Scribd
Upload
82 views1 page

Felix Barcelon V. David J. Baker, JR., and John Doe Thompson G.R. No. 2808 September 30, 1905 Law in Question

The case involved Felix Barcelon who was detained by respondents David J. Baker Jr. and John Doe Thompson in Batangas province. Respondents argued they had legal authority to detain Barcelon due to the suspension of habeas corpus in Batangas by the Governor-General and Philippine Commission. The court ruled that, similar to a 1827 US Supreme Court case, the President or Governor-General has exclusive authority to decide if circumstances require suspension of habeas corpus, and their decision is final. The court affirmed the suspension of habeas corpus was validly ordered in Batangas due to insurrection against authorities by armed bands in the province.

Uploaded by

Clea Amber Fullante
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
82 views1 page

Felix Barcelon V. David J. Baker, JR., and John Doe Thompson G.R. No. 2808 September 30, 1905 Law in Question

The case involved Felix Barcelon who was detained by respondents David J. Baker Jr. and John Doe Thompson in Batangas province. Respondents argued they had legal authority to detain Barcelon due to the suspension of habeas corpus in Batangas by the Governor-General and Philippine Commission. The court ruled that, similar to a 1827 US Supreme Court case, the President or Governor-General has exclusive authority to decide if circumstances require suspension of habeas corpus, and their decision is final. The court affirmed the suspension of habeas corpus was validly ordered in Batangas due to insurrection against authorities by armed bands in the province.

Uploaded by

Clea Amber Fullante
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

FELIX BARCELON v. DAVID J. BAKER, JR.

, AND JOHN DOE THOMPSON


G.R. No. 2808 September 30, 1905

LAW IN QUESTION:
Section 5 of the act of Congress of July 1, 1902, provides:

That the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion,
insurrection, or invasion the public safety may require it, in either of which events the same may be
suspended by the President, or by the Governor-General with the approval of the Philippine Commission,
whenever during such period the necessity for such suspension shall exist.

FACTS:
This case was an application for a writ of habeas corpus which it alleged that Barcelon is detained and
restrained of his liberty at the town of Batangas, in the Province of Batangas, and that the detention and
restraint of the said applicant is wholly without legal authority and not under or by virtue of any process
issued by any court. Respondents admit that they are detaining the body of the said Felix Barcelon, but
deny the right of the court to inquire into the reasons therefor by virtue of the resolution issued by the
Philippine Commission and the executive order of the Governor-General suspending the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus in the Provinces of Cavite and Batangas. The Philippine Bill section 5 provides that
the Governor-General is hereby authorized to suspend writ of habeas corpus in the said provinces because
of the fact that certain organized bands of ladrones in said provinces were in open insurrection against
the constituted authorities; and the said bands, or parts of them, and some of their leaders, were still in
open resistance to the constituted authorities.

ISSUE: Whether or not the President’s decision to suspend the writ of habeas corpus is final and conclusive
upon all persons.

RULING:
Yes. The same general question presented here was presented to the Supreme Court of the United States
in the case of Martin vs. Mott, in January, 1827. An act of Congress of 1795 provided —
That whenever the United States shall be invaded or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign
nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of
the militia of the State or States most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action, as he may
judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose to such officer or officers
of the militia as he shall think proper.

We are all of the opinion that the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen belongs exclusively
to the President and his decision is conclusive upon all other persons. We think that this construction
necessarily results from the nature of the power itself and from the manifest object contemplated by the
act of Congress. The power itself is to be exercised upon sudden emergencies, upon great occasions of
state and under circumstances which may be vital to the existence of the Union.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy