HABEAS CORPUS

Provisions of the Rule that were asked in 2010 – 2019

bar exams.
1. Sec. 1, Rule 102
2. Sec. 2, Rule 102
3. Sec. 3, Rule 102
4. Sec. 4, Rule 102
5. Sec. 10, Rule 102
DEFINITION
A writ directed to the 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
capture and detention, to do, submit and
receive whatsoever the court or judge
awarding the writ shall consider in that
behalf.
WHAT CASES DOES HABEAS CORPUS
EXTEND?
Except as otherwise expressly provided by
law, the writ of habeas corpus shall extend
to all cases of:
1. Illegal confinement or detention by which
any person is deprived of his liberty; and
2. By which the rightful custody of any
person is withheld from the person
entitled thereto except as otherwise
expressly provided by law
WHAT ARE THE TWO STAGES OF WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS?
1. A person is restrained of his liberty may
be released from any kind of illegal
detention
2. Are detained from the control of those
who are entitled to their custody. It
requires the determination of whether his
detention or confinement is illegal or not or
whether by his detention, another person
is deprived of his legal custody over him.
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (1)
RTC – Muntinlupa grants Juanito Itaas’
(country’s longest held political
prisoner) petition for writ of habeas
corpus, which enabled his release.

(First week of January 2022)

POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (1)
Is the petition of Itaas’ meritorious?

According to Judge Gito Gener, Itaas was able

to completely serve his prison term and that he
should benefit from the credits he earned
under the GCTA Law. Hence, to further restrain
him of his liberty despite his full service of
sentence would appear that his detention or
confinement is illegal. (Go back to the two
stages of the writ of habeas corpus.)
CONCEPT OF RESTRAINT
 “Restraint” must be actual, and not
merely nominal or moral, restraint is
required
 Actual physical restraint is not always
required, any restraint which will prejudice
freedom of action is sufficient.
The burden of proving illegal restraint rest
on the petitioner who attaches such
restraint.
WHO MAY GRAT THE WRIT?
1. SC – writ is enforceable throughout the
Philippines.
2. CA – writ is enforceable throughout the
Philippines.
3. RTC – writ is enforceable within its
respective judicial region.
4. No RTC Judge – MTC
5. SB only is it is in aid of appellate
jurisdiction
REQUISITES OF APPLICATION
It shall be by PETITION SIGNED AND
VERIFIED either by:
1. The party for whose relief it is
intended, or
2. By some person on his behalf
WHEN WRIT NOT ALLOWED OR DISCHARGE
AUTHORIZED?
1. If it appears that the person alleged to be
restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an
officer under process issued by a court or
judge;
2. By virtue of a judgment or of a court of
records, and that the court or judge had
jurisdiction to render the judgment;
3. A person charged with or convicted of an
offense in the Philippines, or of a person
suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment.
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (2)
Sec. 29 or Detention Without Judicial
Warrant of Arrest of the Anti-Terrorism
Act, specifically on the 14-day
detention of suspected person and may
further be extended for a maximum
period of 10 days.
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (2)
During the Oral Argument between
Justice Leonen and Atty. Colmenares,
the former posed a question with the
latter that, “If a person is detained
because of a provision now in the
ATA, is a [petition for] habeas
corpus still applicable?”
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (2)
Atty. Colmenares answered that the
accused may still pursue the petition
for writ of habeas corpus, but he
pointed out that the ATA specifically has
a section on allowing “detention without
judicial warrant and authorization of the
ATC was empowered by the law.”
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (2)
Leonen pointed out: So the accused,
even with ATA in effect, retains his
right and still file a petition for
habeas corpus.
Leonen, however, noted that the
petition for writ of habeas corpus will be
filed to a court of law, even to the
Supreme Court.
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (2)
“Part of the way that we can clarify is
it’s possible to file a petition for habeas
corpus and when the petition is filed, it
is up to the court to attend at that
moment to see whether the three
days or the 14 days [of detention]
will apply….”
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (2)
In relation with the case of Lagman vs.
Medialdea (2017) – PRRD declared a State
of Martial Law and suspending the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao.
The SC ruled that, “Terrorism or acts
attributable to terrorism may be equivalent to
actual rebellion and the requirements of
public safety sufficient to declare martial law
or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus.”
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (2)
Note that habeas corpus will not be
suspended but only the privilege of writ
of habeas corpus by reason of the
gravity of the alleged or suspected act
and going back to the argument of
Justice Leonen, “…it is up to the court to
attend at that moment to see whether
the three days or the 14 days [of
detention] will apply….”
WHAT IS THE IMPLICATION OF RETURN?

