Writ of Habeas of Corpus

7/27/2019 Writ of Habeas of Corpus

1/4

WRIT OF HABEAS OF CORPUS

Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpusshall not be suspended except in cases of invasion orrebellion, when the public safety requires it.

Recall Article VII section 18

The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall applyonly to persons judicially charged for rebellion oroffenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.

During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, anyperson thus arrested or detained shall be judiciallycharged within three days, otherwise he shall bereleased.

WHAT IS HABEAS CORPUZ?

- an order directed to the person detaining another,

commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at

a designated time and place, with the day and cause ofhis caption and detention, to do, to submit to, and

receive whatever the court or judge awarding the writ

shall consider

Object: its essential object is to inquire into all manner of

involuntary restraint and to relieve and to relieve the

person there from if such restraint is illegal.

FUNCTION of Writ of Habeas Corpuz

1. IT IS THE ONLY EFFECTIVE REMEDY TO

QUESTION ANY FORM OF INVOLUNTARY

RESTRAINTS

- Vivencio vs Lukban (1919)- women were

involuntary sent to a far flung island ( Davao

City).

- Moncupa vs. Ponce-Enrile [GR L-63345, 30

January 1986]- release after the detention with

a condition

- Ampatuan vs macaraig 2012- not proper: to

question PNPs re\strictive custody

- InRe: Aquino vs Esperon not proper: to

question conditions of confinement.

2. IT FUNCTION AS A POST CONVICTION REMEDY

Relates to the condition of the court to order the

continued detention of the convict

a. When a penalty is changed while convict is

serving sentence

a. Gumaluan vs Diretor of prison 1965-

murder deemed absorbed in rebellion.

b. Lamer vs director 1995- from lifeimprisonment to rec. correccional to life

imprisonment; penalty for violation of RA

6325 now depends on grams involved.

b. Once a deprivation of a constitutional right is

shown to exist , the court that rendered the

judgemnet is deemed ousted of its jurisdiction.

a. Olaguer case- violation of due process

military courts are without jurisdictionover civilians

b. Andal vs people 1999- no counse

during police line up

c. Inre Garcia 2000- failure to appreciate

evidence during trial

d. Feria vs CA 2000- loss of conviction

papers.

3. PRODUCTION ORDER

a. Order any person in possession, custody o

control of any designated document, papers

books, accounts, letters, photographs

object or tangible things, or object in

digitized or electronic form, which constitute

or contain evidence relevant to the petition

or the return , to produce and permit their

inspection, copying or photographing by or

on behalf of the movant

Secretary of National Defense vs Manalo- must the

production order comply with the requisites for the

issuance of a search warrant?

4. WITNESS PROTECTION ORDER

a. Refer the witnesses to the department o

justice for admission to the witness

protection, security and benefit program

pursuant to RA 6981


2/4

b. Refer the witnesses to other government

agencies of keeping and securing their

safety

- The remedy provides for a RAPID JUDICIAL

RELIEF as it partakes of a summary proceeding

that requires only substantial evidence to make

the appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner

WHAT IS IT NOT?

1. It is not a writ to protect concerns that are purely

property or commercial

a. Calex vs Napico

2. It does not include protection of the right to

travel

a. Reyes vs Ca 2009

3. It does not fix liability for disappearances, killings

or threats therefore, whether criminal, civil or

administrative liability.

WRIT OF AMPARO

The case of Manalo brothers ( 2008)

- The first SC decision applying the Rule of

Amparo ( which too effect on October 24 2007)

-RELIEF GRANTED: It ordered petitioners to

o Furnish respondents all official and

unofficial reports of the investigation

undertaken in connection with their

case, except those already in file with

the court;

o Confirm in writing the present places of

official assignment of M/Sgt. Hilario aka

Rollie Castillo and Donald Calgas; and

o

Produce to the CA all medical reports,records and charts, and reports of any

treatment given or recommended and

medicines prescribed, if any, to the

Manalo brothers, to include a list of

medical personnel who attended to

them.

- An exercise for the 1st time of the courts

expanded power to promulgate rules to protect

our peoples constitutional rights

- It is a protective remedy aimed at providing

judicial relief consisting of appropriate remedia

measures and directives that may be crafted by

the court, in order to address specific violations

or threats of violation of the constitutional rights

to life liberty and property.

- Was originally conceived as a response to the

extraordinary rise in the number of killings and

enforced disappearance, and to the perceived

lack of available and effective remedies to

address these ectraordinary concerns.

- An EXTRAORDINARY and INDEPENDENT

remedy.

COVERAGE

1. Extrajudicial Killings or threats thereof

c. Killings committed without due process o

law. i.e. without legal safegruards or judiciaproceedings

2. Enforced disappearances or threats thereof

e. An arrest, detention or abduction of a

person by a government official o

organized groups or private individuals

acting with the direct or indirec

acquiescence of the government; the

refusal of the state to disclose the fate

or whereabouts of the person concerned

or a refusal to acknowledge thedeprivation of liberty which places such

persons outside the protection of law.

