Back

In Re: Padilla [SEPARATE OPINION, DISSENTING, TEEHANKEE, J.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR DR. AURORA PARONG, NORBERTO PORTUGUESE, SABINO PADILLA, FRANCIS DIVINAGRACIA, IMELDA DE LOS SANTOS, BENJAMIN PINEDA, ZENAIDA MALLARI, MARIANO SORIANO, TITO TANGUILIG, LETTY BALLOGAN, BIENVENIDA GARCIA, EUFRONIO ORTIZ, JR., JUANITO GRANADA and TOM VASQUEZ. JOSEFINA GARCIA PADILLA, petitioner, vs. MINISTER JUAN PONCE ENRILE, GENERAL FABIAN C. VER, GENERAL FIDEL V. RAMOS, and LT. COL. MIGUEL CORONEL, respondents.

G.R. No. L-61388 | 1985-07-19

DISSENTING OPINION

TEEHANKEE, J.:

I maintain my original dissent from the decision of April 20, 1983, thus:  "I am constrained to dissent from the all-encompassing scope of the main opinion of Mr. Justice de Castro which would overturn the landmark doctrine of Lansang vs. Garcia[1] which upheld the Supreme Court's authority to inquire into the existence of factual bases for the President's suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus in order to determine the constitutional sufficiency thereof and would revert to the retrogressive and colonial era ruling of Barcelon vs. Baker[2] and ...