ILAGAN V. ENRILE October 21, 1985  Later on, the military informed the IBP that Atty.

Later on, the military informed the IBP that Atty. Risonar would also be
arrested. On the basis of an unsigned mission order by Gen, Echevarria
Petitioners: Laurente Ilagan, Antonio Arellano, Marcos Risonar, Integrated Bar of  These events triggered the filing of this motion for the writ of habeas corpus
the PH (IBP), Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), Movement of Attorneys For on the ground that one cannot be arrested and detained on the basis of a
Brotherhood, Integrity and Nationalism, Inc. (MABINI) mission order.
Respondents: Juan Ponce Enrile (Defense Minister), LtGen. Fidel Ramos (Acting  May 16, 1985: the court issued the writ, required a return and set petition
CoS, AFP), BGen. Dionisio Tangatue (PC-INP Regional Commander for Region XI, for hearing on May 23, 1985
Camp Catitipan, Davao City).  In their return, respondents commented that they were arrested by orders
The Case: Petition for Habeas Corpus of the President and that the writ is currently suspended. Furthermore, they
Ponente: Melencio-Herrera, J. stated that the arrested attorneys were suspected of collaborating with the
NPA and NDF based on documents found showing that they actively
PROVISIONS organized mass actions for such organizations
 May 23, 1985: the detained attorneys narrated to the court the
Rule 102 Sec 4 circumstances of their capture and how the information against them was
“…writ will not issue if person detained is under the custody of an officer insufficient.
under process issued by the court…”  May 24, 1985: petitioners filed manifestation that the prisoners have not yet
been released as per the earlier issuance and prayed that they be released
Rule 102 Sec 14 into the custody of their counsel.
If prisoner lawfully committed is charged in a warrant with a crime  Respondents filed Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of the release order
punishable by death he shall not be released, discharged, or bailed. on May 27, 1985
 May 28, 1985: respondents informed the court that an Information for
Rules of CrimPro, Rule 112, Sec 7 Rebellion had been filed in RTC Davao City and a warrant of arrest had been
“…when lawfully arrested without warrant the information and warrant may issued and thus prayer for the Writ had become moot and academic.
be filed without preliminary investigation.  Petitioners countered the urgent motion as that there has not been a
preliminary investigation therefore the warrant of arrest and the
Rule 113, Sec 5 Information was void.
Instances of lawful arrest without warrant  June 3, 1985: In the petitioners consolidated comment, they argued that:
1. Crime is being committed, being committed, attempting to be o the supposed activities of rebellion were done in the auspices of
committed in his presence their right to expression.
2. Crime has just been committed and he has personal knowledge o That they only served as legal and negotiating panels. That
of facts indicating who committed it proclamation 2045 (suspension of the writ) is unconstitutional as it
3. Escaped prisoner is without factual or legal basis.
o That the evidence is flimsy and doubtful. And
FACTS o that the PDA which lead to their arrests is unconstitutional for
violating prohibition against search and seizure
 Petition for Habeas Corpus filed by the IBP, FLAG, MABINI for Attys Laurente
 In the respondent’s consolidated reply:
Ilagan, Antonio B Arellano, Marcos Risonar Jr.
o They reiterated validity of 2045 and of the PDA
 On the basis of a mission order, Atty Ilagan was arrested and detained in
o Referred to the ruling in Garcia-Padilla v Enrile
Davao City. On the same day fifteen lawyers of IBP Davao went to visit him
o Prayed for the dismissal of the petition on the grounds of mootness.
at Camp Catitipan.
 Atty. Arellano, one of the visiting lawyers, was then detained via an unsigned
mission order.
ISSUES b. Crime has just been committed and he has
1. WoN the petition has been rendered moot by the filing of the personal knowledge of facts indicating who
information and the warrant of arrest. committed it
2. WoN the absence of preliminary investigation makes the filed c. Escaped prisoner
Information void.  a and b are those in flagrante delicto, ascertaining if
attorneys belong to either is a question of fact to be
HELD/RATIO judge in a trial court.
1. Mootness  The question regarding absence of preliminary
o Yes. The petition is now moot. The writ serves to inquire as to investigation is also more properly the province of the
the legality of the detainment of a person and since an trial court.
information and warrant of arrest are already present  In answer to J. Teehankee: absence of preliminary
therefore the writ no longer serves a purpose. investigation does not affect jurisdiction of the trial
 RoC, Rule 102 Sec 4: writ will not issue if person detained is court but only the regularity of the proceedings, the
under the custody of an officer under process issued by the right may even be waived.
court… o Petitioners contention of using the Nolasco Case does not lie as
 RoC, Rule 102 Sec 14: If prisoner lawfully committed is in that case they were only charged with Illegal Possession of
charged in a warrant with a crime punishable by death he subversive documents
shall not be released, discharged, or bailed.