The allegation in the return is deemed

admitted if the same are not
controverted. This being so the failure to
file a return notwithstanding an order
requiring petitioner to reply thereto,
amounts to an admission of the truth of
the facts stated in the return and justifies
dismissal of the petition for habeas
corpus.
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (3)
Agcaoili, Jr. et.al. [Petitioners] “Imee” Marcos [Co-
Petitioner] vs. Rep. Farinas, et.al (July 3, 2018)

Petitioners alleged that during the inquiry conducted by

the House Committee, they were subjected to threats
and intimidation. Further, they were asked “leading and
misleading questions” and that regardless of their
answers, the same were similarly treated as evasive.
They were also cited for contempt and ordered detained
for refusing to answer and were not be able to recall the
transactions Farinas alluded to.
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (3)
They filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus and while it was
still pending in the CA, the House Committee lifted the
contempt order and ordered their release on the same
date.

Doctrine: With the subsequent release of all petitioners

from detention, their petition for HC has been rendered
moot. The rule is that courts of justice constituted to
pass upon substantial rights will not consider where
no actual interest are involved and thus, will not
determine a moot question as the resolution thereof will
be of no practical value.
 WRIT OF AMPARO
Provisions of the Rule that were asked in 2010 – 2019
bar exam.
1. Sec. 1
2. Sec. 2
3. Sec. 11
4. Sec. 20
5. Sec. 21
6. Sec. 22
7. Sec. 23
DEFINITION
It is a remedy available to any person
whose right to life, liberty, and security
has been violated or is threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or omission
of a public official or employee, or of a
private individual or entity. The writ was
intended to address extra-legal
killings and enforced disappearances.
EXTRA-LEGAL KILLINGS
These are killings committed without
due process of law, i.e., without legal
safeguards or judicial proceedings.
ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES
An (1) arrest, detention, or abduction of a
person (2) by a government official or
organized groups or private individual acting
with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the
government; (3) the refusal of the State to
disclose the fate or whereabouts of the
person concerned or a refusal to
acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which
(4 - PURPOSE) places such persons outside
the protection of the law.
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (1)
Raymart Santiago & Claudine Barreto
vs. Tulfo (Brothers) (Oct. 21, 2015)
Basis filing the petition: Commotion in
NAIA 3 between Raymart and Mon
Tulfo. Days after the incident, the Tulfo
Brothers on their TV Program
threatened the spouses they will
retaliate.
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (1)
Petition is denied. Take note of the definition
of Extralegal Killings and Enforced
Disappearances. In this case, Their petition
is merely anchored on a broad invocation of
respondents’ purported violation of their
right to life and security, carried our by
private individuals without any showing
of direct or indirect government
participation.
MAY ANY PERSON FILE A PETITION FOR THE
WRIT OF AMPARO?
No, while “any person” may file a petition for
the writ of habeas corpus, in a petition for the
writ of amparo, the order of priority on who
can file the petition should be strictly followed.

