Comendaddor v de Villa

Comendador et al were charged with several violations of the articles of war: mutiny, conduct becoming etc. They applied for bail before the
general court martial but the application was denied. This prompted them to go to the trial court. Petition for certiorari and mandamus with
prayer for provisional liberty and a writ of preliminary injunction. Basically, they were asking the court to release them from their incarceration
in that place.

The judge of the RTC here granted provisional liberty to one of the accused: Ligot. This was not complied with by the detaining officer. They did
not follow the prompting of the court. This prompted the accused to file a motion to enforce the order and to cite that person in contempt. So
wala gihapon siya gi-implement and the case reached the supreme court.

ISSUES:
1. Do military personnel have the right to bail? No.
2. Is this not a violation of equal protection? No.

RULING:
1. They cannot avail of bail etiher as a right or discretion.

Is that not violative of the constitution? Let’s go to the discussion.

The right to bail invoked by the accused here has traditionally not been recognized and is not available in the military as an exception to the
general rule embodied in the bill of rights. Tradition negates this right for this class of people.

Why is bail not a right at all for military men?

It is because of the unique structure of the military. That should be reason enough to exempt them from the constitutional coverage of the right
to bail.

Why? It is vital to note that mutinous soldiers operate within the framework of democratic system, are allowed the fiduciary use of firearms by
the government for the discharge of their duties. National security considerations should also impress upon this Honorable Court that release on
bail of respondents constitutes a damaging precedent.

Imagine the truly disquieting thought is that they could freely resume their heinous activity. They were charged for violating the articles of war,
mutiny. So kung maka file sila ug bail before the military court, maka hawa sila. They have their firearms and they can continue with their activities.
Plus, diba ilang structure is that they have this sense of loyalty. So, they could resume their heinous acitivity which could very well result in the
overthrow of duly constituted authorities, including this Honorable Court.

2. Is this not a violation of equal protection? No. There is a valid distinction between military men and civilians.

If there is a valid distinction and classification, there is no violation of the equal protection clause. The guarantee, this equal protection clause,
requires this equal treatment only of persons or things similarly treated. It does not apply when the subject of of the treatment is substantially
different from the others.

Because of the peculiar nature of military men, soldiers, they cannot claim na parehas sila sa civilians who are guaranteed the right to bail. So,
take note that they do not have this right.
But does that mean that if a soldier is charged with raping someone, and it is not part of his duty, and not charged with the provisions violating
the articles of war, can he not avail of bail just because he is military personnel?

We have Aswat v. Galido which clarifies the matter.