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, GEN. FABIAN C. VER, GEN. FIDEL V. RAMOS, and LT. COL. MIGUEL CORONEL, respondents.

G.R. No. L-61388 | 1983-04-20

SEPARATE DISSENTING OPINION
 
TEEHANKEE, J.:
 
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 the writ of habeas corpus in order to determine the constitutional sufficiency thereof and would revert to the retrogressive and colonial era ruling ofBarcelon vs. Baker[2] and Montenegro vs. Castañeda[3] that the President's...