GR L 4663; (May, 1951) (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, who are attorneys duly admitted to practice law and are also members of Congress (Senators or Members of the House of Representatives), instituted special civil actions of 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 exclusion was based on the ground that petitioners are disqualified or inhibited by Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution from appearing as counsel. The cited constitutional provision prohibits members of Congress from appearing as counsel “before any court in any civil case wherein the Government… is the adverse party, or 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 proceedings before a General Court-Martial or military tribunal.
RULING
Yes, the constitutional prohibition is applicable. The Supreme Court held that the words “any court” in Section 17, Article VI include a General Court-Martial, and a court-martial case is a “criminal case” within the meaning of the constitutional provision. The Court reasoned that:
1. In constitutional construction, words with both a restricted and general meaning should be given their general meaning unless context indicates otherwise. Here, “any court” encompasses military courts.
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 it adjudicates offenses against the state and imposes punishment.
3. The prosecution in a court-martial is conducted in the name of the People of the Philippines, which aligns with the definition of a criminal action.
4. The purpose of the constitutional prohibition—to prevent potential conflicts of interest and influence—applies with equal, if not greater, force to military tribunals as it does to civil courts.
Since the petitioners, as members of Congress, are disqualified from appearing as counsel in the court-martial proceedings, the respondents did not unlawfully exclude them. Therefore, the petitions for mandamus were denied.