny of a judge who must evaluate the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure in light of the particular circumstances. 19 And in making that assessment it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard: would the facts [392 U.S. 1, 22] available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search "warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief" that the action taken was appropriate? Cf. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925); Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96 -97 (1964).20 Anything less would invite intrusions upon constitutionally guaranteed rights based on nothing more substantial than inarticulate hunches, a result this Court has consistently refused to sanction. See, e. g., Beck v. Ohio, supra; Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253 (1960); Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98 (1959). And simple "`good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough.' . . . If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be `secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,' only in the discretion of the police." Beck v. Ohio, supra, at 97. Applying these principles to this case, we consider first the nature and extent of the governmental interests involved. One general interest is of course that of effective crime prevention and detection; it is this interest which underlies the recognition that a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest. It was this legitimate investigative function Officer McFadden was discharging when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions. He had observed Terry, Chilton, and Katz go through a series of acts, each of them perhaps innocent in itself, but which taken together warranted further investigation. There is nothing unusual in two men standing together on a street corner, perhaps waiting for someone. Nor is there anything suspicious about people [392 U.S. 1, 23] in such circumstances strolling up and down the street, singly or in pairs. Store windows, moreover, are made to be looked in. But the story in quite different where, as here, two men hover about a street corner for an extended period of time, at the end of which it becomes apparent that they are not waiting for anyone or anything; where these men pace alternately along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window roughly 24 times; where each completion of this route is followed immediately by a conference between the two men on the corner; where they are joined in one of these conferences by a third man who leaves swiftly; and where the two men finally follow the third and rejoin him a couple of blocks away. It would have been poor police work indeed for an officer of 30 years' experience in the detection of thievery from stores in this same neighborhood to have failed to investigate this behavior further. The crux of this case, however, is not the propriety of Officer McFadden's taking steps to investigate petitioner's suspicious behavior, but rather, whether there was justification for McFadden's invasion of Terry's personal security by searching him for weapons in the course of that investigation. We are now concerned with more than the governmental interest in investigating crime; in addition, there is the more immediate interest of the police officer in taking steps to

assure himself that the person with whom he is dealing is not armed with a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against him. Certainly it would be unreasonable to require that police officers take unnecessary risks in the performance of their duties. American criminals have a long tradition of armed violence, and every year in this country many law enforcement officers are killed in the line of duty, and thousands more are wounded. [392 U.S. 1, 24] Virtually all of these deaths and a substantial portion of the injuries are inflicted with guns and knives. 21 In view of these facts, we cannot blind ourselves to the need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves and other prospective victims of violence in situations where they may lack probable cause for an arrest. When an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others, it would appear to be clearly unreasonable to deny the officer the power to take necessary measures to determine whether the person is in fact carrying a weapon and to neutralize the threat of physical harm. We must still consider, however, the nature and quality of the intrusion on individual rights which must be accepted if police officers are to be conceded the right to search for weapons in situations where probable cause to arrest for crime is lacking. Even a limited search of the outer clothing for weapons constitutes a severe, [392 U.S. 1, 25] though brief, intrusion upon cherished personal security, and it must surely be an annoying, frightening, and perhaps humiliating experience. Petitioner contends that such an intrusion is permissible only incident to a lawful arrest, either for a crime involving the possession of weapons or for a crime the commission of which led the officer to investigate in the first place. However, this argument must be closely examined. Petitioner does not argue that a police officer should refrain from making any investigation of suspicious circumstances until such time as he has probable cause to make an arrest; nor does he deny that police officers in properly discharging their investigative function may find themselves confronting persons who might well be armed and dangerous. Moreover, he does not say that an officer is always unjustified in searching a suspect to discover weapons. Rather, he says it is unreasonable for the policeman to take that step until such time as the situation evolves to a point where there is probable cause to make an arrest. When that point has been reached, petitioner would concede the officer's right to conduct a search of the suspect for weapons, fruits or instrumentalities of the crime, or "mere" evidence, incident to the arrest. There are two weaknesses in this line of reasoning, however. First, it fails to take account of traditional limitations upon the scope of searches, and thus recognizes no distinction in purpose, character, and extent between a search incident to an arrest and a limited search for weapons. The former, although justified in part by the acknowledged necessity to protect the arresting officer from assault with a concealed weapon, Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367 (1964), is also justified on other grounds, ibid., and can therefore involve a relatively extensive exploration of the person. A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to [392 U.S. 1, 26] arrest, however, must, like any other search, be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 310 (1967) (MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, concurring). Thus it must be limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be used to harm the officer or others nearby, and may realistically be characterized as something less than a "full" search, even though it remains a serious intrusion. A second, and related, objection to petitioner's argument is that it assumes that the law of arrest has already worked out the balance between the particular interests involved here - the neutralization of danger to the policeman in the investigative circumstance and the sanctity of the individual. But this is not so. An arrest is a wholly different kind of intrusion upon individual freedom from a limited search for weapons, and the interests each is designed to serve are likewise quite different. An arrest is the initial stage of a criminal prosecution. It is intended to vindicate society's interest in having its laws obeyed, and it is inevitably accompanied by future interference with the individual's freedom of movement, whether or not trial or conviction ultimately follows. 22 The protective search for weapons, on the other hand, constitutes a brief, though far from inconsiderable, intrusion upon the sanctity of the person. It does not follow that because an officer may lawfully arrest a person only when he is apprised of facts sufficient to warrant a belief that the person has committed or is committing a crime, the officer is equally unjustified, absent that kind of evidence, in making any intrusions short of an arrest. Moreover, a perfectly reasonable apprehension of danger may arise long before the officer is possessed of adequate information to justify taking a person into custody for [392 U.S. 1, 27] the purpose of prosecuting him for a crime. Petitioner's reliance on cases which have worked out standards of reasonableness with regard to "seizures" constituting arrests and searches incident thereto is thus misplaced. It assumes that the interests sought to be vindicated and the invasions of personal security may be equated in the two cases, and thereby ignores a vital aspect of the analysis of the reasonableness of particular types of conduct under the Fourth Amendment. See Camara v. Municipal Court, supra. Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime. The officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger. Cf. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 174 -176 (1949); Stacey v. Emery, 97 U.S. 642, 645 (1878). 23 And in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given, not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or "hunch," but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience. Cf. Brinegar v. United States supra. IV. We must now examine the conduct of Officer McFadden in this case to determine whether his search and seizure of petitioner were reasonable, both at their inception [392 U.S. 1, 28] and as conducted. He had observed Terry, together with Chilton and another man, acting in a manner he took to be preface to a "stick-up." We think on the facts and circumstances Officer McFadden detailed before the trial judge a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing petitioner was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety while he was investigating his suspicious

behavior. The actions of Terry and Chilton were consistent with McFadden's hypothesis that these men were contemplating a daylight robbery - which, it is reasonable to assume, would be likely to involve the use of weapons - and nothing in their conduct from the time he first noticed them until the time he confronted them and identified himself as a police officer gave him sufficient reason to negate that hypothesis. Although the trio had departed the original scene, there was nothing to indicate abandonment of an intent to commit a robbery at some point. Thus, when Officer McFadden approached the three men gathered before the display window at Zucker's store he had observed enough to make it quite reasonable to fear that they were armed; and nothing in their response to his hailing them, identifying himself as a police officer, and asking their names served to dispel that reasonable belief. We cannot say his decision at that point to seize Terry and pat his clothing for weapons was the product of a volatile or inventive imagination, or was undertaken simply as an act of harassment; the record evidences the tempered act of a policeman who in the course of an investigation had to make a quick decision as to how to protect himself and others from possible danger, and took limited steps to do so. The manner in which the seizure and search were conducted is, of course, as vital a part of the inquiry as whether they were warranted at all. The Fourth Amendment proceeds as much by limitations upon the [392 U.S. 1, 29] scope of governmental action as by imposing preconditions upon its initiation. Compare Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 354 356 (1967). The entire deterrent purpose of the rule excluding evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment rests on the assumption that "limitations upon the fruit to be gathered tend to limit the quest itself." United States v. Poller, 43 F.2d 911, 914 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1930); see, e. g., Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 629 -635 (1965); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961); Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 216 -221 (1960). Thus, evidence may not be introduced if it was discovered by means of a seizure and search which were not reasonably related in scope to the justification for their initiation. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 310 (1967) (MR. JUSTICE FORTAS, concurring). We need not develop at length in this case, however, the limitations which the Fourth Amendment places upon a protective seizure and search for weapons. These limitations will have to be developed in the concrete factual circumstances of individual cases. See Sibron v. New York, post, p. 40, decided today. Suffice it to note that such a search, unlike a search without a warrant incident to a lawful arrest, is not justified by any need to prevent the disappearance or destruction of evidence of crime. See Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367 (1964). The sole justification of the search in the present situation is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer. The scope of the search in this case presents no serious problem in light of these standards. Officer McFadden patted down the outer clothing of petitioner and his two companions. He did not place his hands in their pockets or under the outer surface of their garments until he had [392 U.S. 1, 30] felt weapons, and then he merely reached for and removed the guns. He never did invade Katz' person beyond the outer surfaces of his clothes, since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a weapon. Officer McFadden confined his search strictly to what was minimally necessary to learn whether the men were armed and to disarm them once he discovered the weapons. He did not conduct a general exploratory search for whatever evidence of criminal activity he might find. V. We conclude that the revolver seized from Terry was properly admitted in evidence against him. At the time he seized petitioner and searched him for weapons, Officer McFadden had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner was armed and dangerous, and it was necessary for the protection of himself and others to take swift measures to discover the true facts and neutralize the threat of harm if it materialized. The policeman carefully restricted his search to what was appropriate to the discovery of the particular items which he sought. Each case of this sort will, of course, have to be decided on its own facts. We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. [392 U.S. 1, 31] Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and any weapons seized may properly be introduced in evidence against the person from whom they were taken. Affirmed. MR. JUSTICE BLACK concurs in the judgment and the opinion except where the opinion quotes from and relies upon this Court's opinion in Katz v. United States and the concurring opinion in Warden v. Hayden. Footnotes [ Footnote 1 ] Ohio Rev. Code 2923.01 (1953) provides in part that "[n]o person shall carry a pistol, bowie knife, dirk, or other dangerous weapon concealed on or about his person." An exception is made for properly authorized law enforcement officers. [ Footnote 2 ] Terry and Chilton were arrested, indicated, tried, and convicted together. They were represented by the same attorney, and they made a joint motion to suppress the guns. After the motion was denied, evidence was taken in the case against Chilton. This evidence consisted of the testimony of the arresting officer and of Chilton. It was then stipulated that this testimony would be applied to the case against Terry, and no further evidence was introduced in that case. The trial judge considered the two cases together, rendered the decisions at the same time and sentenced the two men at the same time. They prosecuted their state court appeals together through the same attorney, and they petitioned this Court for certiorari together. Following the grant of the writ upon this joint petition, Chilton died. Thus, only Terry's conviction is here for review. [ Footnote 3 ] Both the trial court and the Ohio Court of Appeals in this case relied upon such a distinction.

[ Footnote 5 ] The theory is well laid out in the Rivera opinion: "[T]he evidence needed to make the inquiry is not of the same degree of conclusiveness as that required for an arrest. The stopping of the individual to inquire is not an arrest and the ground upon which the police may make the inquiry may be less incriminating than the ground for an arrest for a crime known to have been committed. . . . ..... "And as the right to stop and inquire is to be justified for a cause less conclusive than that which would sustain an arrest, so the right to frisk may be justified as an incident to inquiry upon grounds of elemental safety and precaution which might not initially sustain a search. Ultimately the validity of the frisk narrows down to whether there is or is not a right by the police to touch the person questioned. The sense of exterior touch here involved is not very far different from the sense of sight or hearing - senses upon which police customarily act." People v. Rivera, 14 N. Y. 2d 441, 445, 447, 201 N. E. 2d 32, 34, 35, 252 N. Y. S. 2d 458, 461, 463 (1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 978 (1965). [ Footnote 9 ] See L. Tiffany, D. McIntyre & D. Rotenberg, Detection of Crime: Stopping and Questioning, Search and Seizure, Encouragement and Entrapment 18-56 (1967). This sort of police conduct may, for example, be designed simply to help an intoxicated person find his way home, with no intention of arresting him unless he becomes obstreperous. Or the police may be seeking to mediate a domestic [392 U.S. 1, 14] quarrel which threatens to erupt into violence. They may accost a woman in an area known for prostitution as part of a harassment campaign designed to drive prostitutes away without the considerable difficulty involved in prosecuting them. Or they may be conducting a dragnet search of all teenagers in a particular section of the city for weapons because they have heard rumors of an impending gang fight. [ Footnote 10 ] See Tiffany, McIntyre & Rotenberg, supra, n. 9, at 100-101; Comment, 47 Nw. U. L. Rev. 493, 497-499 (1952). [ Footnote 11 ] The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice found that "[i]n many communities, field interrogations are a major source of friction between the police and minority groups." President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: The Police 183 (1967). It was reported that the friction caused by "[m]isuse of field interrogations" increases "as more police departments adopt `aggressive patrol' in which officers are encouraged routinely to stop and question persons on the street who are unknown to them, who are suspicious, or whose purpose for being abroad is not readily evident." Id., at 184. While the frequency with which "frisking" forms a part of field interrogation practice varies tremendously with the locale, the objective of the interrogation, and the particular officer, see Tiffany, McIntyre & Rotenberg, supra, n. 9, at 47-48, it cannot help but be a severely exacerbating factor in police-community tensions. [392 U.S. 1, 15] This is particularly true in situations where the "stop and frisk" of youths or minority group members is "motivated by the officers' perceived need to maintain the power image of the beat officer, an aim sometimes accomplished by humiliating anyone who attempts to undermine police control of the streets." Ibid. [ Footnote 12 ] In this case, for example, the Ohio Court of Appeals stated that "we must be careful to distinguish that the `frisk' authorized herein includes only a `frisk' for a dangerous weapon. It by no means authorizes a search for contraband, evidentiary material, or anything else in the absence of reasonable grounds to arrest. Such a search is controlled by the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, and probable cause is essential." State v. Terry, 5 Ohio App. 2d 122, 130, 214 N. E. 2d 114, 120 (1966). See also, e. g., Ellis v. United States, 105 U.S. App. D.C. 86, 88, 264 F.2d 372, 374 (1959); Comment, 65 Col. L. Rev. 848, 860, and n. 81 (1965). [ Footnote 13 ] Consider the following apt description: "[T]he officer must feel with sensitive fingers every portion of the prisoner's body. A thorough search must be made of the prisoner's arms and armpits, waistline and back, the groin and area about the testicles, and entire surface of the legs down to the feet." Priar & Martin, Searching and Disarming Criminals, 45 J. Crim. L. C. & P. S. 481 (1954). We have noted that the abusive practices which play a major, though by no means exclusive, role in creating this friction are not susceptible of control by means of the exclusionary rule, and cannot properly dictate our decision with respect to the powers of the police in genuine investigative and preventive situations. However, the degree of community resentment aroused by particular practices is clearly relevant to an assessment of the quality of the intrusion upon reasonable expectations of personal security caused by those practices. [ Footnote 15 ] These dangers are illustrated in part by the course of adjudication in the Court of Appeals of New York. Although its first decision in this area, People v. Rivera, 14 N. Y. 2d 441, 201 N. E. 2d 32, 252 N. Y. S. 2d 458 (1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 978 (1965), rested squarely on the notion that a "frisk" was not a "search," see nn. 3-5, supra, it was compelled to recognize in People v. Taggart,[392 U.S. 1, 18] 20 N. Y. 2d 335, 342, 229 N. E. 2d 581, 586, 283 N. Y. S. 2d 1, 8 (1967), that what it had actually authorized in Rivera and subsequent decisions, see, e. g., People v. Pugach, 15 N. Y. 2d 65, 204 N. E. 2d 176, 255 N. Y. S. 2d 833 (1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 936 (1965), was a "search" upon less than probable cause. However, in acknowledging that no valid distinction could be maintained on the basis of its cases, the Court of Appeals continued to distinguish between the two in theory. It still defined "search" as it had in Rivera - as an essentially unlimited examination of the person for any and all seizable items - and merely noted that the cases had upheld police intrusions which went far beyond the original limited conception of a "frisk." Thus, principally because it failed to consider limitations upon the scope of searches in individual cases as a potential mode of regulation, the Court of Appeals in three short years arrived at the position that the Constitution must, in the name of necessity, be held to permit unrestrained rummaging about a person and his effects upon mere suspicion. It did apparently limit its holding to "cases involving serious personal injury or grave irreparable property damage," thus excluding those involving "the enforcement of sumptuary laws, such as gambling, and laws of limited public consequence, such as narcotics violations, prostitution, larcenies of the ordinary kind, and the like." People v. Taggart, supra, at 340, 214 N. E. 2d, at 584, 283 N. Y. S. 2d, at 6.

In our view the sounder course is to recognize that the Fourth Amendment governs all intrusions by agents of the public upon personal security, and to make the scope of the particular intrusion, in light of all the exigencies of the case, a central element in the analysis of reasonableness. Cf. Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 183 (1949) (Mr. Justice Jackson, dissenting). Compare Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 537 (1967). This seems preferable to an approach which attributes too much significance to an overly technical definition of "search," and which turns in part upon a judge-made hierarchy of legislative enactments in the criminal sphere. Focusing the inquiry squarely on the dangers and demands of the particular situation also seems more likely to produce rules which are intelligible to the police and the public alike than requiring the officer in the heat of an unfolding encounter on the street to make a judgment as to which laws are "of limited public consequence." [ Footnote 16 ] We thus decide nothing today concerning the constitutional propriety of an investigative "seizure" upon less than probable cause for purposes of "detention" and/or interrogation. Obviously, not all personal intercourse between policemen and citizens involves "seizures" of persons. Only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a "seizure" has occurred. We cannot tell with any certainty upon this record whether any such "seizure" took place here prior to Officer McFadden's initiation of physical contact for purposes of searching Terry for weapons, and we thus may assume that up to that point no intrusion upon constitutionally protected rights had occurred. [ Footnote 18 ] This demand for specificity in the information upon which police action is predicated is the central teaching of this Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. [ Footnote 21 ] Fifty-seven law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty in this country in 1966, bringing the total to 335 for the seven-year period beginning with 1960. Also in 1966, there were 23,851 assaults on police officers, 9,113 of which resulted in injuries to the policemen. Fifty-five of the 57 officers killed in 1966 died from gunshot wounds, 41 of them inflicted by handguns easily secreted about the person. The remaining two murders were perpetrated by knives. See Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports for the United States - 1966, at 45-48, 152 and Table 51. The easy availability of firearms to potential criminals in this country is well known and has provoked much debate. See, e. g., President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society 239-243 (1967). Whatever the merits of gun-control proposals, this fact is relevant to an assessment of the need for some form of self-protective search power. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring. While I unreservedly agree with the Court's ultimate holding in this case, I am constrained to fill in a few gaps, as I see them, in its opinion. I do this because what is said by this Court today will serve as initial guidelines for law enforcement authorities and courts throughout the land as this important new field of law develops. A police officer's right to make an on-the-street "stop" and an accompanying "frisk" for weapons is of course bounded by the protections afforded by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court holds, and I agree, that while the right does not depend upon possession by the officer of a valid warrant, nor upon the existence of probable cause, such activities must be reasonable under the circumstances as the officer credibly relates them in court. Since the question in this and most cases is whether evidence produced by a frisk is admissible, the problem is to determine what makes a frisk reasonable. If the State of Ohio were to provide that police officers could, on articulable suspicion less than probable cause, forcibly frisk and disarm persons thought to be carrying concealed weapons, I would have little doubt that action taken pursuant to such authority could be constitutionally reasonable. Concealed weapons create an immediate [392 U.S. 1, 32] and severe danger to the public, and though that danger might not warrant routine general weapons checks, it could well warrant action on less than a "probability." I mention this line of analysis because I think it vital to point out that it cannot be applied in this case. On the record before us Ohio has not clothed its policemen with routine authority to frisk and disarm on suspicion; in the absence of state authority, policemen have no more right to "pat down" the outer clothing of passers-by, or of persons to whom they address casual questions, than does any other citizen. Consequently, the Ohio courts did not rest the constitutionality of this frisk upon any general authority in Officer McFadden to take reasonable steps to protect the citizenry, including himself, from dangerous weapons. The state courts held, instead, that when an officer is lawfully confronting a possibly hostile person in the line of duty he has a right, springing only from the necessity of the situation and not from any broader right to disarm, to frisk for his own protection. This holding, with which I agree and with which I think the Court agrees, offers the only satisfactory basis I can think of for affirming this conviction. The holding has, however, two logical corollaries that I do not think the Court has fully expressed. In the first place, if the frisk is justified in order to protect the officer during an encounter with a citizen, the officer must first have constitutional grounds to insist on an encounter, to make a forcible stop. Any person, including a policeman, is at liberty to avoid a person he considers dangerous. If and when a policeman has a right instead to disarm such a person for his own protection, he must first have a right not to avoid him but to be in his presence. That right must be more than the liberty (again, possessed by every citizen) to address questions to other persons, for ordinarily the person [392 U.S. 1, 33] addressed has an equal right to ignore his interrogator and walk away; he certainly need not submit to a frisk for the questioner's protection. I would make it perfectly clear that the right to frisk in this case depends upon the reasonableness of a forcible stop to investigate a suspected crime. Where such a stop is reasonable, however, the right to frisk must be immediate and automatic if the reason for the stop is, as here, an articulable suspicion of a crime of violence. Just as a full search incident to a lawful arrest requires no additional justification, a limited frisk incident to a lawful stop must often be rapid and routine. There is no reason why an officer, rightfully but forcibly confronting a person suspected of a serious crime, should have to ask one question and take the risk that the answer might be a bullet.

