GROUP 4

SECTION 15: WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

 DEFINITION OF WRIT

A writ is a formal, legal document that directs a person or entity to

carry out or refrain from carrying out a particular action or activity.
Courts or other institutions having jurisdictional or legal authority
draft writs. Warrants and subpoenas are two forms of writs that
are commonly used.

 MEANING OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

The writ of habeas corpus is an order issued by a court.

directed at the detained individual another, commanding him to
produce the body of the prisoner. At a designated time and place,
and to show sufficient cause for
Holding in custody The individual was so detained.

 PURPOSE OF WRIT

It has for its purpose to inquire into all manner of involuntary

restraint or detention as distinguished from voluntary and to
relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is found
illegal. The writ is the proper remedy in each and every case of
detention without legal cause or authority. Its principal purpose
then is to set the individual at liberty.

 SEC.2. WHO MAY GRANT THE WRIT

- The writ of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, or any
member thereof, on any day and at any time, or by the Court of Appeals or any
member thereof in the instances authorized by law, and if so granted it shall be
enforceable anywhere in the Philippines, and may be made returnable before
the court or any member thereof, or before the Court of First Instance, or any
judge thereof for the hearing and decision on the merits. It may also be granted
by a Court of First Instance, or a judge thereof, on any day and at any time, and
returnable before himself, enforceable only within his judicial district.

 SEC. 3: Requisites of application therefor.

Application for the writ shall be by petition signed and verified either by the party
for whose relief it is intended, or by some person on his behalf, and shall set forth:

(a) That the person in whose behalf the application is made is imprisoned or
restrained of his liberty;

(b) The officer or name of the person by whom he is so imprisoned or restrained;

or, if both are unknown or uncertain, such officer or person may be described by
an assumed appellation, and the person who is served with the writ shall be
deemed the person intended;
 SEC. 3: Requisites of application therefor.

(c) The place where he is so imprisoned or restrained, if known;

(d) A copy of the commitment or cause of detention of such person, if it can be

procured without impairing the efficiency of the remedy; or, if the
imprisonment or restraint is without any legal authority, such fact shall appear.

 CASE DIGEST

Leonardo Paquinto and Jesus Cabangunay were detained during the Martial

law. Both were condemned to die by musketry, but their sentence was
commuted by the new consti to reclusion perpetua. Their conviction were
subsquently void by the Court in the case of Olaguer v. Military Commission
No. 34, where held that the military tribunals had no jurisdiction to try civillians
when the courts of justice were functioning, Accordingly, in the case of Cruz v.
Ponce Enrile, this court directed the Department of Justice to file the
corresponding information in the civil courts against the petitioners within 180
days from notice of the decision.

 CASE DIGEST

Paquinto and Cabangunay, but they have
There is no information has so far been filed agianst

remained under detention. On May 27, 1992, Ernesto Abaloc, together with Cabangunay and
Paquinto, wrote to the United Nation Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) complainig that their
continued detention violated their rights under Articles 6,7,9,10,14 and 26 of 3 the international
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

In its decision dated October 14, 1993, the UNHRC delared their communication as admissible and
requested the Republic of the Philippines to submit a written explanation of their complaint within
6 months from the date of transmittal. The Department of Foreign Affairs furnished the
Commission of Human Rights with a copy of the decision. There upon, the commission, through its
chairman Sedfrey A. Ordonez, wrote the Secretary of Justice of its intention to sue for the release
of the complainants unless criminal charges had already been filed against them.

 CASE DIGEST

On June 7, 1994, the Department of Justice informed that Abaloc had been released on

September 29, and that Paquinto and Cabangunay were still detained at the National
Penitentiary. There was the intimation that it would not object to a petition for Habeas Corpus
that the Commision might choose to file for Paquinto and Cabangunay. This Assurance was
later confirmed in a letter from the depart. dated May 13, 1994.

The present petition for habeas Corpus was filed with the Court on June 13, 1994. The writ was
immediately issued, returnable on or before June 22, 1994, on which date a hearing was also
scheduled. At the hearing, Chairman Ordonez argued for the prisoners and pleaded for their
immediate release in view of the failure of the Depart. of Justice to file charges against them
within the period specified on the Cruz case. He stressed that their continued detention despite
the nulllification of their conviction was clear violation of their Human rights.

 CASE DIGEST

ISSUE: IS there a violation of human rights?

RULING: YES. The government has failed to show that their continued
detention is supported by a valid conviction or by the pendency of charges
against them or by any legitimate cause whatsoever. If no information can be
filed against them because the records have been lost, it is not the prisoners
who should be made to suffer. In the eyes of the law, Paquinto and
Cabangunay are not guilty or appear to be guilty of any crime for which they
may be validly held. Hence, they are entitled to set free