Note: The filing of the petition by an

authorized party on behalf of the aggrieved
party suspends the right of all others,
observing the order established herein.
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (2)
Callo vs. Commissioner Jaime Morente
(Sept. 19, 2017)

Basis of the petition: Danielle Parker was

arrested and detained on the premise that
Danielle Nopuente, a fugitive in the US,
are one and the same person. He is now
being subjected to deportation. Callo filed
the petition.
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (2)
SC ruled that Amparo was not proper. There was no
threat of enforced disappearance as the elements
thereof were not present.

Further, there was no allegation nor proof that the

missing person had no immediate family members,
ascendant, descendant or collateral relatives, within the
4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity. No allegation
was made on any of the familial relationship of Parker as
only her whereabouts from 2011 were alleged and
discussed. Thus, based on the order of priority,
petitioner has no legal standing to file the petition.
ARCHIVING OF AN AMPARO CASE IS ALLOWED

The Amparo rule sanctions the

archiving of cases, provided that it is
impelled by a valid cause, such as
when the witness fail to appear due to
threats on their lives or to similar
analogous cases that would prevent
the court from effectively hearing and
conducting the amparo proceedings.
(Balao vs. Ermita [Aug. 1, 2017])
SEPARATE ACTIONS
 The rules does not preclude the filing
of separate criminal, civil, or
administrative claims.
 When a criminal action has been
commenced, no separate petition for
the writ shall be filed. The reliefs under
the writ shall be available by motion in
the criminal case.
CONSOLIDATION
 When a criminal action is filed
subsequent to the filing of petition for the
writ, the latter (writ) shall be
consolidated with the criminal action.
 When a criminal action and a separate
civil action are filed subsequent to a
petition for a writ of amparo, the latter
(writ) shall be consolidated with the
criminal action
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
Provisions of the Rule that were asked in
2010 – 2019 bar exams.
1. Sec. 1
NOTE
 The provisions of the Rule on the
Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data are
almost similar.
 Notable distinction between the two
is its definition under Sec. 1 and
persons who can file under Sec. 2.
DEFINITION
It is 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 of data or information
regarding the person, family, home and
correspondents of the aggrieved party.
WHO MAY FILE?
General Rule: Any aggrieved party
Exception: In cases of extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances, the petition MAY be filed
by:
1. Any member of the immediate family of the
aggrieved party, namely: the spouse, children
and parents or
2. Any ascendants, descendant or collateral
relative of the aggrieved party within the 4th civil
degree of consanguinity of affinity, in default of
those mentioned in the preceding paragraph
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (1)
De Lima vs. Pres. Duterte (Oct. 15, 2019)
PRRD and De Lima has been throwing accusations with
each other for the longest time. In one of the statement
made by PRRD, he uttered, “If I were De Lima, ladies and
gentlemen, I’ll hang myself. Your life has been, hindi lang
life, the innermost of your core as a female is being
serialized everyday. Dapat kang mag-resign. You resign.
And “De Lima better hang yourself… Hindi ka na naghiya
sa sarili mo. Any other woman would have slashed her
throat. You? Baka akala mo artista ka. Mga artistang x-
rated paglabas sa, paktapos ng shooting, nakangiti…”
According to De Lima, the statements are threatening and
that it violative of her right to life, liberty and security,
hence, the filing of the writ.
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (1)
Ruling: Dismissed by reason of
presidential immunity from suit.
BUT ....
Justice Leonen made a separate
concurring opinion.
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (1)
Presidential immunity from suit only extends
to civil, criminal, and administrative liability. A
proceeding for the issuance of a writ of
habeas data, as in this case, does not
determine any such liability. The Rule on the
Writ of Habeas Data only requires courts to
ascertain the accountability and responsibility
of the public official or employee. Thus, the
President cannot invoke immunity from suit in
a petition for such writ.
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (1)
However, the proper respondent in a
habeas data case for pronouncement
made by the President in his official
capacity is the Executive Secretary,
following the ruling in Aguinaldo vs.
Aquino III. This is in accord with the
doctrine that the president should not be
impleaded any suit during his or her
incumbency
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (2)
Red-Tagging: In the case of Gen. Bautista vs. Atty.
Dannug-Salucon (Jan. 23, 2018)

Respondent was labelled by the PNP as a “Red Lawyer”

and was subjected to surveillance or background
investigation. This info was relayed to her paralegal who
upon informing the respondent was gunned down.

