G.R. No. 70748 October 21, 1985 LAURENTE C. ILAGAN et al. vs. HON.

JUAN PONCE
ENRILE et al.
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

FACTS:
On May 10, 1985, Attorney Laurente C. Ilagan was arrested in Davao City by elements
of the PC-INP and detained at Camp Catitipan on the basis of a Mission Order
allegedly issued by the Ministry of National Defense. On that same day, fifteen
lawyers from the IBP Davao Chapter visited Atty. Ilagan. Thereafter, two other
petitioners were arrested for the same cause.
This petition for habeas corpus was then filed by and on behalf of the three arrested
lawyers hereinafter referred to as the detained attorneys on the ground that their
arrests were illegal and violative of the Constitution, since arrests cannot be made on
the basis of Mission Orders. and that there appears to be a military campaign to
harass lawyers involved in national security cases.
On May 16, 1985, the Court issued the Writ, required a Return, and set the petition
for hearing on May 23, 1985. Respondents contend that the lawyers were arrested
due to basis of a PDA issued by the President on January 25, 1985 and that the
lawyers played active roles in organizing mass actions of the Communist Party of the
Philippines and the National Democratic Front.

ISSUE:
Whether the petitioners herein were denied of their constitutional right to due
process and the benefit of a preliminary investigation.

HELD:
If the detained attorneys question their detention because of improper arrest, or that
no preliminary investigation has been conducted, the remedy is not a petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus but a Motion before the trial court to quash the Warrant of
Arrest, and /or the Information on grounds provided by the Rules or to ask for an
investigation / reinvestigation of the case. Habeas corpus would not lie after the
Warrant of commitment was issued by the Court on the basis of the Information filed
against the accused. So is it explicitly provided for by Section. 14, Rule of 102 of the
Rules of Court.
The right to a preliminary investigation, being waivable, does not argue against the
validity of the proceedings, the most that could have been done being to remand the
case in order that such investigation could be conducted.