You are on page 1of 1

PADILLA VS ENRILE In July 1982, Sabino Padilla, together w/ 8 others who were having a conference in a house in Bayombong, NV,

were arrested by members of the PC. The raid of the house was authorized by a search warrant issued by Judge Sayo. Josefina, mother of Sabino, opposed the arrest averring that no warrant of arrest was issued but rather it was just a warrant of arrest hence the arrest of her son and the others was w/o just cause. Sabino and companions together with 4 others were later transferred to a facility only the PCs know. Josefina petitioned the court for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus. ISSUE: Whether or not the arrests done against Sabino et al is valid. HELD: In a complete about face, the SC decision in the Lansang Case was reversed and the ruling in the Barcelon Case & the Montenegro Case was again reinstated. The questioned power of the president to suspend the privilege of the WoHC was once again held as discretionary in the president. The SC again reiterated that the suspension of the writ was a political question to be resolved solely by the president. It was also noted that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus must, indeed, carry with it the suspension of the right to bail, if the governments campaign to suppress the rebellion is to be enhanced and rendered effective. If the right to bail may be demanded during the continuance of the rebellion, and those arrested, captured and detained in the course thereof will be released, they would, without the least doubt, rejoin their comrades in the field thereby jeopardizing the success of government efforts to bring to an end the invasion, rebellion or insurrection. NOTE: This ruling was abrogated by Sec 18, Art 7 of the 1987 Constitution which expressly constitutionalized the Lansang Doctrine. Note as well that under Art 3 (Sec 13) of the Constitution it is stated that the right to bail shall not be impaired even if the privi lege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Ilagan v. Enrile - Ilagan was arrested based on the mission order issued by Defense Minister Enrile. - One of the visiting lawyers was also arrested. Therefore this petition for habeas corpus was filed. They contend that the arrest is violative of right; such that it cannot be made by Mission Order. Respondent said that the habeas corpus is suspended and the arrest was made thru PDA issued by the President. - During the hearing they were granted a release order however even the following day, they were still in the custody of the authorities. They filed an urgent motion however such was opposed by respondent saying that the crime of rebellion has already been filed against them and a warrant of arrest is now to be served. - They contend before this court that the suspension of habeas corpus is unconstitutional since it is violative of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizure. SC: In case of illegal arrest or lack of preliminary investigation, the remedy is not habeas corpus but motion to quash the warrant arrest, or ask for preliminary investigation. The question as to where among the three in Sec 5 Rule 113 the arrest was made is within the determination of the trial court. The Court pronounces that since there is already a charge against them with rebellion in the RTC and an arrest warrant is available, the petition for habeas corpus is moot and academic. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and SPOUSES ANTONIO and CLARA FACTS: Republic of the Philippines, through the Bureau of Internal Revenue, commenced an action in the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court), to collect from the spouses Antonio Pastor and Clara Reyes-Pastor deficiency income taxes for the years 1955 to 1959 with surcharge and monthly interest, and costs. The Pastors filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, but the motion was denied. They filed an answer admitting there was an assessment against them for income tax deficiency but denying liability therefor. They contended that they had availed of the tax amnesty under P.D.s Nos. 23, 213 and 370 and had paid the corresponding amnesty taxes amounting of th eir reported untaxed income under P.D. 23, and a final payment on October 26, 1973 under P.D. 370 e videnced by the Governments Official Receipt. The trial court held that the respondents had settled their income tax deficiency for the years 1955 to 1959, not under P.D. 23 or P.D. 370, but under P.D. 213. ISSUE: Whether or not the tax amnesty payments made by the private respondents bar an action for recovery of deficient income taxes under P.D.s Nos. 23, 213 and 370. HELD: YES. Petition for review is denied. [T]he Government is estopped from collecting the difference between the deficiency tax assessment and the amount already paid by them as amnesty tax. The finding of the appellate court that the deficiency income taxes were paid by the Pastors, and accepted by the Government, under P.D. 213, granting amnesty to persons who are required by law to file income tax returns but who failed to do so, is entitled to the highest respect and may not be disturbed except under exceptional circumstances Facts: Petitioner was charged with estafa. He posted bail. Petitioner filed before each of the trial courts a motion entitled, "motion for permission to leave the country," stating as ground therefor his desire to go to the United States, "relative to his business transactions and opportunities." The prosecution opposed said motion and after due hearing, both trial judges denied the same. Petitioner thus filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the then Court of Appeals seeking to annul the orders dated March 9 and 26, 1982, of Judges Camilon and Pronove, respectively, as well as the communication-request of the Securities and Exchange Commission, denying his leave to travel abroad. He likewise prayed for the issuance of the appropriate writ commanding the Immigration Commissioner and the Chief of the Aviation Security Command (AVSECOM) to clear him for departure. The Court of Appeals denied the petition. Petitioner contends that having been admitted to bail as a matter of right, neither the courts which granted him bail nor the Securities and Exchange Commission which has no jurisdiction over his liberty could prevent him from exercising his constitutional right to travel. Issue: Whether or Not his constitutional right to travel has been violated. Held: A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. This is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond. The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at all times whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on his right to travel. Indeed, if the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines without sufficient reason, he may be placed beyond the reach of the courts. Petitioner has not shown the necessity for his travel abroad. There is no indication that the business transactions cannot be undertaken by any other person in his behalf.

You might also like