She was constantly followed by persons whom she does

not recognized. For this reason, she filed a petition for
the issuance of a writ of habeas data.
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (2)
Red-Tagging: In the case of Gen. Bautista vs. Atty.
Dannug-Salucon (Jan. 23, 2018)

Respondent was labelled by the PNP as a “Red Lawyer”

and was subjected to surveillance or background
investigation. This info was relayed to her paralegal who
upon informing the respondent was gunned down.

She was constantly followed by persons whom she does

not recognized. For this reason, she filed a petition for
the issuance of a writ of habeas data.
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (2)
Petition is granted.

The writ of habeas data is an independent and

summary remedy designed to protect the image,
privacy, honor, information, and freedom of
information of individual, and to informational
privacy. It seeks to protect a person’s right to
control information regarding oneself, particularly in
instances in which such information is being
collected through unlawful means in order to
achieve unlawful ends.
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (2)
There was no question that the civilian asset of the PNP
Intelligence Section relayed to the respondent that there
was a standing order issued by the PNP Isabela Provincial
Police Office to the PNP office in Burgos, Isabela to
conduct a background investigation in order to confirm if
she was a “Red Lawyer.” She was also under actual
surveillance by different individuals who looked like they
were members of the military or police establishments.
The objective of these moves taken against her was
unquestionably to establish a pattern of her movements
and activities, as well as to obtain the records of the cases
she was handling for her various clients.
WRIT OF KALIKASAN
NATURE OF THE WRIT
The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical
person, entity authorized by law, people’s 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.
REQUISITE
1. There is an actual or threatened violation of the
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology;
2. The actual or threatened violation arises from an
unlawful act or omission or omission of a public
official or employee, or private individual or entity;
3. The actual or threatened violation involves or will
lead to an environmental damage of such magnitude
as to prejudice the life, health or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
(Segovia vs. Climate Change Commission (2017))
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (1)
EFFECTS OF DUMPING DOLOMITE
IN MANILA BAY.

While the SC has not yet decided on

the petition for the issuance of the writ.
You had to assess the facts and relate
it to the requisites provided.
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION ()
EFFECTS OF DUMPING DOLOMITE
IN MANILA BAY.

While the SC has not yet decided on

the petition for the issuance of the writ.
You had to assess the facts and relate
it to the requisites provided.
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (2)
AGHAM vs. Japan Tobacco International
(Mighty Cigarettes) (June 15, 2021)

Basis for filing: The destruction through co-

processing of the said cigarettes, under the
brand names “Mighty Mentol 100s,”
Marvels FK,” and “Marvels King Full” from
Mighty Corporation, (MC) was in violation
of environmental laws.
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (2)
“Considering all the foregoing, the petition is not
sufficient in form and substance as AGHAM failed
to discharge the burden to prove the requirements
for the issuances of a writ of kalikasan. In sum,
there is no clear showing that respondents
committed an act or omission violative of any
environmental law which resulted or will result in
an environmental damage of such magnitude that
would infringe the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology healthful ecology,”
POSSIBLE BAR QUESTION (2)
Petition is denied:

A writ of kalikasan is aimed to provide a stronger

protection of environmental rights in order to accord
an effective and speedy remedy where the
constitutional right to a healthful and balance
ecology is violated and address any possible large-
scale ecological threats. The party seeking the
issuance of a writ of kalikasan must demonstrate
that a particular law, rule, or regulation was or would
be violated by the respondent.
 GOOD LUCK
FUTURE ABOGADOS!
SOON, YOU’LL HAVE YOUR OWN STORY TO
SHARE ON HOW YOU CONQUERED THE 2020-21
BAR EXAM!