Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-58284 November 19, 1981
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, BERNABE BUSCAYNO, JOSE MA. SISON and JULIET SISON,
petitioners,
vs.
MILITARY COMMISSIONS NOS. 1, 2, 6 and 25, GENERAL FABIAN VER,
GENERAL FIDEL RAMOS, LIEUTENANT COLONEL VIRGILIO SALDAJENO,
CAPTAIN MELCHOR A. ACOSTA and REVIEW BOARD OF THE ARMED
FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

3. Aquino in August, 1967 in the house of Leonida Arceo located at

Barrio San Francisco, Tarlac, Tarlac gave to Buscayno two .45 caliber
pistols to be used against the government.
4. Aquino in October, 1969 in Barrio Alto, Hacienda Luisita, San
Miguel, Tarlac, Tarlac, gave to Commanders Arthur Garcia and Jose
Buscayno two armored vests and a pair of walkie-talkies to be used
against the government.
5. Aquino on November 1 and 2, 1965 in San Miguel, Tarlac, Tarlac,
gave to Commander Alibasbas through Commander Danilo several
firearms and ammunition which were taken from the house of Manuel
Rodriguez and which were to be used against the government and in
fact the said firearms were recovered from Commander Alibasbas and
his group when they were killed in Barrio Almendras, Concepcion,
Tarlac.
6. Aquino in 1970 and 1971 at 25 Times Street, Quezon City provided
shelter and medical treatment for Roberto Santos alias Commander
Felman Benjamin Sanguyo alias Commander Pusa and eight other sick
or wounded officers or members of the HMB and NPA.

AQUINO, J.:
Bernabe Buscayno alias Commander Dante and Jose Ma. Sison alias
Amado
Guerrero,
alleged
subversives
classified
as
"PKP/HMB/CPP/MAMAO and Traditional Armed Group personalities",
were wanted by the authorities since 1971.
Aquino, Buscayno, Peter Ilocano and Puriok, as conspirators, were also
charged with murder before Military Commission No. 2 in a charge
In Department Order No. 610 Undersecretary of National Defense sheet dated August 7, 1973. It was alleged that during the last days
Efren I. Plana fixed P150,000 and P50,000 as the prizes to be paid to of November to December 2, 1967 they took Cecilio Sumat a barrio
any person who kills, captures or causes the killing, capture or captain of Motrico, La Paz, Tarlac, from his house and killed him in
surrender of Buscayno and Sison, respectively, or who furnishes Barrio San Miguel, Tarlac, Tarlac (Criminal Case No. MC-2-22, pp. 76information directly leading to and which is the proximate result of 77, Rollo of L-47185).
their killing or capture. (p. 96, Rollo of L-47185.)
In Criminal Case No. MC-1-92, Buscayno, with ninety-one other
Buscayno and Sison were included in the so-called "National Target persons including Sison and his wife, Juliet de Lima, Saturnino
List" of active participants in the conspiracy to seize political and Ocampo and Mila Astorga-Garcia, were charged with rebellion before
state power and to take over the government by force whose arrest Military Commission No. 1 in a charge sheet dated March 18, 1977.
was ordered under 'General Order No. 2 dated September 22, 1972.
The list was prepared by Colonel Hamilton B. Dimaya. (p. 95, Rollo of It was alleged that on or about February 4, 1972 and for sometime
L-47185.)
prior or subsequent thereto the ninety-two accused as officers and
leaders of the Communist Party of the Philippines and its military arm,
Buscayno's case Even before Buscayno's arrest, he and Benigno S. the New People's Army, and as conspirators rose publicly and took up
Aquino, Jr. (arrested on September 23, 1972) were charged before arms against the government in Navotas, Rizal and elsewhere in the
Military Commission No. 2 in an amended charge sheet dated August Philippines for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said
14, 1973 with subversion or violation of the Anti-Subversion Law, government or its laws the territory of the Philippines or any part
Republic Act No. 1700.
thereof or of its armed forces by organizing the Karagatan Fishing
Corporation and operating the M/V Karagatan a fishing vessel, to
It was alleged that as ranking leaders of the Communist Party of the procure firearms and ammunition for the CPP and NPA as in fact war
Philippines and its military arms, the Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan materials and armanents were landed at Digoyo Point, Palanan,
and the New People's Army, constituting an organized conspiracy to Isabela on July 2, 1972 from Communist China and were used against
overthrow the government by force or placing it under the control of the army.
an alien power, they committed the following acts (Criminal Case No.
MC-223, pp. 71-75, Rollo of L-47185):
The second specification in Criminal Case No. MC-1-92 is that
Buscayno, Sison and others during the period from August, 1973 to
1. In April 1969, Aquino at 25 Times Street, Quezon City gave P15,000 February, 1974 committed rebellion in Manila, Baguio, La Union,
to the said organizations for the purpose of staging an NPA-sponsored Pangasinan, Bulacan and elsewhere in the Philippines by acquiring,
demonstration in Manila which was in fact carried out in Congress, purchasing and operating vessels, motor vehicles, beach houses, lots
Malacaang and the American Embassy on April 19, 1969 to achieve and other real and personal properties for use in distributing firearms
the objectives of the said organizations.
and ammunition for the CPP and NPA to be utilized in resisting the
army and overthrowing the government. (pp. 78-91, Rollo of L-47185.)
2. Aquino in 1967 gave to Buscayno in Concepcion, Tarlac a .45
caliber pistol with magazine and ammunition to be used against the
government.

