In February 1990, Sen Enrile was arrested. He was charged together with Mr. & Mrs.

Panlilio, and
Honasan for the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder which allegedly
occurred during their failed coup attempt. Enrile was then brought to Camp Karingal. Enrile later filed
for the habeas corpus alleging that the crime being charged against him is nonexistent. That he was
charged with a criminal offense in an information for which no complaint was initially filed or
preliminary investigation was conducted, hence was denied due process; denied his right to bail; and
arrested and detained on the strength of a warrant issued without the judge who issued it first having
personally determined the existence of probable cause.
ISSUE: Whether or not the court should affirm the Hernandez ruling.
HELD: Enrile filed for habeas corpus because he was denied bail although ordinarily a charge of
rebellion would entitle one for bail. The crime of rebellion charged against him however is complexed
with murder and multiple frustrated murders the intention of the prosecution was to make rebellion
in its most serious form so as to make the penalty thereof in the maximum. The SC ruled that there
is no such crime as Rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder. What Enrile et al can be
charged of would be Simple Rebellion because other crimes such as murder or all those that may be
necessary to the commission of rebellion is absorbed hence he should be entitiled for bail. The SC
however noted that a petition for habeas corpus was not the proper remedy so as to avail of bail.
The proper step that should have been taken was for Enrile to file a petition to be admitted for bail.
He should have exhausted all other efforts before petitioning for habeas corpus. The Hernandez
ruling is still valid. All other crimes committed in carrying out rebellion are deemed absorbed. The SC
noted, however, that there may be a need to modify the rebellion law. Considering that the essence
of rebellion has been lost and that it is being used by a lo t of opportunists to attempt to grab power.

other digest
Constitutional Law Political Question Restriction to the exercise of judicial power
In February 1990, Sen Enrile was arrested. He was charged together with Mr. & Mrs. Panlilio, and
Honasan for the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder which allegedly
occurred during their failed coup attempt. Enrile was then brought to Camp Karingal. Enrile later filed
for the habeas corpus alleging that the crime being charged against him is non existent. That he was
charged with a criminal offense in an information for which no complaint was initially filed or
preliminary investigation was conducted, hence was denied due process; denied his right to bail; and
arrested and detained on the strength of a warrant issued without the judge who issued it first having
personally determined the existence of probable cause.
ISSUE: Whether or Enriles arrest is valid.
HELD: Enrile filed for habeas corpus because he was denied bail although ordinarily a charge of
rebellion would entitle one for bail. The crime of rebellion charged against him however is complexed
with murder and multiple frustrated murders the intention of the prosecution was to make rebellion
in its most serious form so as to make the penalty thereof in the maximum. The SC ruled that there
is no such crime as Rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder. What Enrile et al can be
charged of would be Simple Rebellion because other crimes such as murder or all those that may be
necessary to the commission of rebellion is absorbed hence he should be entitiled for bail. The SC
however noted that a petition for habeas corpus was not the proper remedy so as to avail of bail.
The proper step that should have been taken was for Enrile to file a petition to be admitted for bail.
He should have exhausted all other efforts before petitioning for habeas corpus. The SC further
notes that there is a need to restructure the law on rebellion as it is being used apparently by others

as a tool to disrupt the peace and espouse violence. The SC can only act w/in the bounds of the law.
Thus SC said There is an apparent need to restructure the law on rebellion, either to raise the
penalty therefor or to clearly define and delimit the other offenses to be considered as absorbed
thereby, so that it cannot be conveniently utilized as the umbrella for every sort of illegal activity
undertaken in its name. The Court has no power to effect such change, for it can only interpret the
law as it stands at any given time, and what is needed lies beyond interpretation. Hopefully,
Congress will perceive the need for promptly seizing the initiative in this matter, which is properly
within its province.