Comendador v. de Villa

B/GEN. JOSE COMENDADOR v. GEN. RENATO S. DE VILLA, (G)
G.R. No. 93177, August 2, 1991

FACTS:

• The petitioners are officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines facing prosecution for their alleged participation in the failed coup d' etat that took place on December 1 to 9, 1989.
• January 14, 1990, a Pre-Trial Investigation (PTI) Panel had been constituted pursuant to Office Order No. 16 to investigate the petitioners.
• January 30, 1990, the PTI Panel issued a uniform subpoena individually addressed to the petitioners. The petitioners acknowledged receipt of a copy of the charge sheet, sworn statements of witnesses, and death and medical certificates of victims of the rebellion. At the first scheduled hearing, the petitioners challenged the proceedings on various grounds, prompting the PTI Panel to grant them 10 days to file their objections in writing through a Motion for Summary Dismissal.
• February 27,1990, the PTI Panel denied the motion and gave the petitioners 5 days to submit their respective counter-affidavits and the affidavits of their witnesses.
• May 15, 1990, the petitioners manifested that they were exercising their right to raise peremptory challenges against the president and members of GCM No.14 by invoking Article 18 of Com. Act No. 408. GCM No. 14 ruled, however, that peremptory challenges had been discontinued under P.D. No.39.

ISSUE:

• Whether or not petitioners can manifest the right to peremptory challenge.

HELD:

• Yes, the petitioners have the right to peremptory challenge. The right to peremptory challenge was originally provided under Article 18 of Com. Act No. 408 (Articles of War).
• November 7,1972, when President Marcos promulgated P.D. No. 39 (Governing the Creation, Composition, Jurisdiction, Procedure, and other matters relevant to military Tribunals). This decree disallowed the peremptory challenge.
• January 17,1981, President Marcos issued Proc. No. 2045 proclaiming the termination of the state of martial law throughout the Philippines. With the termination of martial law and the dissolution of the military tribunals created there under, the reason for the existence of P.D. No. 39 ceased automatically.
• It is a basic canon of statutory construction that when the reason of the law ceases, the law itself ceases. Cessante rationelegis, cessat ipsa lex. Applying these rules, we hold that the withdrawal of the right to peremptory challenge in P.D. No. 39 became ineffective when the apparatus of martial law was dismantled with the issuance of Proclamation No.2045, As a result, the old rule embodied in Article 18 of Com. Act No. 408 was automatically revived and now again allows the right to peremptory challenge.