The facts of this case are illustrative of a proper stop and an incident frisk. Officer McFadden had no probable cause to arrest Terry for anything, but he had observed circumstances that would reasonably lead an experienced, prudent policeman to suspect that Terry was about to engage in burglary or robbery. His justifiable suspicion afforded a proper constitutional basis for accosting Terry, restraining his liberty of movement briefly, and addressing questions to him, and Officer McFadden did so. When he did, he had no reason whatever to suppose that Terry might be armed, apart from the fact that he suspected him of planning a violent crime. McFadden asked Terry his name, to which Terry "mumbled something." Whereupon McFadden, without asking Terry to speak louder and without giving him any chance to explain his presence or his actions, forcibly frisked him. I would affirm this conviction for what I believe to be the same reasons the Court relies on. I would, however, make explicit what I think is implicit in affirmance on [392 U.S. 1, 34] the present facts. Officer McFadden's right to interrupt Terry's freedom of movement and invade his privacy arose only because circumstances warranted forcing an encounter with Terry in an effort to prevent or investigate a crime. Once that forced encounter was justified, however, the officer's right to take suitable measures for his own safety followed automatically. Upon the foregoing premises, I join the opinion of the Court. MR. JUSTICE WHITE, concurring. I join the opinion of the Court, reserving judgment, however, on some of the Court's general remarks about the scope and purpose of the exclusionary rule which the Court has fashioned in the process of enforcing the Fourth Amendment. Also, although the Court puts the matter aside in the context of this case, I think an additional word is in order concerning the matter of interrogation during an investigative stop. There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation. In my view, it is temporary detention, warranted by the circumstances, which chiefly justifies the protective frisk for weapons. Perhaps the frisk itself, where proper, will have beneficial results whether questions are asked or not. If weapons are found, an arrest will follow. [392 U.S. 1, 35] If none are found, the frisk may nevertheless serve preventive ends because of its unmistakable message that suspicion has been aroused. But if the investigative stop is sustainable at all, constitutional rights are not necessarily violated if pertinent questions are asked and the person is restrained briefly in the process. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting. I agree that petitioner was "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. I also agree that frisking petitioner and his companions for guns was a "search." But it is a mystery how that "search" and that "seizure" can be constitutional by Fourth Amendment standards, unless there was "probable cause"1 to believe that (1) a crime had been committed or (2) a crime was in the process of being committed or (3) a crime was about to be committed. The opinion of the Court disclaims the existence of "probable cause." If loitering were in issue and that[392 U.S. 1, 36] was the offense charged, there would be "probable cause" shown. But the crime here is carrying concealed weapons; 2 and there is no basis for concluding that the officer had "probable cause" for believing that that crime was being committed. Had a warrant been sought, a magistrate would, therefore, have been unauthorized to issue one, for he can act only if there is a showing of "probable cause." We hold today that the police have greater authority to make a "seizure" and conduct a "search" than a judge has to authorize such action. We have said precisely the opposite over and over again. 3 [392 U.S. 1, 37] In other words, police officers up to today have been permitted to effect arrests or searches without warrants only when the facts within their personal knowledge would satisfy the constitutional standard of probable cause. At the time of their "seizure" without a warrant they must possess facts concerning the person arrested that would have satisfied a magistrate that "probable cause" was indeed present. The term "probable cause" rings a bell of certainty that is not sounded by phrases such as "reasonable suspicion." Moreover, the meaning of "probable cause" is deeply imbedded in our constitutional history. As we stated in Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 100 -102: "The requirement of probable cause has roots that are deep in our history. The general warrant, in which the name of the person to be arrested was left blank, and the writs of assistance, against which James Otis inveighed, both perpetuated the oppressive practice of allowing the police to arrest and search on suspicion. Police control took the place of judicial control, since no showing of `probable cause' before a magistrate was required. ..... "That philosophy [rebelling against these practices] later was reflected in the Fourth Amendment. And as the early American decisions both before and immediately after its adoption show, common rumor or report, suspicion, or even `strong reason to suspect' was not adequate to support a warrant [392 U.S. 1, 38] for arrest. And that principle has survived to this day. . . . ". . . It is important, we think, that this requirement [of probable cause] be strictly enforced, for the standard set by the Constitution protects both the officer and the citizen. If the officer acts with probable cause, he is protected even though it turns out that the citizen is innocent. . . . And while a search without a warrant is, within limits, permissible if incident to a lawful arrest, if an arrest without a warrant is to support an incidental search, it must be made with probable cause. . . . This immunity of officers cannot fairly be enlarged without jeopardizing the privacy or security of the citizen."

The infringement on personal liberty of any "seizure" of a person can only be "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment if we require the police to possess "probable cause" before they seize him. Only that line draws a meaningful distinction between an officer's mere inkling and the presence of facts within the officer's personal knowledge which would convince a reasonable man that the person seized has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a particular crime. "In dealing with probable cause, . . . as the very name implies, we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act." Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175 . To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment. [392 U.S. 1, 39] Until the Fourth Amendment, which is closely allied with the Fifth, 4 is rewritten, the person and the effects of the individual are beyond the reach of all government agencies until there are reasonable grounds to believe (probable cause) that a criminal venture has been launched or is about to be launched. There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today. Yet if the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can "seize" and "search" him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country. [ Footnote 1 ] The meaning of "probable cause" has been developed in cases where an officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been or is being committed. See, e. g., The Thompson, 3 Wall. 155; Stacey v. Emery, 97 U.S. 642 ; Director General v. Kastenbaum, 263 U.S. 25 ; Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 ; United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 ; Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 ; Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 ; Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98 . In such cases, of course, the officer may make an "arrest" which results in charging the individual with commission of a crime. But while arresting persons who have already committed crimes is an important task of law enforcement, an equally if not more important function is crime prevention and deterrence of would-be criminals. "[T]here is no war between the Constitution and common sense," Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 657 . Police officers need not wait until they see a person actually commit a crime before they are able to "seize" that person. Respect for our constitutional system and personal liberty demands in return, however, that such a "seizure" be made only upon "probable cause." [ Footnote 3 ] This Court has always used the language of "probable cause" in determining the constitutionality of an arrest without a warrant. See, e. g., Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 156 , 161-162; Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13 -15; McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 455-456; Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98 ; Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 479 -484. To give power to the police to seize a person on some grounds different from or less than "probable cause" would be handing them more authority than could be exercised by a magistrate in issuing a warrant to seize a person. As we stated in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , with respect to requirements for arrests without warrants: "Whether or not the requirements of reliability and particularity of the information on which an officer may act are more stringent where an arrest warrant is absent, they surely cannot be less stringent than where an arrest warrant is obtained." Id., at 479. And we said in Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 176 : "These long-prevailing standards [for probable cause] seek to safeguard citizens from rash and unreasonable interferences with privacy and from unfounded charges of crime. They also seek to give fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community's protection. Because many situations which confront officers in the course of executing their duties are more or less ambiguous, room must be allowed for some mistakes on their part. But the mistakes must be those of reasonable men, acting on facts leading sensibly to their conclusions of probability. The rule of probable cause is a practical, nontechnical conception affording the best compromise that has been found for accommodating these often opposing interests. Requiring [392 U.S. 1, 37] more would unduly hamper law enforcement. To allow less would be to leave law-abiding citizens at the mercy of the officers' whim or caprice." "For the `unreasonable searches and seizures' condemned in the Fourth Amendment are almost always made for the purpose of compelling a man to give evidence against himself, which in criminal cases is condemned in the Fifth Amendment; and compelling a man `in a criminal case to be a witness against himself,' which is condemned in the Fifth Amendment, throws light on the question as to what is an `unreasonable search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

CASE NO. 27
G.R. No. L-35546 September 17, 1974 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., RAMON MITRA, JR., FRANCISCO RODRIGO, AND NAPOLEON RAMA, petitioners, vs. HON JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY,respondents.
G.R. No. L-35538 September 17, 1974 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOAQUIN P. ROCES, TEODORO M. LOCSIN, SR., ROLANDO FADUL, ROSALINA GALANG, GO ENG GUAN, MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, RENATO CONSTANTINO, AND LUIS R. MAURICIO, petitioners, vs. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; THE CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, et al., respondents. G.R. No. L-35539 September 17, 1974 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF JOSE W. DIOKNO, CARMEN I. DIOKNO, *1petitioner, vs. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; ROMEO ESPINO, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES. respondents. G.R. No. L-35540 September 17, 1974 MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, NAPOLEON G. RAMA, AND JOSE MARI VELEZ, petitioners, vs. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; HON. FRANCISCO TATAD, PRESS SECRETARY; AND GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, respondents. G.R. No. L-35547 September 17, 1974 *2 ENRIQUE VOLTAIRE GARCIA II, petitioner, vs. BRIG. GEN. FIDEL RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, respondents. G.R. No. L-35556 September 17, 1974 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF VERONICA L. YUYITUNG AND TAN CHIN HIAN, petitioners, vs. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LIEUT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, respondents. G.R. No. L-35567 September 17, 1974 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF AMANDO DORONILA JUAN L. MERCADO, HERNANDO L. ABAYA, ERNESTO GRANADA, LUIS D. BELTRAN, TAN CHIN HIAN, BREN GUIAO, RUBEN CUSIPAG, ROBERTO ORDOEZ, MANUEL ALMARIO AND WILLIE BAUN, petitioners, vs. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LIEUT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, respondents. G.R. No. L-35571 September 17, 1974. *3 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BREN Z. GUIAO, TERESITA M. GUIAO,petitioner, vs. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; LT. GEN. ROMEO ESPINO, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES: AND BRIG. GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY, respondents. G.R. No. L-35573 September 17, 1974 ERNESTO RONDON, petitioner, vs. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE; GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, CHIEF, PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY; AND MAJOR RODULFO MIANA, respondents.

MAKALINTAL, C.J.:p These cases are all petitions for habeas corpus, the petitioners having been arrested and detained by the military by virtue of the President's Proclamation No. 1081, dated September 21, 1972. At the outset a word of clarification is in order. This is not the decision of the Court in the sense that a decision represents a consensus of the required majority of its members not only on the judgment itself but also on the rationalization of the issues and the conclusions arrived at. On the final result the vote is practically unanimous; this is a statement of my individual opinion as well as a summary of the voting on the major issues. Why no particular Justice has been designated to write just one opinion for the entire Court will presently be explained. At one point during our deliberations on these cases it was suggested that as Chief Justice I should write that opinion. The impracticability of the suggestion shortly became apparent for a number of reasons, only two of which need be mentioned. First, the discussions, as they began to touch on particular issues, revealed a lack of agreement among the Justices as to whether some of those issues should be taken up although it was not necessary to do so, they being merely convenient for the purpose of ventilating vexing questions of public interest, or whether the decision should be limited to those issues which are really material and decisive in these cases. Similarly, there was no agreement as to the manner the issues should be treated and developed. The same destination would be reached, so to speak, but through different routes and by means of different vehicles of approach. The writing of separate opinions by individual Justices was thus unavoidable, and understandably so for still another reason, namely, that although little overt reference to it was made at the time, the future verdict of history was very much a factor in the thinking of the members, no other case of such transcendental significance to the life of the nation having before confronted this Court. Second and this to me was the insuperable 1 obstacle I was and am of the opinion, which was shared by six other Justices at the time the question was voted upon, that petitioner Jose W. Diokno's motion of December 28, 1973 to withdraw his petition (G.R. No. L-35539) should

be granted, and therefore I was in no position to set down the ruling of the Court on each of the arguments raised by him, except indirectly, insofar as they had been raised likewise in the other cases. It should be explained at this point that when the Court voted on Diokno's motion to withdraw his petition he was still under detention without charges, and continued to remain so up to the time the separate opinions of the individual Justices were put in final form preparatory to their promulgation on September 12, which was the last day of Justice Zaldivars tenure in 2 the Court. Before they could be promulgated, however, a major development supervened: petitioner Diokno was released by the President in the morning of September 11, 1974. In view thereof all the members of this Court except Justice Castro agreed to dismiss Diokno's petition on the ground that it had become moot, with those who originally voted to grant the motion for withdrawal citing said motion as an additional ground for such dismissal. The petitioners in the other cases, except Benigno Aquino, Jr. (G.R. No. L-35546), either have been permitted to withdraw 3 their petitions or have been released from detention subject to certain restrictions. In the case of Aquino, formal charges of murder, subversion and illegal possession of firearms were lodged against him with a Military Commission on August 11, 1973; and on the following August 23 he challenged the jurisdiction of said Commission as well as his continued detention by virtue of those charges in a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed in this Court (G.R. No. L-37364). The question came up as to whether or not Aquino's petition for habeas corpus should be dismissed on the ground that the case as to him should more appropriately be resolved in this new petition. Of the twelve Justices, 4 however, eight voted against such dismissal and chose to consider the case on the merits. On Diokno's motion to withdraw his petition I voted in favor of granting it for two reasons. In the first place such withdrawal would not emasculate the decisive and fundamental issues of public interest that demanded to be resolved, for they were also raised in the other cases which still remained pending. Secondly, since it was this petitioner's personal liberty that was at stake, I believed he had the right to renounce the application for habeas corpus he initiated. Even if that right were not absolute I still would respect his choice to remove the case from this Court's cognizance, regardless of the fact that I disagreed with many of his reasons for so doing. I could not escape a sense of irony in this Court's turning down the plea to withdraw on the ground, so he alleges among others, that this is no longer the Court to which he originally applied for relief because its members have taken new oaths of office under the 1973 Constitution, and then ruling adversely to him on the merits of his petition. It is true that some of the statements in the motion are an affront to the dignity of this Court and therefore should not be allowed to pass unanswered. Any answer, however, would not be foreclosed by allowing the withdrawal. For my part, since most of those statements are of a subjective character, being matters of personal belief and opinion, I see no point in refuting them in these cases. Indeed my impression is that they were beamed less at this Court than at the world outside and designed to make political capital of his personal situation, as the publicity given to them by some segments of the foreign press and by local underground propaganda news sheets subsequently confirmed. It was in fact from that perspective that I deemed it proper to respond in kind, that is, from a non-judicial forum, in an address I delivered on February 19, 1974 before the LAWASIA, the Philippine Bar Association and the Philippine Lawyers' Association. Justice Teehankee, it may be stated, is of the opinion that a simple majority of seven votes out of twelve is legally sufficient to make the withdrawal of Diokno's petition effective, on the theory that the requirement of a majority of eight votes applies only to a decision on the merits. In any event, as it turned out, after petitioner Diokno was released by the President on September 11 all the members of this Court except Justice Castro were agreed that his petition had become moot and therefore should no longer be considered on the merits. This notwithstanding, some of the opinions of the individual members, particularly Justices Castro and Teehankee, should be taken in the time setting in which they were prepared, that is, before the order for the release of Diokno was issued. The Cases. The events which form the background of these nine petitions are related, either briefly or in great detail, in the separate opinions filed by the individual Justices. The petitioners were arrested and held pursuant to General Order No. 2 of the President (September 22, 1972), "for being participants or for having given aid and comfort in the conspiracy to seize political and state power in the country and to take over the Government by force ..." General Order No. 2 was issued by the President in the exercise of the powers he assumed by virtue of Proclamation No. 1081 (September 21, 1972) placing the entire country under martial law. The portions of the proclamation immediately in point read as follows: xxx xxx xxx NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines by virtue of the powers vested upon me by Article VII, Section 10, Paragraph (2) of the Constitution, do hereby place the entire Philippines as defined in Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution under martial law and, in my capacity as their Commander-inChief, do hereby command the Armed Forces of the Philippines, to maintain law and order throughout the Philippines, prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence as well as any act of insurrection or rebellion and to enforce obedience to all the laws and decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction. In addition, I do hereby order that all persons presently detained, as well as all others who may hereafter be similarly detained for the crimes of insurrection or rebellion, and all other crimes and offenses committed in furtherance or on the occasion thereof, or incident thereto, or in connection therewith, for crimes against national

security and the law of nations, crimes against public order, crimes involving usurpation of authority, rank, title and improper use of names, uniforms and insignia, crimes committed by public officers, and for such other crimes as will be enumerated in orders that I shall subsequently promulgate, as well as crimes as a consequence of any violation of any decree, order or regulation promulgated by me personally or promulgated upon my direction shall be kept under detention until otherwise ordered released by me or by my duly designated representative. The provision of the 1935 Constitution referred to in the proclamation reads: "the President shall be commander-in-chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and, whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, insurrection, or rebellion. In case of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, or imminent danger thereof, when the public safety requires it, he may suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law." 1. The first major issue raised by the parties is whether this Court may inquire into the validity of Proclamation No. 1081. Stated more concretely, is the existence of conditions claimed to justify the exercise of the power to declare martial law subject to judicial inquiry? Is the question political or justiciable in character? Justices Makasiar, Antonio, Esguerra, Fernandez and Aquino hold that the question is political and therefore its determination is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. The reasons are given at length in the separate opinions they have respectively signed. Justice Fernandez adds that as a member of the Convention that drafted the 1973 Constitution he believes that "the Convention put an imprimatur on the proposition that the validity of a martial law proclamation and its continuation is political and non-justiciable in character." Justice Barredo, on the other hand, believes that political questions are not per se beyond the Court's jurisdiction, the judicial power vested in it by the Constitution being plenary and all-embracing, but that as a matter of policy implicit in the Constitution itself the Court should abstain from interfering with the Executive's Proclamation, dealing as it does with national security, for which the responsibility is vested by the charter in him alone. But the Court should act, Justice Barredo opines, when its abstention from acting would result in manifest and palpable transgression of the Constitution proven by facts of judicial notice, no reception of evidence being contemplated for purposes of such judicial action. It may be noted that the postulate of non-justiciability as discussed in those opinions involves disparate methods of approach. Justice Esguerra maintains that the findings of the President on the existence of the grounds for the declaration of martial law are final and conclusive upon the Courts. He disagrees vehemently with the ruling in Lansang vs. Garcia, 42 SCRA 448, December 11, 1971, and advocates a return to Barcelon vs. Baker, 5 Phil. 87 (1905), and Montenegro vs. Castaeda, 91 Phil. 882 (1952). Justice Barredo, for his part, holds that Lansang need not be overturned, indeed does not control in these cases. He draws a distinction between the power of the President to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, which was the issue in Lansang, and his power to proclaim martial law, calling attention to the fact that while the Bill of Rights prohibits suspension of the privilege except in the instances specified therein, it places no such prohibition or qualification with respect to the declaration of martial law. Justice Antonio, with whom Justices Makasiar, Fernandez and Aquino concur, finds that there is no dispute as to the existence of a state of rebellion in the country, and on that premise emphasizes the factor of necessity for the exercise by the President of his power under the Constitution to declare martial law, holding that the decision as to whether or not there is such necessity is wholly confided to him and therefore is not subject to judicial inquiry, his responsibility being directly to the people. Arrayed on the side of justiciability are Justices Castro, Fernando, Teehankee and Muoz Palma. They hold that the constitutional sufficiency of the proclamation may be inquired into by the Court, and would thus apply the principle laid down in Lansang although that case refers to the power of the President to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The recognition of justiciability accorded to the question in Lansang, it should be emphasized, is there expressly distinguished from the power of judicial review in ordinary civil or criminal cases, and is limited to ascertaining "merely whether he (the President) has gone beyond the constitutional limits of his jurisdiction, not to exercise the power vested in him or to determine the wisdom of his act." The test is not whether the President's decision is correct but whether, in suspending the writ, he did or did not act arbitrarily. Applying this test, the finding by the Justices just mentioned is that there was no arbitrariness in the President's proclamation of martial law pursuant to the 1935 Constitution; and I concur with them in that finding. The factual bases for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, particularly in regard to the existence of a state of rebellion in the country, had not disappeared, indeed had been exacerbated, as events shortly before said proclamation clearly demonstrated. On this Point the Court is practically unanimous; Justice Teehankee merely refrained from discussing it. Insofar as my own opinion is concerned the cleavage in the Court on the issue of justiciability is of not much more than academic interest for purposes of arriving at a judgment. I am not unduly exercised by Americas decisions on the subject written in another age and political clime, or by theories of foreign authors in political science. The present state of martial law in the Philippines is peculiarly Filipino and fits into no traditional patterns or judicial precedents. In the first place I am convinced (as are the other Justices), without need of receiving evidence as in an ordinary adversary court proceeding, that a state of rebellion existed in the country when Proclamation No. 1081 was issued. It was a matter of contemporary history within the cognizance not only of the courts but of all observant people residing here at the time. Many of the facts and events recited in detail in the different "Whereases" of the proclamation are of common knowledge. The state of rebellion continues up to the present. The argument that while armed hostilities go on in several provinces in Mindanao there are none in other regions except in isolated pockets in Luzon, and that therefore there is no need to maintain martial law all over the country, ignores the sophisticated nature and ramifications of rebellion in a modern setting. It does not consist simply of armed clashes between organized and identifiable groups on fields of their own choosing. It includes subversion of the most subtle kind, necessarily clandestine and operating precisely where there

is no actual fighting. Underground propaganda, through printed news sheets or rumors disseminated in whispers; recruitment of armed and ideological adherents, raising of funds, procurement of arms and material, fifth-column activities including sabotage and intelligence all these are part of the rebellion which by their nature are usually conducted far from the battle fronts. They cannot be counteracted effectively unless recognized and dealt with in that context. Secondly, my view, which coincides with that of other members of the Court as stated in their opinions, is that the question of validity of Proclamation No. 1081 has been foreclosed by the transitory provision of the 1973 Constitution [Art. XVII, Sec. 3(2)] that "all proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions, and acts promulgated, issued, or done by the incumbent President shall be part of the law of the land and shall remain valid, legal, binding and effective even after ... the ratification of this Constitution ..." To be sure, there is an attempt in these cases to resuscitate the issue of the effectivity of the new Constitution. All that, however, is behind us now. The question has been laid to rest by our decision in Javellana vs. Executive Secretary (L-36142, 50 SCRA 30, March 31, 1973), and of course by the existing political realities both in the conduct of national affairs and in our relations with other countries. On the effect of the transitory provision Justice Muoz Palma withholds her assent to any sweeping statement that the same in effect validated, in the constitutional sense, all "such proclamations, decrees, instructions, and acts promulgated, issued, or done by the incumbent President." All that she concedes is that the transitory provision merely gives them "the imprimatur of a law but not of a constitutional mandate," and as such therefore "are subject to judicial review when proper under the Constitution. Finally, the political-or-justiciable question controversy indeed, any inquiry by this Court in the present cases into the constitutional sufficiency of the factual bases for the proclamation of martial law has become moot and purposeless as a consequence of the general referendum of July 27-28, 1973. The question propounded to the voters was: "Under the (1973) Constitution, the President, if he so desires, can continue in office beyond 1973. Do you want President Marcos to continue beyond 1973 and finish the reforms he initiated under Martial Law?" The overwhelming majority of those who cast their ballots, including citizens between 15 and 18 years, voted affirmatively on the proposal. The question was thereby removed from the area of presidential power under the Constitution and transferred to the seat of sovereignty itself. Whatever may be the nature of the exercise of that power by the President in the beginning whether or not purely political and therefore non-justiciable this Court is precluded from applying its judicial yardstick to the act of the sovereign. 2. With respect to the petitioners who have been released from detention but have not withdrawn their petitions because 5 they are still subject to certain restrictions, the ruling of the Court is that the petitions should be dismissed. The power to detain persons even without charges for acts related to the situation which justifies the proclamation of martial law, such as the existence of a state of rebellion, necessarily implies the power (subject, in the opinion of the Justices who consider Lansang applicable, to the same test of arbitrariness laid down therein), to impose upon the released detainees conditions or restrictions which are germane to and necessary to carry out the purposes of the proclamation. Justice Fernando, however, "is for easing the restrictions on the right to travel of petitioner Rodrigo" and others similarly situated and so to this extent dissents from the ruling of the majority; while Justice Teehankee believes that those restrictions do not constitute deprivation of physical liberty within the meaning of the constitutional provision on the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. It need only be added that, to my mind, implicit in a state of martial law is the suspension of the said privilege with respect to persons arrested or detained for acts related to the basic objective of the proclamation, which is to suppress invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, or to safeguard public safety against imminent danger thereof. The preservation of society and national survival take precedence. On this particular point, that is, that the proclamation of martial law automatically suspends the privilege of the writ as to the persons referred to, the Court is practically unanimous. Justice Fernando, however, says that to him that is still an open question; and Justice Muoz Palma qualifiedly dissents from the majority in her separate opinion, but for the reasons she discusses therein votes for the dismissal of the petitions. IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING AND FOR THE REASONS STATED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT IN THEIR SEPARATE OPINIONS, JUDGMENT IS HEREBY RENDERED DISMISSING ALL THE PETITIONS, EXCEPT THOSE WHICH HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY WITHDRAWN BY THE RESPECTIVE PETITIONERS WITH THE APPROVAL OF THIS COURT, AS HEREINABOVE MENTIONED. NO COSTS. Makasiar, Esguerra, Fernandez, Muoz Palma and Aquino, JJ., concur.