PETITION IS DISMISSED FOR BEING MOOT AND ACADEMIC
o The proper remedy now is motion to quash the warrant of
arrest and/or information DISSENTS:
o Or to ask for reinvestigation of the case
Teehankee
2. Absence of Preliminary Investigation o The tragedy of lawyers being seduced and eliminated must be
o 1985 Rules of CrimPro: No information for an offense averted. Referring to the warnings of J. Makasiar regarding the
cognizable by the RTC shall be filed without a preliminary tyrant’s plot in destroying the Judicial system.
investigation having first conducted except in Sec7 Rule 112 o The facts already bear that these lawyers were denied their
which was the exception used by the city fiscal. fundamental rights and thus the order of this court to release
 Rules of CrimPro, Rule 112, Sec 7: when lawfully them should be honored and complied with.
arrested without warrant the information and warrant o The blitzkrieg filing of these charges without preliminary
may be filed without preliminary investigation. investigation denied them due process of law
a. However, person arrested may ask for o The evidence that was basis of their arrest was hearsay. The
preliminary investigation before filing of such alleged witnesses themselves should have executed the
complaint granted, he sign a waiver of RPC affidavit not the Intelligence officer who interviewed them
Art 125 o As admitted by state attorneys, there are so many professional
b. If cased already filed in court he may, within 5 witnesses that their pronouncements should not be accepted
days of learning of such filing, ask for a hook, line and sinker
preliminary investigation o This court must protect lawyers who while engaged in public
 Rule 113 Sec 5: instances of lawful arrest without service earn the ire of the military
warrant o The Military similarly must learn to be more tolerant of the
a. Crime is being committed, being committed, fundamental right of expression expressed in mass movements
attempting to be committed in his presence
 o No matter their motive, the military must not suppress o In Morales, this Court warned that: “Care should be exercised
fundamental liberties in making an arrest without a warrant. Where there is no
o The PDA that served basis was in-operational as it was enforced justification for the arrest, the public officer could be criminally
4 months earlier liable for arbitrary detention or unlawful arrest or for some
o The president was misled in issuing of the PDA other offense.'"
o Respect the concept of civilian supremacy over the military o Judiciary’s responsibility to define and maintain the delicate
o The government must not breed contempt for the law balance between individual freedom and the security of the
o The standard applied in the Galman Case should be applied State.
here. o At a time when the Armed Forces of the Philippines has to play
o The only way to cure the law of its unconstitutional effects is to a salient role in our affairs of government in view of the
construe it in the manner as if IMMUNITY had in fact been existence of a rebellion in our midst, there is all the more a
offered… greater need for lawyers to defend the rights of individuals
o Note: what is being referred to is the right against self- against actual or possible abuses of agents of the State.
incrimination in the Galman Case, Teehankee wants the court o We must strengthen and solidify the Rule of Law. It is the only
to apply the same safeguards of civil liberties granted to way to the survival of democracy in our land.
Galman to the case at hand.
Abad Santos
Concepcion, Jr. o The main opinion is soundly based on the law but J Teehankee’s
o The petition is not moot and academic. opinion is not only of the Law but also speaks to equity and
o Petitioners should be set free immediately because they were humanity thereby better serving the ends of justice.
arrested unlawfully, and the information filed against them
dismissed for being null and void. However, the authorities NOTES
may, if they choose to do so, file a case against petitioners in  The Writ of Habeas Corpus does not lie when the Information and
the Fiscal's Office of Davao. subsequent warrant legitimizing the detention has already been filed in
 The fiscal should conduct a preliminary investigation the proper court.
as required by law. if he finds the existence of a prima  Preliminary Investigations do not affect the jurisdiction of the court but
facie case, then he should file the necessary merely the regularity of the proceedings. Furthermore, the right to a
information in court. preliminary proceeding is a waivable right.
 After the court issues a warrant of arrest against
petitioners, only then may they be placed in custody.
o Petitioners have a right to a preliminary investigation, and
infringement of this right is a denial of due process
o The instances when a person may be arrested without a
warrant are clearly laid down by Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure
o Petitioners' arrest does not fall under any of the instances
numerated above. Their arrest without a warrant is therefore
patently and undeniably illegal and contrary to law.
o The unlawful arrest of petitioners cannot give rise to a valid
information. The information filed in court against them
necessarily is and must remain null and void.