G.R. No. 96948 August 1991 (B/Gen. Jose Commendador, Et al v Gen. Renato De Villa, Et al) Flashcards
Who is the petitioner?
B/Gen. Jose Commendador, et al
officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
Who is the respondent?
Gen. Renato De Villa, et al
What is the petitioners’ problem?
They are alleged particpants of the failed coup d’etat that took place in December 1 to 9, 1989.
What are the charges against the petitioners?
Articles of War
67 Meeting
96 Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer
94 Murder
Where was the case first tried?
General Court Martial No. 14
What do the petitioners want from the General Court Martial No. 14?
They manifested that they want exercise their right to raise peremptory challenges against the president and members of the General Court Martial No. 14.
They invoked Article 18 of Com. Act No. 408 (Articles of War).
Did the General Court Martial No. 14 allow the petitioners to exercise their right to raise peremptory challenges?
NO. The court thinks that peremptory challenges as stated in Article 18 of the Articles of War had been discontinued under Presidential Decree No. 39.
What does P.D. No. 39 say in relation to peremptory challenges?
It states that “no peremptory challenge shall be allowed.”
What is the purpose of P.D. No. 39?
It governs the creations, composition, jurisdiction, procedures, and other matters relevant to Military Tribunals.
What created the Military Tribunals?
General Order No. 8
September 27, 1972
What dissolved the Military Tribunals?
Proclamation No. 2045 or the Termination of the State of Martial Law
Does the dissolution of the Military Tribunals effect the dissolution of P.D. No. 39?
YES. P.D. No. 39’s reason for existence ceased automatically.
What is the DOCTRINE illustrated in Commendador vs De Villa?
When the reason of the law ceases, the law itself ceases.
What is the Court decision?
Commendador won.
The petition to exercise right to peremptory challenge is granted.
