“Only when the court is satisfied that a person is being unlawfully deprived of his liberty will the petition for habeas corpus be granted”
What is the writ of habeas corpus?
It is a writ that extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty or by which the rightful custody of a person is being withheld from the one entitled thereto (Rule 102, Section 1, Rules of Court).
The purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to determine whether or not a particular person is legally held.
“[It] was devised … as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint” (In the matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Eufemia E. Rodriguez, filed by Edgardo E. Veluz, v. Luisa Villanueva, et al., G.R. No. 169482, January 29, 2008).
The issuance of the writ contemplates two instances: (1) the deprivation of a person’s liberty either through illegal confinement or through detention; and (2) the withholding of the custody of any person from the one entitled to it (G.R. No. 169482, January 29, 2008).
Like many other common law writs, its history can be traced back to when legal procedure and administrative methods were indistinguishable from each other.
Thus, the writ of habeas corpus, together with the other prerogative writs of mandamus and certiorari, originated from a simple command handed down by the Crown to one of its officials (A Concise History of the Common Law, Theodore F.T. Plucknett).
In the reign of Edward I of England there were several varieties of habeas corpus, each serving different purposes, examples of which were to secure the appearance of a defendant or of jurymen.
Gradually, the courts acquired the habit of issuing the writ in order to bring before them persons who had been committed by inferior jurisdictions – particularly the courts of cities and local franchises (A Concise History of the Common Law).
Parties were even allowed to use this process when they had been committed by the judgment of local courts for debt so as to obtain their release and to defraud their creditors.
It is not surprising, therefore, to find a steady stream of legislation restricting the scope of habeas corpus (A Concise History of the Common Law).
It was in the 17th century that habeas corpus fought its greatest battle.
The Crown had established the right of imprisoning without trial upon a warrant signed by the Secretary of State and a few Privy Councilors, alleging “her Majesty’s special commandment.”
Against so serious a claim of State absolutism habeas corpus became, in the words of Selden, “the highest remedy in law for any man that is imprisoned” (A Concise History of the Common Law).
During this period, habeas corpus was steadily used and improved by the courts of common law; however, procedural difficulties stood in the way.
There were also doubts as to which courts were competent to issue it. Many of the defects were remedied in England’s Habeas Corpus Act of 1679, which included a mandate stating that “any… judge must issue the writ unless the prisoner… is committed by lawful means” (A Concise History of the Common Law).
In the 1772 case of Somerset v. Stewart involving the Return of a habeas corpus petition, Captain Knowles was required to show cause why the complainant Somerset, a black man, was seized and detained (98 English Reports 499).
A Return is equivalent to an Answer or Response to a Complaint, which requires an officer or the person holding another person in custody to state the cause of and the authority for the detention (Rule 102, Section 10).
Somerset had been a slave of Mr. Stewart, in Virginia, who had been purchased by the latter in the course of a slave trade in the African Coast.
Somerset was later brought by Mr. Stewart to England. However, as the latter intended to return to Jamaica, Somerset chose to leave the service, but was by force sent on board and detained by Captain Knowles until Mr. Stewart sets sail back to Jamaica (98 English Reports 499).
The important question to be answered is whether “the owner had a right to detain the slave … [as he was] to be sold in Jamaica” and whether the cause stated in the return is sufficient.
The Return states that “the slave departed and refused to serve; whereupon he was kept, to be sold abroad” (98 English Reports 499).
Lord Mansfield in ruling on the matter said “[T]he state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political… it is odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law … and therefore the black [Somerset] must be discharged” (98 English Reports 499).
Habeas corpus was first introduced in the Philippines in 1901 through Act 136 that conferred jurisdiction over it on the Supreme Court and the Court of First Instance (the precursor of the present Regional Trial Court).
When the court system was reorganized after World War II, jurisdiction over habeas corpus was also conferred on the newly created Court of Appeals (Republic Act 296, June 17, 1948).
The Judicial Reorganization Act of 1980 and its amendments (Republic Acts 7691 and 11576) retained the concurrent jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court over habeas corpus.
The importance of habeas corpus as a fundamental right is reflected in the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions.
When a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted, the writ shall be directed against the officer holding custody of the person or, in case the restraint is caused by a person not an officer, the person responsible for said detention; and he shall have to produce the body of the person restrained before the court or judge designated in the writ.
The officer shall also make a Return of the writ indicating the cause of the restraint or detention, among others (Rule 102, Sections 8 and 10).
A writ shall not be allowed if the person restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under a process issued by a court or judge, or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record.
Furthermore, a person charged with or convicted of an offense in the Philippines, or imprisoned under lawful judgment shall not be discharged by virtue of a writ (Rule 102, Section 4).
In passing over a petition for habeas corpus, the court or judge must first inquire into whether the petitioner is being restrained and his liberty restricted.
If he is not, the writ will be refused. Inquiry into the cause of detention will proceed only where such a restraint exists.
If the alleged cause is thereafter found to be unlawful, then the writ should be granted and the petitioner discharged, otherwise, the petition will be refused (G.R. No. 169482, January 29, 2008).
The writ of habeas corpus will not issue as a matter of course on the mere filing of the petition.
Judicial discretion is called for in its issuance and it must be clear to the judge that, prima facie, the petitioner is entitled to the writ.
Only when the court is satisfied that a person is being unlawfully deprived of his liberty will the petition for habeas corpus be granted (G.R. No. 169482, January 29, 2008).