CASE NO. 28
G.R. No. L-61388 April 20, 1983 IN THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR DR. AURORA PARONG, NORBERTO PORTUGUESE, SABINO PADILLA, FRANCIS DIVINAGRACIA, IMELDA DE LOS SANTOS, BENJAMIN PINEDA, ZENAIDA MALLARI, MARIANO SORIANO, TITO TANGUILIG, LETTY BALLOGAN, BIENVENIDA GARCIA, EUFRONIO ORTIZ. JR., JUANITO GRANADA and TOM VASQUEZ. JOSEFINA GARCIA-PADILLA, petitioner, vs. MINISTER JUAN PONCE ENRILE, GEN, FABIAN C. VER, GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, and FIDEL V. RAMOS, and LT. COL. MIGUEL CORONEL, respondents. DE CASTRO, J.: Petition for a writ of habeas corpus and mandamus seeking the following relief: WHEREFORE, petitioners pray this Honorable Court: 1. To immediately issue a writ of habeas corpus directing respondents to appear and produce the bodies of Dr. AURORA PARONG, NORBERTO PORTUGUESE, SABINO PADILLA, FRANCIS DIVINAGRACIA, IMELDA DE LOS SANTOS, BENJAMIN PINEDA, ZENAIDA MALLARI, MARIANO SORIANO, TITO TANGUILIG, LETTY BALLOGAN, BIENVENIDA GARCIA, EUFRONIO ORTIZ, JR., JUANITO GRANADA and TOM VASQUEZ, forthwith before this Honorable Court and to make due return of the writ therewith; 2. To issue, in addition or in the alternative to the writ of habeas corpus, a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to disclose the petitioners' present place of detention and to order the respondents to allow counsel and relatives to visit and confer with the petitioners; 3. Pending the determination of the legality of their continued detention, to forthwith release the detainees on bail upon such terms and conditions as the Court may fix, and after hearing, to order petitioners' immediate release; and 4. To grant petitioners such other and further relief as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises. The records show that nine (9) of the fourteen (14) detainees herein were arrested on July 6, 1982 at about 1:45 p.m. when three (3) teams of the PC/INP of Bayombong, Nueva Viscaya led by Lt. Col. Coronel, lst Lt. de Guzman and lst Lt. Baria, after securing a Search Warrant No. S-82 issued by Judge Sofronio Sayo of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Viscaya conducted a raid at the residence of Dra. Aurora Parong. Apprehended during the said raid were Dra. Aurora Parong, Benjamin Pineda, Sabino Padilla, Francisco Divinagracia, Zenaida Mallari, Letty Ballogan, Norberto Portuguese, and Mariano Soriano who were then having a conference in the dining room of Dra. Parong's residence which had been doing on since 10:00 a.m. of that same day. The other four (4) detainees herein, namely: Imelda de los Santos, Eufronio Ortiz, Jr., Juanita Granada, and Bienvenida Garcia, were arrested on the following day, July 7, 1982 by the same PC teams. On July 15, 1982, Tom Vasquez was arrested, and his Volkswagen car, bearing Plate No. DAP 347, was seized by the PC authorities. The herein fourteen (14) detainees (hereafter referred to sometimes as petitioners) were all detained at the PC/INP Command Headquarters, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya from July 6, 1982 until their transfer on the morning of August 10, 1982 to an undisclosed place reportedly to Camp Crame, Quezon City, to Echague, Isabela, and to Tuguegarao, Cagayan. Hence, this petition for the writ of habeas corpus and mandamus filed by Josefina Garcia-Padilla, mother of detained petitioner Sabino G. Padilla, Jr. on August 13, 1982. The mandamus aspect of the instant petition has, however, become moot and academic, and whereabouts of petitioners having already become known to petitioner Josefina Garcia-Padilla. It is alleged in the petition that the arrest of petitioners was patently unlawful and illegal since it was effected without any warrant of arrest; that the PC/INP raiding team which made the arrest were only armed with a search warrant (No. 3-82) issued by Judge Sofronio G. Sayo of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Viscaya, and nowhere in said warrant was authority given to make arrests, much less detention; that the search warrant which authorized respondents to seize "subversive documents, firearms of assorted calibers, medicine and other subversive paraphernalia" in the house and clinic of Dra. Aurora Parong was a roving and general warrant and is, therefore, illegal per se because it does not state specifically the things that are to be seized (Stonehill vs. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383); that no criminal charges have as of yet been filed against any of the detainees; that the fourteen (14) detainees were initially held at the PC/INP Command in Bayombong, Nueva Viscaya from July 6 up to August 10, 1982, but were subsequently transferred by helicopter in the morning of August 10, 1982 to a place or safehouse known only to respondents; that there is no judgment, decree, decision or order from a court of law which would validate the continued detention of the petitioner; that while it is true that a purported telegram stating the issuance of a Presidential Commitment Order (PCO) was shown to the detainees on or about July 11 and 12, 1982, but counsel and the detainees have not yet been given a copy of such PCO nor notified of its contents, raising a doubt whether such commitment order has in fact been issued.

It is further alleged that respondents are denying the detainees their constitutional right to counsel, averring that the detainees were allowed regular visits by counsel and relatives during their period of detention from July 6 to August 10, 1982 at the PC/INP Command in Bayombong, Nueva Viscaya; however, when a certain Major Cristobal and Lt. Marcos (alleged to be from the Camp Crame Intelligence Units) took full control of the investigation, counsels were allowed to visit only on weekends; that when the detainees were transferred on August 10, 1982 to a place known only to respondents, the detainees' counsels and relatives were not notified, raising the apprehension that petitioners' constitutional rights to silence, to counsel and against self- incrimination are being violated; that counsels have tried to locate if the detainees were taken to Camp Crame or Camp Bago Bantay but to no avail; that Major Forondo of the PC Command in Nueva Viscaya informed Mrs. Josefina Padilla that the detainees were transferred to Tuguegarao, Cagayan, others to Echague, Isabela; that there seems to be a deliberate and concerted effort by respondents to conceal from counsel and relatives the detainees' place of detention, raising the apprehension that respondents are using force, violence, threat, intimidation and other means which vitiate free will to obtain confession and statements from the detainees in violation of their constitutional rights. In the resolution of this Court en banc dated August 17, 1982, the writ of habeas corpus was issued and respondents were required to make a return of the writ. Hearing on the petition was set on August 26, 1982. In the return to the writ filed on August 23, 1982. respondents, through the Solicitor General, alleged, to wit: I. AS TO HABEAS CORPUS 1. The detainees mentioned in the petition, with the exception of Tom Vasquez who was temporarily released on July 17, 1982, after his arrest on July 15, 1982, are all being detained by virtue of a Presidential Commitment Order (PCO) issued on July 12, 1982, pursuant to LOI No. 1211 dated March 9, 1982, in relation to Presidential Proclamation No. 2045 dated January 17, 1981. The said PCO was issued by President Ferdinand E. Marcos for violation of P.D. No. 885. ... 2. The corresponding charges against the said detainees have been filed in court and before the Acting Provincial Fiscal of Nueva Viscaya where they are pleading. A warrant of arrest against detainee Dra. Aurora Parong was issued on August 4, 1982, by the Municipal Court of Bayombong, for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. ... II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ON HABEAS CORPUS 3. The persons named in the above-mentioned Presidential Commitment Order were arrested and are being detained for offenses with respect to which under Proclamation No. 2045, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus continues to be suspended, thus: NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President/Prime Minister of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby revoke Proclamation No. 1081 (Proclaiming a state of Martial Law in the Philippines) and Proclamation No. 1104 (Declaring the Continuation of Martial Law) and proclaim the termination of the state of martial law throughout the Philippines; Provided, that the call to the Armed Forces of the Philippines to prevent or suppress lawless violence, insurrection, rebellion and subversion shall continue to be in force and effect; and Provided that in the two autonomous regions in Mindanao, upon the request of the residents therein, the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shag continue; and in all other places the suspension of the privilege of the writ shall also continue with respect to persons at present detained as well as others who may hereafter be similarly detained for the crimes of insurrection or rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposals to commit such crimes, and for all other crimes and offenses committed by them in furtherance or on the occasion thereof, or incident thereto, or in connection therewith. (Emphasis supplied) The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is unavailing as to them. Courts cannot inquire into the validity and cause of their arrest and detention. 4. The power of the President in an emergency, such as that which necessitated the continued suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, to order the detention of persons believed engaged in crimes related to national security is recognized. (Aquino vs. Enrile, 59 SCRA 83; Luneta, et al. vs. Special Military Commission, No. 1, et al., 102 SCRA 56). 5. In the instant petition, petitioner Josefina Garcia-Padilla does not appear to have been authorized by the thirteen (13) other detainees to represent them in the case at bar." Accordingly, the petition was duly heard on August 26, 1982. After hearing, the Court issued the following resolution, to wit: G.R. No. 61388 (In the Matter of the Petition for the Insurance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus of Dr. Aurora Parong, Norberto Portuguese, Sabino Padilla, Francis Divinagracia, Imelda de los Santos, Benjamin Pineda, Zenaida Mallari, Mariano Soriano, Tito Tanguilig, Letty Ballogan, Bienvenida Garcia, Eufronio Ortiz, Jr., Juanito Granada and Tom Vasquez; Josefina Garcia-Padilla vs. Minister Juan Ponce Enrile, Gen. Fabian C. Ver, Gen. Fidel V. Ramos and Lt. Col. Miguel Coronel.)- The return of the writ of habeas corpus and answer to the prayer for mandamus filed by the Solicitor General for respondents in compliance with the resolution of August 17, 1982 is NOTED.

At the hearing of this case this morning, former Senator Jose W. Diokno, Attorneys Alexander A. Padilla and Efren H. Mercado appeared for petitioner. Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza and Assistant Solicitor General Ramon A. Barcelona, appeared for the respondents. All of the detainees, except Tom Vasquez, who was temporarily released on July 17, 1982, were present in Court; Dr. Aurora Parong, Norberto Portuguese, Sabino Padilla, Francis Divinagracia, Imelda de los Santos, Benjamin Pineda, Zenaida Mallari, Mariano Soriano, Tito Tanguilig, Letty Ballogan, Bienvenida Garcia, Eufronio Ortiz, Jr. and Juanito Granada. Attorney Alexander A. Padilla argued for the petitioner. Solicitor General Mendoza argued for the respondents. Former Senator Diokno argued in the rebuttal. The Court Resolved to require the Solicitor General to SUBMIT within five (5) days from date the documents relevant to the issuance of the Presidential Commitment Order. Thereafter, the case shall be considered SUBMITTED for resolution. As required, the Solicitor General submitted the documents relevant to the issuance of the Presidential Commitment Order on August 27, 1982, after which the case was submitted for resolution. The fundamental issue here, as in all petitioner for the writ of habeas corpus, is whether or not petitioners' detention is legal. We have carefully gone over the claims of the parties in their respective pleadings as well as in the oral argument during the hearing on August 26, 1982, and We find that petitioners have not been illegally deprived of their constitutional right to liberty, neither in the manner of their arrest, nor by their continued detention, and that the circumstances attendant in the herein case do not warrant their release on a writ of habeas corpus. 1. At the time of the arrest of the nine (9) of the fourteen (14) detainees herein on July 6, 1982, records reveal that they were then having conference in the dining room of Dra. Parong's residence from 10:00 a.m. of that same day. Prior thereto, all the fourteen (14) detainees were under surveillance as they were then Identified as members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) engaging in subversive activities and using the house of detainee Dra. Aurora Parong in Bayombong, Nueva Viscaya, as their headquarters. Caught in flagrante delicto, the nine (9) detainees mentioned scampered towards different directions leaving in top of their conference table numerous subversive documents, periodicals, pamphlets, books, correspondence, stationaries, and other papers, including a plan on how they would infiltrate the youth and student sector (code-named YORK). Also found were one (1) .38 cal. revolver with eight (8) live bullets, nineteen (19) rounds of ammunition for M16 armalite, eighteen thousand six hundred fifty pesos (P18,650.00) cash believed to be CPP/NPA funds, assorted medicine packed and ready for distribution, as sizeable quantity of printing paraphernalia, which were then seized. There is no doubt that circumstances attendant in the arrest of the herein detainees fall under a situation where arrest is lawful even without a judicial warrant as specifically provided for under Section 6(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court and allowed under existing jurisprudence on the matter. As provided therein, a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when the person to be arrested has committed or actually committing, or is about to commit an offense in his presence. From the facts as above narrated, the claim of the petitioners that they were initially arrested illegally is, therefore, without basis in law and in fact. The crimes of insurrection or rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and other crimes and offenses committed in the furtherance on the occasion thereof, or incident thereto, or in connection therewith under Presidential Proclamation No. 2045, are all in the nature of continuing offenses which set them apart from the common offenses, aside from their essentially involving a massive conspiracy of nationwide magnitude. Clearly then, the arrest of the herein detainees was well within the bounds of the law and existing jurisprudence in our jurisdiction. 2. The arrest of persons involved in the rebellion whether as its fighting armed elements, or for committing non-violent acts but in furtherance of the rebellion, is more an act of capturing them in the course of an armed conflict, to quell the rebellion, than for the purpose of immediately prosecuting them in court for a statutory offense. The arrest, therefore, need not follow the usual procedure in the prosecution of offenses which requires the determination by a judge of the existence of probable cause before the issuance of a judicial warrant of arrest and the granting of bail if the offense is bailable. Obviously, the absence of a judicial warrant is no legal impediment to arresting or capturing persons committing overt acts of violence against government forces, or any other milder acts but equally in pursuance of the rebellious movement. The arrest or capture is thus impelled by the exigencies of the situation that involves the very survival of society and its government and duly constituted authorities. If killing and other acts of violence against the rebels find justification in the exigencies of armed hostilities which is of the essence of waging a rebellion or insurrection, most assuredly so in case of invasion, merely seizing their persons and detaining them while any of these contingencies continues cannot be less 1 2 justified. In the language ofMoyer vs. Peabody, cited with approval in Aquino, et al. vs. Ponce Enrile, the President " shall make the ordinary use of the soldiers to that end that he may kill persons who resist, and, of course, that he may use the milder measure of seizing the bodies of those whom he considers to stand in the way of restoring peace. Such arrests are not necessarily for punishment, but are by way of precaution, to prevent the exercise of hostile power." Thus characterized, the arrest and detention of persons ordered by the President through the issuance of Presidential Commitment Order PCO is merely preventive. "When it comes to a decision by the head of the State upon a matter involving its life, the ordinary rights of individuals must yield to what he deems the necessities of the moment. Public 3 danger warrants the substitution of executive process for judicial process." What should be underscored is that if the greater violation against life itself such as killing, will not be the subject of judicial inquiry, as it cannot be raised as transgressing against the due process clause that protects life, liberty and property, lesser violations against liberty, such as arrest and detention, may not be insisted upon as reviewable by the courts. 3. Transcendentally important, therefore, is the question of whether the issuance of a Presidential Commitment Order (PCO) has provided the legal basis of the detention of herein detainees following their arrest for Proclamation No. 2045 covered offenses. This question has to be set at rest promptly and decisively, if We are to break a seemingly continuous flow of petitions for habeas corpus, as what had been seen lately of such petitioners being filed in this Court one after the other.

The function of the PCO is to validate, on constitutional ground, the detention of a person for any of the offenses covered by Proclamation No. 2045 which continues in force the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, if the arrest has been made initially without any warrant, its legal effect is to render the writ unavailing as a means of judicially inquiring into the legality of the detention in view of the suspension of the privilege of the writ. The grant of the power to suspend the said privilege provides the basis for continuing with perfect legality the detention as long as the invasion or rebellion has not been repelled or quelled, and the need therefor in the interest of public safety continues. The significance of the conferment of this power, constitutionally upon the President as Commander-in-Chief, is that the exercise thereof is not subject to judicial inquiry, with a view to determining its legality in the light of the bill of rights guarantee to individual freedom. This must be so because the suspension of the privilege is a military measure the necessity of which the President alone may determine as an incident of his grave responsibility as the Commander-inChief of the Armed Forces, of protecting not only public safety but the very life of the State, the government and duly constituted authorities. This should be clear beyond doubt in the case of "invasion," along which "rebellion" or "insurrection" is mentioned by the Constitution, which contingency does not present a legal question on whether there is a violation of the right to personal liberty when any member of the invading force is captured and detained. The presidential responsibility is one attended with all urgency when so grave a peril to the life of the Nation besets the country in times of the aforementioned contingencies. In the discharge of this awesome and sacred responsibility, the President should be free from interference. The existence of warlike conditions as are created by invasion, rebellion or insurrection, the direst of all emergencies that can possibly confront a nation, argues, beyond dispute, against subjecting his actions in this regard to judicial inquiry or interference from whatever source. If freedom from judicial review is conceded in the exercise of his peacetime powers as that of appointment and of granting pardon, denominated as political powers of the President, it should incontestably be more so with his wartime power, as it were, to adopt any measure in dealing with situations calling for military action as in case of invasion, rebellion or insurrection. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is one such measure. To be effective, the occasion for its application on specific individuals should be left to the exclusive and sound judgment of the President, at least while the exigencies of invasion, rebellion or insurrection persist, and the public safety requires it, a matter, likewise, which should be left for the sole determination of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Nation's armed forces. The need for a unified command in such contingencies is imperative-even axiomatic-as a basic military concept in the art of warfare. 4. From the clear language of the Lansang case, "the function of Court is merely to check not to supplant the Executive, or to ascertain merely whether he has gone beyond the constitutional limits of his jurisdiction, not to exercise the power vested in him or to determine the wisdom of his act. " If, however, the constitutional right to bail is granted to the herein petitioners by the court, through the procedure laid down under Rule 114 of the Rules of court, what inevitably results is the supplanting of the decision of the President to detain pursuant to Proclamation No. 2045, of persons who come under its coverage. The specific mention in the Constitution of rebellion and insurrection along with invasion and imminent danger thereof, shows that the terms "rebellion and insurrection" are used therein in the sense of a state or condition of the Nation, not in the concept of a statutory offense. What, therefore, should determine the legality of imposing what is commonly referred to as "preventive detention" resulting from the suspension of the privilege of habeas corpus, is the necessity of its adoption as a measure to suppress or quell the rebellion, or beat off an invasion. The necessity for such measure as a means of defense for national survival quite clearly transcends in importance and urgency the claim of those detained to the right to bail to obtain their freedom. To hold otherwise would defeat the purpose of the constitutional grant of the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus on the occasions expressly mentioned in the charter. For what indeed could the purpose be of suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus other than to restrict, at least for the duration of the emergency of invasion or rebellion, the right to personal liberty, dictated as it is, in the greater interest of public safety and national security. So it is that Proclamation No. 2045 mentions not only rebellion or insurrection as coming within the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, but also other offenses, including subversion which is not mentioned in the Constitution, committed by reason or on the occasion of the rebellion, or in connection therewith, or in the furtherance thereof. There need be no alarm over what libertarian jurists fear as violation of the constitutional right to personal liberty when the President decrees the suspension of the privilege of habeas corpus. Only those who give cause for it will be subject to restriction of their liberty, as the necessity therefor arises in the interest of national defense and survival. The constitutional guarantee of individual freedom is intact in all its plenitude and sanctity, save only as the Constitution has envisioned the need for its limitation, and only to a few, in relation to the entire population, as the Constitution itself permits in case of overwhelming and imperious necessity. 5. Worthy of profound notice and keen appreciation is the fact that the authority to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus has been deliberately vested on the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, together 5 with the related power to call out the armed forces to suppress lawless violence and impose martial law. The choice could not have been more wise and sound, for no other official may, with equal capability and fitness, be entrusted with the grave responsibility that goes with the grant of the authority. The legislature was considered in the alternative upon which to lodge the power, or to share in its exercise, but the distilled wisdom of the Constitutional Convention finally made its choice for the President alone. As previously noted, "invasion" which is not a statutorily-defined offense and "imminent danger thereof" as mentioned in the Constitution indicate that "rebellion and insurrection" are also mentioned therein not in their concept as statutorilydefined public crimes, but as a state or condition of extreme emergency resulting from the existence of the aforesaid events. Now, if captured enemies from the invading force may not be charged with any statutory offense that would provide the occasion to demand the right to bail, it is obvious that persons engaged in rebellion or insurrection may not
4

