ROTC MS 1:

MILITARY CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT MODULE

RULE OF LAW
OBJECTIVES:

At the end of this module, you will be able to:

1. Do your part as a citizens of the Philippines;

2. Understand your rights and responsibilities as citizens of the Philippines;
3. Understand the International Human Rights Law; and
4. Understand how the Writ of Habeas Corpus works.

PREAMBLE

RECOGNIZING that respect for human rights and international humanitarian law is crucial
importance and urgent necessity in laying the ground for just and lasting peace;

CONSIDERING that a comprehensive agreement on respect for human rights and international
humanitarian law should take into account the current human rights situation in the Philippines
and the historical experience of the Filipino people;

AFFIRMING that the principles of human rights and international humanitarian law are
universally applicable;

ACKNOWLEDGING that the prolonged armed conflict in the Philippines necessitates the
application of the principles of human rights and the principle of international humanitarian law;

REAFFIRMING their continuing commitment to the aforesaid principles and their application;

REALIZING the necessity and significance of assuming separate duties and responsibilities for
upholding, protecting and promoting the principles of human rights and the principles of
international humanitarian law;

UPHOLDING and complying with the mutually acceptable principles as well as the common
goals and objectives in the Hague Declaration of September 1, 1992, the Breukelen Joint
Statement of June 14, 1994 and pertinent joint agreements hitherto signed; and,

FULLY AWARE of the need for effective mechanisms and measures for upholding, protecting,
and promoting the principles of International Humanitarian Law in a comprehensive agreement;

SOLEMNLY ENTER without reservation into this Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for
Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law.

RULE OF LAW 1|Page

 ARTICLE III
BILL OF RIGHTS

SECTION TEXT
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
1
nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
2 except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except
upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires
3 otherwise, as prescribed by law.
2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the
4 press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances.
No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession
5
and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No
religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law
shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right
6
to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or
public health, as may be provided by law.
The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to
7 official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data
used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to
such limitations as may be provided by law.
The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private
8 sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law
shall not be abridged.
9 Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
10 No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.
Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal
11
assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.
12 1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have
the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent
and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which
vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places,
solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof

RULE OF LAW 2|Page

 shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this
section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or
similar practices, and their families.
All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion
perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by
13 sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law.
The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process
of law.
2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and
counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
14 him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face
to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused
provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases
15
of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all
16
judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
17 No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and
aspirations.
18
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment inflicted. Neither shall the death penalty be imposed, unless, for
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter
provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to
19
reclusion perpetua.
(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against
any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal
facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.
20 No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If
21 an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either
shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
22 No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

RULE OF LAW 3|Page

HUMAN RIGHTS

HUMAN RIGHTS are generally defined as those rights, which are inherent in our nature, and
without which, we cannot live as human beings. Human rights and fundamental freedoms allow
us to develop and use our human qualities, intelligence, talents and conscience, and to satisfy
our spiritual and other needs. The dignity of man and human life is inviolable. The denial of
human rights and fundamental freedoms not only is an individual and personal tragedy, but also
creates social and political unrest, sowing the seeds of violence and conflict within a between
societies and nations; as the first sentence of the universal declaration of human rights states,
“Respect for human rights and human dignity is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in
the world.”

Definition

 Philippine Commission on Human Rights – Human rights are supreme, inherent and
inalienable rights to life, dignity and self-development.
 Man’s Responsibility in Human Society – While freedom gives man the right to make
moral decisions, he is responsible for doing so and has to answer to his own
conscience.
 Basic Characteristics of Human Rights – Human rights are generally characterized as
inherent, fundamental, inalienable, imprescriptibly, indivisible, universal and
interdependent.
 Civil and Political Rights as Applied in the Philippines – The ideal of free human
beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only
be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy civil and political
rights as well as his economic, social and cultural rights.

Section 17. 1987 Constitution

(1) There is hereby created an independent office called the Commission on Human Rights.

