CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2

(Notes and Cases)

By

Atty. GALLANT D. SORIANO, MNSA

Lt. Col. PN (M)
 PRIVILEGE OF THE
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(Article III, Section 15)
 HABEAS CORPUS

Art. III, Sec. 15 - The privilege of

the writ of habeas corpus shall not
BASIC
PROVISION be suspended except in cases of
invasion or rebellion, when the
public safety requires it.

Art. III, Sec. 13 - The right to bail

CORRELATION shall not be impaired even when
the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus is suspended.
 HABEAS CORPUS

a. a writ issued by the court;

b. directed to a person detaining another;

c. commanding him to produce the body of the

Writ of prisoner at a designated time and place, with
Habeas Corpus the day and cause of his caption and
(defined)
detention;

d. to do, to submit to, and to receive whatever

the court or judge awarding the writ shall
consider in his behalf.

Purpose to relieve persons from unlawful restraint.

 JURISPRUDENCE ON HABEAS CORPUS
Cousin of Estelita, BARTOLOME
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS are BEYOND the PROVINCE of COMMERCE or ANY other BUSINESS ENTERPRISE. CAUNCA prayed the issuance of writ
for the former. The former wants to

1. the writ was issued ordering respondents to change her RESIDENCE. But the owner
of FEEB, Julia Salazar wants the former
to pay for the advanced payment by

bring to the Court the person of Estelita on the detaining her while being a maid.
Caunca vs. Salazar
ground that she is restrained of her personal liberty GR No. L-2690. Jan 01, 1949
Human dignity and Right to Employment agency

and not free to go with her cousin at her will. locomotion and right to
travel and abode ARE
SPIRITUAL that a simple
has NO right to
RESTRAIN andDETAIN
a maid until the latter
Curtailing FREEDOM TO MOVE is NOT justified by:
MORAL COMPULSION - which CURTAILS the mental faculty of CHOICE or the Monetary losses. BECAUSE MONETARY LOSSES does business agenda can NOT has returned the
unhampered exercise of the WILL. NOT overpower HUMAN RIGHT. overpower. payment advanced to
her.

Maltreated, tortured, and subjected to cruel and

2. Every person who unlawfully disobeys a writ of inhuman punishment in the municipal building.
The restraint of their liberty or their POSSIBLE
LIQUIDATION was WITHOUT legal ahtoority or

habeas corpus issued by a court or judge having LAWFUL basis.

Contado vs. Tan

jurisdiction in the premises and properly served G.R. No. L-49299. Apr. 15, 1988
upon them is in contempt of court and may be A punishment of contempt is done in order to VINDICATE the DIGNITY and

summarily punished therefor.

INTEGRITY of the WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS and to show the consequences f of
DISOBEDIENCE or WILLFUL EVASION of the GREAT WRIT OF LIBERTY.
MISSING PERSONS during MARTIAL LAW
VILLAVICENCIO vs LUCBAN: Whe on is commanded to produce a certain person and
does NOT do so, and does NOT offer a VALID EXCUSE, a court must vindicate its authoriy,
adjudge the respondent to be guilty of contempt, and oreder him either IMPRISONED or
Imposing contempt of court: NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURT and to VINDICATE ITS HONOR AND DIGNITY whenever IT IS OUTRAGED. FINED.
COURT EXERCISES this power on a corrective and NOT a retaliatory or VINDICTIVE principle.

VALIDITY of the arrest ceased o be an issue because the deportation proceeding will NOT result in
petitioner’s PERMANENT or PROLONGED DETENTION but EXCLUSION or DEPARTURE from this country. UNDESIRABLE ALIEN Arrest without WARRANT by agents of
the Commission on Immigration and
Deportation (CID) and her resultant

3. Petitioner’s release from detention has rendered

detention at the CID Detention Center

this petition for writ of habeas corpus moot and Magno vs. CA
academic insofar as it questions the legality of her G.R. No. 101148. Aug. 5, 1992

arrest and detention.

CA No. 613 or Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 -
The issuance of lawful warrant by
A HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDING shall ALLOWED Commissioner of Immigration to issue
the SUMMARY DEPORTATION
extend to all cases of ILLEGAL warrant of ARREST/DEPORTATION upon probable
ORDER and the PETITIONER’s
CONFINEMENT or DETENTION by which CAUSE and EXISTENCE of the GROUND for
CLAIM FOR BAIL, cured the defect/
any person is deprived of his liberty. DEPORTATION as may be found by the BOARD
irregularity of the ARREST.
OF COMMISSIONERS.
 JURISPRUDENCE ON HABEAS CORPUS