The said case was refiled in Special Military Commission No. 1 as

Criminal Case No. SMC-1-1 with an amended charge sheet dated
November 8, 1977 (pp. 189-205, Rollo of G.R. No. 58284).
Buscayno was arrested on August 26. 1976 in Barrio Sto. Rosario,
Mexico, Pampanga by operatives of the armed forces. He was
detained in the Constabulary Security Unit at Camp Crame. When the
trial counsel informed Buscayno that his presence at the hearing on
September 15, 1976 before Military Commission No. 2 was necessary,
Buscayno in a letter dated September 7, 1976 addressed to the
President of the Commission declared that he had no intention of
appearing before the tribunal; that he did not need a lawyer; that he
would not contest the tribunal's jurisdiction and that any reference by
the prosecution witnesses to Buscayno alias Commander Dante would
be to him and to no other person.
At Buscayno's arraignment in the subversion and murder cases, he
waived his right to be present and to have counsel. He said that he
was not challenging any member of the tribunal. He just wanted to
have a record of the trial. He pleaded not guilty. After the prosecution
had finished the presentation of its evidence, Buscayno was asked
whether he wanted to present evidence. He answered in writing that
he did not want to present evidence.
On July 18, 1977, Juan T. David entered his appearance as counsel for
Buscayno in Criminal Case No. MC-2-23 for subversion. On October
25, 1977, lawyer David filed in this Court in behalf of Buscayno a
petition for habeas corpus and prohibition.
As no restraining order was issued, the Commission continued its
proceeding against Buscayno and Aquino. On November 25, 1977,
after Buscayno failed to present any evidence in spite of having been
given another chance to do so, his case was deemed submitted for
decision. After deliberation, the Commission found all the accused
guilty as charged and imposed death by firing squad. The complete
records of the cases were transmitted to the Secretary of National
Defense.
However, four days later or on November 29, the President of the
Philippines directed the Commission to reopen the trial and give
Aquino and Buscayno another chance to present their evidence.
According to the petitioners, on December 15, 1977, this Court
enjoined the Commission from rehearing the two cases (p. 20,
Petition) but no restraining order was actually issued.
This Court in its decision dated January 15, 1981 dismissed
Buscayno's petition (L-47185, 102 SCRA 7). We reiterated the rule
that a military tribunal has jurisdiction to try civilians and that the
proceeding in a military commission is not violative of procedural due
process and would not be vitiated by partiality. (Aquino vs. Ponce
Enrile, L-37364, May 9, 1975, 63 SCRA 546; Gamaua vs. Espino, L36188-37586, February 29, 1980, 96 SCRA 402.) *
On March 27, 1981, Military Commission No. 2 convened to hear
Buscayno's evidence in the subversion and murder cases. His counsel
asked for postponement on the ground that he requested the
President of the Philippines to transfer the two cases to the civil

