**Facts:** This case revolves around Police Officer 1 Basser B. Ampatuan (PO1 Ampatuan), who was detained purportedly for involvement in the killing of two Commission on Elections (COMELEC) officials. Initially, PO1 Ampatuan was transferred several times within the police department before being flown to Manila, where he was presented as arrested for the said killings and subsequently detained.
The initial procedural progression involved PO1 Ampatuan being brought to inquest for the murder of Atty. Alioden D. Dalaig, head of the COMELEC Law Department. Despite a recommendation for his release pending further investigation, PO1 Ampatuan remained detained under the presumption of facing an administrative case for Grave Misconduct (Murder). His wife, Nurhida Juhuri Ampatuan, initiated a petition for writ of habeas corpus which was denied by the RTC of Manila, Branch 37, leading to the current petition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to the Supreme Court.
**Issues:**
1. Whether the arrest and detention of PO1 Ampatuan without a warrant were illegal.
2. Whether PO1 Ampatuan’s detention under restrictive custody for administrative proceedings, authorized under Sec. 52, Par. 4, R.A. 8551, was lawful.
3. Whether the lower court failed its judicial duty by not ordering PO1 Ampatuan’s release.
**Court’s Decision:**
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the lower court. The Court differentiated the nature of restrictive custody from illegal detention, deeming the former a valid and nominal restraint under the circumstances stipulated in the Philippine National Police (PNP) Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998 (R.A. 8551). The Court further noted that habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy for someone under lawful custody, which was the case with PO1 Ampatuan, given the administrative case against him.
**Doctrine:**
The Supreme Court reiterated the doctrine that a restrictive custody and monitoring of movements or whereabouts of police officers under investigation by their superiors does not constitute illegal detention or restraint of liberty. Hence, the writ of habeas corpus does not apply.
**Class Notes:**
1. **Restrictive Custody vs. Illegal Detention:** Restrictive custody within the PNP’s administrative disciplinary mechanism is not equivalent to illegal detention. It is a lawful nominal restraint.
2. **Writ of Habeas Corpus:** The writ of habeas corpus requires an actual and effective—not merely nominal or moral—illegal restraint of liberty to be applicable.
3. **Administrative Process within the PNP:** Members of the PNP are subject to the PNP’s internal disciplinary procedures, including the imposition of restrictive custody during the pendency of grave administrative cases, as authorized under Sec. 52, Par. 4 of R.A. 8551.
**Historical Background:**
The case highlights the intricate balance between ensuring public safety through the effective discipline of law enforcement personnel and upholding the rights of individuals against unlawful detention. It underscores the importance of having clear guidelines and legal mechanisms, like R.A. 8551, to address administrative misconduct within the police force while ensuring procedural safeguards are respected.
Leave a Reply