REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 158 PASIG CITY PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, -versus- CRIM. CASE NOS. 152737-39 CHAIRMAN NURULAJI P. MISUARI, a.k.a, “NUR MISUARI” (Leader at-large) ET.AL, Accused. Menon ene eee eee eee nee ee x RESOLUTION Before the Court is a Motion to Suspend Proceedings and Enforcement of Warrants of Arrest filed on 14 October 2016 by accused Nur Misuari (hereinafter referred to as “Misuari”). Hearings on the Motion were held on October 17 and 25, 2016 and all parties were given a chance to give their Comments to the Motion. The Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP) participated in the hearings on the Motion and was represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). Both the OPAPP and the Department of Justice not only supported the instant Motion but also adopted the prayer sought in the same as their own. None of the defense counsels, nor the City of Zamboanga, presented any opposition to the Motion. Stripped to the Core, the Motion seeks the suspension of proceedings and Warrants of Arrest against Misuari to allow him to attend peace talk sessions with the government. The preliminary procedural issue which confronts the Court is whether Misuari can seek relief from the Court at this stage of the proceedings where there are outstanding Warrants of Arrest against him. The recent case of Renato M. David v. Editha A. Agbay and People of the Philippines', provides the answer. There the Supreme Court distinguished between the concepts of custody of the law and jurisdiction over the person, as follows — 1G.R. No, 199113, 18 March 2015.Criminal Case Nos. 152737-39 Resolution dated 27 October 2016 Page 2 of 8 x-- x “The MTC further cited lack of jurisdiction over the person of petitioner accused as ground for denying petitioner's motion for re-determination of probable cause, as the motion was filed prior to his arrest. However, custody of the law is not required for the adjudication of reliefs other than ‘an application for bail. [Jimenez »: Sorongon, G.R. No. 178607, December 5, 2012, 687 SCRA 151, 161, citing Alawiya, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et dal., 603 Phil. 264, 276 (2009); and Miranda v. Tuliao, 520 Phil. 907, 919 (2006),} In Miranda : Tuliao, which involved a motion to quash warrant of this Court discussed the distinetion between custody of the law and iction over the person, and held that jurisdiction over the person of the ised is deemed waived when he files any pleading secking an affirmative relief, except in cases when he invokes the special jurisdiction of the court by impugning such jurisdiction over his person. Thus: In arguing, on the other hand, that jurisdietion over their person was already acquired by their filing of the above Urgent Motion, petitioners invoke our pronouncement, through Justice Florenz D. Regalado, in Santiago v. Vasquez: The voluntary appearance of the accused, whereby the court acquires jurisdiction over his person, is accomplished either by his pleading to the merits (such as by filing a motion to quash or other pleadings requiring the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction thereover, appearing for arraignment, entering trial) or by filing bail. On the matter of bail, since the same is intended to obtain the provisional liberty of the accused, as a rule the same cannot be posted before custody of the accused has been acquired by the judicial authorities either by his arrest or voluntary surrender. Our pronouncement in Santiago shows a distinction between custody of the Jaw and jurisdiction over the person. Custody of the law is required before the court can act upon the application for bail, but is not required for the adjudication of other reliefs sought by the defendant where the mere application therefor constitutes a waiver of the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Custody of the law is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary surrender, while jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance. One can be under the custody of the law but not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, such as when a person arrested by virtue of a warrant files a motion before arraignment to quash the warrant. On the other hand, one can be subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, and yet not be in the custody of the law, such as when an accused escapes custody after his trial has commenced. Being in the custody of the law signifies restraint on the person, who is thereby deprived of his own will and liberty, binding him to become obedient to the will of the law. Custody of the law is literally custody over the body of the accused. It includes, but is not limited to, detention. XXX While we stand by our above pronouncement in Pico insofar as it concems bail, we clarify that, as a general rule, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. As we held in the aforecited case of Santiago, seeking an affirmative relict in court, whether in civil or criminal proceedings, constitutes voluntary appearance.Criminal Case Nos. 152737-39 Resolution dated 27 October 2016 Page 3 of 8 XXX To recapitulate what we have discussed so far, in criminal cases, jurisdiction over the person of the accused is deemed waived by the ‘accused when he files any pleading seeking an affirmative relief, except in cases when he invokes the special jurisdiction of the court by impugning such jurisdiction over his person. Therefore. in narrow cases involving special appearances, an accused ean invoke the processes of the court even though there is neither jurisdiction over the person nor custody of the law. However, if a person invoking the special jurisdiction of the court applies for bail, he must first submit himself to the custody of the law, (Emphasis supplied) Considering that petitioner sought affirmative relief in filing his motion for re-determination of probable cause, the MTC clearly erred in stating that it lacked jurisdiction over his person. Notwithstanding such erroneous ground ‘ated in the MTC’s order, the RTC correctly ruled that no grave abuse of discretion was committed by the MTC in denying the said motion for lack of merit.” Here, with the filing of the instant Motion by Misuari, he has voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Court, albeit without being, as yet, in the custody of the law. Following David, above, Misuari can invoke the processes of the Court even if he is not yet in the custody of the law. Even granting that the Court cannot act on Misuari’s Motion, it can act on the Motion, as adopted by the DOJ, which is a party to the instant cases. The Court notes that the Executive Department, of which the DOJ is part of, not only supports the Motion but adopts the very prayer of Misuari therein. The OPAPP, through Secretary Jesus Dureza, has even offered that Misuari be released to his recognizance. No less than President Rodrigo R. Duterte, himself, has expressed his readiness and desire to talk with Misuari, notwithstanding the arrest warrants against him in these cases.” The Court is cognizant of the importance of the peace talks which the Executive Department desires to conduct with Misuari as recognized leader of the MNLF. Certainly, too, the Court is convinced of the vital role of Misuari in these talks. As manifested during the hearing on the Motion, Misuari has been a signatory to all the Peace Agreements with the MNLF since the Tripoli Agreement of 1976 to the 1996 Final Peace Agreement. His authority to represent the MNLF has also been consistently recognized by both the government of the Philippines as well as by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which is the third party in the Tripartite agreement. 2 Ina news article, entitled “AFP, PNP can escort Misuari to peace talks venue. Duterte says” written by Trisha Macas, published on 2 September 2016 on GMA News, President Duterte was quoted as follows — “I suggest that Misuari just simply go south... [Fhe wants the military and the police just escort him to Davao or a better place of any other place he wants then he begins to talk to me. I do not care if it is in Jolo or Zamboanga.” The article went on to est that “the military and police can escort Nur Misuari not to arrest him but to bring him safely to a venue where he and President Rodrigo Duterte can talk peace”