courts and that he should be furnished with the transcripts of the KM chairman and editing the periodical Ang Bayan in Isabela in 1971hearings held on November 25 and December 5, 1977. The truth is 72 (Annex 3 of Return).
that he was furnished with those transcripts on January 8, 1978.
Jose Ma. Sison, with Juanito Canlas, Cesario Diego, Saturnino Ocampo,
The postponement was granted. The hearing was reset for April 23. At Antonio Liao, Mila Roque, Alfredo Granada, Ramon Isberto, Ester
the hearing on that date, Buscayno's counsel again asked for Ceniza and Evelyn Sarmiento were charged with subversion under
postponement because the President had not yet acted upon his Presidential Decree No. 885 (which superseded Republic Act No.
request for the transfer of his cases to the civil courts. He challenged 1700) before Military Commission No. 25 in Case No. 113 as shown in
the competency of the president of the Commission on the ground of the charge sheet dated October 3, 1978.
lack of adequate knowledge of the two cases. The challenge was
rejected. Buscayno did not present any evidence. The Commission It was alleged that the ten accused, in or about 1968 and for
considered the cases re-submitted for decision.
sometime prior and subsequent thereto and continuously thereafter,
in Capas, Tarlac and elsewhere in the Philippines, wilfully organized
On May 4, 1981, the Commission denied Buscayno's motion for the and joined as officers and ranking members of the CPP and the NPA
reconsideration of the ruling that his case was already submitted for for the purpose of overthrowing the government through armed
decision. It reaffirmed its 1977 decision imposing on Buscayno the revolution, violence and subversion with the covert assistance and
penalty of death by firing squad.
support of a foreign power in order to establish therein a totalitarian
regime subject to alien control and domination (Annex 4 of Return).
Cases against Sison and spouses. They were arrested on November
10, 1977 by virtue of arrest, search and seizure orders issued by the In the rebellion case, Case No. SMC-1-1, the Sison spouses and the
Secretary of National Defense.
Buscayno spouses assailed the jurisdiction of the military tribunal to
try civilians like them.
As already stated in connection with the Buscayno case, the Sison
spouses and ninety-one other persons including Buscayno and Victor On January 3, 1979, the Sison spouses, together with the Buscayno
Corpus were charged with rebellion on two counts before Special spouses, Peter Mutuc, Edgar Pilapil, Eduardo Lingat, Joaquin Rivera,
Military Commission No. 1 as shown in the amended charge sheet Leonila Lumbang and Juanito Canlas, filed in this Court a petition for
dated November 8,1977.
habeas corpus, prohibition and mandamus (L-49579).
Even before her arrest, Juliet Sison, with fifty-five other persons
including Victor Corpus, was charged with subversion before Military
Commission No. 6 (Case No. 55), as shown in the charge sheet dated
November 16, 1972.
It was alleged therein that the fifty-six accused, in 1968 and for
sometime prior and subsequent thereto, became and have remained
officers and ranking leaders of the CPP and the NPA, the CPP's military
arm, and the CPP's front organizations such as the Kabataang
Makabayan (KM), Samahang Demokratikong Kabataan (SDK),
Malayang Samahan ng Magsasaka (MASAKA), Student Alliance for
National Democracy (STAND), Movement for Democratic Philippines
(MDP) and Malayang Kilusan ng Bagong Kababaihan (MAKIBAKA),
whose objective is the overthrow of the government for the purpose
of establishing a totalitarian regime and placing the government
under the control and domination of an alien power.

spouses. The ultimate issue is whether they are legally detained. We

find that they have not been illegally deprived of their liberty and that
there is no justification to order their release.
Proclamation No. 2045 dated January 17, 1981, which terminated
martial law, sanctions the continued confinement of the petitioners. It
provides (77 OG 441):
... Now, therefore, I, Ferdinand E. Marcos, President/Prime Minister of
the Philippines, ... proclaim the termination of the state of martial law
throughout the Philippines;
Provided, that the call to the Armed Forces of the Philippines to
prevent or suppress lawless violence, insurrection, rebellion and
subversion shall continue to be in force and effect; and
Provided, that in the two autonomous regions in Mindanao, upon the
request of the residents therein, the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus shall continue; and in all other places the
suspension of the privilege of the writ shall also continue with respect
to persons at present detained as well as others who may hereafter
be similarly detained for the crimes of insurrection or rebellion,
subversion conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and for all
other crimes and offenses committed by them in furtherance or on
the occasion thereof, or incident thereto, or in connection therewith;

