G.R. No.

L-35546 September 17, 1974

BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR vs HON JUAN PONCE ENRILE

According to Chief Justice Makalintal:

FACTS:

The cases are all petitions for habeas corpus. The petitioners having been detained by
the military by virtue of General Order No. 2 of the President, 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, as Commander-in-Chief of all the
Armed forces of the Philippines by virtue of Proclamation No. 1081 (September 21, 1972)
placing the entire country under martial law.

ISSUE:

Whether the 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?

Whether the detention of the petitioners is legal under the declaration of martial law?

RULING:

Yes.
G.R. No. L-19628 December 4, 1922
LICHAUCO & COMPANY, INC. vs SILVERIO APOSTOL

FACTS:

It is alleged that the petitioner, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the
Philippine Islands, which has been engaged for several years in the business of importing
carabao and other draft animals in the Philippine Islands is desirous of importing from Pnom-
Pehn, in French Indo-China, a shipment of draft cattle and bovine cattle for the manufacture of
serum. Director of Agriculture refused to admit said importation of cattle except upon the
condition the draft be immunized from rinderpest before embarcation. Petitioner, however,
contends that the respondent has no voice in the matter invoking section 1762 of the
Administrative Code as amended by Act No. 3052. On the other hand, relying on the 1770 of the
Administrative Code 21, of the Bureau of Agriculture, and Dept. Order No. 6 of the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, respondent maintained its decision.

ISSUE:

Whether section 1770 has been repealed by implication, in so far as it relates to draft
animal and bovine cattle for the manufacture of serum?

RULING:

No. The Court ruled that the contention of the petitioner is untenable for the reason that
the invoked section 1762, as amended, is obviously of a general nature while 1770 is a
particular one. Section 1770 is therefore not inconsistent with section 1762 and instead be
considered a special qualification of the latter provision. It was also emphasized by the Court
that section 1762, as amended, and section 1770 must be constructed in pari materia as
harmonious parts of the law dealing with animal quarantine; and section 1762, as amended can
be given effect only in so far as it not restricted section 1770. Here, as always, the general must
yield to the particular.