(2) The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and four Members who must be natural-
born citizens of the Philippines and a majority of whom shall be members of the Bar. The
term of office and other qualifications and disabilities of the Members of the Commission
shall provided by law.

(3) Until this Commission is constituted, the existing Presidential Committee on Human Rights
shall continue to exercise its present functions and powers.

(4) The approved annual appropriations of the Commission shall be automatically and regularly
released.

Section 18. The Commission on Human Rights shall have the following powers and functions:

(1) Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations
involving civil and political rights;

(2) Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for violations
thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court;

RULE OF LAW 4|Page

(3) Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons within
the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for preventive measures
and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or
need protection;

(4) Exercise visitatorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities;

(5) Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to enhance respect
for the primacy of human rights;

(6) Recommend to the Congress effective measures to promote human rights and to provide
for compensation to victims of violations of human rights, or their families;

(7) Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with international treaty obligations on
human rights;

(8) Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession of
documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any
investigation conducted by it or under its authority;

(9) Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in the performance of
its functions;

(10) Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law; and

(11) Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law.

Section 19 The Congress may provide for other cases of violations of human rights that should
fall within the authority of the Commission, taking into account its recommendations.

WHAT IS INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW? (IHL)

IHL is a set of international rules, established by treaty or custom, which are specifically
intended to solve humanitarian problems directly arising from international or non-international
armed conflicts. It protects persons and property that are, or may be, affected by an armed
conflict and limits the rights of the parties to a conflict to use methods and means of warfare of
their choice. IHL main treaty sources applicable in international armed conflict are the four
Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocol I of 1977. The main treaty sources
applicable in non-international armed conflict are article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions
and Additional Protocol II of 1977.

WHAT IS INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW? (IHRL)

IHRL is a set of international rules, established by treaty or custom, on the basis of which
individuals and groups can expect and/or claim certain behavior or benefits from governments.
Human rights are inherent entitlements which belong to every person as a consequence of
being human. Numerous non-treaty based principles and guidelines ("soft law") also belong to

RULE OF LAW 5|Page

the body of international human rights standards. IHRL main treaty sources are the International
Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966),
aswell as Conventions on Genocide (1948), Racial Discrimination (1965), Discrimination
Against Women (1979), Torture (1984) and Rights of the Child (1989). The main regional
instruments are the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (1950), the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (1948) and
Convention on Human Rights (1969), and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights
(1981). While IHL and IHRL have historically had a separate development, recent treaties
include provisions from both bodies of law. Examples are the Convention on the Rights of the
Child, its Optional Protocol on the Participation of Children in Armed Conflict, and the Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court.

When are they applicable?

IHL is applicable in times of armed conflict, whether international or non-international.

International conflicts are wars involving two or more states, and wars of liberation, regardless
of whether a declaration of war has been made or whether the parties involved recognize that
there is a state of war. Non-international armed conflicts are those in which government forces
are fighting against armed insurgents, or rebel groups are fighting among themselves. Because
IHL deals with an exceptional situation – armed conflict – no derogations whatsoever from its
provisions are permitted.

In principle, IHRL applies at all times, i.e. both in peacetime and in situations of armed conflict.
However, some IHRL treaties permit governments to derogate from certain rights in situations of
public emergency threatening the life of the nation. Derogations must, however, be proportional
to the crisis at hand, must not be introduced on a discriminatory basis and must not contravene
other rules of international law – including rules of IHL. Certain human rights are never
derogable. Among them are the right to life, prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, prohibition of slavery and servitude and the prohibition of retroactive
criminal laws.

Who is bound by these bodies of law?

IHL binds all actors to an armed conflict: in international conflicts it must be observed by the
states involved, whereas in internal conflict it binds the government, as well the groups fighting
against it or among themselves. Thus, IHL lays down rules that are applicable to both state and
non-state actors. IHRL lays down rules binding governments in their relations with individuals.
While there is a growing body of opinion according to which nonstate actors – particularly if they
exercise government-like functions – must also be expected to respect human rights norms, the
issue remains unsettled.

International Committee of the Red Cross

Are individuals also bound?

