THE writ of habeas corpus—which literally means “you have the body”—is a high prerogative writ, of ancient common-law origin, the great object of which is the liberalization of those who may be imprisoned “without sufficient cause.”
It is 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 to, and receive whatsoever the court or judge awarding the writ shall consider in that behalf. (Paynaga vs. Wolfe, 2 Phil. 146 [1903])
Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to “all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty,” or “by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto.” (Sec. 1, Rule 102, Revised Rules of Court)
The writ of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, or any member thereof, on any day and at any time, or by the Court of Appeals or any member thereof in the instances authorized by law. If so, granted it shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines, and may be made returnable before the court or any member thereof, or before the Court of First Instance, or any judge thereof for the hearing and decision on the merits.
It may also be granted by a Court of First Instance, or a judge thereof, on any day and at any time, and returnable before himself, enforceable only within his judicial district. (Sec. 2, Rule 102)
When is writ not allowed?
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” or “by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the judgment, or make the order,” the writ shall not be allowed.
Effective post-conviction remedy
Notably, jurisprudence has recognized that the writ of habeas corpus may also be availed of as a post-conviction remedy when, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding, any of the following exceptional circumstances is attendant: 1) there has been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person; 2) the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or 3) the imposed penalty has been excessive, thus voiding the sentence as such excess. (Reyes vs. Director or Whoever Is In Charge of Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig, Metro Manila, G.R. No. 254838, May 22, 2024)
Custody cases involving minors
In custody cases involving minors, the writ of habeas corpus is prosecuted for the purpose of determining the right of custody over a child.
The grant of the writ depends on the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) that the petitioner has the right of custody over the minor; (2) that the rightful custody of the minor is being withheld from the petitioner by the respondents; and (3) that it is to the best interest of the minor concerned to be in the custody of petitioner and not that of the respondents. (Masbate vs. Relucio, G.R. No. 235498, July 30, 2018)
“The right of custody accorded to parents springs from the exercise of parental authority. Parental authority or ‘patria potestas’ in Roman Law is the juridical institution whereby parents rightfully assume control and protection of their unemancipated children to the extent required by the latter’s needs. It is a mass of rights and obligations which the law grants to parents for the purpose of the children’s physical preservation and development, as well as the cultivation of their intellect and the education of their heart and senses. As regards parental authority, ‘there is no power, but a task; no complex of rights, but a sum of duties; no sovereignty but a sacred trust for the welfare of the minor.'” (Ibid.)