General Order No. 8 is also hereby revoked and the military tribunals
created pursuant thereto are hereby dissolved upon final
That petition, like Buscayno's petition in L-47185, was dismissed in determination of cases pending therein which may not be transferred
this Court's decision dated January 15, 1981 (102 SCRA 33).
to the civil courts without irreparable prejudice to the state in view of
the rules on double jeopardy, or other circumstances which render
The instant case. On October 2, 1981, Buscayno and the Sison further prosecution of the cases difficult, if not impossible;
spouses filed the instant omnibus catchall petition for habeas corpus,
prohibition and mandamus couched in repetitious, involuted and Proclamation No. 2045 explicitly provides that persons, like petitioners
obfuscatory verbiage
who are under detention for rebellion and the capital offense of
subversion, cannot enjoy the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
They prayed that the decision of Military Commission No. 2 dated May Because the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended as to
-1. 1981, convicting Buscayno of subversion and murder and them, they are not entitled to bail (Lansang vs. Garcia, L-33964,
sentencing him to death by firing squad, be declared void because he December 11, 1971 and eight other cases, 42 SCRA 448).
was denied his constitutional right to present evidence and that he be
released from detention.
Review of rulings of the military commission. Ordinarily, this Court
cannot review the rulings and proceedings of the military commission.
They also prayed that the charges of rebellion and subversion be The National Security Code, Presidential Decree No. 1498, which was
dismissed for being in contravention of the rule on double jeopardy, issued on June 11, 1978 (74 OG 11066), provides in its sections 86(f)
that Military Commissions Nos. 1, 6 and 25 be enjoined from and 87(e) that what this Court can review are the decisions of the
proceeding with the trial of the petitioners and that the petitioners be Court of Military Appeals in cases appealed to it from the military
released. They also prayed that they be granted bail.
commission.

It was specified that the accused engaged in extensive indoctrination,

agitation and promotion of rallies (ten instances) and in propagandas,
speeches, teach-ins, messages, lectures, all intended to promote the
communist pattern of subversion (eleven instances).
The petitioners also asked for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order, enjoining the three Commissions from trying the petitioners,
The same charge sheet indicated that the accused rose publicly and enjoining Military Commission No. 1 from continuing with the
took up arms against the government, engaging in war against the perpetuation of testimonies and from requiring the petitioners to
forces of the government and committing serious violence (eight attend the perpetuation proceedings and enjoining the Review Boardinstances).
AFP from reviewing the decision in the subversion and murder cases.

Generally, this Court does not exercise over military commissions the
supervisory jurisdiction which it possesses over civil trial courts whose
interlocutory rulings and decisions may be reviewed by this Court.
(See Kuroda vs. Jalandoni, 83 Phil. 171; Martelino vs. Alejandro, L30894, March 25, 1970, 32 SCRA 106).

So, the issue as to whether Buscayno was denied his constitutional

Juliet Sison was pinpointed as a ranking leader of the Kabataang Habeas corpus and petitioners' release on bail. - This is Buscayno's right to present evidence should first be passed upon by the
Makabayan operating in the Bicol region, helping her husband Jose as third petition for habeas corpus and the second petition of the Sison reviewing military authority and not by this Court. The propriety of the