IHL imposes obligations on individuals and also provides that persons may be held individually
criminally responsible for "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions and of Additional

RULE OF LAW 6|Page

Protocol I, and for other serious violations of the laws and customs of war (war crimes). IHL
establishes universal jurisdiction over persons suspected of having committed all such acts.
With the entry into force of the International Criminal Court, individuals will also be accountable
for war crimes committed in non-international armed conflict. While individuals do not have
specific duties under IHRL treaties, IHRL also provides for individual criminal responsibility for
violations that may constitute international crimes, such as genocide, crimes against humanity
and torture. These crimes are also subject to universal jurisdiction. The ad hoc International
Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, as well as the International Criminal
Court, have jurisdiction over violations of both IHL and IHRL.

Who is protected?

IHL aims to protect persons who do not, or are no longer taking part in hostilities. Applicable in
international armed conflicts, the Geneva Conventions deal with the treatment of the wounded
and sick in the armed forces in the field (Convention I), wounded, sick and shipwrecked
members of the armed forces at sea (Convention II), prisoners of war (Convention III) and
civilian persons (Convention IV). Civilian persons include internally displaced persons, women,
children, refugees, stateless persons, journalists and other categories of individuals (Convention
IV and Protocol I). Similarly, the rules applicable in non-international armed conflict (article 3
common to the Geneva Conventions and Protocol II) deal with the treatment of persons not
taking, or no longer taking part in the hostilities. IHL also protects civilians through rules on the
conduct of hostilities. For example, parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between
combatants and non-combatants and between military and non-military targets. Neither the
civilian population as a whole nor individual civilians may be the object of attack. It is also
prohibited to attack military objectives if that would cause disproportionate harm to civilians or
civilian objects.

IHRL, being tailored primarily for peacetime, applies to all persons.

What is the system of implementation... ...at the national level?

The duty to implement both IHL and IHRL lies first and foremost with states. States have a duty
to take a number of legal and practical measures – both in peacetime and in armed conflict
situations – aimed at ensuring full compliance with IHL, including :

 translating IHL treaties;

 preventing and punishing war crimes, through the enactment of penal legislation;
 protecting the red cross and red crescent emblems;
 applying fundamental and judicial guarantees;
 disseminating IHL;
 training personnel qualified in IHL and appointing legal advisers to the armed forces.

IHRL also contains provisions obliging states to implement its rules, whether immediately or
progressively. They must adopt a variety of legislative, administrative, judicial and other
measures that may be necessary to give effect to the rights provided for in the treaties. This
may include enacting criminal legislation to outlaw and repress acts prohibited under IHRL

RULE OF LAW 7|Page

treaties, or providing for a remedy before domestic courts for violations of specific rights and
ensuring that the remedy is effective.

...at the international level?

As regards international implementation, states have a collective responsibility under article 1

common to the Geneva Conventions to respect and to ensure respect for the Conventions in all
circumstances. The supervisory system also comprises the Protecting Power mechanism, the
enquiry procedure and the International Fact-Finding Commission envisaged in Article 90 of
Protocol I. States parties to Protocol I also undertake to act in cooperation with the United
Nations in situations of serious violations of Protocol I or of the Geneva Conventions. The ICRC
is a key component of the system, by virtue of the mandate entrusted to it under the Geneva
Conventions, their Additional Protocols and the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red
Crescent Movement. It ensures protection andassistance to victims of war, encourages states to
implement their IHL obligations and promotes and develops IHL. ICRC's right of initiative allows
it to offer its services or to undertake any action which it deems necessary to ensure the faithful
application of IHL. The IHRL supervisory system consists of bodies established either by the
United Nations Charter or by the main IHRL treaties. The principal UN Charter-based organ is
the UN Commission on Human Rights and its Sub-Commission on the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights. "Special procedures" have also been developed by the
Commission over the last two decades, i.e. thematic or countryspecific special rapporteurs, and
working groups entrusted with monitoring and reporting on the human rights situations within
their mandates. Six of the main IHRL treaties also provide for the establishment of committees
of independent experts charged with monitoring their implementation. A key role is played by
the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights which has primary responsibility for the
overall protection and promotion of human rights. The Office aims to enhance the effectiveness
of the UN's human rights machinery, to increase UN system-wide implementation and
coordination of human rights, to build national, regional and international capacity to promote
and protect human rights and to disseminate human rights texts and information.