claim the right to be released on bail when similarly captured or arrested during the continuance of the aforesaid contingency. They may not even claim the right to be charged immediately in court, as they may rightfully do so, were they being charged with an ordinary or common offense. This is so because according to legal writers or publicists, the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus "has the sole effect of allowing the executive to defer the trials of 6 persons charged with certain offenses during the period of emergency." This clearly means denial of the right to be released on bail on being charged in court with bailable offenses. 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. Realistically, a person engaged in the rebellion does not, upon being arrested or captured, cease to be as committed to the cause of the movement. Through a grand conspiracy, as is of the essence of how rebellion is committed, involving a great mass of confederates bound together by a common goal, he remains in a state of continued participation in the criminal act or design. His heart still beats with the same emotion for the success of the movement of which he continues to be an ardent adherent and ally. It is simple logic then to hold that there should be no legal compulsion for a captured rebel to be charged in court, only to be released on bail, while he is, realistically and legally, still as much as part and parcel of the movement, continuing as it is, as those still engaged in carrying on actively to attain their goal of overthrowing the established regime. Hence, it is easy to perceive how impressed with absolute verity is the opinion expressed by two acknowledged authorities on Constitutional law in our country, 7 which We quote: ... If the return to the writ shows that the person in custody was apprehended and detained in areas where the privileges of the writ have been suspended or for the crimes mentioned in the executive proclamation, the court will suspend further proceedings in the action. Impeccable as it is, the opinion could not but find a resonant echo as it did in the recent case of Buscayno vs. Military 8 Commission; decided after Proclamation No. 2045 was issued, which in terms clear and categorical, held that the constitutional right to bail is unavailing when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended with respect to certain crimes as enumerated or described in the abovementioned Proclamation. It is, likewise, all too well-known that when the rebel forces capture government troopers or kidnap private individuals, they do not accord to them any of the rights now being demanded by the herein petitioners, particularly to be set at liberty upon the filing of bail. As a matter of common knowledge, captives of the rebels or insurgents are not only not given the right to be released, but also denied trial of any kind. In some instances, they may even be liquidated unceremoniously. What is then sought by the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is, among others, to put the government forces on equal fighting terms with the rebels, by authorizing the detention of their own rebel or dissident captives as the rebellion goes on. In this way, the advantage the rebellion forces have over those of the government, as when they resort to guerilla tactics with sophisticated weapons, is, at least, minimized, thereby enhancing the latter's chances of beating their enemy. It would, therefore, seem to be ignoring realities in the name of misplaced magnanimity and compassion, and for the sake of humanity, to grant the demand for respect of rights supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution by those who themselves seek to destroy that very same instrument, trampling over it already as they are still waging war against the government. This stark actuality gives added force and substance to the rationale of the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in case of invasion, insurrection, rebellion, or imminent danger thereof, when public safety requires it. 6. Invoking the Lansang case, however, petitioners would ask this Court to review the issuance of the PCO against them, intimating that arbitrariness attended its issuance because, relying on the evidence supposedly available in the hands of the military, they claim they are not guilty of rebellion. They also contend that the provisions of LOI No. 1211 have not been complied with. The Lansang case went no further than to pronounce the suspension of the writ of the privilege of habeas corpus on August 21, 1971, valid and constitutional, on a finding that there was no arbitrariness attendant to the suspension. It never intended to suggest that for every individual case of arrest and detention, the writ of habeas corpus is available, even after the suspension of this privilege, to question the legality of the arrest and detention on ground of arbitrariness. When a person is charged in court for an ordinary offense, the law does not authorize the filing of a petition for habeas corpus based on the ground that there is absolutely no evidence to hold him for trial, which, in effect, constitutes an allegation of arbitrariness in the filing of the case against him. The law has afforded him adequate safeguards against arbitrariness, such as the requirement of determining the existence of a probable cause by the judge before the issuance of the warrant of arrest. The finding of such probable cause may not be immediately brought for review by this Court in a habeas corpus proceeding, on the claim of arbitrariness. The matter is to be decided on the basis of the evidence, and this Court is not the proper forum for the review sought, not being a trier of facts. If such a procedure were allowed, it would be easy to delay and obstruct the prosecution of an offense by a resort to a petition for habeas corpus based on arbitrariness, which most accuse, if not all, would be most inclined, specially when they are out on bail. The petition now before Us is exactly one of this kind. If granted, the effect is to transfer the jurisdiction of the trial courts in criminal cases to this Court, which is simply inconceivable. Moreover, arbitrariness, while so easy to allege, is hard to prove, in the face of the formidable obstacle built up by the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. Unexhilaratingly, this is the revealing experience of this Court in the Lansang case, where it doubtlessly realized how hardly possible it is to adduce evidence or proof upon which to show the President having acted with arbitrariness. 7. The last question relates to the legality of the Presidential Commitment Order (PCO) issued by the President on July 12, 1982, tested by the conformity of its issuance to the procedure laid down under LOI 1211, petitioners insisting that the
9

LOI limits the authority of the President to cause the arrest and detention of persons engaged in or charged with, the crimes mentioned in Proclamation No. 2045. They contend that the procedure prescribed in the LOI not having been observed, the PCO issued thereunder did not validate the initial illegal arrest of the herein petitioners as wen as their continued detention. It must be noted that LOI No. 1211, which provides the guidelines in the arrest and detention of persons engaged in, or charged with, the crimes mentioned in Proclamation No. 2045, charged with, the crimes mentioned contemplates of three situations when an arrest can be made, to wit: 1. The arrest and detention effected by virtue of a warrant issued by a judge; 2. The arrest and detention effected by a military commander or the head of a law enforcement agency after it is determined that the person or persons to be arrested would probably escape or commit further acts which would endanger public order and safety. After the arrest, however, the case shall be immediately referred to the city or provincial fiscal or to the municipal, city, circuit, or district judge for preliminary examination or investigation who, if the evidence warrants, shall file the corresponding charges and, thereafter, we a warrant of arrest; 3. The military commander or the head of the law enforcement agency may apply to the President thru the Minister of National Defense, for a Presidential Commitment Order under the following circumstances: (a) When resort to judicial process is not possible or expedient without endangering public order and safety; or (b) When the release on bail of the person or persons already under arrest by virtue of a judicial warrant would endanger said public order and safety. Petitioners appear to place entire reliance on paragraphs 1 and 2 of LOI No. 1211, ignoring paragraph 3 of LOI No. 1211, which provides: 3. The above notwithstanding, the military commander or the head of the law enforcement agency may apply to the President thru the Minister of National Defense, for a Presidential Commitment Order covering the person or persons believed to be participants in the commission of the crimes referred to in paragraph 1 under the following circumstances: (a) When resort to judicial process is not possible or expedient without endangering public order and safety; or (b) When the release on bail of the person or persons already under arrest by virtue of a judicial warrant would endanger said public order and safety. The reliance of petitioners on paragraphs 1 and 2 of LOI 1211 as to the alleged necessity of judicial warrant before a person may be arrested and detained is not well-founded. Neither is the contention that paragraph 3 of LOI 1211 applies only when judicial process is not possible. This is a narrow and constricted interpretation of LOI 1211 when viewed in its entirety. Even in instances when a resort to judicial process is possible, where, in the judgment of the President, a resort thereto would not be expedient because it would endanger the public order or safety, a PCO is justified. So, too, when release on bail in the ordinary judicial process will invite the same danger. By its very nature, and clearly by its language, LOI 1211 is a mere directive of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines to his subordinates or implementing officers for the ultimate objective of providing guidelines in the arrest and detention of the persons covered by Presidential Proclamation No. 2045. The purpose is "to insure protection to individual liberties without sacrificing the requirements of public order and safety and the effectiveness of the campaign against those seeking the forcible overthrow of the government and duty constituted authorities . " LOI 1211 does not, in any manner, limit the authority of the President to cause the arrest and detention of persons engaged in, or charged with the crimes or offenses mentioned in said Proclamation in that he (President) would subject himself to the superior authority of the judge who, under normal judicial processes in the prosecution of the common offenses, is the one authorized to issue a judicial warrant after a preliminary investigation is conducted with a finding of probable cause. Those who would read such an intention on the part of the President in issuing LOI 1211 seems to do so in their view that LOI 10 forms part of the law of the land under the 1976 amendment of the Constitution. They would then contend that a PCO issued not in compliance with the provisions of the LOI would be an illegality and of no effect. To form part of the law of the land, the decree, order or LOI must be issued by the President in the exercise of his extraordinary power of legislation as contemplated in Section 6 of the 1976 amendments to the Constitution, whenever in his judgment, there exists a grave emergency or a threat or imminence thereof, or whenever the interim Batasan Pambansa or the regular National Assembly fails or is unable to act adequately on any matter for any reason that in his judgment requires immediate action. There can be no pretense, much less a showing, that these conditions prompted the President to issue LOI 1211. Verily, not all LOI issued by the President should be dignified into forming part of the law of the land. In the event then that the judge believes no warrant shall issue, the President, under Presidential Proclamation No. 2045 and Letter of Instruction No. 1211, is not bound by such finding, as explicitly provided in paragraph 2 of LOI 1211. That the President avails of the facilities of the judicial machinery, as is the clear intent of LOI 1211, to aid him in exercising his power to restrain personal liberty, as dictated by the necessities and exigencies of the emergency, does not indicate any

intention on his part to renounce or to allow even mere curtailment of his power such that the judicial process will thereupon take its normal course, under which the detainees or accused would then be entitled to demand their right of 11 due process, particularly in relation to their personal liberty. The issuance of the PCO by the President necessarily constitutes a finding that the conditions he has prescribed in LOI 1211 for the issuance of that PCO have been met, and intends that the detention would be pursuant to the executive process incident to the government campaign against the rebels, subversives and dissidents waging a rebellion or insurrection. The ruling in the Nava vs. Gatmaitan case, * as above intimated, must have shown him that to prosecute the offense through the judicial process of forthwith instead of deferring it, would neither be wise nor expedient if he were to deal effectively with the grave emergency at hand. What has been said above shows the need of reexamining the Lansang case with a view to reverting to the ruling of Barcelon vs. Baker, 5 Phil. 87, a 1905 decision, and Montenegro vs. Castaneda, 91 Phil. 882 (1952), that the President's decision to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is "final and conclusive upon the courts, and all other persons." This well-settled ruling was diluted in the Lansang case which declared that the "function of the Court is merely to check not to supplant the Executive, or ascertain merely whether he has gone beyond the constitutional limits of his jurisdiction not to exercise the power vested in him or to determine the wisdom of his act." Judicial interference was thus held as permissible, and the test as laid down therein is not whether the President acted correctly but whether he acted arbitrarily. This would seem to be pure semanticism, if We consider that with particular reference to the nature of the actions the President would take on the occasion of the grave emergency he has to deal with, which, as clearly indicated in Section 9, Art. VII of the Constitution partakes of military measures, the judiciary can, with becoming modesty, ill afford to assume the authority to check or reverse or supplant the presidential actions. On these occasions, the President takes absolute command, for the very life of the Nation and its government, which, incidentally, includes the courts, is in grave peril. In so doing, the President is answerable only to his conscience, the people and to God. For their part, in giving him the supreme mandate as their President, the people can only trust and pray that, giving him their own loyalty with utmost patriotism, the President will not fail them. In his separate opinion in the Lansang case, then Justice Fernando, now our learned Chief Justice, went along with the proposition that the decision of the Executive in the exercise of his power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is his alone, and in his own language, is "ordinarily beyond the ken of the Courts." This is so, as the Founding Fathers must have felt that in the particular situations at hand, the Executive and the Judiciary should maintain a mutually deferential attitude. This is the very essence of the doctrine of "political question, " as determining the justiciability of a case. The wisdom of this concept remains well-recognized in advanced constitutional systems. To erase it from our own system as seems to be what was done in the Lansang case, may neither be proper nor prudent. A good example could be given in the exercise of the presidential power of pardon which is beyond judicial review, specially under the new Constitution where the condition that it may be granted only after final conviction has been done away with. True, the Constitution is the law "equally in war and in peace," as Chief Justice Fernando cited in his brilliant separate opinion in the same Lansang case. Precisely, it is the Constitution that gives the President specific "military power" in times of warlike conditions as exist on the occasion of invasion, insurrection or rebellion. Both power and right are constitutionally granted, with the difference that the guarantee of the right to liberty is for personal benefit, while the grant of the presidential power is for public safety. Which of the two enjoys primacy over the other is all too obvious. For the power is intended as a limitation of the right, in much the same way as individual freedom yields to the exercise of the police power of the State in the interest of general welfare. The difference again is that the power comes into being during extreme emergencies the exercise of which, for complete effectiveness for the purpose it was granted should not permit intereference, while individual freedom is obviously for full enjoyment in time of peace, but in time of war or grave peril to the nation, should be limited or restricted. In a true sense then, our Constitution is for both peacetime and in time of war; it is not that in time of war the Constitution is silenced. The Founding Fathers, with admirable foresight and vision, inserted provisions therein that come into play and application in time of war or similar emergencies. So it is that, as proclaimed by the Constitution, the defense of the State is a prime duty of government. Compulsory military service may be imposed, certainly a mandate that derogates on the right to personal liberty. It, therefore, becomes self-evident that the duty of the judiciary to protect individual rights must yield to the power of the Executive to protect the State, for if the State perishes, the Constitution, with the Bill of Rights that guarantees the right to personal liberty, perishes with it. In times of war or national emergency, the legislature may surrender a part of its power of legislation to the 13 President. Would it not be as proper and wholly acceptable to lay down the principle that during such crises, the judiciary should be less jealous of its power and more trusting of the Executive in the exercise of its emergency powers in recognition of the same necessity? Verily, the existence of the emergencies should be left to President's sole and unfettered determination. His exercise of the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus on the occasion thereof, should also be beyond judicial review. Arbitrariness, as a ground for judicial inquiry of presidential acts and decisions, sounds good in theory but impractical and unrealistic, considering how well-nigh impossible it is for the courts to contradict the finding of the President on the existence of the emergency that gives occasion for the exercise of the power to suspend the privilege of the writ. For the Court to insist on reviewing Presidential action on the ground of arbitrariness may only result in a violent collision of two jealous powers with tragic consequences, by all means to be avoided, in favor of adhering to the more desirable and long-tested doctrine of "political question" in reference to the 14 power of judicial review. Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 Constitution, as earlier cited, affords further reason for the reexamination of the Lansang doctrine and reversion to that of Barcelon vs. Baker and Montenegro vs. Castaneda. Accordingly, We hold that in times of war and similar emergency as expressly provided in the Constitution, the President may suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, which has the effect of allowing the Executive to defer the prosecution of any of the offenses covered by Proclamation No. 2045, including, as a necessary consequence, the withholding for the duration of the suspension of the privilege, of the right to bail. The power could have been vested in Congress, instead of the President, as it was so vested in the United States for which reason, when President Lincoln
12

himself exercised the power in 1861, Chief Justice Taney of the U.S. Supreme Court expressed the opinion that Congress 15 alone possessed this power under the Constitutional., Incidentally, it seems unimaginable that the judiciary could subject the suspension, if decreed through congressional action, to the same inquiry as our Supreme Court did with the act of the President, in the Lansang case, to determine if the Congress acted with arbitrariness. We further hold that under LOI 1211, a Presidential Commitment Order, the issuance of which is the exclusive prerogative of the President under the Constitution, may not be declared void by the courts, under the doctrine of "political question," as has been applied in the Baker and Castaneda cases, on any ground, let alone its supposed violation of the provision of LOI 1211, thus diluting, if not abandoning the doctrine of the Lansang case. The supreme mandate received by the President from the people and his oath to do justice to every man should be sufficient guarantee, without need of judicial overseeing, against commission by him of an act of arbitrariness in the discharge particularly of those duties imposed upon him for the protection of public safety which in itself includes the protection of life, liberty and property. This Court is not possessed with the attribute of infallibility that when it reviews the acts of the President in the exercise of his exclusive power, for possible fault of arbitrariness, it would not itself go so far as to commit the self-same fault. Finally, We hold that upon the issuance of the Presidential Commitment Order against herein petitioners, their continued detention is rendered valid and legal, and their right to be released even after the filing of charges against them in court, to depend on the President, who may order the release of a detainee or his being placed under house arrest, as he has done in meritorious cases. WHEREFORE, the instant petition should be, as it is hereby dismissed. SO ORDERED.

CASE NO. 29
G.R. No. L-61016 April 26, 1983 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF HORACIO R. MORALES, JR., petitioner, vs. MINISTER JUAN PONCE ENRILE, GEN. FABIAN C. VER and COL. GALILEO KINTANAR, respondents. G.R. No. L-61107 April 26, 1983 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF ANTONIO C. MONCUPA, JR. ANTONIO C. MONCUPA, JR., petitioner, vs. MINISTER JUAN PONCE ENRILE, GEN. FABIAN C. VER and COL. GALILEO KINTANAR, respondents. CONCEPCION, JR., J.: 1. The petitions are without merit and are hereby DISMISSED. 2. Petitioners were arrested on April 21, 1982 at about 9:45 a.m. while they were riding together in a motor vehicle on Laong-Laan Street, Quezon City, by elements of Task Force Makabansa of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Since their arrest, they have been under detention. Petitioner Morales filed his petition for habeas corpus with this Court on July 9, 1982, while petitioner Moncupa filed his on July 19, 1982. On July 20, 1982 petitioners, together with several others, were charged with rebellion (Art. 134, Revised Penal Code) before the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Criminal Case No. Q-21091 filed by the City Fiscal of Quezon City. The trial of the case has yet to be terminated. The continued detention of petitioners to answer for the offense charged is therefore legal. 3. Petitioners allege that they were arrested without any warrant of arrest; that their constitutional rights were violated, among them the right to counsel, the right to remain silent, the right to a speedy and public trial, and the right to bail. They also air the charge that they were subjected to maltreatment and torture; that they did not have the opportunity to present their defense before the inquest fiscal and therefore asked this Court to order the reinvestigation of the charges against them. Acting on such plea, this Court in a resolution en banc dated July 22, 1982 ordered the City Fiscal of Quezon City to conduct such reinvestigation and at the same time appointed him "to act as commissioner of this Court and receive evidence of the charges made by petitioners before this Court of alleged torture and violation of their constitutional rights, particularly the right to counsel." On September 28, 1982, the City Fiscal submitted his report on the reinvestigation affirming the existence of a prima facie case for rebellion against petitioners and several others. And on February 8, 1983 he submitted to this Court the transcript of the notes taken at the reception of the evidence on the charges of petitioners. 4. If petitioners had been arrested in a communist country, they would have no rights to speak of. However, the Philippines is a republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from 1 them. We have a Constitution framed by a constitutional convention and duly ratified by the people. We subscribe to the rule of law. We believe in human rights and we protect and defend them. Petitioners are entitled to the full enjoyment of all the rights granted to them by law. And this Court stands as the guarantor of those rights. 5. Our Constitution provides: SEC. 20. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed of such right. No force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Any 2 confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence. 6. After a person is arrested and his custodial investigation begins a confrontation arises which at best may be termed unequal. The detainee is brought to an army camp or police headquarters and there questioned and cross-examined not only by one but as many investigators as may be necessary to break down his morale. He finds himself in a strange and un familiar surrounding, and every person he meets he considers hostile to him. The investigators are well-trained and seasoned in their work. They employ all the methods and means that experience and study has taught them to extract the truth, or what may pass for it, out of the detainee. Most detainees are unlettered and are not aware of their constitutional rights. And even if they were, the intimidating and coercive presence of the officers of the law in such an atmosphere overwhelms them into silence. Section 20 of the Bill of Rights seeks to remedy this imbalance. 7. At the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any. He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, and that any statement he might make could be used against him. The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or anyone he chooses by the most expedient means-by telephone if possible or by letter or messenger. It shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested, by any person on his behalf, or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.

8. During the period of his detention, he shall have the right to confer with his counsel at any hour of the day or, in urgent 3 cases, of the night, alone and privately, in the jail or any other place of custody. Arrest. 9. Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be forthcoming to answer for the commission of an 4 offense. 10. An arrest may be made with or without a warrant. SEC. 3. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall not be violated, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge, or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law, after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be 5 seized. 11. Our Constitution clearly defines the persons who may issue a warrant of arrest and limits them to a "judge, or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law." It also lays down in unmistakable terms the procedure required before a search warrant or warrant of arrest may issue. 12. A Presidential Arrest and Commitment Order is a warrant of arrest issued by the President of the Philippines. Its issuance must therefore comply with the requirements of the Constitution, in the same manner and to the same extent, as a warrant of arrest issued by a judge issuance must therefore comply with the requirements of the Constitution, in the same manner and to the same extent, as a warrant of arrest by a judge. 13. An arrest may also be made without a warrant. SEC. 6. Arrest without warrant When lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is about to commit an offense in his presence; (b) When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it; (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred 7 from one confinement to another. 14. Care should be exercised in making an arrest without a warrant. Where there is no justification for the arrest, the 8 9 public officer could be criminally liable for arbitrary detention or unlawful arrest or for some other offense. 15. The petitioners claim they were arrested without a warrant. The Memorandum to the President dated April 21, 1982 from Gen. Fabian C. Ver, Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, wherein he reported the arrest of petitioners, the subversive documents seized from them and the results of the ensuing tactical interrogation, with a recommendation for the issuance of a Presidential Arrest and Commitment Order, was approved by the President only on April 23, 1982. Indeed, therefore, petitioners were arrested without a warrant. However, months before their arrest, petitioners were already under surveillance on suspicion of committing rebellion. From the results of the said surveillance, the evidence then at hand, and the documents seized from them at the time of their arrest, it would appear that they had committed or were actually committing the offense of rebellion. Their arrest without a warrant for the said offense is therefore clearly justified. Procedure after Arrest. 16. After a person is arrested either without a warrant or by virtue of a warrant of arrest issued by a judge or by virtue of a Presidential Arrest and Commitment Order, the proper complaint or information against him must be filed with the courts of justice within the time prescribed by law, to wit: FURTHER AMENDING ARTICLE 125 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED (PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1404) WHEREAS, the periods within which arrested persons shall be delivered to the judicial authorities as provided in Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, are on occasions inadequate to enable the government to file within the said periods the criminal information against persons arrested for certain crimes against national security and public order. NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, and in the interest of national security as well as public safety and order,
6

do hereby decree and order as part of the law of the land the following amendment to Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended: SECTION 1. Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: ART. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons. -The penalties provided in the next preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the period of: six hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent; nine hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent; and eighteen hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent; Provided, however, That the President may, in the interest of national security and public order, authorize by Executive Order longer periods, which in no case shall exceed 30 days, or for as long as the conspiracy to commit the crime against national security and public order continues or is being implemented, for the delivery of persons arrested for crimes or offenses against public order as defined in Title III, Book 11 of this Code, namely: Articles 134, 136, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146 and 147, and for acts in violation of Republic Act No. 1700 as amended by Presidential Decree No. 885, taking into consideration the gravity of the offense or offenses, the number of persons arrested, the threat to national security or to public safety and order, and/or the occurrence of a public calamity or other emergency situation preventing the early investigation of the cases and the filing of the corresponding information before the civil courts. In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his detention and shall be allowed, upon his request, to communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or counsel, and to be visited by his immediate relatives. SEC. 2. All acts, executive order, proclamations, Presidential Decrees, General Orders, Letters of Instruction, rules and regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent with the provisions of this decree are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. SEC. 3. Transitory provision.-Pending the preparation and promulgation by the President of the Executive Order referred to in Section 1 hereof, the detention of persons arrested for any of the abovementioned offenses against public order shall continue to be governed by the provisions of General Orders No. 2, dated September 22, 1972 as amended by General Order Nos. 60 and 62, dated September 24, 1977 and October 22, 1977, respectively. SEC 4. This decree shall take effect immediately. Done in the City of Manila this 9th day of June, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-eight." 17. Failure of the public officer to do so without any valid reason would constitute a violation of Art. 125, Revised Penal Code, as amended. And the person detained would be entitled to be released on a writ of habeas corpus, unless he is 10 detained under subsisting process issued by a competent court. Power of the Courts. 18. The writ of habeas corpus has often been referred to as the great writ of liberty. It is the most expeditious way of securing the release of one who has been illegally detained. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended, but not the writ itself. 19. The Bill of Rights provides: SECTION 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. 20. In Lansang vs.Garcia, 42 SCRA 448,473,We said: In our resolution of October 5, 1972, We stated that 'a majority of the court 'had ' tentativelyarrived at a consensus that it may inquire in order to satisfy itself of the existence of the factual bases for the issuance of Presidential Proclamations Nos. 889 and 889A ... and thusdetermine the constitutional sufficiency of such bases in the light of the requirements of Article III, sec. 1, par. 14, and Article VII, sec. 10, par. 2, of the Philippine Constitution ...' Upon further deliberation, the members of the Court are now unanimous in the conviction that it has the authority to inquire into the existence of said factual bases in order to determine the constitutional sufficiency thereof. 21. We reiterate this doctrine. 22. Furthermore, We hold that under the judicial power of review and by constitutional mandate, in all petitions for habeas corpus the court must inquire into every phase and aspect of petitioner's detention from the moment petitioner was taken into custody up to the moment the court passes upon the merits of the petition. Only after such a scrutiny can the court satisfy itself that the due process clause of our Constitution has in fact been satisfied.

