Teodosio Lansang et al vs Brig-Gen Garcia

on November 17, 2010

Abandonment of the Doctrine Held in the Barcelon Case & the Montenegro Case

Due to the throwing of two hand grenades in a Liberal Party caucus in 1971 causing
the death of 8 people, Marcos issued PP 889 which suspended the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus. Marcos urged that there is a need to curtail the growth of
Maoist groups. Subsequently, Lansang et al were invited by the PC headed by
Garcia for interrogation and investigation. Lansang et al questioned the validity of
the suspension of the writ averring that the suspension does not meet the
constitutional requisites.

ISSUE: Whether or not the suspension is constitutional.

HELD: The doctrine established in Barcelon and Montenegro was subsequently

abandoned in this case where the SC declared that it had the power to inquire into
the factual basis of the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus by
Marcos in Aug 1971 and to annul the same if no legal ground could be established.
Accordingly, hearings were conducted to receive evidence on this matter, including
two closed-door sessions in which relevant classified information was divulged by
the government to the members of the SC and 3 selected lawyers of the petitioners.
In the end, after satisfying itself that there was actually a massive and systematic
Communist-oriented campaign to overthrow the government by force, as claimed
by Marcos, the SC unanimously decided to uphold the suspension of the privilege of
the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Read full text here.

Nuffnang Ads
You may also like

LANSANG VS. GARCIA [42 SCRA 448; L-33964; 11 Dec 1971]

Monday, February 09, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Facts: In the evening of August 21, 1971, at about 9 p.m., while the Liberal Party of
the Philippines was holding a public meeting at Plaza Miranda, Manila, for the
presentation of its candidates in the general elections scheduled for November 8,
1971, two hand grenades were thrown at the platform where said candidates and
other persons were. Eight persons were killed and many more injured. Proclamation
889 was issued by the President suspending privilege of writ of habeas corpus
stating that there is a conspiracy of rebellion and insurrection in order to forcibly
seize political power. Petitions for writ of habeas corpus were filed by persons (13)
who have been arrested without a warrant.

It was stated that one of the safeguards of the proclamation was that it is to be
applied to persons caught in flagrante delicto. Incidentally, Proc. 889-A was issued
as an amendment, inserting the word actually staging. Proc. 889-B was also
issued lifting the suspension of privilege in 27 provinces, 3 sub-provinces and 26
cities. Proc. 889-C was issued restoring the suspension in 13 provinces and
cities(mostly in Mindanao). Proc. 889-D further lifted the suspension in 7 provinces
and 4 cities. Only 18 provinces and sub-provinces and 2 cities whose privilege was
suspended. Petitioners maintained that Proclamation No. 889 did not declare the
existence of actual "invasion insurrection or rebellion or imminent danger thereof,
however it became moot and academic since it was amended. Petitioners further
contend that public safety did not require the issuance of proclamations stating: (a)
that there is no rebellion; (b) that, prior to and at the time of the suspension of the
privilege, the Government was functioning normally, as were the courts; (c) that no
untoward incident, confirmatory of an alleged July-August Plan, has actually taken
place after August 21, 1971; (d) that the President's alleged apprehension, because
of said plan, is non-existent and unjustified; and (e) that the Communist forces in
the Philippines are too small and weak to jeopardize public safety to such extent as
to require the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

A resolution was issued by majority of the Court having tentatively arrived at a

consensus that it may inquire in order to satisfy itself of the existence of the factual
bases for the proclamations. Now the Court resolves after conclusive decision
reached by majority.

Issues:

(1) Whether or Not the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen
requiring suspension (of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus) belongs to the
President and his decision is final and conclusive upon the courts and upon all other
persons.

(2) Whether or Not public safety require the suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus decreed in Proclamation No. 889-A.

Held: The President has authority however it is subject to judicial review. Two
conditions must concur for the valid exercise of the authority to suspend the
privilege to the writ (a) there must be "invasion, insurrection, or rebellion" or
"imminent danger thereof," and (b) "public safety" must require the suspension of
the privilege. President has three (3) courses of action: (a) to call out the armed
forces; (b) to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; and (c) to place the
Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. He had, already, called out the
armed forces, proved inadequate. Of the two other alternatives, the suspension of
the privilege is the least harsh.

Petitioners contention that CPP-NPA has no ability, is negatived by the killing of 5

mayors, 20 barrio captains and 3 chiefs of police; that there were fourteen (14)
meaningful bombing incidents in the Greater Manila Area in 1970. CPP has managed
to infiltrate or establish and control nine major labor organizations; has exploited
the (11) major student or youth organizations; about thirty (30) mass organizations
actively advancing the CPP.