...at the regional level?

The work of regional human rights courts and commissions established under the main regional
human rights treaties in Europe, the Americas and Africa is a distinct feature of IHRL, with no
equivalent in IHL. Regional human rights mechanisms are, however, increasingly examining
violations of IHL. The European Court of Human Rights is the centerpiece of the European
system of human rights protection under the 1950 European Convention. The main regional
supervisory bodies in the Americas are the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The African Commission on Human and Peoples'
Rights is the supervisory body established under the 1981 African Charter. A treaty establishing
an African human rights court has not yet come into force.

Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law

 International humanitarian law and international human rights law are two distinct but
complementary bodies of law. They are both concerned with the protection of the life,

RULE OF LAW 8|Page

 health and dignity of individuals. IHL applies in armed conflict while human rights law
applies at all times, in peace and in war.

 Both international humanitarian law and human rights law apply in armed conflicts.
The main difference in their application is that international human rights law allows a
State to suspend a number of human rights if it faces a situation of emergency. IHL
cannot be suspended.

 A State cannot suspend or waive certain fundamental rights that must be respected in
all circumstances. These include the right to life, the prohibition of torture and
inhuman punishment or treatment, the outlawing of slavery or servitude, the principle
of legality and the non-retroactivity of the law and the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion.

 A States have a legal duty to respect and implement both IHL and human rights law.
Compliance with IHL requires a state to introduce national legislation to implement its
obligations, to train its military and to bring to trial those in grave breach of such law.
Human rights law also contains provisions requiring a State to take legislative and
other appropriate measures to implement its rules and punish violations.

 IHL is based on the Geneva and Hague Conventions, additional Protocols and a
series of treaties governing means and methods of waging war such as those
banning blinding laser weapons, landmines and chemical and biological weapons, as
well as customary law.

 International human rights law is more complex and unlike IHL, it includes regional
treaties. The main global legal instrument is the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948. Other global treaties include
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as well as treaties on the prevention and
punishment of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment, on the elimination of racial discrimination and discrimination against
women, or on the rights of the child.

 In situations of armed conflict, human rights law complements and reinforces the
protection afforded by International Humanitarian Law.

The Philippine Constitution— contains the Bill of Rights; lays down the bases for all the civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights of persons.

RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

 REPUBLIC Act (RA) 9344—Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006

 RA 7610—Law Against Child Abuse
 RA 9231—Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor
 RA 9775—Law Against Child Pornography
 RA 8044—Youth in Nation-Building Act
 RA 6972—Act Establishing Day Care Centers in Every Barangay

RULE OF LAW 9|Page

  Presidential Decrees (PD) 603—The Child and Youth Welfare Code

RIGHTS OF WOMEN

 RA 9262—Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children

 RA 10364—The Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012
 RA 9710—Magna Carta of Women
 RA 7877—Law Against Sexual Harassment
 Act 4112—Women Suffrage Act
 PD 633, as amended—Creating the National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women
 Executive Order (EO) 273—Philippine Plan for Gender-Responsive Development
 Pres. Proc. 1172—Campaign to End Violence Against Women
 RA 6955—Act Against Mail Order Brides

RIGHTS OF LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER PERSONS (LGBT)

 AngLadlad v. Comelec, April 8, 2010

RIGHTS OF SENIOR CITIZENS

 RA 7432—Senior Citizen’s Act

 RA 7876—Senior Citizen Center Act
 RA 9994—Expanded Senior Citizen Act

RIGHTS OF DISABLED PERSONS

 BATAS Pambasa 344—An Act to Enable The Mobility of Disabled Persons

 RA 7277—Magna Carta of Disabled Persons
 RA 9442—Law Amending the Magna Carta of Disabled Persons
 RA 10070—Act requiring the creation of Persons with Disability Affairs Office by local
government units
 Department of the Interior and Local Government Memoramdum Circular (DILG MC)
2009-37—On issuance of identification cards and purchase booklets for PWDs
 DILG MC 2009-29—On community-based programs for children with disability
 Adm. 35—Directing departments, bureaus, agencies and educational institutions to
conduct activities during the annual observance of the National Disability Prevention and
Rehabilitation Week

