Barcelon vs. Baker G.R. No. 2808, September 30, 1905, 5 Phil. 87

 

Barcelon vs. Baker (1905)

FELIX BARCELON, petitioner,
vs.

DAVID J. BAKER, JR., and JOHN DOE THOMPSON, respondents.

G.R. No. 2808 | September 30, 1905 | 5 Phil. 87 | En Banc | Justice Johnson

Political and International Law | Constitutional Law | Separation of Powers

FACTS:

Fred C. Fisher and Charles C. Cohn on behalf of Felix Barcelon filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus because the latter was detained and allegedly restrained of his liberty at the town of Batangas, in the province of Batangas, Philippines Islands.

It was said that John Doe Thompson, the captain of the Philippines Constabulary, acting under in pursuance of the orders of David J. Baker Jr., colonel of the Philippines Constabulary were the people who detained and restrained the petitioner’s liberty. It is also claimed that the petitioner is detained without legal authority therefor. And that there has not existed during any of the times in this petition mentioned, there does not now exist, in the said province of Batangas or any part thereof, rebellion, insurrection, or invasion, nor any of them, in any form or degree.

On the 3rd day of August 1905, the court ordered David. J. Baker Jr., and John Doe Thompson to appear before the court the next day at 9 o’clock a.m. to show cause why the writ of habeas corpus should not be granted in accordance with the prayer of the petitioner. The next day, the respondents through George R. Harvey, Attorney-General of the Philippines Islands filed their answer to the foregoing petition. They claimed that the writ of habeas corpus should not be issued because the court is without jurisdiction or authority to grant the privilege of writ of habeas corpus pursuant to the issuance of the Governor-General’s resolution and request of the Philippines Commission to suspend the said writ in the Provinces of Cavite and Batangas.

It is a resolution of the Philippines Commission dated January 30, 1905 declaring that because there is an insurrection in the Provinces of Cavite and Batangas, the said writ shall be suspended. This is also in line with the issuance of EO No. 6 of the President on the same day.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Judicial Department may investigate the facts upon which the legislative and executive branches of the Government acted in providing for the suspension and in actually suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in said provinces.

RULING:

No. It is held that it is the duty of the legislative branch to make laws and regulations as will effectually conserve peace and order and protect the lives and property of the citizens. It is the duty of the Governor-General to take such steps as he deems wise and necessary for the purpose of enforcing such laws.

Under the form of Government established in the Philippine Islands, one department of the Government has no power to inquire the acts of another, which acts are performed within the discretion of the other department.

It was held that the Governor-General and the Philippine Commission has the right to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under the conditions therein named on the paragraph of section 5 of the act of the Congress on July 1, 1902. Furthermore, by the virtue of the said act of the Congress, together with the said resolution of the Philippine Commission, the Governor-General had authority to issue the said EO of January 31, 1905, suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Also, one branch of the United States Government in the Philippines Islands has no right to interfere or inquire into, for the purpose of nullifying the same, the discretionary acts of another independent department of the Government. The authority to suspend the privilege of writ of habeas corpus is vested upon the legislative and executive department and their decision is final and conclusive upon the Judicial Department of the Government and upon all persons. It is there, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.