[Laurente Ilagan v. Hon.
Juan Ponce Enrile] (1985) suspended by virtue of Proclamation 2045-A; and that courts
[MELENCIO-HERRERA]
Summary and Doctrine:
This case gave birth to the Marcos-era legal principle
established by jurisprudence wherein a writ of habeas
corpus is no longer available after criminal information is
filed against the person detained and an arrest warrant or a
commitment order is issued by the court where the said
information has been filed. In what would be known as the
“Ilagan doctrine”, the unlawfulness of an arrest becomes
moot and academic or an illegal arrest becomes “legal”
once charges are filed in a court of law.
This doctrine was promulgated by the Supreme Court in
October 21, 1985. Ilagan refers to Laurente Ilagan, a legal
luminary in Davao City and former chairperson of Bagong
Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) Mindanao who was
arrested without warrant together with fellow lawyers
Antonio Arellano and Marcos Risonar by elements of the
Philippine Constabulary/Integrated National Police (PC-
INP). Enrile refers to then Minister of Defense (and now
Senator) Juan Ponce Enrile.
FACTS:
Ilagan, Arellano, and Risonar were arrested by the PC-INP
on the basis of a Preventive Detention Action (PDA) issued
by the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos on January 25,
1985. A PDA legitimizes a warrantless arrest. First to be
arrested and detained in Camp Catitipan, Davao City was
Ilagan on May 10. Arellano, meanwhile, was arrested when
he and 14 other lawyers from the Davao chapter of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) visited Ilagan on the
same day. Risonar was arrested on May 13 when he visited
Camp Catitipan to verify his arrest papers.
They were arrested, according to then Brig. Gen. Dionisio
Tan-Gatue, PC-INP Region IX Commander, for alleged
“specific acts of rebellion and economic sabotage as well as
for their leadership in the Communist Party of the Philippines
(CPP)”. He cited as well the participation of the detained
lawyers in a Welgang Bayan (People’s Strike) in Davao City.
Gen Tan-Gatue also accused the three of “using their
profession as lawyers as cover-up for their activities in
furtherance of CPP goals and objectives”.
Lawyers for Enrile, Gen. Tan-Gatue, and then acting Chief
of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Lt. Gen.
Fidel Ramos, named respondents in the case, justified the
arrest and detention of the lawyers by contending that it was
conducted under a PDA; that the writ of habeas corpus was
do not have the authority to inquire into the cause and
validity of detention of persons held pursuant to the
suspension.
(Proclamation 2045-A stated that the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus remains suspended in the two autonomous
regions of Mindanao and in all other places with respect to
persons detained or who will be detained for insurrection,
rebellion, subversion, economic sabotage, etc. It was an
amendment to Proclamation 2045 that supposedly lifted
Martial Law on January 17, 1981.)
While justifying the arrest and detention of the lawyers as
legitimate because of the PDA and Proclamation 2045, the
military’s lawyers filed an information for rebellion against
the detained attorneys before the Regional Trial Court of
Davao City Branch X on May 27, 1985 or 17 days after
Ilagan was arrested, which then became the basis of a
warrant of arrest.
No preliminary investigation was conducted. Lawyers of the
military then asked the SC to dismiss the petition for a writ
of habeas corpus because it was supposedly already
rendered moot and academic by the said filing of
information.
During the first hearing on the habeas corpus petition on
May 23, 1985 the SC actually ordered the immediate release
of the detained lawyers on recognizance of their principal
counsels – former Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion and
retired Associate Justice Jose B.L. Reyes. But the military
refused to honor the SC order to immediately release the
detainees with military officials saying that it had to be
verified from higher authorities. Then, as already mentioned,
a case was hastily filed before a trial court in Davao City four
days later.
Petitioners argued that the arrests were illegal; that the
Welgang Bayans were in legitimate exercise of the
constitutional right of expression and assembly to petition
the government for redress of grievances; that the detained
attorneys’ participation was limited to serving in the legal
panel and the negotiating panels; that Proclamation 2045
was unconstitutional because there exists no factual or legal
basis for the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus as
provided for in the 1973 Constitution; that the evidence
presented by respondents against the detained attorneys
were of a doubtful and flimsy nature; and that the PDA was
unconstitutional because it violates the 1973 Constitution
prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures.
ISSUE(S): Whether or not a petition for habeas corpus
should be granted in behalf of persons arrested and
detained without the basis of an arrest warrant.
RATIONALE:

On October 21, 1985, the SC ruled that the petition for

habeas corpus was already moot and academic since
Ilagan, Arellano, and Risonar were detained by virtue of a
warrant of arrest by Regional Trial Court of Davao City in
relation to a criminal case of rebellion filed against them
before the said court. It argued that the function of a special
proceeding of habeas corpus is to inquire into the legality of
one’s detention. But because the detained lawyers’
incarceration was already by virtue of a judicial action in
relation to a criminal case (no matter if such case was filed
more than two weeks after the arrests were made), the
remedy of habeas corpus supposedly no longer applies. The
SC added that questions to the legality of the arrest or lack
of preliminary investigation should be addressed to the
Davao City trial court.

DISPOSITIVE:

Ten justices voted for the dismissal of the petition, namely

Chief Justice Felix Makasiar and Associate Justices Efren
Plana, Venicio Escolin, Lorenzo Relova, Hugo Gutierrez Jr.,
Buenaventura Dela Fuente, Serafin Cuevas, Nestor
Alampay, Carolina Aquino, and Amurfina Melencio-Herrera.
Three Associate Justices, however, offered dissenting
opinions – Claudio Teehankee, Hermogenes Concepcion
Jr., and Vicente Abad Santos.

In his dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Teehankee,

wrote:

“More than four agonizing months after this Court issued its
near unanimous Resolution… ordering the immediate
release of the three petitioners-detainees… this Court has
now refused to enforce its own release order… It has instead
dismissed the petition for habeas corpus for having become
moot and academic because of the arbitrary filing of
precipitate, vindictive, and oppressive charges against them
for the capital crime of rebellion without hearing or
preliminary investigation and in gross violation of their
constitutional right and rudimentary requirements of due
process and fair play”.