RIGHTS OF WORKERS AND LABORERS

 PD 442, as amended—Labor Code of the Philippines, incorporating the New Labor

Relations Law and the Prohibition of Discrimination Against Women
 RA 8024—Migrant Workers Act
 RA 10022—Law amending the Migrant Workers Act
 RA 8187—Paternity Leave Act

RULE OF LAW 10 | P a g e
RIGHTS TO SOCIAL SECURITY

 RA 8282, amending RA 1161—The Social Security Law

 RA 8291—The Government Service Insurance System Act

RIGHTS TO HEALTH

 RA 7875—National Health Insurance Act

 Pres. Proc. 46—Child and Mother Immunization Project

RIGHTS TO HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT

 Oposa v. Factoran, July 30, 1993

RIGHTS TO PRIVACY

 SUPREME Court A.M. 08-1-16-SC—The Rule on Habeas Data

 RA 9995—Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act
 RA 10173—ata Privacy Act of 2012

RIGHTS OF LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY

 The Anti-Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance Act of 2012

 RA 9745—Anti-Torture Act
 The Rule on the Writ of Amparo Administrative Order (AO) 181—Investigation and
Prosecution of Political and Media Killings
 AO 197—Enforced Disappearances and Killings

REMEDIES OF UNJUSTLY ARRESTED AND/OR DETAINED PERSONS

 RA 7309—Law Creating the Board of Claims

 Rule 102, Rules of Court—the Rule on Habeas Corpus
 Rule 9439—Law Against Hospital Detention
 RA 10368—Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013

RIGHTS OF ACCUSED, VICTIMS AND WITNESSES OF CRIMES

 RA 8505—Rape Victims Assistance Act

 RA 6981—Witness Protection Act
 RA 999—Free Legal Assistance Act
 RA 9346—Law Abolishing Death Penalty
 Bill of Rights, Philippine Constitution
 Rule 115, Revised Rules of Court

OTHER HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS PENALIZED

RULE OF LAW 11 | P a g e
  Act 3815—Revised Penal Code of the Philippines Human Rights mechanisms
 EO 163—Creating the Commission on Human Rights
 RA 9201—National Human Rights Consciousness Week
 PD 443—On Delivery of Social Services

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Writ of Habeas Corpus

In many countries, authorities may take citizens and incarcerate them for months or years
without charging them. Those imprisoned have no legal means to protest or challenge the
imprisonment.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution wanted to prohibit this kind of abuse of power in the new
United States. Therefore, they included a specific clause in the Constitution to safeguard the
right, known as habeas corpus.

Writ of Habeas Corpus: How it Works

A writ of habeas corpus (which literally means to "produce the body") is a court order
demanding that a public official (such as a warden) deliver an imprisoned individual to the court
and show a valid reason for that person's detention. The procedure provides a means for prison
inmates, or others acting on their behalf, to dispute the legal basis for confinement. Habeas
corpus has deep roots in English common law.

Often, the court holds a hearing on the matter, during which the inmate and the government can
both present evidence about whether there is a lawful basis for jailing the person. The court may
also issue and enforce subpoenas in order to obtain additional evidence.

Depending on what the evidence reveals, the judge may grant the inmate relief such as:

 Release from prison,

 Reduction in the sentence,
 An order halting illegal conditions of confinement, or
 A declaration of rights.

It's important not to confuse habeas corpus with the right of direct appeal. Criminal defendants
are always entitled to appeal a conviction or sentence to a higher court, which then reviews the
trial judge's rulings. Habeas corpus provides a separate avenue for challenging imprisonment,
and is normally used after a direct appeal has failed. It often serves as a last resort for inmates
who insist that a miscarriage of justice has occurred.

