Habeas Corpus should be part of every individual’s fundamental rights NOT

subject to restriction or suspension.

The Latin phrase habeas corpus means “you may have the body.” The privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus refers to a common-law tradition that establishes a
person’s right to appear before a judge before being imprisoned.

As per definition, it is a law stating that an individual cannot be imprisoned or held

in custody inside a prison cell unless he/she has first been brought before a court of
law, which decides whether or not it is legal for the person to be kept in prison.

Simply put, it is a legal remedy that protects citizens from unlawful arrests and
indefinite detentions. And there are three concepts so related to this right of habeas
corpus: Three principles of substantial importance in our legal system and which are
also the foundation of this call for the unlimited exercise of the right of habeas
corpus.

In Philippine jurisdiction, the present 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III,

Section 15 provides that “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.

Do not get me wrong, known is the fact that the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus is primarily for the security of the State. It is founded upon the
principle that the state has a right to protect itself against those who would destroy
it, -whoever they may be, what race they may be - and has therefore been likened to
the right of an individual to self-defense.

While that is true, it will be bringing harm to the very mass the state protects, it will
be tantamount to treating your people, your enemy by positioning them in the midst
of where your cannons face.

When the privilege of the writ is suspended, the prisoner is denied the right to
secure such a writ and therefore can be held without trial indefinitely. Basically,
rights on proper detention nullified. Suspects are jailed. No charges filed. A grave
violation human rights, due process of law, right to liberty.

The suspension, being an exceedingly broad mandate may precipitate a civil liberties
disaster allowing local officers to decide arbitrarily who is loyal and disloyal without
considering and realizing the administration’s main goal.

The safeguards of the 1987 Constitution on the suspension of the writ of Habeas
corpus are there because of official abuse/misuse decades ago. Yes, gentlemen and
ladies, I am talking about Martial Law a dark period in recent Philippine history.
***Boni Ilagan story. There were tens of thousands like Boni Ilagan. And learning
from the lessons of Martial Law, the 1987 Constitution included additional
conditions under Article 7 Section 18.

60 days period
Submission of Report to the Congress within 48 hours
Power of the Congress to revoke such proclamation
Review of the Supreme Court

All with time restraints and deadlines so as to hasten the remedy on the afflicted
rights of the people.

This is a clear admission even by our law makers that the suspension of the writ
bring great peril to the rights and consequently even to the lives of the people. This
is another darker shade in the image of necessity that the government side is trying
to paint here: That not only the life to liberty is at stake, but the right to life as well.
What am I talking about?

***Liliosa Hilao story. She is only one of the many tragic stories recorded during the
periods when the privilege of the writ of the habeas corpus is suspended.

Summary arrests and the harsh application of military justice, stemming from
apprehension and fear for the emergency of armed rebellion. And no real threat and
no evidence that the government could be torn pieces and that every one of the
arrested suspected rebels are those responsible for it.

Due process of law teach us that it is a sin to declare one guilty and subject him to
the punitive penalties of the law without proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Determined by courts of justice alone and not by pawns of politics or military justice.
Jurisprudence has time and again proven that habeas corpus is of a political
question:

Barcelon v Baker 1965

Montenegro v castaneda 1949
Aquino v Enrile 1974
Garcia-Padilla v Enrile 1983

If provided by law, that the privileged of the writ of habeas corpus must not be
restricted or suspended in any circumstance, as we propose, the issues involving
human rights, due process of law, right to liberty will nolonger be subject ot political
question or the imposed t military justice but an absolute right rooted in the
fundamental law of the land. It is firm serves no other master other than the people’s
rights.

In this platform today, lies the firm belief that the right of habeas corpus should not
be limited. Instead, it should thrive in absolute applicability and exercise made
possible through the amendment of the Constitution. If the exception clause must
remain, then the phrase in the number one provision in the Bill of Rights stating that
no person shall be deprived of liberty must be stricken.

This is the magnitude of necessity, beneficially and practicability of our cause.