G.R. No. L-54558 and G.R. No. L-69882, May 22, 1987
EDUARDO B. OLAGUER, et al., petitioners, vs. MILITARY COMMISSION NO. 34, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners, all civilians, were arrested in December 1979 and subsequently charged with various offenses including subversion, conspiracy to assassinate public officials, arson, and attempted murder. The charges were filed before Military Commission No. 34, which was created by the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the military tribunal, filing an initial petition for prohibition and habeas corpus in August 1980 to enjoin the proceedings and secure their release, arguing that military commissions lack jurisdiction to try civilians, especially when civil courts are functioning. Despite these petitions, the military commission proceeded with the trial.
Pending resolution of their Supreme Court petition, Military Commission No. 34 convicted the petitioners on December 4, 1984, and imposed the death penalty. This prompted the filing of a second petition in February 1985 for habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, seeking to annul the conviction and judgment as null and void. Significant supervening events occurred, including the lifting of martial law via Proclamation No. 2045 in January 1981, which dissolved military tribunals but allowed for the completion of cases that could not be transferred to civil courts without prejudice to the state.

ISSUE

The fundamental issue is whether a military tribunal has jurisdiction to try civilians for offenses allegedly committed during martial law when civil courts are open and functioning.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the military commission had no jurisdiction over the petitioners. The legal logic is anchored on the principle of the supremacy of civil courts over military tribunals in the trial of civilians. The Court emphasized that under the 1973 Constitution, which was in force during the period, the judicial power was vested in the Supreme Court and such inferior courts as may be established by law. Military tribunals are not part of this integrated judicial system; they are agencies of the executive branch exercising limited jurisdiction, primarily over members of the armed forces.
The Court held that the jurisdiction of military commissions over civilians is an exception, permissible only under specific conditions such as a valid declaration of martial law and the actual functional inability of civil courts. The lifting of martial law in 1981 removed any conceivable legal basis for the military commission’s continued exercise of jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court found that the civil courts were open and operational at all relevant times, capable of trying the offenses charged. Consequently, the proceedings and the death sentence rendered by Military Commission No. 34 were declared null and void for lack of jurisdiction. The Court ordered the release of the petitioners who were still in detention and the permanent cessation of all proceedings by the military commission, thereby affirming the primacy of the civilian judiciary and the constitutional right to due process.