perpetuation proceedings in the rebellion case and the conduct of the express consent, If the case is not yet terminated, then jeopardy does
trial in the Commission cannot at this stage be passed upon by this not set in. After the accused has been put in jeopardy, the filing
Court.
against him of another charge for the same offense or for an attempt
or frustrated stage thereof or for any offense which necessarily
We have definitively ruled that the petitioners can be tried by the includes or is included in the offense originally charged places him in
military commissions and that their cases are within the jurisdiction double jeopardy.
and competence of military tribunals.
That is forbidden by section 22, Article IV of the Constitution or by the
Nevertheless, two legal issues regarding double jeopardy and the rule against double jeopardy: nemo bis punitur pro eodem delicto (no
alleged repeal of the Anti-Subversion Law may be resolved in the one is twice punished for the same offense) or non bis in Idem which
interest of justice, to dissipate any uncertainty and for the guidance of is analogous to res judicata in civil cases.
the parties.
As stated earlier, Buscayno was charged with subversion together
Alleged repeal of the Anti-Subversion Law. Juliet de Lima Sison with Aquino in a 1973 charge sheet. Jose Ma. Sison was charged with
contends that her criminal liability for subversion was extinguished subversion in a 1978 charge sheet. His wife, Juliet de Lima, was
when Presidential Decree No. 885 (which took effect on May 11, 1976, charged with subversion in a 1972 charge sheet. The three petitioners
72 OG 3826) repealed Republic Act No. 1700. This contention is bereft were all charged with rebellion in an amended charge sheet dated
of merit.
November 8, 1977. Only the subversion case against Buscayno was
decided but the decision is still subject to review.
That decree, which is the Revised Anti-Subversion Law, in repealing or
superseding Republic Act No. 1700, expressly provides in its section 7 Because no case against the petitioners has been terminated, it is
that "acts committed in violation" of the former law before the once evident that they cannot invoke the rule on double jeopardy. The
effectivity of the said decree "shall be prosecuted and punished in petitioners have not yet been placed in jeopardy.
accordance with the provisions of the former Act" and that nothing in
the said decree "shall prevent prosecution of cases pending for In Bulaong vs. People, L-19344, July 27, 1966, 17 SCRA 746, Agaton
violation of" Republic Act No. 1700. That saving or transitory clause is Bulaong was charged with rebellion in the Laguna Court of First
reenacted in section 14(i) of the National Security Code.
Instance and later with subversion in the Manila Court of First Instance
in connection with his activities as an officer of the CPP and HMB He
It is similar to article 366 of the Revised Penal Code which provides was convicted of rebellion by the Laguna court. The Court of Appeals
that felonies and misdemeanors committed prior to the effectivity of affirmed the judgment of conviction. He appealed to this Court. The
the Revised Penal Code shall be punished in accordance with the old subversion case was still pending in the Manila court.
Penal Code and the laws in force at the time of their commission.
In this Court, he contended that because rebellion is an offense
The fact that Presidential Decree No. 885 does not mention the CPP cognate with subversion and that the two informations contain the
does not mean that that party is no longer regarded as a subversive same facts, he could not be tried for rebellion and subversion without
organization. The purpose of the party is the decisive factor in being placed twice in jeopardy for the same acts.
determining whether it is a subversive organization.
It was held that the defense of double jeopardy should be interposed
The issue of double jeopardy. The petitioners invoke their by Bulaong in the subversion case. He could not plead double
constitutional right not to be put twice in jeopardy of punishment for jeopardy in the rebellion case because the subversion case had not
the same offense. As may be gleaned from section 9, Rule 117 of the yet been terminated. (See Silvestre vs. Military Commission No. 21, LRules of Court, "same offense" means the offense charged, or an 46366, March 8, 1978, 82 SCRA 10; Jimenez vs. Military Commission
attempt to commit it or a frustrated stage thereof, or "any offense No. 34, G.R. No. 54577, January 15, 1981, 102 SCRA 39).
which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense
charged in the former complaint or information."
Petitioners contend that rebellion is an element of the crime of
subversion. That contention is not correct because subversion does
For an accused to be in jeopardy, it is necessary (1) that a valid not necessarily include rebellion. Subversion, like treason, is a crime
complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and against national security. Rebellion is a crime against public order.
substance to sustain a conviction is filed against him; (2) that the
charge is filed in a court of competent jurisdiction and (3) that after Republic Act No. 1700 (quoted in full in People vs. Ferrer, L-32613-14,
he had pleaded to the charge, he was convicted or acquitted or the December 27, 1972, 48 SCRA 382), which took effect on June 20,
case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his 1957 and which outlaws the Communist Party and similar associations
express consent (People vs. Pilpa, L-30250, September 22, 1977, 79 because their existence and activities constitute a clear, present and
SCRA 81).
grave danger to national security, punishes the following acts:

the Communist Party or its successor or any subversive association as

defined in the law. Prision correccional shall be imposed for a second
conviction. Prision mayor shall be imposed for subsequent
convictions.
2.
By prision mayor to death, being an officer or a ranking
leader of the Communist Party or of any subversive association as
defined in the law.
3.
By prision mayor to death, any member of the Communist
Party or similar subversive association who takes up arms against the
government.
4.
By prision correccional to prision mayor, one who conspires
with any other person to overthrow the Government of the Republic of
the Philippines or the government of any of its political subdivisions
by force, violence, deceit, subversion or other illegal means for the
purpose of placing such Government or political subdivision under the
control and donation of any alien power.
5.
By prision correccional any person who knowingly furnishes
false evidence in any action brought under the Anti-Subversion Law.
As already noted, Republic Act No. 1700 was superseded by
Presidential Decree No. 885 which reads as follows:
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 885
OUTLAWING SUBVERSIVE ORGANIZATIONS; PENALIZING MEMBERSHIP
THEREIN AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Whereas, there are certain associations or organizations in the
Republic of the Philippines, not covered by Republic Act No. 1700,
which are seeking to overthrow the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines or to dismember a portion thereof; and
Whereas, in order to protect the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines and the people, it has become necessary to revise
Republic Act No. 1700 to broaden its coverage;
Now, therefore, I, Ferdinand E. Marcos, President of the Philippines by
virtue of the powers in me vested by the Constitution, do hereby
decree as follows:
Section 1.
Short Title This decree shall be known as the
Revised Anti-Subversion Law.

