Writ of Habeas Corpus Flashcards
Sec. 15, Art. III.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of _______ or ________ when the ___________ requires it.
invasion;
rebellion;
public safety
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of _______ or ________ when the ___________ requires it
Sec. 18, Art. VII. (1)
The President shall be the ________________ of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may _____ such armed forces to prevent or suppress ________, _______ or __________. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the ___________ requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding __________, suspend the privilege of the ______________ or place the Philippines or any part thereof under ____________.
Commander-in-Chief; call out; lawless violence; invasion; rebellion; public safety; sixty days; writ of habeas corpus; martial law
Sec. 18, Art. VII. (2)
Within ____________ from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a ______________ or in ______ to the ___________.
forty-eight hours;
report in person;
writing;
Congress
Sec. 18, Art. VII. (3)
The Congress, voting ______, by a vote of at least a _______ of ___ its Members in regular or special session, may _____ such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President.
jointly;
majority;
all;
revoke
Sec. 18, Art. VII. (4)
Upon the initiative of the ______, the Congress may, in the same manner, ______ such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the ________, if the _______________ shall persist and ____________requires it.
President; extend; Congress; invasion or rebellion; public safety;
Sec. 18, Art. VII. (5)
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within ______________ following such proclamation or suspension, ______ in accordance with its rules without need of a ___.
twenty-four hours;
convene;
call;
Sec. 18, Art. VII. (6)
The ____________ may review, in an appropriate proceeding; filed by ___________, the sufficiency of the ___________ of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within ____________ from its filing.
Supreme Court;
any citizen;
factual basis;
thirty days;
Sec. 18, Art. VII. (7)
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the __________, nor supplant the functioning of the ________ or __________, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on ___________ and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the _________________.
Constitution; civil courts; legislative assemblies; military courts; privilege of the writ
Sec. 18, Art. VII. (8)
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for __________ or offenses inherent in or directly connected with _________.
rebellion;
invasion
What is the Writ of Habeas Corpus?
A writ issued by a court directed to a person detaining another, commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place, with the day and cause of his caption and detention, to do, to submit to, and to receive whatever the court or judge awarding the writ shall consider in his behalf
[Sombong v. CA, G.R. No. 111876 (1990)].
When is the Writ of Habeas Corpus applicable?
- A prime specification of an application for a writ of habeas corpus is involuntary restraint of liberty.
- Voluntary restraint of liberty i.e. right of parents to regain custody of minor child even if the child is in the custody of a third person of her own free will. [Sombong v. CA, supra]
- Illegal arrest with supervening event when restraint of liberty is already by virtue of the complaint or information [Velasco v. CA, G.R. No. 118644 (1995)]. a. The issuance of a judicial process preventing the discharge of the detained person.
b. Another is the filing of a complaint or information for the offense for which the accused is detained. [Sec. 4, Rule 102] - Where a sentence imposes punishment in excess of the power of the court to impose, such sentence is void as to the excess [Gumabon v. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-30026 (1971)].
- “Habeas corpus is the proper remedy for a person deprived of liberty due to mistaken identity. In such cases, the person is not under any lawful process and is continuously being illegally detained” [In the Matter of Petition for Habeas Corpus of Datukan Malang Salibo, G.R. No. 197597 (2015)].
Does the restraint of libery need to be related to any offense to entitle a person to the efficient remedy of habeas corpus?
NO.
The nature of the restraint of liberty need not be related to any offense so as to entitle a person to the efficient remedy of habeas corpus. It may be availed of as a post-conviction remedy or when there is an alleged violation of the liberty of abode. In other words, habeas corpus effectively substantiates the implied autonomy of citizens constitutionally protected in the right to liberty in Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution. Habeas corpus being a remedy for a constitutional right, courts must apply a conscientious and deliberate level of scrutiny so that the substantive right to liberty will not be further curtailed in the labyrinth of other processes. [In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Datukan Malang Salibo, supra]
Is physical restraint necessary to avail of the writ of habeas corpus?
NO.
Restraint on Freedom of action is sufficient.
What are some instances where there is restraint on freedon warranting the writ of habeas corpus?
(1) curtailed freedom of movement by the condition that he must get approval of respondents for any travel outside Metro Manila,
(2) abridged liberty of abode because prior approval of respondent is required in case petitioner wants to change place of residence,
(3) abridged freedom of speech due to prohibition from taking any interviews inimical to national security, and
(4) petitioner is required to report regularly to respondents or their reps [Moncupa v. Enrile, G.R. No. L-63345 (1986)].
Is a restrictive custody and monitoring of movement or whereabouts of police officers under investigatio by their superiors a form of illegal detention or restraint on liberty?
NO.
This Court has held that a restrictive custody and monitoring of movements or whereabouts of police officers under investigation by their superiors is not a form of illegal detention or restraint of liberty [Ampatuan v. Macaraig, G.R. No. 182497 (2010)].
