Case Digest (G.R. No. 70748)
Facts:
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, et al. v. Hon. Juan Ponce Enrile, G.R. No. 70748, October 21, 1985, Supreme Court En Banc, Melencio-Herrera, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners — the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) and the Movement of Attorneys for Brotherhood, Integrity and Nationalism (MABINI) — filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus on behalf of three lawyers: Laurente C. Ilagan, Antonio B. Arellano, and Marcos D. Risonar, Jr. Respondents were Hon. Juan Ponce Enrile, Minister of National Defense; Lt. Gen. Fidel V. Ramos, Acting Chief of Staff; and Brig. Gen. Dionisio Tan‑Gatue, PC‑INP Regional Commander (Camp Catitipan, Davao City).
In May 1985 the three lawyers were arrested in Davao and detained at Camp Catitipan on the basis of military “mission orders” allegedly issued pursuant to a Preventive Detention Action (PDA) dated January 25, 1985. On May 16, 1985 the Court issued the writ and required a Return; a hearing was set for May 23. At the May 23 hearing the detained attorneys described their arrests and respondents presented military intelligence material. Lacking direct evidence tying the lawyers to subversive acts, the Court resolved to order temporary release on recognizance of the lawyers’ principal counsel (retired Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion and retired Justice J.B.L. Reyes) and allowed traverses and replies.
Respondents did not immediately release the lawyers. They filed an urgent motion for reconsideration (May 27), attaching classified military reports and affidavits asserting the lawyers’ subversive involvement; they also invoked Garcia‑Padilla v. Ponce Enrile to contend the Court could not inquire into detentions made under suspension of the writ. On May 27 the City Fiscal filed an Information for Rebellion (Criminal Case No. 12,349) against the three lawyers and a warrant of arrest issued; respondents moved to dismiss the habeas petition as moot and academic. Petitioners countered that no preliminary investigation had been conducted and that the Information was therefore void. After supplemental pleadings and authorities were exchang...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the filing of an Information for Rebellion and the issuance of a warrant by the Regional Trial Court render the habeas corpus petition moot and academic?
- Is habeas corpus an available remedy where the person is in custody by virtue of process issued by a court of record and the court had jurisdiction to issue the process?
- Was the Information for Rebellion validly filed without a preliminary investigation under the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, particularly S...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)