Limitations of Habeas Corpus

A writ of habeas corpus is not available in every situation. Because judges receive a flood of
habeas corpus petitions each year, including some that inmates prepare without the assistance
of a lawyer, strict procedures govern which ones are allowed to proceed. Inmates are generally
barred from repetitively filing petitions about the same matter.

RULE OF LAW 12 | P a g e
Both state and federal courts can hear habeas corpus petitions. Federal courts sometimes
decide that a state conviction was unjust and order the person's release. However, Congress
has imposed restrictions on federal courts' authority to overrule state courts in this manner.

When an inmate is not challenging the fact of being in jail but rather the conditions of
confinement -- for instance, claiming severe mistreatment or unlawful prison policies -- it is
usually necessary to file a civil rights complaint instead of a habeas corpus petition. Under
the Prison Litigation Reform Act, inmates contesting conditions generally must first attempt to
resolve the matter through available grievance procedures, so that correctional officials have an
opportunity to remedy problems before litigation.

Get Legal Help Understanding Writ of Habeas Corpus

If you believe you're being detained unlawfully or without adequate evidence of guilt, you may
consider petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus to force the government's hand. After all, it's
your right. Get started today by contacting a skilled criminal defense attorney to discuss your
situation.

Habeas corpus; Medieval Latin meaning "[we, a Court, command] that you have the body [of
the detainee brought before us]") is a recourse in law through which a person can report
an unlawful detention or imprisonment to a court and request that the court order the custodian
of the person, usually a prison official, to bring the prisoner to court, to determine whether the
detention is lawful.
The writ of habeas corpus is known as the "great and efficacious writ in all manner of illegal
confinement".It is a summons with the force of a court order; it is addressed to the custodian (a
prison official, for example) and demands that a prisoner be brought before the court, and that
the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether the custodian
has lawful authority to detain the prisoner. If the custodian is acting beyond their authority, then
the prisoner must be released. Any prisoner, or another person acting on their behalf, may
petition the court, or a judge, for a writ of habeas corpus. One reason for the writ to be sought
by a person other than the prisoner is that the detainee might be held incommunicado. Most civil
law jurisdictions provide a similar remedy for those unlawfully detained, but this is not always
called habeas corpus. For example, in some Spanish-speaking nations, the equivalent remedy
for unlawful imprisonment is the amparo de libertad ("protection of freedom").
Habeas corpus has certain limitations. Though a writ of right, it is not a writ of course. It is
technically only a procedural remedy; it is a guarantee against any detention that is forbidden by
law, but it does not necessarily protect other rights, such as the entitlement to a fair trial. So if an
imposition such as internment without trial is permitted by the law, then habeas corpus may not
be a useful remedy. In some countries, the writ has been temporarily or permanently suspended
under the pretext of a war or state of emergency, for example by Abraham Lincoln.
The right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus has nonetheless long been celebrated as the
most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. The jurist Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the
British Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical
purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty".
The writ of habeas corpus is one of what are called the "extraordinary", "common law", or
"prerogative writs", which were historically issued by the English courts in the name of the
monarch to control inferior courts and public authorities within the kingdom. The most common
of the other such prerogative writs are quo warranto, prohibito, mandamus, procedendo,

RULE OF LAW 13 | P a g e
and certiorari. The due process for such petitions is not simply civil or criminal, because they
incorporate the presumption of non-authority. The official who is the respondent must prove
their authority to do or not do something. Failing this, the court must decide for the petitioner,
who may be any person, not just an interested party. This differs from a motion in a civil process
in which the movant must have standing, and bears the burden of proof.

Philippine habeas corpus cases
Philippine habeas corpus cases are cases decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines,
which invoke the writ of habeas corpus.
The writ of habeas corpus may be suspended in order to prevent any violence in cases of
rebellion or insurrection, as the case may be. 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.”