Sec. 2. Subversive Associations and Organizations - Any association,

organization, political party, or group of persons organized for the
purpose of overthrowing the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines or for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said
Government or its laws, the territory of the Philippines or any part
thereof, with the open or covert assistance or support of a foreign
power or the open or covert support from a foreign source of any
association, group or person, whether public or private, by force,
To be in jeopardy, the case against the accused must be terminated 1.
By arresto mayor, anyone who knowingly, wilfully and by violence, terrorism, arson, petition, deceit or other illegal shall be
by means of a final conviction, acquittal or dismissal without his overt acts affiliates himself with, becomes or remains a member of considered and is hereby d a subversive organization. (As amended

by Batas Pambansa Blg. 31, effective on June 6, 1979 and P.D. No. Sec. 4. False Testimony. Any person who knowingly furnishes false
1736, Sept. 12, 1980.).
evidence in any action brought under this decree shall be punished by
prision correccional.
Sec. 3. Penalties (a) Members. Whoever knowingly, wilfully and
by overt act affiliates with, becomes or remains a member of a Sec. 5. Sufficiency of Evidence. Except as provided in Section 7
subversive association or organization as defined in Section 2 hereof hereof, the two-witness rule heretofore provided in Republic Act
shall be punished by arresto mayor and shall be disqualified Numbered Seventeen hundred is hereby obrogated and the accused
permanently from holding any public office, appointive or elective, may be convicted on the testimony of one witness if sufficient under
and from exercising the right to vote; in case of a second conviction, the rules of evidence, or on his confession given in open court.
the principal penalty shall be prision correccional and in all
subsequent convictions the penalty of prision mayor shall be Sec. 6. No Restriction of Thought. Nothing in this decree shall be
imposed.
interpreted as a restriction on freedom of thought, of assembly and of
association for purposes not contrary to law as guaranteed by the
The following acts shall constitute prima facie evidence of Constitution.
membership in any subversive association:
Sec. 7. Repealing Clause. This decree supersedes Republic Act
(1) Allowing himself to be listed as a member in any book or any of Numbered Seventeen Hundred, but acts committed in violation
the lists records, correspondence, or any other document of the thereof and before the effectivity of this decree, shall be prosecuted
organization;
and punished in accordance with the provisions of the former Act.
(2) Subjecting himself to the discipline of such association or Nothing in this decree shall prevent prosecution of cases pending for
organization in any form whatsoever;
violation of Republic Act Numbered Seventeen Hundred.
(3) Giving financial contribution to such association or organization in
dues, assessments, loans, or in any other forms;
Sec. 8. Sequestration of Property. The sequestration of the property
(4) Executing orders, plans or directives of any kind of such of any person, natural or artificial, engaged in subversive activities
association or organization;
against the Government and its duly constituted authorities, is hereby
(5) Acting as an agent, courier, messenger, correspondent, organizer, authorized, in accordance with implementing rules and regulations as
or in any other capacity, on behalf of such association or organization; may be issued by the Secretary of National Defense.
(6) Conferring with officers or other members of such association or
organization in furtherance of any plan or enterprise thereof;
As used herein, the terms "sequester" and "sequestration" shall mean
(7) Transmitting orders, directives, or plans of such association or the seizure of private property or assets in the hands of any person or
organization orally or in writing or any other means of communication entity in order to prevent the utilization, transfer or conveyance of the
such as by signal, semaphore, sign or code;
same for purposes inimical to national security, or when necessary to
(8) Preparing documents, pamphlets, leaflets, books, or any other protect the interest of the Government or any of its instrumentalities.
type of publication to promote the objectives and purposes of such It shall include the taking over and assumption of the management,
association or organization;
control and operation of the private property or assets seized.
(9) Mailing, shipping, . circulating, distributing, or delivering to other
persons any material or propaganda of any kind on behalf of such Sec. 9. Effectivity. This decree shall take effect thirty days after its
association or organization;
publication in the Official Gazette. Done in the City of Manila, this 3rd
(10) Advising, counselling, or in other way giving instruction, day of February, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and
information, suggestions, or recommendations to officers or members seventy-six.
or to any other person to further the objectives of such association or
organization;
Presidential Decree No. 885 is incorporated in section 14 of the
(11) Participating in any way in the activities, planning action, National Security Code.
objectives, or purposes of such association or organization.
(b) Officers or Ranking Leaders. If such member is an officer or a On the other hand, rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising
ranking leader of any subversive association or organization as publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of
defined in Section 2 hereof, or if such member takes up arms against removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws,
the Government, he shall be punished by prision mayor to death with Philippine territory or any part thereof, or any body of land, naval or
all the accessory penalties provided therefor in the Revised Penal other armed forces, or of depriving the Chief Executive or the
Code.
Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.

