G.R. No. L-37364, May 9, 1975
BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., petitioner, vs. MILITARY COMMISSION 2, CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, and SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Benigno S. Aquino, Jr., detained under martial law, filed a petition challenging the jurisdiction of Military Commission No. 2 to try him for alleged violations of the Articles of War. He argued that trial by a military tribunal denied him due process, contending that due process in criminal cases contemplates only judicial process and that he was deprived of the constitutional right to appeal. Aquino further asserted that the entire judiciary, including the Supreme Court, was under the control of the President, rendering any civil court trial a travesty. Subsequently, Aquino filed a motion to withdraw his petition, which the Court ultimately granted, leading to the dismissal of the case.
The primary legal controversy, however, centered on the validity of military tribunals under martial law and the scope of constitutional due process. The Solicitor General, representing the respondents, defended the jurisdiction of the military commission, arguing that due process is not synonymous with judicial process and can be satisfied through executive or legislative proceedings. The government emphasized the multi-layered review process within the military justice system as a safeguard.

ISSUE

The core issue was whether the trial of a civilian by a military commission under martial law constitutes a denial of due process, particularly regarding the right to a judicial trial and the right to appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court, through the main opinion and separate concurrences, upheld the jurisdiction of the military commission and rejected Aquino’s due process claims. The legal logic is anchored on the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief under the 1935 Constitution during a state of martial law. The Court ruled that due process is not confined to judicial proceedings; it can be satisfied by other processes, including executive or military tribunals, provided fundamental fairness is observed. The right to appeal is statutory, not a constitutional imperative, and its absence in military proceedings does not per se violate due process.
Justice Castro, in a concurring and dissenting opinion, elaborated on this reasoning. He emphasized that the multi-tiered review within the military justice system—involving the Staff Judge Advocate, a Board of Review, a Board of Military Review, the Secretary of Justice, and finally the President—constituted sufficient procedural safeguards, equivalent to multiple levels of automatic appeal. He firmly rejected Aquino’s sweeping accusation of a subservient judiciary as baseless and irresponsible, noting the increased public reliance on the courts as evidence of their continued independence. The ruling effectively affirmed the expanded executive power during martial law to utilize military tribunals, balancing national security concerns against individual rights by defining due process in a flexible, non-exclusively judicial manner.