G.R. No. L-37364, May 9, 1975
BENIGNO S. AQUINO, JR., petitioner, vs. MILITARY COMMISSION NO. 2, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Following the proclamation of martial law, petitioner Benigno S. Aquino, Jr., was arrested and detained. After the Supreme Court, in a prior habeas corpus proceeding, upheld the validity of his arrest and martial law, new charges were filed against him before Military Commission No. 2 for illegal possession of firearms, violation of the Anti-Subversion Act, and murder. Aquino filed the present petition challenging the jurisdiction of the military commission to try him. He sought to restrain the commission from proceeding with his trial, arguing that military tribunals lacked jurisdiction over civilians for the offenses charged, especially when civil courts were functioning.
The proceedings saw several developments, including the creation of a Special Committee to reinvestigate the charges, which failed to function due to lack of participation. Aquino also filed supplemental petitions, including one challenging the continued enforcement of martial law. The Supreme Court initially faced a quorum issue regarding the constitutional questions involved. Eventually, the Court issued a restraining order against the military commission to halt the perpetuation of testimony. During a hearing, Aquino’s counsel moved to withdraw the petition and all related incidents.

ISSUE

The central issue is whether Military Commission No. 2 has jurisdiction to try a civilian, Benigno S. Aquino, Jr., for the crimes of illegal possession of firearms, violation of the Anti-Subversion Act, and murder, during a period of martial law.

RULING

The Supreme Court, by a majority vote, dismissed the petition and upheld the jurisdiction of Military Commission No. 2. The legal logic rests on the plenary powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief during martial law. The Court ruled that the proclamation of martial law carries with it the authority to supplant civil courts with military tribunals for the trial of certain offenses to ensure public safety and the orderly administration of justice. This power is inherent in the executive’s duty to quell lawlessness and rebellion.
The Court further held that the jurisdiction of military commissions over civilians for crimes with a military character or those affecting public order is recognized under the laws of war and the constitutional grant of martial law powers. The charges against Aquino, particularly subversion and illegal possession of firearms, were deemed to have a direct bearing on the security of the state and the effectiveness of martial law, thus falling within the legitimate sphere of military jurisdiction. The fact that civil courts were open and functioning was deemed not to divest the military of its concurrent jurisdiction to try cases essential to the martial law regime. The withdrawal of the petition by counsel was noted, but the Court proceeded to resolve the substantive jurisdictional question.