RAQUIZA v BRADFORD 75 Phil. 50 (1945)

RAQUIZA v BRADFORD 75 Phil. 50 (1945)

Characteristics of Philippine Criminal Law – General – Exceptions 

FACTS:

Petitioners, invoking the writ of habeas corpus were arrested by the United States Army and have since then been detained under the custody of the respondents by virtue of a proclamation issued by General MacArthur providing military measures for the apprehension of Filipino citizens who have voluntarily collaborated with the enemy. Petitioners have not been informed of the nature of the accusation against them; no complaint with any specific offense has been filed against them, and has not been given even a summary hearin   

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to afford relief to the petitioners?  

RULING:

Yes.

RATIO: 

The affirmative and dissenting vote is based on the following considerations. First, the right to due process of law is an immanent and alienable right of every person which cannot be dispensed either in time of war or in time of peace. Second, the assailed proclamation is either a bill of attainder or a military order that apprehends and held in restraint violators without a trial by a military tribunal. Third, the petitioners being illegally confined without due process are entitled to be discharge underhabeas corpus (Sec 1, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court). Petition was dismissed. (Six members of the Court voted for the negative and three for the affirmative).