Photo from Unsplash | Hasan Almasi
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Habeas corpus plays a vital role in protecting constitutional rights. (Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000)) It is “a proceeding against some person who has the immediate custody of the party detained, with the power to produce the body of such party before the court or judge, that he may be liberated if no sufficient reason is shown to the contrary.” (Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564 (1885)) Habeas corpus does not compensate for past wrongful incarceration, nor does it punish the State for imposing it. Instead, it is a challenge to unlawful custody, and when the writ issues it prevents further illegal custody. (Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997)
“Habeas corpus” is a Latin phrase which literally means “you have the body”. The Rules of Court envisions the writ of habeas corpus as a remedy applicable to cases of illegal confinement or detention where a person is deprived of his or her liberty, or where the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto. (Agcaoili Jr. et al. v. Hon. Representative Rodolfo C. Fariñas et al., G.R. No. 232395, July 3, 2018)
Section 1, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court states:
SECTION 1. To what habeas corpus extends.— 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.
How is an application of the writ of habeas corpus made?
An application for a writ of habeas corpus may be made through a petition filed before the Supreme Court 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 re: Saliba v. Warden, G.R. No. 197597. 08 April 2015, 755 SCRA 296, 30). 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 (Batas Pambansa Blg.(BP) 129, The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, Section 35).
Hence, the Supreme Court 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 (Agcaoili, Jr. v. Fariñas, G.R. No. 232395, 03 July 2018). 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.” (Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Assn. (CREBA) v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, 635 Phil. 283, 300 (2010))
In the landmark case of Gios-Samar, Inc., v. DOTC (G.R. No. 217158, 12 March 2019), the Supreme Court ruled that direct recourse to this Court is proper only to seek resolution of questions of law, and not issues that depend on the determination of questions of facts:
In fine, while this Court has original and concurrent jurisdiction with the RTC and the CA in the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus (extraordinary writs), direct recourse to this Court is proper only to seek resolution of questions of law. Save for the single specific instance provided by the Constitution under Section 18, Article VII, cases the resolution of which depends on the determination of questions of fact cannot be brought directly before the Court because we arc not a trier of facts. We are not equipped, either by structure or rule, to receive and evaluate evidence in the first instance; these are the primary functions of the lower courts or regulatory agencies. This is the raison d’etre behind the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. It operates as a constitutional filtering mechanism designed to enable this Court to focus on the more fundamental tasks assigned to it by the Constitution. It is a bright-line rule which cannot be brushed aside by an invocation of the transcendental importance or constitutional dimension of the issue or cause raised.
What is the role of the habeas corpus in the protection of constitutional rights?
Habeas corpus plays a vital role in protecting constitutional rights. (Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000)) It is “a proceeding against some person who has the immediate custody of the party detained, with the power to produce the body of such party before the court or judge, that he may be liberated if no sufficient reason is shown to the contrary.” (Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564 (1885)) Habeas corpus does not compensate for past wrongful incarceration, nor does it punish the State for imposing it. Instead, it is a challenge to unlawful custody, and when the writ issues it prevents further illegal custody (Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997). Thus, in Fay v. Noia (372 U.S. 391 (1963)):
x x x Although in form the Great Writ is simply a mode of procedure, its history is inextricably intertwined with the growth of fundamental rights of personal liberty. For its function has been to provide a prompt and efficacious remedy for whatever society deems to be intolerable restraints. Its root principle is that in a civilized society, government must always be accountable to the judiciary for a man’s imprisonment: if the imprisonment cannot be shown to conform with the fundamental requirements of law, the individual is entitled to his immediate release. x x x
In this jurisdiction, habeas corpus is acknowledged as “a high prerogative writ, known to the common law, the great object of which is the liberation of those who may be imprisoned without sufficient cause.” (Gumabon v. Director of the Bureau of Prisons, 147 Phil. 362, 367-368 (1971)). Its primary purpose is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal (In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Datukan Malang Salibo v. Warden, Quezon City Jail Annex, et al., 757 Phil. 630, 644 (2015)). It is therefore a writ of inquiry intended to test the circumstances under which a person is detained (Go v. Dimagiba, 499 Phil. 445, 456 (2005)). Under the Constitution, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.
Related Article:
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.