Integrated Bar of the Philippines Pangasinan Legal Aid v.

Department of Justice
G.R. No. 232413
Ponente MENDOZA, J
Jul 25, 2017
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring that detainees who have been
held without a case being filed in court and without definite findings of probable cause are
entitled to be released, as their constitutional rights to liberty and against unreasonable
seizures were being violated.
Facts:
 The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus.
 The petition claims that several detention prisoners have been languishing in jail for
years without a case being filed in court and without definite findings of probable
cause, due to Department of Justice (DOJ) issuances.
 The IBP seeks the release of these prisoners and the declaration of the DOJ issuances
as unconstitutional.
 The petition specifically represents the case of Jay-Ar Senin, who has been detained
for at least eight months without any finding of probable cause or a case being filed
in court.
Issue:
 Whether the detention of the prisoners without a case being filed in court and
without definite findings of probable cause is a violation of their constitutional rights.
Ruling:
 The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners.
 The Court declared that all detainees whose cases have gone beyond the mandated
periods for the conduct of preliminary investigation, or whose cases have already
been dismissed on inquest or preliminary investigation, despite pending appeal,
reconsideration, reinvestigation, or automatic review by the Secretary of Justice, are
entitled to be released pursuant to their constitutional right to liberty and their
constitutional right against unreasonable seizures, unless detained for some other
lawful cause.
Ratio:
 The Court held that the detainees' constitutional rights to liberty and against
unreasonable seizures were being violated by the prolonged detention without a
case being filed in court and without definite findings of probable cause.
 The Court emphasized that the waiver of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code,
which allows for the continued detention of a person pending the conduct of
preliminary investigation, cannot be used to detain a person indefinitely.
 The Court also noted that the constant changes in DOJ circulars regarding the
automatic review of dismissed cases create a possibility of repetition, thus
necessitating the Court's intervention to lay down controlling principles.
 The Court further emphasized that the security of the public and the interest of the
State cannot justify trampling upon the constitutional rights of detainees.
Background and Petition by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
 The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus.
 The petition claims that several detention prisoners have been languishing in jail for
years without a case being filed in court and without definite findings of probable
cause, due to Department of Justice (DOJ) issuances.
 The IBP seeks the release of these prisoners and the declaration of the DOJ issuances
as unconstitutional.
Violation of Constitutional Rights
 The petition argues that the alarming situation of several detention prisoners is a
result of DOJ issuances, specifically one that states that reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment cases are subject to automatic review by the Justice Secretary.
 The automatic review is supposed to be completed within 30 days, but the review of
the investigating prosecutor's resolution has been pending with the DOJ for more
than eight months.
 The IBP claims that this violates the detainees' constitutional right to liberty.
Representation of Jay-Ar Senin
 The IBP represents one of the detainees, Jay-Ar Senin, who has been detained for at
least eight months without any finding of probable cause or a case being filed in
court.
 Senin's case started when a complaint against him was indorsed to the Provincial
Prosecutor's Office.
 He was arrested during a buy-bust operation for the sale of illegal drugs.
 The IBP argues that Senin's detention violates his constitutional rights and seeks his
immediate release.
Prayer for Relief
 The petition prays for the Court to declare the DOJ issuances as unconstitutional.
 It also seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the release of Senin.
 Additionally, it requests the issuance of a writ of kalayaan directing the release of all
detention prisoners in a similar plight.
DOJ Circulars and Violation of Detainees' Rights
 The Department of Justice issued several circulars regarding the automatic review of
dismissed drug cases.
 The IBP argues that these issuances violate the detainees' rights and seeks their
nullification.
Arguments by the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) and the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG)
 The BJMP argues that Senin has been confined in its facility through a valid
commitment order issued by the court and cannot be released without an order
directing the same.
 The OSG argues that the habeas corpus remedy is not appropriate as the existence
of probable cause has already been determined by the DOJ.
Court's Decision
  The Court agrees with the OSG that the controversy has become moot and academic
because the DOJ has issued a circular addressing the issue and there has been a
judicial determination of probable cause against Senin.
 However, the Court decides to still rule on the case to lay down controlling principles
on the continued detention of arrested persons whose cases have been dismissed
but are pending automatic review by the DOJ.
Controlling Principles and Emphasis on Constitutional Rights
 The Court declares that all detainees whose cases have gone beyond the mandated
periods for preliminary investigation or have been dismissed on inquest or
preliminary investigation, despite pending appeal or review by the Secretary of
Justice, are entitled to be released unless detained for some other lawful cause.
 The Court emphasizes the importance of upholding detainees' constitutional rights
even in the context of the government's war on drugs.
Conclusion
 The Court declares that detainees whose cases have been dismissed or are pending
review by the DOJ are entitled to be released unless detained for some other lawful
cause.
 The Court also emphasizes the importance of upholding detainees' constitutional
rights even in the context of the government's war on drugs.