4. the writ was issued on the ground that government

has failed to show that their continued detention is
supported by a valid conviction or by the pendency of Ordonez vs. Dir. of Prisons
G.R. No. 115576. Aug. 4, 1994
charges against them or by any legitimate cause
whatsoever.
People who were tried by Military Courts iwere given an
option to choose between SERVING or referral to OTHER
LIBERTY is not A GIFT of the GOVERNMENT but the RIGHT OF THE GOVERNED. COURT. When convicted, the time served must be
deducted upon continuance of sentence, WHEN
2 CIVILLIANS were tried by the military commissions during the martial law. Orgiginally, they were sentence to death via musketry but ACQUITTED he MUST BE SET FREE.
later commuted to reclusion perpetua. SC nullified the decision of conviction on the ground that the MILITARY TRIBUNALS do NOT have
jurisdiction to try civilians when the COURTS of JUSTICE are functioning, THEY REMAINED in DETENTION.

5. the petition for habeas corpus to have custody of With his full mental capacity coupled
with the right of choice, Potenciano
may NOT be the subject of VISITATION

her husband in consortium was dismissed on the

RIGTHS of his FREE OWN CHOICE.
OTHERWISE, he will be DEPRIVED OF
RIGHT TO PRIVACY. This would run
AGAINST his FUNDAMENTAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

ground while law provides that the husband and the

wife are obliged to live together…the sanction Ilusorio vs. Bildner
G.R. No. 139789. July 19, 2001
therefor is the "spontaneous, mutual affection
between husband and wife and not any legal mandate COVERTURE cannot be enforced by a writ of
HABEAS CORPUS. Judicial Authority can NOT go

or court order" to enforce consortium.

beyond the matter as the it is to be left to a man
and woman’s free choice.

Wife gave his lawyer husband a medication not prescribed to the latter. Also, overdosage

has been lifted BUT another ground which is being an UNDESIRA BLE ALIEN was filed and became The term “court” includes quasi-judicial bodies like the Deportation Board of the
Violation of ARTICLE 176 of the RPC. Summary order of deportation Bureau of Immigration. As a general rule, the burden of proving illegal restraint
final.
by the respondents rests on the petitioner who attaches such restraints. In this

6. the petition was dismissed on the ground that

case, based on the return of the writ by the respondents, Jackson was arrested
and detained based on the order of the BOC which had become final and
executory. His passports were also cancelled by the US consul on the ground
that they were tampered with. Based on previous jurisprudence, such constitute

even if the arrest of a person is illegal, supervening

sufficient grounds for the arrest and deportation of aliens from the Philippines.

Jackson vs. Macalino

events such as the issuance of a judicial process, may G.R. No. 139255. Nov. 24, 2003

bar his release or discharge from custody.

 LAGMAN vs MEDIALDEA — G.R. NO. 231658 — July 4, 2017 LAGMAN vs PIMENTEL — G.R. NO. 235935 — Feb. 6, 2018
Proclamation No. 216 of President Duterte of Martial Law and Suspension of Privilege of EXTENSION of ML and SWHC - To quell completely and put an end to the on-
the Writ of Habeas Corpus in Mindanao (Marawi City). Due to VIOLENT ACTS committed going rebellion in Mindanao and prevent the same form escalating to other
by the Maute Terrorist Group and Abu Sayyaf group attempting to segregate the City of parts of the country. PBLIC SAFETY still requires it, not only for public
security and order, but also for a bigger task of rehabilitation and the
Marawi.
THE COURT CALLING OUT POWER - is the most benign and involves ORDINARY police action. The President may resort to this
THE CONGRESS promotion of a stable socio-economic growth and development.