contrast, they were accused of subversion for being allegedly officers

and ranking members of the Communist Party and similar subversive
groups. The alleged overt acts of resisting the armed forces were only
incidental to the main charge of being leaders of subversive or
revolutionary organizations collaborating with an alien power to make
the country a satellite thereof, like Cuba, North Korea and North
Vietnam in relation to Soviet Russia.
The issue on double jeopardy raised by the petitioners was resolved
by this Court in People vs. Liwanag alias Linda Bie, L-27683, October
19, 1976, 73 SCRA 473. In that case, Silvestre Liwanag was charged in
1960 with subversion for being an officer and ranking member of the
CPP and HMB.
He filed a motion to quash the information on the ground of double
jeopardy because he had already been convicted of rebellion based
on the same overt acts allegedly constituting the crime of subversion.
The trial court denied the motion. After trial he was convicted and
sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He appealed to this Court where he
again raised the issue that the charge of subversion placed him in
double jeopardy.
It was held that there was no double jeopardy because Liwanag was
convicted of rebellion for acts committed before the Anti-Subversion
Law took effect while the subversion charge referred to his act of
having remained an officer and ranking leader of the CPP and HMB
from the time the Anti-Subversion Law took effect on June 20, 1957
up to his capture in 1960. Moreover. the crime of subversion is distinct
from rebellion.
In the instant case, the rebellion charge against the petitioners
embraced the acts committed by them on or about February 4, 1972
and during the period from August, 1973 to February, 1974. The
subversion charge against Buscayno involved his acts committed in
1965, 1967, 1969, 1970 and 1971. The subversion charge against the
Sison spouses referred to their acts committed in 1968 and for
sometime prior and subsequent thereto. The common denominator of
the rebellion and subversion charges is that the petitioners committed
overt acts as alleged communists or leftists. The overt acts in the two
charges are different.
Rebellion is an offense that has existed in the Penal Code for a long
time. It may be committed by non-communists without collaborating
with the agents of an alien power. In contrast, the crime of subversion
came into existence when the communists sought to dominate the
world in order to establish a new social economic and political order.

The constitutionality of the Anti-Subversion Law was upheld in People

vs. Ferrer, L-32613-14, December 27, 1972, 48 SCRA 382 and 56
SCRA 793. Long before the passage of the Anti-Subversion Law
membership in illegal associations has been penalized (Art. 146,
(c)
Deportation Any alien convicted under this decree shall be Rebellion is distinct from participation or membership in an Revised Penal Code).
deported immediately after he shall have served the sentence organization committed to overthrow the duly constituted
imposed upon him.
government (People vs. Hernandez, 120 Phil. 191, 220).
A statute which punishes membership in a party or association that
advocates the overthrow or destruction of the government by force or
The petitioners were accused of rebellion for having allegedly violence is justified on the ground of self-preservation (Dennis vs.
undertaken a public uprising to overthrow the government. In U.S., 341 U.S. 494, 509; Scales vs. U.S. 367 U.S. 203).

The unavoidable conclusion is that in the present posture of the WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed. The restraining order is lifted.
pending cases against the petitioners their plea of double jeopardy No costs.
cannot be sustained.

SO ORDERED.