Revisiting Jurisprudence on the Quantum of Restraint Required to Warrant the Issuance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus: A Proposal to Rethink the Rules of Court Formulation on the Availability of the Writ

Cite as: 52 Ateneo L.J. 685 (2007)
Download Abstract Download Article
This publication contains material that is protected under International and Philippine Copyright Law and Treaties. Any unauthorized reprint or use of this material is prohibited. No part of this online publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system without the express written permission of the author as coursed through the Ateneo Law Journal.




The Author cites three cases in which the Supreme Court granted the writ of habeas corpus without actually strictly complying with the requirements of the Rules of Court. These cases are: Villavicencio v. Lukban (39 Phil. 778 (1919)); Caunca v. Salazar (82 Phil. 851 (1949) (unreported)); and Moncupa v. Enrile (141 SCRA 233 (1986)).

The crux of these decisions is that they do not involve, strictly speaking, “illegal confinement or detention.” The Author then proposes his recommendations to reform the rule on the issuance of the writ. 

More Issues