CONTENTS OF THE RETURN OF THE WRIT

SEC. 9. Return; Contents. Within seventy-two (72hours after service of the writ, the respondent shall file averified written return together with supporting affidavitswhich shall, among other things, contain the following:

a. The lawful defenses to show that the responden

did not violate or threaten with violation the rightto life, liberty and security of the aggrieved partythrough any act or omission;

b. The steps or actions taken by the respondent todetermine the fate or whereabouts of theaggrieved party and the person or personsresponsible for the threat, act or omission;

c. All relevant information in the possession of therespondent pertaining to the threat, act oomission against the aggrieved party; and


3/4

d. If the respondent is a public official or employee,the return shall further state the actions thathave been or will still be taken:

i. to verify the identity of the aggrievedparty;

ii. to recover and preserve evidencerelated to the death or disappearance of

the person identified in the petitionwhich may aid in the prosecution of theperson or persons responsible;

iii. to identify witnesses and obtainstatements from them concerning thedeath or disappearance;

iv. to determine the cause, manner,location and time of death or disappearance as well as any pattern orpractice that may have brought aboutthe death or disappearance;

v. to identify and apprehend the person orpersons involved in the death ordisappearance; and

vi. to bring the suspected offenders beforea competent court.

The return shall also state other matters relevant to theinvestigation, its resolution and the prosecution of thecase.

A general denial of the allegations in the petition shallnot be allowed.

Roxas vs Macapagal Arroyo

An inspection order is an interim relief designed to give

support or strengthen the claim of a petitioner in

an amparo petition, in order to aid the court before

making a decision.[124] A basic requirement before

an amparo court may grant an inspection order is that

the place to be inspected is reasonably determinable

from the allegations of the party seeking the

order. While theAmparo Rule does not require that the

place to be inspected be identified with clarity and

precision, it is, nevertheless, a minimum for the issuance

of an inspection order that the supporting allegations of a

party be sufficient in itself, so as to make aprima

facie case.

In providing for the interim relief of inspection order the

Amparo rule never intended sanctioning a fishinh

expedition for evidence.

- Roxas vs macapagal arroyo 2012

o Since the application of command

responsibility presupposes an

imputation of individual liability, it is

more aptly invoked in a full-blown

criminal or administrative case rathe

than in a summary amparo proceeding.

o The remedy provides rapid judicial relie

as it partakes of a summary proceeding

that requires only substantial evidence

to make the appropriate reliefs available

to the petitioner; it is not an action to

determine criminal guilt requiring

proof beyond reasonable doubt, o

liability for damages requiring

preponderance of evidence, or

administrative responsibility

requiring substantial evidence tha

will require full and exhaustiveproceedings. ( SEC. vs Manalo)

WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

SECTION 1. Habeas Data. - The writ of habeas data is

a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy

in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an

unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee,

or of a private individual or entity engaged in the

gathering, collecting or storing of data or information

regarding the person, family, home and correspondence

of the aggrieved party.

The habeas data rule, in general, is designed to protec

by means of judicial complaint the image, privacy , hono

information and freedom of information of an individual

It is meant to provide a forum to enforce ones right to

the truth and to informational privacy, thus, safeguarding

the constitutional guarantees of a persons right to life,

liberty and security against abuse in this age o

information technology.

Roxas vs Macapagal arroyo

Petitioner seeks to suppress any existing government

filed or order linking Melissa Roxas to the communist

movement

Respondent are enjoined to retain from distributing or

causing the distributing to the public of any records in
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/189155.htm#_ftn124http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/189155.htm#_ftn124


4/4

whatever form, reports, documents or similar papers

relative to Melissa Roxas alleged ties to the CPP-NPA.

Like the writ of Amparo,habeas data will NOT issue to

protect purely property or commercial concerns nor

when the ground invoked in support of the petitions

therefor are vague.

- Tapez vs Del Rosario

- Meralco VS Lim 2010

Roxas vs Macapagal Arroyo

Petitioner also prayed that the respondent be

ordered to return to petitioner her journal, digital camera

with memory card, laptop computer, external hard disk,

IPOD, wristwatch, sphygmomanometer, stethoscope,

medicines and her P15,000.00 cash.

Held: an order directing the public respondents

to return the personal belongings of the petitioner is

already equivalent to a conclusive pronouncement of

liability. The order itself is a substantial relief that can

only be granted once the liability of the public

respondents has been fixed in a full and

exhaustive proceeding.

More to the point, a persons right to be restituted of his

property is already subsumed under the general rubric of

property rightswhich are no longer protected by

the writ of amparo.[119] Section 1 of theAmparo Rule,[120] which defines the scope and extent of the writ,

clearly excludes the protection of property rights.

2 fold roles

1. Preventive it breaks the expectation of

impunity in the commission of these

offenses.

2. Curative- it facilitates the subsequent

punishment of perpetrators as it will

inevitably yield leads to subsequent

investigation and action.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/189155.htm#_ftn119http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/189155.htm#_ftn120http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/189155.htm#_ftn119http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/september2010/189155.htm#_ftn120

Documents

Writ of Habeas of Corpus