23. The submission that a person may be detained indefinitely without any charges and the courts cannot inquire into the legality of the restraint goes against the spirit and letter of the Constitution and does violence to the basic precepts of human rights and a democratic society. The Right to Bail. 24. Next to life a man loves his freedom. Some men love their freedom even more than their life. 25. In all criminal prosecutions the accused is presumed innocent. Because of this presumption and inasmuch as every man has a natural desire to be free, our Constitution laid down the right to bail in these words: SEC. 18. All persons, except those charged with capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before 11 conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties. Excessive bail shall not be required. 26. Although martial law was terminated on January 17, 1981, by virtue of Proclamation No. 2045 of the President of the Philippines, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus continues to be suspended in the two autonomous regions in Mindanao and in all other places with respect to certain offenses, thus: NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President/Prime Minister of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby revoke Proclamation No. 1081 (Proclaiming a State of Martial Law in the Philippines) and Proclamation No. 1104 (Declaring the Continuation of Martial Law) and proclaim the termination of the state of martial law throughout the Philippines; Provided, that the call to the Armed Forces of the Philippines to prevent or suppress lawless violence, insurrection, rebellion and subversion shall continue to be in force and effect; and Provided that in the two autonomous regions in Mindanao, upon the request of the residents therein, the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall continue; and in all other places the suspension of the privilege of the writ shall also continue with respect to persons at present detained as well as others who may hereafter be similarly detained for the crimes of insurrection or rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and for all other crimes and offenses committed by them in furtherance of or on the occasion therefore, or incident thereto, or in connection therewith. ... (Presidential Proclamation No. 2045). 27. Normally, rebellion being a non-capital offense is bailable. But because the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus remains suspended "with respect to persons at present detained as well as other who may hereafter be similarly detained for the crimes of insurrection or rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and for all other crimes and offenses committed by them in furtherance of or on the occasion thereof, or incident thereto, or in connection therewith," the natural consequence is that the right to bail for the commission of anyone of the said offenses is also suspended. To hold otherwise would defeat the very purpose of the suspension. Therefore, where the offense for which the detainee was arrested is anyone of the said offenses he has no right to bail even after the charges are filed in court. 28. The crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct attacks on the life of the State. 29. Just as an individual has right to self-defense when his life is endangered, so does the State. The suspension of the privilege of the writ is to enable the State to hold in preventive imprisonment pending investigation and trial those persons who plot against it and commit acts that endanger the State's very existence. For this measure of self-defense to be effective, the right to bail must also be deemed suspended with respect to these offenses. 30. However, there is a difference between preventive and punitive imprisonment. Where the filing of charges in court or the trial of such charges already filed becomes protracted without any justifiable reason, the detention becomes punitive in character and the detainee regains his right to freedom. The Charges of Torture. 31. When petitioners charged in their petitions that they had been tortured and maltreated, the Court decided to appoint the City Fiscal of Quezon City to hear the charges and to receive the evidence. Not because We are an investigating body. Nor are We a trier of facts. But because petitioners' charges are material and relevant to the petitions before Us. 32. As mentioned earlier, the Court Commissioner submitted the transcript of the proceedings held before him. We will not pass upon the merits of the torture charges. However, they should be filed before the body which has jurisdiction over them as provided for in Presidential Decrees Nos. 1822, 1822-A and 1850. 33. The present form of our government, to all intents and purposes, merged the executive and legislative branches into one. Members of parliament are at the same time cabinet ministers. Under the system of checks and balances ordained by the Constitution, the judiciary serves as the check and balance to the merged executive and legislative branches. The judiciary is therefore called upon to express its thoughts on areas outside the traditional and narrow confines of decision making, with the end in view that together we may explore the free market of Ideas and arrive at what is best for our country and our people.

34. Our people cry out for a better life. They want more food in their stomachs, roofs over their heads, health services for themselves and their families, education for their children, and other necessities that make life worth living. They cannot be denied. They want it and they want it now. Timely indeed are the thrusts of the KKK and the BLISS programs. 35. However, we cannot lead them to a truly better life, unless we achieve complete peace in our land; and we cannot have complete peace unless we improve the administration of justice. 36. It was a wise man who once said: "Tell me how a country's poor receive their justice and I will tell you how stable its 12 government is." 37. Whenever we speak of the administration of justice we refer to four principal areas: the preservation of peace and order which is the primary task of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the National Integrated Police, both under the Ministry of Defense; the investigation and prosecution of offenses and the administration of our penal system which are under the Ministry of Justice; the application and interpretation of laws and the trial and adjudication of cases which fall under the jurisdiction of the courts; and appearance as counsel for the government particularly in appealed criminal cases and as counsel for the Commission on Elections, Securities and Exchange Commission, and others, which is the responsibility of the Office of the Solicitor General. In everyone of these areas much can be done to achieve our ultimate goal-that in this fair land of ours, no man, no matter how humble, no matter how poor shall thirst for justice. 38. Our machinery of justice should be geared towards helping and protecting the poor among us. Not knowing their rights, not having the means to pay for the services of a lawyer, possessing no influence whatsoever, they are invariably the victims of injustice. The affluent can take care of themselves. They are better aware of their rights, they have influence, and they can engage the services of the best counsel. But the poor can only pray to God and hope to find relief in the system of justice established by their government. 39. We must open all avenues for complaints and keep them open so that the grievance procedure may be made more readily available to the masses of our people. Only by knowing their needs can we give them what they rightfully deserve. 40. It is undeniable that throughout the length and breadth of our land, lawlessness and disorder have increased and continue to increase to undesirable proportions. It is wishful thinking to believe otherwise. An efforts must be exerted now to reverse the trend. We cannot afford any delay. And we should begin by bringing to the bar of justice the culprits in particular who burned and destroyed public property, and attacked, kidnapped and killed public functionaries. For the questions may validly be asked: If the government cannot protect public property, how can it protect private property? If the government cannot guarantee the safety and lives of its officials, how can it guarantee the safety and lives of private individuals? 41. The investigation and prosecution of cases should be further improved so that only meritorious cases shall reach the courts, thus contributing to the unclogging of court dockets. Many criminal cases initiated by complainants are just harassment suits and should never have been filed in court. In the process, it is required that all fiscals be appointed in a permanent capacity. Their security of tenure is the foundation stone of their independence. Our penal system should be further updated to make more effective the rehabilitation of criminals. Let us do away with instances of first offenders who serve sentence in order to be reformed but who come out instead as hardened criminals. 42. And with the judicial revamp just effected under B.P. 129, the trial and decision making process has been modified and vastly improved to achieve better results. But it must be remembered that courts which are not filled are as good as no courts at all. Therefore, more appointments to the existing vacancies should be made. 43. One lesson our people have learned-painfully but well-is that politics and a good administration of justice-like oil and water-do not mix; that when politics infiltrates the administration of justice, injustice is often the outcome. In some jurisdictions of the United States, there are sheriffs (peace officers) and district attorneys (prosecutors) who are elected by the voters and who run for office as the candidates of a political party. In the Philippines such a system would never work because in our culture we have values peculiarly our own-value like "utang na loob", "compadre", "pakikisama", "tayutayo", "bigayan", "bata ko", "amo ko", and the "god- father mentality". Values like these have derailed and may derail the administration of justice. Political followers commit abuses in the belief that come what may their political bosses would shield them from punishment. Can you imagine how criminal cases would be investigated and prosecuted if fiscals (prosecutors) were chosen by election? How would our laws be enforced if policemen and members of the Armed Forces were elected by the people? And yet the heads of the Ministries of Justice and Defense and the Office of the Solicitor General are all active politicians. 44. The burdens of office fall heavily on their shoulders. Perhaps it is time we relieve them of the additional burdens that being politicians entail. Our Constitution foresaw the need for heads of ministries who are not active politicians in providing that ". . . . At least a majority of the Members of the Cabinet who are heads of ministries shall come from the 13 Regional Representations of the Batasang Pambansa. . . ." 45. The campaign against venality in office-malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfesance should be pursued with renewed vigor. For graft and corruption are like termites gnawing away the foundation of government. The harm done is sometimes not realized; or even if realized, under- estimated. In the process let us remember to stress preventive measures to save public property from loss. 46. The communist threat remains a nagging problem of government. Whether Marxist, Maoist, Leninist, aided by the New People's Army, rebels, radicals, and lawless elements, they all have but one aim-one single purpose-one defined objective: to bring down by violence the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and to forcibly seize political power

in order that they may replace our existing political, social, economic, and legal order with an entirely new one based on communism. 47. Once before, in the early fifties, communists threatened the established order. They were driven back by the Armed Forces, mainly because of the support of our people. We must keep, strengthen and solidify the sympathy, faith, loyalty, and trust in the government of our brothers in the rural areas. Guns and bullets alone will not do it. We can accomplish this only by giving them better government. It is a condition sine qua non to achieve success in the fight against subversion. 48. By and large, the Armed Forces are composed of good and disciplined men. However, there are those who are not worthy of the uniforms they wear. Not a few have enriched themselves by abusing the powers of their position. Some are involved in extortion, smuggling, and kidnapping for ransom. There are others who maintain gambling, drug rings, and prostitution dens. And still others have committed robbery, rape, murder, and other offenses. The campaign to rid the organization of such misfits should be carried out with missionary zeal. For indeed victims of abuse are often alienated from the government. 49. The Filipinos are a God-loving and a God-fearing people. We believe in peace and freedom. We believe in the family and its strong ties. We can never willingly accept communism and what it stands for. 50. While the government should continue to repel the communists, the subversives, the rebels, and the lawless with all the means at its command, it should always be remembered that whatever action is taken must always be within the framework of our Constitution and our laws. 51. When the judgment of history is written, as leaders of our people, we shall be asked to account not only for what we did, not only for what we did not do, but also for what visions we have today of our tomorrow. 52. What will be our answer? 53. WHEREFORE, as aforestated, the petitions should be, as they are hereby, DISMISSED. With costs against the petitioners. 54. SO ORDERED.

CASE NO. 30
U.S. Supreme Court Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78 (1909) Moyer v. Peabody No. 55 Argued January 5, 6, 1909 Decided January 18, 1909 212 U.S. 78

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Syllabus What is due process of law depends on circumstances, and varies with the subject matter and necessities of the situation. An officer of a state interfering with an individual's rights in an unconstitutional manner derives no protection from personal liability on account of his office. The declaration of the governor of a state that a state of insurrection exists is conclusive. Where the constitution and laws of a state give the governor power to suppress insurrection by the National Guard, as is the case in Colorado, he may also seize and imprison those resisting, and is the final judge of the necessity for such action, and when such an arrest is made in good faith, he cannot be subjected to an action therefor after he is out of office on the ground that he had not reasonable cause. Public danger warrants the substitution of executive for judicial process, and the ordinary rights of individuals must yield to what the executive honestly deems the necessities of a critical moment. Without deciding other questions as to the jurisdiction of the circuit court, held that the declaration of plaintiff in error in this case against the former governor of Colorado for arrest and detention during a period of insurrection does not give the circuit court jurisdiction thereof under 629 or 1979, Rev.Stat., as a suit authorized by law brought to redress the deprivation of a constitutional right. The facts are stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an action brought by the plaintiff in error against the former Governor of the State of Colorado, the former adjutant general of the national guard of the same state, and a captain of a company of the national guard, for an imprisonment of the plaintiff by them while in office. The complaint was dismissed on demurrer, and the case comes here on a certificate that the demurrer was sustained solely on the ground that there was no jurisdiction in the circuit court. 148 F. 870. The complaint alleges that the imprisonment was continued from the morning of March 30, 1904, to the afternoon of June 15, and that the defendants justified under the Constitution of Colorado, making the Governor commander in chief of the state forces, and giving him power to call them out to execute laws, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion. It alleges that his imprisonment was without probable cause, that no complaint was filed against the plaintiff, and that (in that sense) he was prevented from having access to the courts of the state, although they were open during the whole time, but it sets out proceedings on habeas corpus, instituted by him before the supreme court of the state, in which that court refused to admit him to bail and ultimately discharged the writ. 35 Colo. 154, and 35 Colo. 159. In those proceedings, it appeared that the Governor had declared a county to be in a state of insurrection, had called out troops to put down the trouble, and had ordered that the plaintiff should be arrested as a leader of the outbreak, and should be detained until he could be discharged with safety, and that then he should be delivered to the civil authorities, to be dealt with according to law. The jurisdiction of the circuit court, if it exists, is under Rev.Stat. 629, Sixteenth. That clause gives original jurisdiction "of all suits authorized by law to be brought by any person to redress the deprivation, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any state, of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States, or of any right secured by any law providing for equal rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States." The complaint purports to be founded upon the Constitution and on Rev.Stat. 1979, which authorizes suit to be brought for such deprivation as above described. Therefore, the question whether the complaint states a case upon the merits under 1979 in this instance is another aspect of the question whether it states a case within the jurisdiction of the court under 629, cl. 16. Taken either way, the question is whether this is a suit authorized by law -- that is, by 1979, or the Constitution, or both. The plaintiff's position, stated in a few words, is that the action of the Governor, sanctioned to the extent that it was by the decision of the supreme court, was the action of the state, and therefore within the Fourteenth Amendment, but that, if that action was unconstitutional, the Governor got no protection from personal liability for his unconstitutional interference with the plaintiff's rights. It is admitted, as it must be, that the Governor's declaration that a state of insurrection existed is conclusive of that fact. It seems to be admitted also that the arrest alone would not necessarily have given a right to bring this suit. Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1, 48 U. S. 45-46. But it is said that a detention for so many days, alleged to be without probable cause at a time when the courts were open, without an attempt to bring the plaintiff before them, makes a case on which he has a right to have a jury pass. We shall not consider all of the questions that the facts suggest, but shall confine ourselves to stating what we regard as a sufficient answer to the complaint, without implying that there are not others equally good. Of course, the plaintiff's position is that he has been deprived of his liberty without due process of law. But it is familiar that what is due process of law depends on circumstances. It varies with the subject matter and the necessities of the situation. Thus, summary proceedings suffice for taxes, and executive decisions for exclusion from the country. Murray v. Hoboken Land &

Improvement Co., 18 How. 272; United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253, 198 U. S. 263. What, then, are the circumstances of this case? By agreement, the record of the proceedings upon habeas corpus was made part of the complaint, but that did not make the averments of the petition for the writ averments of the complaint. The facts that we are to assume are that a state of insurrection existed and that the Governor, without sufficient reason, but in good faith, in the course of putting the insurrection down, held the plaintiff until he thought that he safely could release him. It would seem to be admitted by the plaintiff that he was president of the Western Federation of Miners, and that, whoever was to blame, trouble was apprehended with the members of that organization. We mention these facts not as material, but simply to put in more definite form the nature of the occasion on which the Governor felt called upon to act. In such a situation, we must assume that he had a right, under the state constitution and laws, to call out troops, as was held by the supreme court of the state. The constitution is supplemented by an act providing that "when an invasion of or insurrection in the state is made or threatened, the Governor shall order the national guard to repel or suppress the same." Laws of 1897, c. 63, Art. 7, 2, p. 204. That means that he shall make the ordinary use of the soldiers to that end; that he may kill persons who resist, and, of course, that he may use the milder measure of seizing the bodies of those whom he considers to stand in the way of restoring peace. Such arrests are not necessarily for punishment, but are by way of precaution, to prevent the exercise of hostile power. So long as such arrests are made in good faith and in the honest belief that they are needed in order to head the insurrection off, the Governor is the final judge, and cannot be subjected to an action after he is out of office on the ground that he had not reasonable ground for his belief. If we suppose a Governor with a very longterm of office, it may be that a case could be imagined in which the length of the imprisonment would raise a different question. But there is nothing in the duration of the plaintiff's detention or in the allegations of the complaint that would warrant submitting the judgment of the Governor to revision by a jury. It is not alleged that his judgment was not honest, if that be material, or that the plaintiff was detained after fears of the insurrection were at an end. No doubt there are cases where the expert on the spot may be called upon to justify his conduct later in court, notwithstanding the fact that he had sole command at the time and acted to the best of his knowledge. That is the position of the captain of a ship. But even in that case, great weight is given to his determination, and the matter is to be judged on the facts as they appeared then, and not merely in the light of the event. Lawrence v. Minturn, 17 How. 100, 58 U. S. 110; The Star of Hope, 9 Wall. 203;The Germanic, 196 U. S. 589, 196 U. S. 594-595. When it comes to a decision by the head of the state upon a matter involving its life, the ordinary rights of individuals must yield to what he deems the necessities of the moment. Public danger warrants the substitution of executive process for judicial process. See Keely v. Sanders, 99 U. S. 441, 99 U. S. 446. This was admitted with regard to killing men in the actual clash of arms, and we think it obvious, although it was disputed, that the same is true of temporary detention to prevent apprehended harm. As no one would deny that there was immunity for ordering a company to fire upon a mob in insurrection, and that a state law authorizing the Governor to deprive citizens of life under such circumstances was consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, we are of opinion that the same is true of a law authorizing by implication what was done in this case. As we have said already, it is unnecessary to consider whether there are other reasons why the circuit court was right in its conclusion. It is enough that, in our opinion, the declaration does not disclose a "suit authorized by law to be brought to redress the deprivation of any right secured by the Constitution of the United States." See Dow v. Johnson, 100 U. S. 158. Judgment affirmed. MR. JUSTICE MOODY took no part in the decision of this case.

CASE No. 14 G.R. No. L-29646 November 10, 1978 MAYOR ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, petitioner, vs. HIU CHIONG TSAI PAO HO and JUDGE FRANCISCO ARCA, respondents. FERNANDEZ, J.: This is a petition for certiorari to review tile decision dated September 17, 1968 of respondent Judge Francisco Arca of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch I, in Civil Case No. 72797, the dispositive portion of winch reads. Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the petitioner and against the respondents, declaring Ordinance No. 6 37 of the City of Manila null and void. The preliminary injunction is made permanent. No pronouncement as to cost. SO ORDERED. Manila, Philippines, September 17, 1968. (SGD.) FRANCISCO ARCA Judge 1 The controverted Ordinance No. 6537 was passed by the Municipal Board of Manila on February 22, 1968 and signed by the herein petitioner Mayor Antonio J. Villegas of Manila on March 27, 1968. 2 City Ordinance No. 6537 is entitled:

AN ORDINANCE MAKING IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON NOT A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES TO BE EMPLOYED IN ANY PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT OR TO BE ENGAGED IN ANY KIND OF TRADE, BUSINESS OR OCCUPATION WITHIN THE CITY OF MANILA WITHOUT FIRST SECURING AN EMPLOYMENT PERMIT FROM THE MAYOR OF MANILA; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 3
Section 1 of said Ordinance No. 6537 4 prohibits aliens from being employed or to engage or participate in any position or occupation or business enumerated therein, whether permanent, temporary or casual, without first securing an employment permit from the Mayor of Manila and paying the permit fee of P50.00 except persons employed in the diplomatic or consular missions of foreign countries, or in the technical assistance programs of both the Philippine Government and any foreign government, and those working in their respective households, and members of religious orders or congregations, sect or denomination, who are not paid monetarily or in kind. Violations of this ordinance is punishable by an imprisonment of not less than three (3) months to six (6) months or fine of not less than P100.00 but not more than P200.00 or both such fine and imprisonment, upon conviction. 5 On May 4, 1968, private respondent Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho who was employed in Manila, filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch I, denominated as Civil Case No. 72797, praying for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction and restraining order to stop the enforcement of Ordinance No. 6537 as well as for a judgment declaring said Ordinance No. 6537 null and void. 6 In this petition, Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho assigned the following as his grounds for wanting the ordinance declared null and void: 1) As a revenue measure imposed on aliens employed in the City of Manila, Ordinance No. 6537 is discriminatory and violative of the rule of the uniformity in taxation; 2) As a police power measure, it makes no distinction between useful and non-useful occupations, imposing a fixed P50.00 employment permit, which is out of proportion to the cost of registration and that it fails to prescribe any standard to guide and/or limit the action of the Mayor, thus, violating the fundamental principle on illegal delegation of legislative powers:

3) It is arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable, being applied only to aliens who are thus, deprived of their rights to life, liberty and property and therefore, violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. 7
On May 24, 1968, respondent Judge issued the writ of preliminary injunction and on September 17, 1968 rendered judgment declaring Ordinance No. 6537 null and void and making permanent the writ of preliminary injunction. 8 Contesting the aforecited decision of respondent Judge, then Mayor Antonio J. Villegas filed the present petition on March 27, 1969. Petitioner assigned the following as errors allegedly committed by respondent Judge in the latter's decision of September 17,1968: 9 I

