Writ of habeas corpus, Bill of Rights, A3S15 1987 Constitution

1. Concept

a. Coverage

All cases of illegal confinement or detention. Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto. (Section 1, Rule 102, Rules of Court)

1) Restraint of liberty

A prime specification of an application for a writ of habeas corpus is restraint of liberty. The essential object and purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal. Any restraint that will preclude freedom of action is sufficient. The rule is that if a person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge, or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record, the writ of habeas corpus will not be allowed. (In Re: Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus of Inmates Reyes, et al., En Banc, G.R. No. 251954, 10 June 2020)

2) If liberty is restrained by legal process

Concomitantly, if a person’s liberty is restrained by some legal process, the writ of habeas corpus is unavailing. The writ cannot be used to directly assail a judgment rendered by a competent court or tribunal which, having duly acquired jurisdiction, was not ousted of this jurisdiction through some irregularity in the course of the proceedings. (In Re: Writ of Habeas Corpus for ML Abellana, G.R. No. 232006, 10 July 2019)

b. Range of inquiry – narrowed

Nevertheless, it must be noted that when the detention complained of finds its origin in what has been judicially ordained, the range of inquiry in a habeas corpus proceeding is considerably narrowed. Whatever situation the petitioner invokes from the exceptional circumstances listed above, the threshold remains high. Mere allegation of a violation of one’s constitutional right is not enough. The violation of constitutional right must be sufficient to void the entire proceedings. (Ibid.)

As a post-conviction remedy when, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding, any of the following exceptional circumstances is attendant:

1) There has been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person;

2) The court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or

3) the imposed penalty has been excessive, thus voiding the sentence as to such excess. (In Re: Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus of Inmates Reyes, et al., supra.)

In Re: Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus of Inmates Reyes, et al. (June 2020)

• Here, petitioner invokes the third circumstance – the imposed penalty has been excessive, thus voiding the sentence as to such excess

• In this case, the confinement of Reyes and Evangelista at the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City is valid pursuant to a lawful judgment They were convicted for violation of Section 15, RA 6425, as amended by RA 7659, and the affirmation of their conviction was decreed by no less than this very Court.

• Reyes and Evangelista, who were found guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs exceeding 200 grams, have committed a heinous crime.1âшphi1 This is in consonance with RA 7659, which includes the distribution or sale of dangerous drugs as heinous for being a grievous, odious and hateful offense and which, by reason of its inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity is repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society.

• Rules and regulations issued by administrative bodies to interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce, such as the 2019 IRR issued by the DOJ and the DILG, have the force of law, and are entitled to great respect. Administrative issuances partake of the nature of a statute and have in their favor a presumption of legality. As such, courts cannot ignore administrative issuances especially when, as in this case, its validity was not put in issue. Unless an administrative order is declared invalid, courts have no option but to apply the same.

• Accordingly, the writ cannot be issued and the discharge of Reyes and Evangelista from imprisonment should not be authorized.

In Re:  Petition for the Writ of Amparo and Writ of Habeas Corpus in favor of AJ Lucena, En Banc, (September 2020)

• In this case, however, it did not at all appear that AJ had been deprived of her liberty or that petitioners had been excluded from their rightful custody over the person of AJ.

• First. The petitioners failed to make out a case that AJ is being detained or is being kept by the Anakbayan against her free will.  To start, there was never any accusation that the Anakbayan employed violence, force or threat against AJ that would have influenced her in deciding to stay with the Anakbayan. Neither is there an allegation that the Anakbayan is employing such violence, force or threat so as to prevent AJ from eventually changing her mind and from possibly leaving the Anakbayan in the future.

• The only argument raised by the petitioners to support the view that AJ is being detained — i.e., AJ’s decision to stay with the Anakbayan is not a product  of  free  and  informed  consent  but  of the indoctrination  and brainwashing she endured from the group when she was still a minor — fails to persuade for it rests on pure speculation and assumption. If anything, such an argument has been discredited by the established facts and even by AJ herself.

• As mentioned, AJ already categorically denied being abducted by the Anakbayan during a press conference  conducted by the representatives of the Kabataan, Bayan Muna, ACT Teacher and Gabriela Party-lists on August 14, 2019.

• In a Sinumpaang Salaysay she executed on September 9, 2019,22 on the other hand, AJ disputed the allegations of being brainwashed as she relayed that her decision to leave the custody of her parents for Anakbayan was reasoned and a conscious one on her part.

• Against these explicit submissions, petitioners’ claim that AJ is being held against her will certainly cannot stand.

• It also cannot be said that petitioners were being excluded from their rightful custody over the person of AJ.  As it was established, AJ has already reached the age of majority and is, thus, legally emancipated. The effect of such emancipation is clear under the law. It meant the termination of the petitioners’ parental authority — which include their custodial rights­ over the person and property of AJ, who is now deemed qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life save for certain exceptions provided by law.

• As she has already attained the age of majority, AJ — at least in the eyes of the State -has earned the right to make independent choices with respect to the places where she wants to stay, as well as to the persons whose company she wants to keep. Such choices, so long as they do not violate any law or any other persons’ rights, has to be respected and let alone, lest we trample upon AJ’s personal liberty — the very freedom supposed to be protected by the writs of amparo and habeas corpus.  While we understand that petitioners may feel distressed over AJ’s decision to leave their home and stay with the Anakbayan, their recourse unfortunately does not lie with the Court through the instant petition. The writs of amparo and habeas corpus were never meant to temper the brashness of youth.  The resolution of the conflict besetting petitioners and their daughter AJ is simply beyond the competence of the writs applied for.

2. Concurrent jurisdiction

An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be made through a petition filed before the SC or any of its members, the Court of Appeals (CA) or any of its members in instances authorized by law, or the RTC or any of its presiding judges. In the absence of all the RTC judges in a province or city, any metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge may hear and decide petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in the province or city where the absent RTC judges sit… Hence, the SC has concurrent jurisdiction, along with the CA and the trial courts, to issue a writ of habeas corpus. However, mere concurrency of jurisdiction does not afford parties absolute freedom to choose the court with which the petition shall be filed. Petitioners should be directed by the hierarchy of courts. After all, the hierarchy of courts “serves as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs.” (In Re: Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus of Inmates Reyes, et al., supra.)

References

• Article III, 1987 Philippine Constitution

—

/Updated: September 22, 2023