extraordinary power whenever it becomes necessary to PREVENT or SUPPRESS lawless VIOLENCE, INVASION, or
REBELLION. The power to call is fully DISCRETIONARY to the President. Limitation: Must he act WITHIN permissible
constitutional boundaries or in a manner NOT constituting grave abuse of discretion. The actual use to which the President
puts the Armed Forces is NOT subject to Judicial Review.
POWER TO DECLARE MARTIAL LAW and TO SUSPEND THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS - involve
curtailment and suppression of civil rights and individual freedom. Declaration of Martial Law serves as a warning to
citizens that the Executive Department has called upon the military to assist in the maintenance of law and order, and
while the emergency remains, the citizens must, under pain of arrest and punishment, not act in a manner that will render
it more difficult to restore order and enforce the law. IT IS AN EXECUTIVE ACT.
1-time extension - consti is silent (thus, restrictions to the CONGRESS’ power is limited to: 1) president’s initiative 2) Grounded on the
President may put the ENTIRE Philippines or only A PART thereof under Martial Law. As the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, who
is the repository of vital, classified, and live information necessary for and relevant in CALIBRATING the TERRITORIAL
APPLICATION of Martial Law and the Suspension of the privilege of habeas corpus. The President has a WIDE ARRAY OF
INFORMATION before him, he also has the right, prerogative, and the means to access vital, relevant, and confidential
data, concomitant with his position as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the ARMED FORCES.
The Court MAY meddle but only to REVIEW FACTUAL BASIS for the declaration of martial and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus. BOTH are ALREADY LIMITED by the word “must be ACTUAL INVASION or REBELLION” AND PUBLIC SAFETY MUST require it.
MARTIAL LAW is a LAW OF NECESSITY. Necessity creates the conditions for martial law and at the same time limits the scope of martial law.
Petitioner: NOT CONCLUSIVE cos of different factual basis, suing the president for not following a constitutional requirement and
not for his capacity as a president as protected by presidential immunity. They further argued that, factual basis existing at the time
of first case must be used and CLEAR and CONVINCING EVIDENCE and NOT PROBABLE CAUSE must be used for extending.
Burden of proof is ONLY upon Congress and President and not petitioners. The congress committed grave abuse for extending.
Constitution only allows 1-time extension cos if not, it may lead to perpetuity. No actual rebellion, they merely constitute “imminent
danger”. Extension petition was NOT cited in President’s ORIGINAL PETITION. Should operate only in a THEATRE OF WAR. The
current situation may be quelled using LESSER extraordinary powers. PROPORTIONALITY TEST (gravity or scale as to demand
resort to the most extreme measures) and SUITABILITY TEST (WoN it is the right tool to used to succumb the existing
circumstance). Petioner’s FAILURE to submit JOINT RESOLUTION is NOT FATAL (court na yung bahala).
persistence of the invasion or rebellion andn the demands of public safety 3) Subject to Court’s review of the sufficiency of Factual
Basis upon the petition of ANY CITIZEN.
Their jurisdiction extends to 1) Review and Revocation of such proclamation and suspension and 2) Approval of extension 3)
Extension and Shortening of the proclamation and suspension.

ML and SWHB - are necessary for the protection of the SECURITY of the NATION. SWHB - is PRECAUTIONARY, THUS, when the NEED no longer exists, the President can LIFT the martial law imposition even before the end of the 1-year period.The Congress may
adn although it might CURTAIL certain rights of individuals, it is for the purpose of DEFENDING and PROTECTING also PASS a RESOLUTION PRE-terminating the extension. CONSTITUTIONALITY of EXTENSION is TRANSITORY or VALID AT THAT CERTAIN POINT OF
the security of the STATE or the ENTIRE COUNTRY and our SOVEREIGN PEOPLE. SWHB is a FORM OF TIME (thus any citizen MAY petition the court to review the proclamation/suspension for factual basis.
IMMOBILIZATION or as a MEAS OF IMMOBILIZING POTENTIAL INTERNAL ENEMIES. VALID ML and SWBH is

END
present when ACTUAL REBELLION/INVASION and the PUBLIC SAFETY requirement CONCUR. (Maute’s acts is not NOT EXCEEDING 60 days (unless extended by CONGRESS via President’s initiative)
only against the government but also against civilians and their properties.
48 hours after proclamation/suspension - President must report to BOTH houses of Congress.

SUFFICIENT not accurate FACTUAL BASIS. Court 24 hours upon proclamation/suspension - the congress, if NOT in session, may take actions even WITHOUT
any need of call (provided there is a MAJORITY votes of the congress for the support/revocation of the
President’s action.
review and Legislative revocation are INDEPENDENT Petition in court filed by concerned citizens must be decided by the court, and such decision must be
and different. Nullifying Calling Out power would not promulgated WITHIN 30 days after its filing.

equate to nullifying ML and SWHB. ML does NOT suspend the OPERATION of the CONSTITUTION. Civil courts must have jurisdiction if they are
able to function, NOT military courts.

PADILLA vs CONGRESS — G.R. NO. 231671 — July 25, 2017

Petitioner seeks to dclare the REFUSAL of the Congress to convene in joint session to
be grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction AND to direct
the Congress to convene in joint session.

Consequently, the Congress convened in joint session and approved by virtue of a

majority voe the extension of the proclamation and suspension in Mindanao

The Congress is NOT constitutionally mandated to convene in

joint session EXCEPT to vote JOINTLY to revoke or extend the
President’s declaration or suspension. There is NO
Constitutional provision governing concurrence by the Congress
in the President’s proclamation and/or suspension, and absent
specific mandate for the Cognress to hold a JOINT session in the
event of concurrence, then WON to hold a joint session under
such circumstances is completely within the discretion of the
Congress.

PRESIDENT MAY PROCLAIM ML AND/OR SUSPEND WHBC without CONCCURENCE from the CONGRESS. BUT the Congress MAY review and revoke the same.