THE RESPONDENT JUDGE COMMITTED A SERIOUS AND PATENT ERROR OF LAW IN RULING THAT ORDINANCE NO. 6537 VIOLATED THE CARDINAL RULE OF UNIFORMITY OF TAXATION. II RESPONDENT JUDGE LIKEWISE COMMITTED A GRAVE AND PATENT ERROR OF LAW IN RULING THAT ORDINANCE NO. 6537 VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLE AGAINST UNDUE DESIGNATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER. III RESPONDENT JUDGE FURTHER COMMITTED A SERIOUS AND PATENT ERROR OF LAW IN RULING THAT ORDINANCE NO. 6537 VIOLATED THE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE CONSTITUTION. Petitioner Mayor Villegas argues that Ordinance No. 6537 cannot be declared null and void on the ground that it violated the rule on uniformity of taxation because the rule on uniformity of taxation applies only to purely tax or revenue measures and that Ordinance No. 6537 is not a tax or revenue measure but is an exercise of the police power of the state, it being principally a regulatory measure in nature. The contention that Ordinance No. 6537 is not a purely tax or revenue measure because its principal purpose is regulatory in nature has no merit. While it is true that the first part which requires that the alien shall secure an employment permit from the Mayor involves the exercise of discretion and judgment in the processing and approval or disapproval of applications for employment permits and therefore is regulatory in character the second part which requires the payment of P50.00 as employee's fee is not regulatory but a revenue measure. There is no logic or justification in exacting P50.00 from aliens who have been cleared for employment. It is obvious that the purpose of the ordinance is to raise money under the guise of regulation. The P50.00 fee is unreasonable not only because it is excessive but because it fails to consider valid substantial differences in situation among individual aliens who are required to pay it. Although the equal protection clause of the Constitution does not forbid classification, it is imperative that the classification should be based on real and substantial differences having a reasonable relation to the subject of the particular legislation. The same amount of P50.00 is being collected from every employed alien whether he is casual or permanent, part time or full time or whether he is a lowly employee or a highly paid executive Ordinance No. 6537 does not lay down any criterion or standard to guide the Mayor in the exercise of his discretion. It has been held that where an ordinance of a municipality fails to state any policy or to set up any standard to guide or limit the mayor's action, expresses no purpose to be attained by requiring a permit, enumerates no conditions for its grant or refusal, and entirely lacks standard, thus conferring upon the Mayor arbitrary and unrestricted power to grant or deny the issuance of building permits, such ordinance is invalid, being an undefined and unlimited delegation of power to allow or prevent an activity per se lawful. 10 In Chinese Flour Importers Association vs. Price Stabilization Board, 11 where a law granted a government agency power to determine the allocation of wheat flour among importers, the Supreme Court ruled against the interpretation of uncontrolled power as it vested in the administrative officer an arbitrary discretion to be exercised without a policy, rule, or standard from which it can be measured or controlled. It was also held in Primicias vs. Fugoso 12 that the authority and discretion to grant and refuse permits of all classes conferred upon the Mayor of Manila by the Revised Charter of Manila is not uncontrolled discretion but legal discretion to be exercised within the limits of the law. Ordinance No. 6537 is void because it does not contain or suggest any standard or criterion to guide the mayor in the exercise of the power which has been granted to him by the ordinance. The ordinance in question violates the due process of law and equal protection rule of the Constitution. Requiring a person before he can be employed to get a permit from the City Mayor of Manila who may withhold or refuse it at will is tantamount to denying him the basic right of the people in the Philippines to engage in a means of livelihood. While it is true that the Philippines as a State is not obliged to admit aliens within its territory, once an alien is admitted, he cannot be deprived of life without due process of law. This guarantee includes the means of livelihood. The shelter of protection under the due process and equal protection clause is given to all persons, both aliens and citizens. 13 The trial court did not commit the errors assigned. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

CASE NO: 21 G.R. No. 75983 April 15, 1988 MANUEL R. CRUZ et al petitioners, vs. MINISTER JUAN PONCE ENRILE, GENERAL FIDEL RAMOS, GENERAL (RET.) EMILIO N. CEA, MINISTER NEPTALI GONZALES AND BRIG. GENERAL SAMUEL SORIANO, respondents. NARVASA, J.: Habeas corpus proceedings were commenced in this Court on October 1, 1986 1 to test the legality of the continued detention of some 217 so-called "political detainees 2 arrested in the nine-year span of official martial rule and committed to the New Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa. All had been made to stand trial for common crimes 3before various courts martial; 4 if any of these offenses had any political color, this had neither been pleaded nor proved. Of the 217 prisoners, 157 are civilians, and only 26 confirmed as military personnel. 5 One hundred and fifteen (115) accused had been condemned to die. Forty-six (46) were sentenced to life imprisonment. To nine (9) others were meted prison terms of from twenty to thirty years; to forty-one (41), prison terms of ten to twenty years; and to three (3), less than ten years. The present status of their cases are disparate, as might be expected. As of the date of filing of the petitions in this Court, the sentences of sixty-eight (68) had become final upon their approval by the Office of the President, 6seventy-five (75) cases were pending review in either that Office or before the Board of Military Review, while the appeal or review of the remaining seventythree (73) cases either had been expressly suspended pending the outcome of these petitions, or are simply not dealt with in the records. Presidential amnesty was granted to petitioner Virgilio Alejandrino, 7 yet to this date he remains a prisoner at the Penitentiary, as do Domingo Reyes, Antonio Pumar, Teodoro Patano, Andres Parado and Daniel Campus, although they were acquitted of the charges against them, 8 and Reynaldo C. Reyes and Rosalino de los Santos, who appear to have fully served the sentences imposed on them by the military commissions which convicted them. 9 The petitioners urge the Court to declare unconstitutional the establishment of all military tribunals as well as General Order No. 8 ordaining their creation, and the nullity of all the proceedings had against them before these bodies as a result of which they had been illegally deprived of their liberty. Their plea is for the grant of a retrial of their respective cases in the civil courts, where their right to due process may be accorded respect. 10 The writ ofhabeas corpus issued on July 31, 1987, two weeks after an amended petition 11 was filed with leave of court, reiterating the arguments originally pleaded, and setting forth the additional claim that the pronouncement of this Court of the lack of jurisdiction of military tribunals to try cases of civilians even during martial rule, as declared inOlaquer, et al. vs. Military Commission No. 34, et al., 12 entitled the petitioners to be unconditionally freed from detention. The Solicitor General's return of the writ in behalf of the public respondents stated that the latter "offer no objection or opposition to the release from detention of petitioners-civilians ... (which) may be immediately effected, unless there are other legal causes that may warrant their detention ... (while) the other petitioners who are military personnel x x should not be released. 13 This return was shortly amended however 14 to urge that this Court take a "second look" and undertake a "thorough re-examination of the Olaquer decision," suggesting the inapplicability of the ruling to "cases involving civilians charged with, and convicted of common crimes and ... cases where the detained accused have, in effect, fully served the sentence by their continued detention for the duration of the penalty imposed." Also suggested was the giving of "limited retroactive" to the decision, considering the consequences "of voiding earlier convictions, ... (such as) The grant of immunity from prosecution as a result of prescription or of the Statute of (L)imitations having run, witnesses having been scattered and no longer available, ... memories hav(ing) also been taxed beyond permissible limits, ... and (the annulment) of acquittal decisions, ... to the great prejudice of the rights of the accused. 15 In Olaquer, this Court in no uncertain terms affed that

... a military jurisdiction or tribunal cannot try and exercise jurisdiction, even during the period of martial law, over civilians for offenses allegedly committed by them as long as the civil courts are open and functioning, and that any judgment rendered by such body relating to a civilian is null and void for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the military tribunal concerned (People v. Navarro, 63 SCRA 264, 274 [1975]). For the same reasons, Our pronouncement in Aquino, Jr. v. Military Commission No. 2 (L-37364,63 SCRA 546) and all decided cases affirming the same, in so far as they are inconsistent with this pronouncement, should be deemed abandoned.16
Such is the statement of the doctrine squarely applicable in these cases. 1. Clearly, no right to relief under Olaquer exists in favor of the 26 petitioners who were admittedly in the military service. 17 Over them the courts martial yardly exercised jurisdiction. It need only be said that these tribunals were created precisely to try and decide cases of military personnel, and the validity of General Order No. 8 ordaining their creation, although repeatedly challenged on constitutional grounds, has as many times been upheld by the Court, either expressly or impliedly. 18 As to these petitioners, the writ is thus unavailing. 2. Deference to the Olaquer decision impels on the other hand the application thereof to all civilians, without distinction, who were haled before military tribunals. To be sure, due consideration was given to the submittal that the doctrine is, or should be declared as, limited in aplicability to "political of fenders," and not "ordinary crimes" such as those of which the civilian petitioners were convicted. 18a But distinction should not be set where none were clearly intended. The issue in Olaquer, as here, is the jurisdiction of courts martial over the persons of civilians, and not merely over the crimes imputed to them, regardless of which

they are entitled to trial by judicial, not executive or military process. Conformably with this holding, the disposition of these cases would necessarily have, as a premise, the invalidity of any and all proceedings had before courts martial against the civilian petitioners. There is all the more reason to strike down the proceedings leading to the conviction of these non-political detainees who should have been brought before the courts of justice in the first place, as their offenses are totally unrelated to the insurgency avowedly sought to be controlled by martial rule. Due regard for consistency likewise dictates rejection of the proposal to merely give "prospective effect" to Olaquer. No distinction should be made, as the public respondents propose, between cases still being tried and those finally decided or already under review. All cases must be treated alike, regardless of the stage they happen to be in, and since according to Olaquer, all proceedings before courts martial in cases involving civilians are null and void, the court deems it proper to adhere to that unequivocal pronouncement, perceiving no cogent reason to deviate from the doctrine. The fact cannot be ignored, however, that crimes appear to have been committed, and there are accusations against herein petitioners for those offenses. Olaquer cannot and does not operate to absolve the petitioners of these charges, or establish that the same are baseless, so as to entitle them to immediate release from detention. It is not to be forgotten that the victims in offenses ascribed to the petitioners have as much interest as the State has to prosecute the alleged authors of the misdeeds. Justice will be better served if the detention of such of the petitioners as are not hereby ordered released or excepted, is continued until their cases are transferred to the ordinary courts having jurisdiction, and the necessary informations have been filed against them therein, as has already been done in the case of petitioners Imperial D. Usman and Samu Gumal. 19 The State should be given a reasonable period of time to accomplish this transfer, at which time the petitioners may apply for bail for their temporary release. The Solicitor General not unreasonably anticipates questions to arise as to the availability of certain defenses to the petitioners upon their prosecution before the civil courts. It seems evident, however, that no breach of the constitutional prohibition against twice putting an accused in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense 20would result from the retrial of the petitioners" cases, for the simple reason that the absence of jurisdiction of the courts martial to try and convict the petitioners prevented the first jeopardy from attaching. 21 Valid previous proceedings are required in order that the defense of double jeopardy can be raised by the accused in the second prosecution. 22 Neither does the defense of prescription appear to be available to the petitioners who, except for a handful, were charged with offenses punishable by death or reclusion perpetua, which prescribe in twenty years. 23 Even the few not so charged cannot raise such defense since the filing of the first indictments suspended the running of the prescriptive period, and the prosecutions under the informations to be filed should be regarded as mere continuations of the previous proceedings. 24 At the very least, the filing of the first charges should be considered as having interrupted the prescriptive period notwithstanding the lack of jurisdiction of the military tribunal in which they were filed, applying, by analogy, the ruling in People vs. Olarte. 25 In fine, the Court holds that the merits of the indictments against all these civilians are solely for the civil courts to weigh and decide upon after due proceedings. Otherwise stated, they are entitled to the retrial they have explicitly requested of their respective cases in the civil courts. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted insofar as petitioners Vergilio Alejandrino, 26 Domingo Reyes, Antonio Pumar Teodoro Patono, Andres Parado, Del Campus, 27 Reynaldo C. Reyes and Rosalino de los Santos28 are concerned. The Director of the Bureau of Prisons is hereby ordered to effect the immediate release of the above-mentioned petitioners, unless there are other legal causes that may warrant their detention. The petition is DISMISSED as to petitioners Elpidio Cacho, William Lorenzana, Benigno Bantolino, Getulio B. Braga, Jr., Tomas C. Amarte, Rogelio L. Caricungan, Ernesto Baradiel, Isabelo Narne, Eric F. Pichay, Pablo Callejo, Russel A. Paulino, Laurel Lamaca, Tirso F. Bala, Calixto Somera, Edulino Lacsina (Draftee), Ronnie A. Celiz, Elpidio Urbano, Sofronio Galo, Aquilino Leyran, Leopoldo Arcadio, Rolando Tudin, Rosendo I. Ramos, Pacifica Batacan, Edilberto Liberato, Jimmy C. Realis, Democrito Loraa who are all military personnel. As to the other petitioners, the Department of Justice is hereby DIRECTED TO FILE the necessary informations against them in the courts having jurisdiction over the offenses involved, within one hundred eighty (180) days from notice of this decision, without prejudice to the reproduction of the evidence submitted by the parties and admitted by the Military Commission. If eventually convicted, the period of the petitioners' detention shall be credited in their favor. The Courts wherein the necessary informations are filed are DIRECTED TO CONDUCT with dispatch the necessary proceedings inclusive of those for the grant of bail which may be initiated by the accused. SO ORDERED. Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Fernan, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes and Grio-Aquino, JJ., concur. Separate Opinions GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:concuring and dissenting
I agree with the Court's reiteration of the doctrine enunciated in Olaquer, et al. v. Military Commission No. 34, et al . (1 50 SCRA 144) but find it difficult to accept the proposition that our ruling in that case should be given retroactive effect. True, the petitioners should never have been tried by military tribunals while civil courts were open and fully functioning. But the fact remains that they were tried and convicted by military tribunals. And the Court in its earlier decisions, notably Aquino, Jr. v. Military Commission No. 2 (63 SCRA 546) upheld the exercise of criminal jurisdiction over civilians s charged with civil offenses pursuant to then existing Presidential

Decrees or General Orders. We now declare, and rightly so to my mind, that the Aquino, Jr. v. Military Commission No. 2 ruling was wrong and was, therefore, abandoned through Olaquer. Does it necessarily follow that everything performed by military tribunals in the past contrary to our present Olaquer ruling is null and void, of no force and effect, and wiped clean from the slate as if it had never been done? First, let me emphasize the serious consequences of the Court's decision to give retroactive effect to Olaquer. The cases of the petitioners were referred to military tribunals Precisely because of the extremely serious nature of the offenses. As mentioned by Justice Narvasa in his ponencia, one hundred fifteen (115) of two hundred seventeen (217) prisoners were sentenced to the extreme penalty of DEATH. Forty six (46) were sentenced to life imprisonment. Nine (9) were given prison terms for twenty (20) to thirty (30) years, forty one (41) from ten (10) to twenty (20) years and three (3) to less than ten (10) years. According to the records, there were ninety (90) charges for murder including some for murder with arson, twenty one (21) for kidnapping, five (5) for kidnapping with murder, twenty three (23) for robbery with homicide and/or rape, three (3) for parricide, nine (9) for homicide, ten (10) for frustrated or attempted murder or homicide, twenty (20) for robbery, four (4) for rape, twenty two (22) for illegal possession of firearms, and one (1) for abortion. Many of the accused were charged with more than one offense. There was then the erroneous impression under martial law that military tribunals were better qualified than civil courts to mete out justice for heinous crimes or for offenses committed under reprehensible and vicious crcumstances. This notwithstanding, there is no claim or allegation and no proof whatsoever that the same evidence adduced before military tribunals would have correctly resulted in acquittal or lesser sentences if presented before civil courts. The attack is against jurisdiction, nor error or unfairness of the sentences. Why do we have to go through the arduous time-consuming, and expensive process of again prosecuting and trying the same offenses? Are the records of the military trials still intact? Are the witnesses still available? Apart from the issue of jurisdiction, was there a denial of due process? What about the innocent victims of these petitioners? Should they or their loved ones go through the agony of prosecutions with the ever present possibility that some hardened criminals may go scot-free because proof beyond reasonable doubt may no longer be available at this late date? Second, I should mention that a declaration of unconstitutionality or invalidity does not always result in wiping outthe consequences of the invalidated act. In Municipality of Malabang v. Benito (27 SCRA 533) the Court was faced with a similar situation. Pursuant to Section 68 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, the Governor-Generals under American rule and Philippine Presidents under the Commonwealth and the Republic created hundreds of municipalities and local governments through Executive Orders. In 1967, Pelaez v. Auditor General(19 SCRA 599) declared that Section 68 of the Revised Administrative Code was repealed by the Constitution on November 15, 1955 and, therefore, any Executive Orders creating municipalities after that date were invalid, null and void. Did the declaration of nullity of the creation of the municipalities also wipe out all acts of the local governments thus abolished? What happened to municipal ordinances, appointments, connection of taxes and fees, and other acts of local officials and employees criminal prosecutions based on local ordinances and thousands of other acts of the suddenly deeland unconditional local governments? This Court ruled in the Municipality of Malabang case: In Norton v. Shelby County (118 U.S. 425,442 (1886) Mr. Justice Field said "An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been pass Accordingly he held that bonds issued by a board of Commissioners created under an invalid statute were unenforceable. Executive Order 386 "created no office This is not to say, however, that the acto done by the municipality of Balabagan in the exercise of its corporate powers are a nullity because the ve order Is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. "For the existence of Executive Order 386isan operative fact which cannot justly be ignored." As Chief Justice Hughes explained in Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank. (308 U/S. 371, 374 (1940); accord: Rutter v. Fateban, 98 PhiL 68 (1953); Manila Motor Co., Inc. v. Flores 99 Phil. 139.(1956); Fernandez v. Cueva & Co. L-21114, November 20,1967,21 SCRA 1102): The Courts below have proceeded on the theory that the Act of Co , having been found to be unconstitutional , was not law that it was inoperative, conferring no rights and no duties, and hence affording no basis for the challenged decree. ( Norton v. Shelby County, 11 8 U.S. 425, 442; Chicago L & R.y Co v. Hackett, 228 U.S. 559, 566.) It is quite clear, however, that such broad statements as to the effect of a determination of deemed be taken with qualifications. The actual existance of a statute prior to such a determination, is an operataive fact and may have consequenses which cannot justly be ignored. The past cannot always be embarrased by a new judicial declaration. The effect of -the subsequent ruling as to invalidity may have to be considered in various as with respect to particular relations, individual and corporate, and particular conduct, private and official. Quesions of rights claimed to have income vested, of status of prior determinations deemed to have finality and acted upon "accordingly, of public policy in the light of the nature of both the statute and of its previous application, demand e petition. These questions are among the most difficult of those which have engaged the attention of courts state and federal, and it is manifest from qqqniltnerous decisions that an all inclusive statement of a principle of absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be justified . (Emphasis supplied) There is then no basis for the respondents' apprehension that the invalidation of the executive order creating Balabagan would have the effect of unsettling many an act done in reliance upon the validity of the creation of that municipality. The judgments meted out to the petitioners are operative facts which cannot just be ignored. The consequences of judgments declared valid by this. Court in an earlier decision cannot be erased simply because the Court changes its mind and decides to abandon or reverse its earlier decision. I am glad that the Court has decided to consider further trials as mere continuations of the previous proceedings and to allow reproduction of the evidence admitted by the military tribunals. In that sense, the proceedings before the tribunals are not completely nullified. The cases of persons already serving sentences in Muntinglupa based on judgements of military courts long final executory may no longer be opened. The Court however, should have gone further. The question judgement should be treated as happening or facts which can be no longer erased. A review procedure cuold be divised to insure that the jugement are correct based on evidence and no violation of due process or penal law has been committed. To allow a retrial in all these case is, however, neither warranted nor wise.