The Writ of Habeas Corpus

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.[1]

1. Barcelon v. Baker (5 Phil. Reports 87, 1905)

At the early years of the American Rule in the Philippines, lawlessness was rampant and
criminal activities were at large. Governor-General James Francis Smith, with the consent of
the Philippine Commission, suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the
provinces of Batangas and Cavite. A petition was raised questioning such suspension of the
writ.
The Supreme Court issued a ruling sustaining the suspension of the privilege of the writ. It said
that the decision of the Governor-General is his duty on his part, and that the court cannot
question the acts of the executive and legislative branches of government. Simply put, the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is a political question that courts cannot
decide upon.

2. Montenegro v. Castañeda (91 Phil. Reports 882, 1949)

President ElpidioQuirino suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in some parts
of Luzon in order to stifle the emergence of the Hukbalahap guerillas. Such suspension was
again questioned in the Supreme Court. The court affirmed the president’s acts of suspending
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, based on the decision in the Barcelon case.

3. Lansang v. Garcia (G.R. No. L-33964, December 11, 1971; 42 SCRA 448

On August 21, 1971, grenades exploded at Plaza Miranda in the city of Manila during a public
meeting of the Liberal Party. Acting on such an event, on August 23, 1971, President Ferdinand
Marcos suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus on the entire country. Petitions
were filed in the Supreme Court for the release of several arrested persons.
The Supreme Court, through Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, ruled that the suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was proper for having factual and legal basis clearly

RULE OF LAW 14 | P a g e
provided forth by the government. But the Supreme Court, reversing the Barcelon and
Montenegro cases, declared that the Judiciary has the authority to inquire into the factual basis
of such suspension, and that the suspension is to be annulled if no legal ground would be
established. Thus, such action is now considered justiciable to be decided by the courts.

4. Aquino v. Enrile (G.R. No. L-35546, September 17, 1974, 59 SCRA 183 

Decided during martial law, it involved the petition of habeas corpus of Marcos’ critics,
notably Benigno Aquino, Jr. and Jose W. Diokno. The Supreme Court decided unanimously to
dismiss the petitions, but as Chief Justice QuerubeMakalintal put it, "there was no agreement as
to the manner the issues would be treated and developed. The same destination would be
reached, so to speak, but through different routes and by means of different vehicles of
approach." He said that the reason why the Court did not produce a single, collegial opinion,
among others, was that the members of the Supreme Court are conscious of "the future verdict
of history" upon their stand.
Even before the cases were decided, Diokno, to the chagrin of the Supreme Court, opted to
withdraw his petition on the ground that no fair decision can be made of the court to render him
justice. What made it worse was the fact that before the Supreme Court could respond to
Diokno’s challenge, Marcos issued an order releasing him and the other petitioners, leaving
Aquino behind.
Justice Fred Ruiz Castro opined that the declaration of martial law automatically suspends the
application of the said writ, thus Aquino cannot be released. He said that martial law "is founded
upon the principle that the state has a right to protect itself against those who would destroy it,
and has therefore been likened to the right of an individual to self-defense."

5. Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile (L-61388, April 20, 1983 ,121 SCRA 472)

In this decision involving subversion, the Supreme Court reversed the Lansang ruling and
reverted to the Barcelon and Montenegro ruling that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus is a political question.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution

The present Philippine Constitution, in reaction to the Marcos regime, adopted a procedure in
cases of suspension of the writ or declaration of martial law by the president.
It states that in case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, the President
may suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus for a period not exceeding sixty days, or
place the Philippines or any part of the country under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from
the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus,
the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting
jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may
revoke or extend such proclamation or suspension. If Congress is not in session it shall,
convene without need of a call within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or
suspension.
Such check and balance placed on the Supreme Court relied heavily on the Lansang case. It is
provided that the Supreme Court may review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the
extension thereof. It is mandated to promulgate its decision within thirty days from its filing by
any citizen.

RULE OF LAW 15 | P a g e
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for
rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion. During the suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person thus arrested or detained shall be
judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.

RULE OF LAW 16 | P a g e