GR L 4663; (May, 1951) (2) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4663 and G.R. No. L-4671, May 30, 1951.
FERDINAND E. MARCOS and MANUEL CONCORDIA, petitioners, vs. CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., respondents.
MANUEL A. CONCORDIA and FERDINAND E. MARCOS, petitioners, vs. CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Ferdinand E. Marcos and Manuel Concordia, both attorneys duly admitted to practice law, filed special civil actions for mandamus against respondents General Court-Martials. They alleged that the military tribunals unlawfully excluded them from appearing as counsel for accused persons being prosecuted before said tribunals. The respondents disqualified the petitioners on the ground that, as members of Congress, they were prohibited from appearing as counsel under Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution . The constitutional provision states that no Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall appear as counsel before any court in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the Government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office.
ISSUE
Whether the prohibition contained in Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution , which bars members of Congress from appearing as counsel in certain criminal cases before “any court,” is applicable to appearances before a General Court-Martial.
RULING
Yes, the prohibition is applicable. The Supreme Court held that the words “any court” in the constitutional provision include a General Court-Martial, and a court-martial case is a criminal case within the meaning of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that:
1. In constitutional construction, words with both a restricted and general meaning are given their general meaning unless context indicates otherwise. “Any court” therefore encompasses military courts or courts-martial.
2. A court-martial is a lawful tribunal, a court of law and justice within its field, and its proceedings are criminal in nature, as they involve the prosecution of offenses against the state and the imposition of punishment.
3. The purpose of the constitutional prohibition applies with equal, if not greater, force to court-martial proceedings.
Since the petitioners, as members of Congress, were disqualified from appearing as counsel before the court-martial, the respondents did not unlawfully exclude them. The petitions for mandamus were denied.