CASE NO. 22
G.R. No. 16009 September 21, 1920

UY KHEYTIN, ET AL., petitioners, vs. ANTONIO VILLAREAL, Judge of First Instance for the Twenty-third Judicial District, ET AL., respondents. JOHNSON, J.: This is an original petition, filed in this court, for the writs of injunction and prohibition. It appears from the record that on April 30, 1919, one Ramon Gayanilo, corporal of the Philippine Constabulary, presented to the judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo an application for search warrant, the said Ramon Gayanilo stating in his application; "That in the house of Chino Uy Kheytin, Sto. Nio St., No. 20, Iloilo, under the writing desk in his store, there is kept a certain amount of opium." The application was subscribed and sworn to by the said complainant before the Honorable L. M. Southworth, judge of the Twenty-third Judicial District. Upon that application the said judge, on the same day, issued a search warrant in the following terms: The United States, to any officer of the law. Whereas on this day proof , by affidavit, having been presented before me by Corporal Ramon Gayanilo, Philippine Constabulary, that there is probable cause to believe that in the house of Chino Uy Kheytin, Sto. Nio St., No. 20, under the desk for writing in his store there is kept a certain amount of opium. Therefore, you are hereby commanded during day or night to make an immediate search on the person of Uy Kheytin or in the house, Sto. Nio St., No. 20, for the following property opium and, if you find the same or any part thereof, to bring it forthwith before me in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. Witness my hand this 30th day of April, 1919. (Sgd.) L. M. SOUTHWORTH, Judge of the Court of Iloilo. Armed with that search warrant, the respondent M. S. Torralba, lieutenant of the Philippine Constabulary, accompanied by some of his subordinates, on the same day (April 30th) searched the house of the petitioner Uy Kheytin and found therein 60 small cans of opium. They wanted to search also the bodega on the ground-floor of the house, but Uy Kheytin positively denied that it was his or that he rented it. Lieutenant Torralba wanted to be sure, and for this reason he placed a guard in the premises to see that nothing was removed therefrom, and then went away to find out who the owner of the bodega was. The next morning he learned from the owner of the house, one Segovia, of the town of Molo, that the Chinaman Uy Kheytin was the one who was renting the bodega. Thereupon Lieutenant Torralba and his subordinates resumed the search and then and there found and seized the following articles: No. 2. One wrap of paper containing a broken bottle of opium liquid, which is kept in a tin box No. 1. No. 3. One wrap of paper containing an opium pipe, complete, one opium container, one wrap of opium ashes, one rag soaked in opium and one thimble with opium. No. 4. One leather hand bag containing 7 small bottle containing opium, with two cedulas belonging to Tian Liong, with key. No. 5. One wooden box containing 75 empty cans, opium containers. No. 6. One tin box containing 23 small empty cans, opium containers. No. 7. One cardboard box containing 3 pieces of wood, one old chisel, one file, one piece of soldering lead, one box of matches, 5 pieces of iron plates, and several other tin plates. No. 8. One roll of 7 sheets of brass. No. 9. Three soldering outfits. No. 10. One hammer. No. 11. One Chinese scale for opium. No. 12. Twelve small bottles empty. No. 13. Two bottles containing opium. No. 14. One bundle of Chinese books of accounts with several personal letter of Chine Uy Kheytin. No. 15. One tin box containing 60 cans of molasses, with 1 small bottle containing molasses. Thereafter a criminal complaint was filed in the court of the justice of the peace of Iloilo against all the petitioners herein, charging them with a violation of the Opium Law. They were duly arrested, and a preliminary investigation was conducted by the justice of the peace, after which he found that there was probable cause for believing that the crime complained of had been

committed and that the defendants were the persons responsible therefor. The cause was duly transmitted to the Court of First Instance. While said cause was in the Court of First Instance, pending the filing of a complaint by the provincial fiscal, the defendants, petitioners herein, through their attorney, filed a petition in the Court of First Instance, asking for the return of "private papers, books and other property" which the Constabulary officers had seized from said defendants, upon the ground that they had been so seized illegally and in violation of the constitutional rights of the defendants. It was urged (1) that the search warrant of April 30th was illegal because the requisites prescribed by the General Orders No. 58 had not been complied with in its issuance; (2) that the searches and seizures made on May 1st had been made without any semblance of authority and hence illegal; and (3) that the seizure of the defendants' books and letters was a violation of the provisions of the Jones Law providing that no person shall be compelled to testify against himself, and protecting him against unreasonable searches and seizures. After a hearing upon said motion, the Honorable Antonio Villareal, judge, in a very carefully prepared opinion, reached the conclusion that the searches and seizures complained of had been legally made, and consequently, denied the defendants' petition. Thereafter and on November 22, 1919, the said defendants, petitioners herein, filed the present petition in this court, praying as follows: Wherefore, in view of the foregoing allegations, it is respectfully prayed that a preliminary injunction issue. First, restraining the respondent judge, and his successors from making any cognizance of any action of any kind which has or may be brought against these petitioners which have resulted directly or indirectly from the unlawful searches and seizures above-mentioned; Second, restraining the respondent clerk of the court, the respondent fiscal, the respondent commandant of the Constabulary, and the successors of any of them, and the assistants of any of them, from any further examination of the private papers, books, and other property unlawfully seized as above alleged; from making or using the same for the purpose or in such a manner that the character or reputation of these petitioners might be injured; from making or using any copies, memorandum, notes, or extracts obtained from the books, papers, etc., so seized; from making any examinations of any of the property thus obtained or from using any reports or from publishing in any manner any reports already prepared as a result of the examination of such property; or from making any other use of the property and papers so obtained until orders are received from this court regarding the disposition of the same. It is further requested, that a writ of prohibition issue, restraining the respondent judge from at any time taking cognizance of any action or prosecution growing out of the unlawful searches and seizures above-mentioned, and directing such judge or his successor to order the immediate return to these petitioners of all of the papers and other property thus unlawfully obtained, together with all copies, extracts, memorandum, notes, photographs, reports, samples, or evidence obtained by reason of such searches and seizures whereby the reputation and character of petitioners may be further damaged; furthermore enjoining all of the respondents and their assistants from divulging any of the secrets or information which they have thus unlawfully obtained from these petitioners; and especially ordering the respondent judge to dismiss all actions or prosecutions already filed before him or which may hereafter come before him as a result of the unlawful acts herein alleged. I THE SEARCH WARRANT OF APRIL 30TH The petitioners contend that the search warrant of April 30, 1919, was illegal, (1) because it was not issued upon either of the grounds mentioned in section 96 of General Orders No. 58, and (2) because the judge who issued it did not determine the probable cause by examining witnesses under oath, a required by section 98 of said General Orders No. 58. Section 96 of General Orders No. 58 is as follows: SEC. 96. It (a search warrant) may be issued upon either of the following grounds: 1. When the property was stolen or embezzled. 2. When it was used or when the intent exists to use it as the means of committing a felony. In support of their first contention the petitioners argue that the property ordered to be seized, namely, opium, under the said search warrant, had not been stolen or embezzled, nor had it been used or intended to be used as the means of committing a felony; that the word "felony" is applicable only to a serious crime which is malum per seand not to one which is merely malum prohibitum, such as the possession of opium. For the purpose of this decision we deem it unnecessary to draw the distinction between the words "felony" and "misdemeanor" a used in the common law. Suffice it to say that, whatever may be the technical common-law meaning of the word "felony," which is used in paragraph 2 of section 96 above quoted, we believe it would be the height of absurdity to hold, upon technical grounds, that a search warrant is illegal which is issued to search for and seize property the very possession of which is forbidden by law and constitutes a crime. Opium is such property. "Search-warrants have heretofore been allowed to search for stolen goods, for goods supposed to have been smuggled into the country in violation of the revenue laws, for implements of gaming or counterfeiting, for lottery tickets or prohibited liquors kept for sale contrary to law, for obscene books and paper kept for sale or circulation, and for powder or other explosive and dangerous material so kept as to endanger the public safety." (Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, 7th ed., p. 432.)

In support of their second contention, the petitioners invoke section 98 of General Orders No. 58, which provides a follow: SEC. 98. The judge or justice must, before issuing the warrant, examine on oath the complainant and any witnesses he may produce and take their depositions in writing. Section 97 provides that "a search warrant shall not issue except for probable cause" and section 98 above quoted provides the manner in which that probable cause shall be determined by the judge issuing the warrant. In the present case, however, the judge did not examine any witness under oath but relied solely upon the sworn application of the Constabulary officer in determining whether there was probable cause. In that application the complainant swore positively: "That in the house of Chino Uy Kheytin, Sto. Nio St., No. 20, Iloilo, under the writing desk in his store, there is kept a certain amount of opium." This statement was found to be true by the subsequent finding and seizure of a considerable quantity of opium in the place mentioned. The question now is, whether the omission of the judge to comply with the requirements of section 98 would, under the circumstances, justify the court in declaring that the search warrant in question was illegal and ordering the return of the opium found and seized under said warrant. A search warrant may be likened to a warrant of arrest. The issuance of both is restricted by the same provision of the Jones Law (sec. 3) which is as follows: That no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized. A person, then, is protected from unreasonable arrests just as much as he is protected from unreasonable searches. But suppose he happened to be arrested without any warrant, or upon a warrant which had been issued by a judge without first properly determining whether there was probable cause, and upon investigation it should be found, from his own admission, that he was the author of the crime, should he be released upon the ground that he had not been legally arrested? In the case of Ker vs. Illinois (119 U. S., 436) Ker having committed the crime of larceny, escaped and went to Peru. He was kidnapped in Peru and brought back to the State of Illinois without any pretense of authority. Passing upon the question of the constitutionality of the arrest of Ker, the Supreme Court of the United States, speaking through Mr. Justice Miller, said: We do not intend to say that there may not be proceedings previous to the trial in regard to which the prisoner could invoke in some manner the provisions of this clause of the Constitution; but for mere irregularities in the manner in which he may be brought into the custody of the law, we do not think he is entitled to say that he should not be tried at all for the crime with which he is charged in a regular indictment. He may be arrested for a very heinous offense by persons without any warrant, or without any previous complaint, and brought before a proper officer, and this may be in some sense said to be "without due process of law." But it would hardly be claimed that after the case had been investigated, and the defendant held by the proper authorities to answer for the crime, he could plead that he was first arrested "without due process of law." (Followed in U. S. vs. Grant and Kennedy, 18 Phil., 122, 146; U. S. vs. Wilson, 4 Phil., 317.) In the present case there was an irregularity in the issuance of the search warrant in question in that the judge did not first examine the complainant or any witnesses under oath, as required by section 98 of General Orders No. 58. But the property sought to be searched for and seized having been actually found in the place described by the complainant, reasoning by analogy from the case of an improper arrest, we are of the opinion that that irregularity is not sufficient cause for ordering the return of the opium found and seized under said warrant, to the petitioners, and exonerating the latter. II THE SEARCH MADE ON MAY 1ST Petitioners content that this was made without any search warrant and without any authority of law; that the search warrant of April 30th could not be used on May 1st because that warrant had been executed on the day of its issuance. In support of this contention counsel for the petitioners, in the lower court, argued that: While it is true that a warrant is good for 10 days after the date of issuance, this cannot be interpreted to mean that a search warrant can be used every day for 10 days, and for a different purpose each day. This would be absurd. It is admitted, for sake of argument, that if upon a search, under a legally issued warrant, some other prohibited articles than those named in the warrant should be found, these articles might be seized. Also, it might possibly be true, that if a warrant was issued to search for a certain article and it was not found after the first search, that another search could be made sometime within the 10 days. But this is certainly the furthest possible extreme the doctrine could be carried. It certainly could not be interpreted to allow a search to be made, and after the articles for which the warrant was issued had been seized, to use this same warrant as authority to make another search. We agree with counsel that a search warrant cannot be used every day for ten days, "and for a different purpose each day," and that after the articles for which the warrant was issued have been seized the same warrant cannot be used as authority to make another search. But this argument is not applicable to the facts in this case. It appears from the oral evidence adduced during the hearing of the petitioners' motion in the court below that the search for opium, the property mentioned in the warrant, was not completed on April 30th; it was interrupted by the necessity to ascertain who the owner of the bodega on the groundfloor was, because the petitioner Uy Kheytin falsely disclaimed ownership thereof. In other words, the search of May 1st was not made "for a different purpose," nor could it be considered "another search," but was really a continuation of the search begun on April 30th. This is shown by the fact that during the interval between the two searches the premises in question were guarded by Constabulary soldiers, and the petitioners were made to understand on April 30th that the authorities were not yet through with the search and would continue the same as soon as they found out that the bodega was also occupied by the petitioner Uy Kheytin. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the search made on May 1st was authorized under the search warrant of April 30th

III THE SEIZURE OF BOOKS, LETTERS, ETC. The important question that remains to be decided is whether, under a search warrant for opium, the officers of the law were authorized to seize books, personal letters, and other property having a remote or no connection with opium. The respondent M. S. Torralba, lieutenant of the Constabulary, testified that he seized these articles because he believed or suspected that they had some relation with the opium in question; in other words, he thought that they might be used as evidence against the petitioners when they are prosecuted for a violation of the Opium Law. The respondents contend that this was a sufficient justification under the law for the seizure of such articles under the same warrant for opium. We are of the opinion that the respondent's contention in untenable. Both the Jones Law (sec. 3) and General Orders No. 58 (sec. 97) specifically require that a search warrant should particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized. The evident purpose and intent of this requirement is to limit the things to be seized to those, and only those, particularly described in the search warrant to leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they shall seize, to the end that "unreasonable searches and seizures" may not be made, that abuses may not be committed. That this is the correct interpretation of this constitutional provision is borne out by American authorities. In order to comply with the constitutional provisions regulating the issuance of search warrants, the property to be seized under a warrant must be particularly described therein and no other property can be taken thereunder. The goods to be seized must be described with such certainty as to identify them, and the description must be so particular that the officer charged with the execution of the warrant will be left with no discretion respecting the property to be taken. . . . Under a warrant to search a person for stolen goods, the officer cannot lawfully take from the person a letter, such letter not being particularly described in the warrant as property to be searched for. (24 R. C. L., 714, 715.) It is a violation of the declaration of rights respecting searches and seizures for an officer, while searching one's person under a search warrant for stolen goods, to take from it, against the party's will, a letter written to him. (State vs. Slamon, 87 Am. St. Rep., 711.) We have said that if the officer follows the command of his warrant, he is protected; and this is so even when the complaint proves to have been unfounded. But if he exceed the command by searching in places not described therein, or by seizing persons or articles not commanded, he is not protected by the warrant, and can only justify himself as in other cases where he assumes to act without process. Obeying strictly the command of his warrant, he may break open outer or inner doors, and his justification does not depend upon his discovering that for which he is to make search. (Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, 7th ed., p. 434) That the officers of the law believed that the books, papers, etc., which they seized might be used as evidence against the petitioners herein a criminal action against them for a violation of the Opium Law, is no reason or justification under the law for the seizure: First, because they were not "particularly described" or even mentioned in the search warrant; second, because, even if they had been mentioned in the search warrant, they could not be legally seized, for a search warrant cannot be used for the purpose of obtaining evidence; and third, because to compel a person to produce his private papers to be used in evidence against him would be equivalent to compelling him to be a witness against himself. 1. The authorities for the first proposition have already been given above. 2. It may be said that Books of account, private documents, and private papers are property which men may lawfully possess. It is not believed that the stature (subsection 2 of section 96, G. O. 58) was intended to cover property of this class. Granting that property of which men may lawfully possess themselves has been used in the commission of a crime and not possessed nor created purely for the purpose of committing a crime, and not likely to be used again, then certainly its seizure can only be for the purpose of using the same as evidence to prove the commission of the crime already committed. This purpose is not contemplated by the provision of the law. The finding of evidence can not be the immediate reason for issuing the search warrant. To use a search warrant for the purpose of obtaining possession of property for this purpose would be an "unreasonable" use of the remedy by search warrant, which is prohibited by law. (Regidor vs. Araullo, 5 Off. Gaz., 955, 961, 962; U. S. vs. De los Reyes and Esguerra, 20 Phil., 467.) Judge Cooley in his work on Constitutional Limitations, 7th ed., p. 431, says: The warrant is not allowed for the purpose of obtaining evidence of an intended crime; but only after the lawful evidence of an offense actually committed. Nor even then is it allowable to invade one's privacy for the sole purpose of obtaining evidence against him, except in a few special cases where that which is the subject of the crime is supposed to be concealed, and the public or the complainant has an interest in it on its destruction. 3. In the case of Boyd vs. United States (116 U. S., 616), the Supreme Court of the United States, speaking through Mr. Justice Bradley, said: The seizure or compulsory production of a man's private papers to be used in evidence against him is equivalent to compelling him to be a witness against himself, and, in a prosecution for a crime, penalty or forfeiture, is equally within the prohibition of the Fifth Amendment. Both amendments (fourth and fifth) relate to the personal security of the citizen. They nearly run into and mutually throw light upon each other. When the thing forbidden in the Fifth Amendment, namely, compelling a man to be a witness

against himself, is the object of a search and seizure of his private papers, it is an "unreasonable search and seizure" within the Fourth Amendment. Search and seizure of a man's private papers to be used in evidence for the purpose of convicting him of a crime, recovering a penalty, or of forfeiting his property, is totally different from the search and seizure of stolen goods, dutiable articles on which the duties have not been paid, and the like, which rightfully belong to the custody of the law. ( Se also Silverthorne Lumber Co. vs. United States, decided Jan. 26, 1920, by the Supreme Court of the United States.) The seizure of a person's private papers, to be used in evidence against him, is equivalent to compelling him to be a witness against himself. (State vs. Slamon, 73 Vt., 212; 87 Am. St. Rep., 711.) From all of the foregoing our conclusions are: 1. That although in the issuance of the search warrant in question the judge did not comply with the requirements of section 98 of General Orders No. 58, the petitioners are not entitled to the return of the opium and its paraphernalia which were found and seized under said warrant, and much less are they entitled to be exonerated because of such omission of the judge. 2. That the search made on May 1st was a continuation of the search begun on the previous day, and, therefore, did not require another search warrant. 3. That the seizure of the petitioner's books, letters, telegrams, and other articles which have no inherent relation with opium and the possession of which is not forbidden by law, was illegal and in violation of the petitioners' constitutional rights. Therefore, it is hereby ordered and decreed that each and all of the respondents herein, their assistants or successors, be, and they hereby are, forbidden from examining or making any use of said books, letters, telegrams, etc., namely, the articles described in items Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15 of the sheriff's return (Exhibit 3, reproduced at the top of page 3 of this decision 1) and they are hereby ordered to immediately return the said articles to the petitioners. So ordered.

CASE NO. 23 G.R. No. 82544 June 28, 1988 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF: ANDREW HARVEY, JOHN SHERMAN and ADRIAAN VAN DEL ELSHOUT, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COMMISSIONER MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION, respondent. MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS. Petitioners Andrew Harvey and John Sherman, 52 and 72 years, respectively, are both American nationals residing at Pagsanjan, Laguna, while Adriaan Van Elshout, 58 years old, is a Dutch citizen also residing at Pagsanjan, Laguna. The case stems from the apprehension of petitioners on 27 February 1988 from their respective residences by agents of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID) by virtue of Mission Orders issued by respondent Commissioner Miriam Defensor Santiago of the CID. Petitioners are presently detained at the CID Detention Center. Petitioners were among the twenty-two (22) suspected alien pedophiles who were apprehended after three months of close surveillance by CID agents in Pagsanjan, Laguna. Two (2) days after apprehension, or on 29 February 1988, seventeen (17) of the twenty-two (22) arrested aliens opted for self-deportation and have left the country. One was released for lack of evidence; another was charged not for being a pedophile but for working without a valid working visa. Thus, of the original twenty two (22), only the three petitioners have chosen to face deportation. Seized during petitioners apprehension were rolls of photo negatives and photos of the suspected child prostitutes shown in salacious poses as well as boys and girls engaged in the sex act. There were also posters and other literature advertising the child prostitutes. The "Operation Report," on Andrew Harvey and Richard Sherman dated 29 February 1988 stated: xxx xxx xxx ANDREW MARK HARVEY was found together with two young boys. RICHARD SHERMAN was found with two naked boys inside his room. In respect of Van Den Elshout the "After Mission Report," dated 27 February 1988 read in part: Noted: There were two (2) children ages 14 & 16 which subject readily accepted having been in his care and live-in for quite sometime. On 4 March 1988, deportation proceedings were instituted against petitioners for being undesirable aliens under Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code (Deportation Case No. 88-13). The "Charge Sheet" read inter alia: Wherefore, this Office charges the respondents for deportation, as undesirable aliens, in that: they, being pedophiles, are inimical to public morals, public health and public safety as provided in Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code. On 7 March 1988, Warrants of Arrest were issued by respondent against petitioners for violation of Sections 37, 45 and 46 of the Immigration Act and Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code On the same date, the Board of Special Inquiry III commenced trial against petitioners. On 14 March 1988, petitioners filed an Urgent Petition for Release Under Bond alleging that their health was being seriously affected by their continuous detention. Upon recommendation of the Board of Commissioners for their provisional release, respondent ordered the CID doctor to examine petitioners, who certified that petitioners were healthy. On 22 March 1988, petitioners filed a Petition for Bail which, however, respondent denied considering the certification by the CID physician that petitioners were healthy. To avoid congestion, respondent ordered petitioners' transfer to the CID detention cell at Fort Bonifacio, but the transfer was deferred pending trial due to the difficulty of transporting them to and from the CID where trial was on-going. On 4 April 1988 petitioner Andrew Harvey filed a Manifestation/Motion stating that he had "finally agreed to a selfdeportation" and praying that he be "provisionally released for at least 15 days and placed under the custody of Atty. Asinas before he voluntarily departs the country." On 7 April 1988, the Board of Special Inquiry III allowed provisional

release of five (5) days only under certain conditions. However, it appears that on the same date that the aforesaid Manifestation/ Motion was filed, Harvey and his co-petitioners had already filed the present petition. On 4 April 1988, as heretofore stated, petitioners availed of this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. A Return of the Writ was filed by the Solicitor General and the Court heard the case on oral argument on 20 April 1988. A Traverse to the Writ was presented by petitioners to which a Reply was filed by the Solicitor General. Petitioners question the validity of their detention on the following grounds: 1) There is no provision in the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 nor under Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code, which legally clothes the Commissioner with any authority to arrest and detain petitioners pending determination of the existence of a probable cause leading to an administrative investigation. 2) Respondent violated Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures since the CID agents were not clothed with valid Warrants of arrest, search and seizure as required by the said provision. 3) Mere confidential information made to the CID agents and their suspicion of the activities of petitioners that they are pedophiles, coupled with their association with other suspected pedophiles, are not valid legal grounds for their arrest and detention unless they are caught in the act. They further allege that being a pedophile is not punishable by any Philippine Law nor is it a crime to be a pedophile. We reject petitioners' contentions and uphold respondent's official acts ably defended by the Solicitor General. There can be no question that the right against unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed by Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, is available to all persons, including aliens, whether accused of crime or not (Moncado vs. People's Court, 80 Phil. 1 [1948]. One of the constitutional requirements of a valid search warrant or warrant of arrest is that it must be based upon probable cause. Probable cause has been defined as referring to "such facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of the warrant that in themselves are sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely on them and act in pursuance thereof." (People vs. Syjuco 64 Phil. 667 [1937]; Alverez vs. CFI, 64 Phil. 33 [1937]). The 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure also provide that an arrest wit a warrant may be effected by a peace officer or even a private person (1) when such person has committed, actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in his presence; and (2) when an offense has, in fact, been committed and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it (Rule 113, Section 5). In this case, the arrest of petitioners was based on probable cause determined after close surveillance for three (3) months during which period their activities were monitored. The existence of probable cause justified the arrest and the seizure of the photo negatives, photographs and posters without warrant (See Papa vs. Mago, L-27360, February 28, 1968,22 SCRA 857; People vs. Court of First Instance of Rizal, L-41686, November 17, 1980, 101 SCRA 86, cited in CRUZ, Constitutional Law, 1987 ed., p. 143). Those articles were seized as an incident to a lawful arrest and, are therefore, admissible in evidence (Section 12, Rule 126,1985 Rules on criminal Procedure). But even assuming arguendo that the arrest of petitioners was not valid at its inception, the records show that formal deportation charges have been filed against them, as undesirable aliens, on 4 March 1988. Warrants of arrest were issued against them on 7 March 1988 "for violation of Section 37, 45 and 46 of the Immigration Act and Section 69 of the Administrative Code." A hearing is presently being conducted by a Board of Special Inquiry. The restraint against their persons, therefore, has become legal. The Writ has served its purpose. The process of the law is being followed (Cruz vs. Montoya, L-39823, February 25, 1975, 62 SCRA 543). "were a person's detention was later made by virtue of a judicial order in relation to criminal cases subsequently filed against the detainee, his petition for hebeas corpus becomes moot and academic" (Beltran vs. Garcia, L-49014, April 30, 1979, 89 SCRA 717). "It is a fumdamental rule that a writ of habeas corpus will not be granted when the confinement is or has become legal, although such confinement was illegal at the beginning" (Matsura vs. Director of Prisons, 77 Phil. 1050 [1947]). That petitioners were not "caught in the act" does not make their arrest illegal. Petitioners were found with young boys in their respective rooms, the ones with John Sherman being naked. Under those circumstances the CID agents had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioners had committed "pedophilia" defined as "psychosexual perversion involving children" (Kraft-Ebbing Psychopatia Sexualis p. 555; Paraphilia (or unusual sexual activity) in which children are the preferred sexual object" (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1971 ed., p. 1665) [Solicitor General's Return of the Writ, on p. 101. While not a crime under the Revised Penal Code, it is behavior offensive to public morals and violative of the declared policy of the State to promote and protect the physical, moral, spiritual, and social well-being of our youth (Article II, Section 13, 1987 Constitution). At any rate, the filing by petitioners of a petition to be released on bail should be considered as a waiver of any irregularity attending their arrest and estops them from questioning its validity (Callanta v. Villanueva, L-24646 & L-24674, June 20, 1977, 77 SCRA 377; Bagcal vs. Villaraza, L-61770, January 31, 1983, 120 SCRA 525). The deportation charges instituted by respondent Commissioner are in accordance with Section 37(a) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, in relation to Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code. Section 37(a) provides in part: (a) The following aliens shall be arrested upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation or any other officer designated by him for the purpose and deported upon the warrant of the Commissioner of

