THE WRITS

Oro, Aleine Leilanie B.

The Writs
Habeas Corpus
Habeas Data
Amparo
Kalikasan

Writ of Habeas Data

Sec. 1,
Thewrit of habeas datais a remedy available

to any person whose right to privacy in life,

liberty or security is violated or threatened
by an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or of a private individual or
entity engaged in the gathering, collecting
or storing ofdata or information regarding
the
person,
family,
home
and
correspondence of the aggrieved party.

Writ of Amparo
Sec.1, The Rule on the Writ of Amparo
The petition for the writ of amparo is a remedy

available to any person whose right to life,

liberty and security is violated or
threatened with violation by an unlawful act
or omission of a public official or
employee, or of a private individual or
entity.
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances or threats thereof

Writ of Kalikasan
Sec. 1 , Rule 7, Rules of Procedure for

Environmental Cases
The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical

person, entity authorized by law, peoples

organization, non-governmental organization, or any
public interest group accredited by or registered with
any government agency, on behalf of persons whose
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by
an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or private individual or entity, involving
environmental damage of such magnitude as to
prejudice the life, health or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

Sec. 15, Art. III

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus

shall not be suspended except in cases of

invasion or rebellion, when the public safety
requires it.

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 receive whatever the

court or judge awarding the writ shall consider

in his behalf

a prerogative writ employed to test the

validity of detention
to secure the detainees release
The action shall take precedence in the
calendar of the court and must be acted upon
immediately

When available (not

exclusive)
restoration of liberty of an individual subjected

to physical restraint, such as arbitrary detention

may be availed of where, as a consequence of a
judicial proceeding:
there has been deprivation of a constitutional

right resulting in the restraint of the person

the court has no jurisdiction to impose the
sentence, or
an excessive penalty has been imposed, since
such sentence is void as to the excess.

May be extended to cases by which rightful

custody of any person is withheld from the

person entitled thereto
When moral restraint is exerted (Caunca vs
Salazar)
Right was accorded a person was sentenced
to a longer penalty than was subsequently
meted out to another person convicted of the
same offense. (Gumabon vs Director of
Prisons)
Unlawful denial of bail

Procedure and Ground for

Suspension of Habeas corpus
NOTE: it is not the writ itself but only its
privilege that may be suspended
1. An application for habeas corpus is filed
2. The court will check if petition is in proper form
3. The court will issue the writ as a matter of course,
ordering the production of the person allegedly
detained and requiring the respondent to justify
detention
4. If the person being held under Sec. 15, Art III and
in a place where it is effective, the petition is
dismissed
5. In all other cases, it will continue the proceedings
to determine the validity of persons detention

Who may suspend the privilege

The President
However, it may be revoked by Congress and
Supreme Court in proper cases
Grounds for Suspension of the privilege
Sec. 15, Art III
invasion or rebellion
when public safety requires it

Must be read with Sec. 18, Art VII

The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all

armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it

becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces
to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the
public safety requires it, he may, for a period not
exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part
thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from
the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President
shall submit a report in person or in writing to the
Congress. x x x.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four
hours following such proclamation or suspension,
convene in accordance with its rules without need of a
call.

The

Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate

proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its
decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the
Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or
legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of
jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians
where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or
offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially
charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.

Barcelon v. Baker
J Johnson

FACTS
At

the early years of theAmerican Rule in the

Philippines, lawlessness was rampant and criminal
activities were at large.Governor-GeneralJames
Francis Smith, with the consent of thePhilippine
Commission, suspended the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus in the provinces of Batangasand
Cavite. The case is an application by Fred C. Fisher and
Charles C. Cohn, attorneys at law, on behalf of the
plaintiff, Felix Barcelon, for a writ of habeas corpus.
Felix Barcelon was allegedly detained and restrained of
his liberty at the town of Batangas by John Doe
Thompson without legal authority

ISSUE
Whether or not the judicial department of the

Government may investigate the facts upon

which the legislative and executive branches
of the Government acted in providing for the
suspension and in actually suspending the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus?

HELD
The Supreme Court issued a ruling sustaining

the suspension of the privilege of the writ. It

said that the decision of the Governor-General
is his duty on his part, and that the court
cannot question the acts of the executive and
legislative branches of government. Simply
put, the suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus is apolitical questionthat
courts cannot decide upon.

Montenegro v. Castaneda
J Bengzon

FACTS
The purpose of this appeal from the CFI of Quezon City is to

test the validity of Proclamation No. 210 suspending the

privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
October 18, 1950 - About 5 o clock in the morning,
Maximino Montenegro was arrested with others at the
Samanillo Bldg. Manila by agents of the Military Intelligence
Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, for
complicity with a communistic organization in the
commission of the acts of rebellion, insurrection or sedition.
October 21 Maximinos father submitted this application
for a writ of habeas corpus
October 22 President issued Proclamation No. 210,
suspending the priviledge of habeas corpus

ISSUE
Whether or not the suspension of the privilege

of writ of habeas corpus of Maximo

Montenegro is valid?

HELD
YES
The determination by the President of the

Philippines of the existence of any of the

grounds prescribed by the Constitution for the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus should be conclusive upon the
courts.
The justification was that the President, with all
the intelligence sources available to him as
commander-in-chief, was in a better position
than the Supreme Court to ascertain the real
state of peace and order in the country

Proclamation 210 was held valid and efficient

in law to suspend all proceedings pending

upon habeas corpus, which was issued and
served prior