Olaguer Vs Military Commission No. 34, GR # L-69882 DIGEST

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-54558 May 22, 1987
EDUARDO B. OLAGUER, OTHONIEL V. JIMENEZ, ESTER MISA-JIMENEZ, CARLOS LAZARO,
REYNALDO MACLANG, MAGDALENA DE LOS SANTOS-MACLANG, TEODORICO N. DIESMOS,
RENE J. MARCIANO, DANILO R. DE OCAMPO, VICTORIANO C. AMADO and MAC
ACERON, petitioners,
vs.
MILITARY COMMISSION NO. 34, THE TRIAL COUNSEL OF MILITARY COMMISSION NO. 34,
and THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, respondents.
No. L-69882 May 22, 1987
EDUARDO OLAGUER, OTHONIEL JIMENEZ, REYNALDO MACLANG and ESTER MISA-
JIMENEZ, petitioners,
vs.
THE CHIEF OF STAFF, AFP, MILITARY COMMISSION NO. 34, JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL,
AFP, MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENSE and THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, respondents.
GANCAYCO, J.
TOPIC:
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
The herein petitioners were arrested by the military authorities. They were all initially detained at
Camp Crame in Quezon City. They were subsequently transferred to the detention center at Camp
Bagong Diwa in Bicutan except for petitioner Olaguer All of the petitioners are civilians.
The petitioners were charged for subversion. the respondent Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines created the respondent Military Commission No 34 to try tile criminal case filed against
the petitioners.
The petitioners went to the Supreme Court and filed the instant Petition for prohibition and habeas
corpus." They sought to enjoin the respondent Military Commission No. 34 from proceeding with the
trial of their case.
They contend that military commissions have no jurisdiction to try civilians for offenses alleged to
have been committed during the period of martial law. They also maintain that the proceedings before
the respondent Military Commission No. 34 are in gross violation of their constitutional right to due
process of law.
Pending of the Petition, the respondent Military Commission No. 34 passed sentence convicting the
petitioners and imposed upon them the penalty of death by electrocution.
President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Proclamation No. 2045 officially lifting martial law in the
Philippines and the military tribunals created pursuant thereto are hereby dissolved.
ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT MILITARY COMMISSIONS OR TRIBUNALS HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO

TRY CIVILIANS FOR OFFENSES ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED DURING MARTIAL LAW WHEN
CIVIL COURTS ARE OPEN AND FUNCTIONING.
RULING:
NO,
The Supreme Court reiterated that, as long as the civil courts in the land are open and functioning,
military tribunals cannot try and exercise jurisdiction over civilians for offenses committed by them
whether or not martial law has been proclaimed throughout the country or over a part thereof is of no
moment. The imprimatur for this observation is found in Section 18, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution, to wit —
A state of martial law, does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant
the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment
of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to
function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ. (Emphasis supplied.)
No longer should military tribunals or commissions exercise jurisdiction over civilians for offenses
allegedly committed by them when the civil courts are open and functioning. No longer may the
exclusive judicial power of the civil courts, beginning with the Supreme Court down to the lower
courts be appropriate by any military body or tribunal, or even diluted under the guise of a state of
martial law, national security and other similar labels.
Accordingly, it is our considered opinion, and we so hold, that a military commission 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.
For the same reasons, Our pronouncement in Aquino, Jr. v. Military Commission No. 2 52 and all
decided cases affirming the same, in so far as they are inconsistent with this pronouncement, should
be deemed abandoned.

Olaguer Vs Military Commission No. 34, GR # L-69882 DIGEST

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Olaguer Vs Military Commission No. 34, GR # L-69882 DIGEST

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

WHETHER OR NOT MILITARY COMMISSIONS OR TRIBUNALS HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO

You might also like