Immigration and Deportation after a determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of the ground for deportation as charged against the alien; xxx xxx xxx The foregoing provision should be construed in its entirety in view of the summary and indivisible nature of a deportation proceeding, otherwise, the very purpose of deportation proceeding would be defeated. Section 37(a) is not constitutionally proscribed (Morano vs. Vivo, L-22196, June 30, 1967, 20 SCRA 562). The specific 1 2 constraints in both the 1935 and 1987 Constitutions, which are substantially Identical, contemplate prosecutions essentially criminal in nature. Deportation proceedings, on the other hand, are administrative in character. An order of deportation is never construed as a punishment. It is preventive, not a penal process. It need not be conducted strictly in accordance with ordinary Court proceedings. It is of course well-settled that deportation proceedings do not constitute a criminal action. The order of deportation is not a punishment, (Maliler vs. Eby, 264 U.S., 32), it being merely the return to his country of an alien who has broken the conditions upon which he could continue to reside within our borders (U.S. vs. De los Santos, 33 Phil., 397). The deportation proceedings are administrative in character, (Kessler vs. Stracker 307 U.S., 22) summary in nature, and need not be conducted strictly in accordance with the ordinary court proceedings (Murdock vs. Clark, 53 F. [2d], 155). It is essential, however, that the warrant of arrest shall give the alien sufficient information about the charges against him, relating the facts relied upon. (U.S. vs. Uhl 211 F., 628.) It is also essential that he be given a fair hearing with the assistance of counsel, if he so desires, before unprejudiced investigators (Strench vs. Pedaris, 55 F. [2d], 597; Ex parte Jew You On, 16 F. [2d], 153). However, all the strict rules of evidence governing judicial controversies do not need to be observed; only such as are fumdamental and essential like the right of cross-examination. (U.S. vs. Hughes, 104 F. [2d], 14; Murdock vs. Clark, 53 F. [2d], 155.) Hearsay evidence may even be admitted, provided the alien is given the opportunity to explain or rebut it (Morrell vs. Baker, 270 F., 577; Sercerchi vs. Ward, 27 F. Supp., 437). (Lao Tang Bun vs. Fabre 81 Phil. 682 [1948]). The ruling in Vivo vs. Montesa (G. R. No. 24576, July 29, 1968, 24 SCRA 155) that "the issuance of warrants of arrest by the Commissioner of Immigration, solely for purposes of investigation and before a final order of deportation is issued, 3 conflicts with paragraph 3, Section I of Article III of the Constitution" (referring to the 1935 Constitution) is not invocable herein. Respondent Commissioner's Warrant of Arrest issued on 7 March 1988 did not order petitioners to appear and show cause why they should not be deported. They were issued specifically "for violation of Sections 37, 45 and 46 of the Immigration Act and Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code." Before that, deportation proceedings had been commenced against them as undesirable aliens on 4 March 1988 and the arrest was a step preliminary to their possible deportation. Section 37 of the Immigration Law, which empowers the Commissioner of Immigration to issue warrants for the arrest of overstaying aliens is constitutional. The arrest is a stop preliminary to the deportation of the aliens who had violated the condition of their stay in this country. (Morano vs. Vivo, L-22196, June 30, 1967, 20 SCRA 562). To rule otherwise would be to render the authority given the Commissioner nugatory to the detriment of the State. The pertinent provision of Commonwealth Act No. 613, as amended, which gives authority to the Commissioner of Immigration to order the arrest of an alien temporary visitor preparatory to his deportation for failure to put up new bonds required for the stay, is not unconstitutional. xxx xxx xxx ... Such a step is necessary to enable the Commissioner to prepare the ground for his deportation under Section 37[al of Commonwealth Act 613. A contrary interpretation would render such power nugatory to the detriment of the State. (Ng Hua To vs. Galang, G. R. No. 10145, February 29, 1964, 10 SCRA 411). "The requirement of probable cause, to be determined by a Judge, does not extend to deportation proceedings." (Morano vs. Vivo, supra, citing Tiu Chun Hai vs. Commissioner, infra). There need be no "truncated" recourse to both judicial and administrative warrants in a single deportation proceedings. The foregoing does not deviate from the ruling in Qua Chee Gan vs. Deportation Board (G. R. No. 10280, September 30, 1963, 9 SCRA 27 [1963]) reiterated in Vivo vs. Montesa, supra, that "under the express terms of our Constitution (the 1935 Constitution), it is therefore even doubtful whether the arrest of an individual may be ordered by any authority other than a judge if the purpose is merely to determine the existence of a probable cause, leading to an administrative investigation." For, as heretofore stated, probable cause had already been shown to exist before the warrants of arrest were issued. What is essential is that there should be a specific charge against the alien intended to be arrested and deported, that a fair hearing be conducted (Section 37[c]) with the assistance of counsel, if desired, and that the charge be substantiated by competent evidence. Thus, Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code explicitly provides: Sec. 69. Deportation of subject of foreign power. A subject of a foreign power residing in the Philippines shall not be deported, expelled, or excluded from said Islands or repatriated to his own country by the President of the Philippines except upon prior investigation, conducted by said Executive or his

authorized agent, of the ground upon which such action is contemplated. In such a case the person concerned shall be informed of the charge or charges against him and he shall be allowed not less than 3 days for the preparation of his defense. He shall also have the right to be heard by himself or counsel, to produce witnesses in his own behalf, and to cross-examine the opposing witnesses. The denial by respondent Commissioner of petitioners' release on bail, also challenged by them, was in order because in deportation proceedings, the right to bail is not a matter of right but a matter of discretion on the part of the Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation. Thus, Section 37(e) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 provides that "any alien under arrest in a deportation proceeding may be released under bond or under such other conditions as may be imposed by the Commissioner of Immigration." The use of the word "may" in said provision indicates that the grant of bail is merely permissive and not mandatory on the part of the Commissioner. The exercise of the power is wholly discretionary (Ong Hee Sang vs. Commissioner of Immigration, L-9700, February 28,1962, 4 SCRA 442). "Neither the Constitution nor Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code guarantees the right of aliens facing deportation to provisional liberty on bail." (Tiu Chun Hai et al vs. Deportation Board, 104 Phil. 949 [1958]). As deportation proceedings do not partake of the nature of a criminal action, the constitutional guarantee to bail may not be invoked by aliens in said proceedings (Ong Hee Sang vs. Commissioner of Immigration, supra). Every sovereign power has the inherent power to exclude aliens from its territory upon such grounds as it may deem proper for its self-preservation or public interest (Lao Tan Bun vs. Fabre 81 Phil. 682 [1948]). The power to deport aliens is an act of State, an act done by or under the authority of the sovereign power (In re McCulloch Dick, 38 Phil. 41 [1918]). It is a police measure against undesirable aliens whose continued presence in the country is found to be injurious to the public good and the domestic tranquility of the people (Forbes vs. Chuoco Tiaco et al., 16 Phil. 534 [1910]). Particularly so in this case where the State has expressly committed itself to defend the tight of children to assistance and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development (Article XV, Section 3[2]). Respondent Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation, in instituting deportation proceedings against petitioners, acted in the interests of the State. WHEREFORE, the Petition is dismissed and the Writ of Habeas Corpus is hereby denied. SO ORDERED. Yap, C.J., Paras, Padilla and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

Footnotes 1 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (Sec. 1[3], Art. III). 2 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be search and the persons or things to be seized." (Section 2, Art. III).

CASE NO. 24

G.R. No. 82585 November 14, 1988 MAXIMO V. SOLIVEN, ANTONIO V. ROCES, FREDERICK K. AGCAOLI, and GODOFREDO L. MANZANAS,petitioners, vs. THE HON. RAMON P. MAKASIAR, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 35, UNDERSECRETARY SILVESTRE BELLO III, of the Department of Justice, LUIS C. VICTOR, THE CITY FISCAL OF MANILA and PRESIDENT CORAZON C. AQUINO, respondents.
G.R. No. 82827 November 14, 1988 LUIS D. BELTRAN, petitioner, vs. THE HON. RAMON P. MAKASIAR, Presiding Judge of Branch 35 of the Regional Trial Court, at Manila, THE HON. LUIS VICTOR, CITY FISCAL OF MANILA, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE WESTERN POLICE DISTRICT, and THE MEMBERS OF THE PROCESS SERVING UNIT AT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, respondents. G.R. No. 83979 November 14, 1988. LUIS D. BELTRAN, petitioner, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY CATALINO MACARAIG, SECRETARY OF JUSTICE SEDFREY ORDOEZ, UNDERSECRETARY OF JUSTICE SILVESTRE BELLO III, THE CITY FISCAL OF MANILA JESUS F. GUERRERO, and JUDGE RAMON P. MAKASIAR, Presiding Judge of Branch 35 of the Regional Trial Court, at Manila, respondents.

RESOLUTION PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases, three principal issues were raised: (1) whether or not petitioners were denied due process when informations for libel were filed against them although the finding of the existence of a prima faciecase was still under review by the Secretary of Justice and, subsequently, by the President; (2) whether or not the constitutional rights of Beltran were violated when respondent RTC judge issued a warrant for his arrest without personally examining the complainant and the witnesses, if any, to determine probable cause; and (3) whether or not the President of the Philippines, under the Constitution, may initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners through the filing of a complaint-affidavit. Subsequent events have rendered the first issue moot and academic. On March 30, 1988, the Secretary of Justice denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration and upheld the resolution of the Undersecretary of Justice sustaining the City Fiscal's finding of a prima facie case against petitioners. A second motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Beltran was denied by the Secretary of Justice on April 7, 1988. On appeal, the President, through the Executive Secretary, affirmed the resolution of the Secretary of Justice on May 2, 1988. The motion for reconsideration was denied by the Executive Secretary on May 16, 1988. With these developments, petitioners' contention that they have been denied the administrative remedies available under the law has lost factual support. It may also be added that with respect to petitioner Beltran, the allegation of denial of due process of law in the preliminary investigation is negated by the fact that instead of submitting his counter- affidavits, he filed a "Motion to Declare Proceedings Closed," in effect waiving his right to refute the complaint by filing counter-affidavits. Due process of law does not require that the respondent in a criminal case actually file his counter-affidavits before the preliminary investigation is deemed completed. All that is required is that the respondent be given the opportunity to submit counter-affidavits if he is so minded. The second issue, raised by petitioner Beltran, calls for an interpretation of the constitutional provision on the issuance of warrants of arrest. The pertinent provision reads: Art. III, Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination nder oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The addition of the word "personally" after the word "determined" and the deletion of the grant of authority by the 1973 Constitution to issue warrants to "other responsible officers as may be authorized by law," has apparently convinced petitioner Beltran that the Constitution now requires the judge to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses in his determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest. This is not an accurate interpretation. What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. Following established doctrine and procedure, he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof

he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal's report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause. Sound policy dictates this procedure, otherwise judges would be unduly laden with the preliminary examination and investigation of criminal complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases filed before their courts. On June 30, 1987, the Supreme Court unanimously adopted Circular No. 12, setting down guidelines for the issuance of warrants of arrest. The procedure therein provided is reiterated and clarified in this resolution. It has not been shown that respondent judge has deviated from the prescribed procedure. Thus, with regard to the issuance of the warrants of arrest, a finding of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction cannot be sustained. Anent the third issue, petitioner Beltran argues that "the reasons which necessitate presidential immunity from suit impose a correlative disability to file suit." He contends that if criminal proceedings ensue by virtue of the President's filing of her complaint-affidavit, she may subsequently have to be a witness for the prosecution, bringing her under the trial court's jurisdiction. This, continues Beltran, would in an indirect way defeat her privilege of immunity from suit, as by testifying on the witness stand, she would be exposing herself to possible contempt of court or perjury. The rationale for the grant to the President of the privilege of immunity from suit is to assure the exercise of Presidential duties and functions free from any hindrance or distraction, considering that being the Chief Executive of the Government is a job that, aside from requiring all of the office holder's time, also demands undivided attention. But this privilege of immunity from suit, pertains to the President by virtue of the office and may be invoked only by the holder of the office; not by any other person in the President's behalf. Thus, an accused in a criminal case in which the President is complainant cannot raise the presidential privilege as a defense to prevent the case from proceeding against such accused. Moreover, there is nothing in our laws that would prevent the President from waiving the privilege. Thus, if so minded the President may shed the protection afforded by the privilege and submit to the court's jurisdiction. The choice of whether to exercise the privilege or to waive it is solely the President's prerogative. It is a decision that cannot be assumed and imposed by any other person. As regards the contention of petitioner Beltran that he could not be held liable for libel because of the privileged character or the publication, the Court reiterates that it is not a trier of facts and that such a defense is best left to the trial court to appreciate after receiving the evidence of the parties. As to petitioner Beltran's claim that to allow the libel case to proceed would produce a "chilling effect" on press freedom, the Court finds no basis at this stage to rule on the point. The petitions fail to establish that public respondents, through their separate acts, gravely abused their discretion as to amount to lack of jurisdiction. Hence, the writs of certiorari and prohibition prayed for cannot issue. WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the public respondents, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the petitions in G. R. Nos. 82585, 82827 and 83979. The Order to maintain the status quo contained in the Resolution of the Court en banc dated April 7, 1988 and reiterated in the Resolution dated April 26, 1988 is LIFTED. Separate Opinions GUTIERREZ, JR., J., concurring: I concur with the majority opinion insofar as it involves the three principal issues mentioned in its opening statement. However, as to the more important issue on whether or not the prosecution of the libel case would produce a "chilling effect" on press freedom, I beg to reserve my vote. I believe this is the more important issue in these petitions and it should be resolved now rather that later. Consistent with our decision in Salonga v. Cruz Pano (134 SCRA 438 [1985]), the Court should not hesitate to quash a criminal prosecution in the interest of more enlightened and substantial justice where it is not alone the criminal liability of an accused in a seemingly minor libel case which is involved but broader considerations of governmental power versus a preferred freedom. We have in these four petitions the unusual situation where the highest official of the Republic and one who enjoys unprecedented public support asks for the prosecution of a newspaper columnist, the publisher and chairman of the editorial board, the managing editor and the business manager in a not too indubitable a case for alleged libel. I am fully in accord with an all out prosecution if the effect will be limited to punishing a newspaperman who, instead of observing accuracy and fairness, engages in unwarranted personal attacks, irresponsible twisting of facts, of malicious distortions of half-truths which tend to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt of the complainant. However, this case is not a simple prosecution for libel. We have as complainant a powerful and popular President who heads the investigation and

prosecution service and appoints members of appellate courts but who feels so terribly maligned that she has taken the unorthodox step of going to court inspite of the invocations of freedom of the press which would inevitably follow. I believe that this Court should have acted on this issue now instead of leaving the matter to fiscals and defense lawyers to argue before a trial judge. There is always bound to be harassment inherent in any criminal prosecution. Where the harassment goes beyond the usual difficulties encountered by any accused and results in an unwillingness of media to freely criticize government or to question government handling of sensitive issues and public affairs, this Court and not a lower tribunal should draw the demarcation line. As early as March 8, 1918, the decision in United States v. Bustos (37 Phil. 731) stated that "(c)omplete liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and unjust accusation; the wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear conscience." The Court pointed out that while defamation is not authorized, criticism is to be expected and should be borne for the common good. In People v. Perfecto (43 Phil. 887 [1922]), the Court stated: xxx xxx xxx ... No longer is there a Minister of the Crown own or a person in authority of such exalted position that the citizen must speak of him only with bated breath. "In the eye of our Constitution and laws, every man is a sovereign, a ruler and a freeman, and has equal rights with every other man." (at p. 900) In fact, the Court observed that high official position, instead of affording immunity from slanderous and libelous charges, would actually invite attacks by those who desire to create sensation. It would seem that what would ordinarily be slander if directed at the typical person should be examined from various perspectives if directed at a high government official. Again, the Supreme Court should draw this fine line instead of leaving it to lower tribunals. This Court has stressed as authoritative doctrine in Elizalde v. Gutierrez (76 SCRA 448 [1977]) that a prosecution for libel lacks justification if the offending words find sanctuary within the shelter of the free press guaranty. In other words, a prosecution for libel should not be allowed to continue, where after discounting the possibility that the words may not be really that libelous, there is likely to be a chilling effect, a patently inhibiting factor on the willingness of newspapermen, especially editors and publishers to courageously perform their critical role in society. If, instead of merely reading more carefully what a columnist writes in his daily column, the editors tell their people to lay off certain issues or certain officials, the effect on a free press would be highly injurious. Because many questions regarding press freedom are left unanswered by our resolution, I must call attention to our decisions which caution that "no inroads on press freedom should be allowed in the guise of punitive action visited on what otherwise should be characterized as libel." (Lopez v. Court of Appeals, 34 SCRA 117 [1970]; See also the citations in Elizalde v. Gutierrez, supra). The United States Supreme Court is even more emphatic, to wit: In deciding the question now, we are compelled by neither precedent nor policy to give any more weight to the epithet "libel" than we have to other "mere labels" of state law. N. A. A. C. P. v. Button, 371 US 415, 429, 9L ed 2d 405, 415, 83 S Ct 328. Like insurrection, contempt, advocacy of unlawful acts, breach of the peace, obscenity, solicitation of legal business, and the other various other formulae for the repression of expression that have been challenged in this Court, libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment. xxx xxx xxx Those who won our independence believed ... that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risk to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsel is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law the argument of force in its worst form. ... Thus we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. ... (at pp. 700-701) Shunting aside the individual liability of Mr. Luis Beltran, is there a prima facie showing that Messrs. Maximo Soliven, Antonio V. Roces, Frederick K. Agcaoili, and Godofredo L. Manzanas knowingly participated in a wilful purveying of falsehood? Considering the free speech aspects of these petitions, should not a differentiated approach to their particular liabilities be taken instead of lumping up everybody with the offending columnist? I realize that the law includes publishers

and editors but perhaps the "chilling effect" issue applies with singular effectivity to publishers and editors vis-a-vis newspaper columnists. There is no question that, ordinarily, libel is not protected by the free speech clause but we have to understand that some provocative words, which if taken literally may appear to shame or disparage a public figure, may really be intended to provoke debate on public issues when uttered or written by a media personality. Will not a criminal prosecution in the type of case now before us dampen the vigor and limit the variety of public debate? There are many other questions arising from this unusual case which have not been considered. I, of course, concur with the Court's opinion because it has decided to limit the issues to narrowly drawn ones. I see no reason to disagree with the way the Court has resolved them. The first issue on prematurity is moot. The second issue discusses a procedure now embodied in the recently amended Rules of Court on how a Judge should proceed before he issues a warrant of arrest. Anent the third issue, considerations of public policy dictate that an incumbent President should not be sued. At the same time, the President cannot stand by helplessly bereft of legal remedies if somebody vilifies or maligns him or her. The Court has decided to defer the "chilling effect" issue for a later day. To this, I take exception. I know that most of our fiscals and judges are courageous individuals who would not allow any considerations of possible consequences to their careers to stand in the way of public duty. But why should we subject them to this problem? And why should we allow the possibility of the trial court treating and deciding the case as one for ordinary libel without bothering to fully explore the more important areas of concern, the extremely difficult issues involving government power and freedom of expression. However, since we have decided to defer the "chilling effect" issue for a later day, I limit myself to reiterating the dissenting words of Mr. Justice Jackson in the American case of Beaurnhais v. Illinois (343 U. S. 250) when he said: If one can claim to announce the judgment of legal history on any subject, it is that criminal libel laws are consistent with the concept of ordered liberty only when applied with safeguards evolved to prevent their invasion of freedom of expression. In the trial of the libel case against the petitioners, the safeguards in the name of freedom of expression should be faithfully applied. SYLLABUS 2. ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT OF ARREST; CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS; WHO MAY ISSUE; PROCEDURE. -

Section 2, Article III of the present Constitution provides that no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produced. Under existing laws, warrants of arrest may be issued (1) by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTCs)) except those in the National Capital Region, Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), in cases falling within their exclusive original jurisdiction; in cases covered by the rule on summary procedure where the accused fails to appear when required; and in cases filed with them which are cognizable by the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs); and (2) by the Metropolitan Trial Courts in the National Capital Region (MeTCs-NCR) and the RTCs in cases filed with them after appropriate preliminary investigations conducted by officers authorized to do so other than judges of MeTCs, MTCs, and MCTCs. As to the first, a warrant can issue only if the judge is satisfied after an examination in writing and under oath of the complainant and the witnesses, in the form of searching questions and answers, that a probable cause exists and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. As to the second, this Court held in Soliven vs. Makasiar that the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and the witnesses, but [f]ollowing established doctrine and procedure, he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof; issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscals report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause. Sound policy supports this procedure, otherwise judges would be unduly laden with the prel iminary examination and investigation of criminal complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases filed before their courts. It must be emphasized that judges must not rely solely on the report or resolution of the fiscal (now prosecutor); they must evaluate the report and the supporting documents.

2. THE CASE OF SOLIVEN VS. MAKASIAR AND OTHER RELATED CASES DID NOT ESTABLISH THE ABSOLUTE RULE THAT UNLESS A JUDGE HAS THE COMPLETE RECORDS OF THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION BEFORE HIM HE CANNOT LAWFULLY DETERMINE PROBABLE CAUSE AND ISSUE A WARRANT OF ARREST.
- Soliven and other related cases did not establish the absolute rule that unless a judge has the complete records of the preliminary investigation before him, he cannot lawfully determine probable cause and issue a warrant of arrest. Soliven only held that it is the personal responsibility of the judge to determine probable cause on the basis of the report and supporting documents submitted by the fiscal; that he must independently evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted by the fiscal; and, if he finds no probable cause on the basis thereof, he can require submission of additional supporting affidavits of witnesses. There is nothing in Soliven that requires prosecutors to submit to the judge thecomplete records of the preliminary investigation especially if they are voluminous. Nor is there anything in Soliven that holds that theomission to physically submit the complete records of the case would constitutionally infirm a finding of probable cause by a judge even if it was made on the basis of an exhaustive prosecutors report or resolution. Indeed, in Webb vs. de Leon, (G.R. No. 121234) we sustained the finding of probable cause made by the trial judge even if the complete records of the preliminary investigation were not elevated to the said judge.