IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS FOR MA. DEL SOCORRO SOBREMONTE, MRS. ENRIQUETA SOBREMONTE, PETITIONER, VS. MINISTER JUAN PONCE ENRILE, GEN. FABIAN VER, COL. RUTH…

Sobremonte versus Enrile

The Case

This is a petition for the writ of habeas corpus filed by a mother, Enriqueta Sobremonte, against the Minister of National Defense and officers of the military, seeking the release of her daughter, Ma. del Socorro Sobremonte, from military custody. The action is an original petition filed directly with the Supreme Court, invoking the great writ of liberty. The case matters for two reasons. First, it states the classic rule that the writ will not issue in favor of a person who is not actually restrained of her liberty, so that release on bail renders the petition moot. Second, it is a quiet but firm rebuke to military authorities who gave a worried mother the runaround instead of answering her inquiries about her detained daughter.

Procedural History

This is an original action in the Supreme Court. There were no prior proceedings in a trial court or in the Court of Appeals on the petition itself. Enriqueta Sobremonte filed the petition for habeas corpus on June 2, 1982. The very next day, the Court issued a resolution setting the hearing and requiring the respondents to make a return of the writ. The respondents, through the Solicitor General, filed their return, asking that the petition be dismissed on the ground that Socorro was detained pursuant to a valid order of a court. The Court heard the petition on June 15, 1982, with counsel for both sides appearing and with the petitioner and the detainee herself present and answering questions from the Court. After the hearing, the Court granted the parties time to file a traverse and a reply, and called their attention to the new issues raised at the hearing. The petitioner's counsel then filed a traverse alleging maltreatment, and the respondents filed a reply denying the allegations. The Court then resolved the petition.

Facts

In the morning of May 6, 1982, Socorro Sobremonte left the family residence intending to fly to the Visayas with some friends. On May 16, her mother received information that Socorro had been arrested by operatives of the Aviation Security Command at the Manila Domestic Airport. On May 18, the mother went to the command's office at the airport to inquire. An officer there told her that her daughter was not in the custody of his command, but advised her to return after one day. When she returned, the officer confirmed that Socorro had indeed been arrested, and that she had been brought to an office in Malacañang and later to the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines at Camp Aguinaldo.

The mother went to Malacañang and found no such office there. She then proceeded to Camp Aguinaldo, but the sentries did not allow her to see any responsible officer. Her formal letter to the intelligence service, and her inquiries with the Office of Detainee Affairs, were ignored. The petition alleged that no criminal charges had been filed, that her daughter had been arrested without a warrant, and that her right to communicate with and be visited by relatives, counsel, and friends had been grossly violated.

The respondents' return told a different story. It alleged that Socorro was arrested on May 8, 1982 at the Manila Domestic Airport, when personnel discovered voluminous subversive printed materials in her luggage. The materials were seized, and she was taken into custody, later turned over to the intelligence service at Camp Aguinaldo. On May 10, she was brought to the city fiscal of Pasay City for inquest proceedings. On the finding of prima facie evidence, an information for violation of Presidential Decree Number 33 was filed against her before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and bail was recommended for her temporary release. The court then committed her person to the custody of the intelligence service. Immediately after the June 15 hearing, Socorro was released upon posting her bond. The petitioner's traverse then alleged in detail that she had been maltreated during her month-long detention, including being deprived of sleep, blindfolded, slapped, subjected to electric shock, and threatened with rape and with summary execution. The respondents flatly denied these allegations and attached documents, whose genuineness and due execution were not controverted.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for habeas corpus has been rendered moot and academic by the release of the detainee upon her posting of a bail bond.
• Whether or not the writ of habeas corpus may issue in favor of a person who has been discharged on bail and is therefore no longer restrained of her liberty.
• Whether or not the Court, not being a trier of facts, will inquire into the allegations of maltreatment during detention.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the settled rule on when the writ of habeas corpus lies, as stated in the jurisprudence it cites:

No rule is better established and better known than the one which provides that the writ of habeas corpus will not issue in behalf of a person not actually restrained of his liberty; a person discharged on bail is not imprisoned or restrained of his liberty in such a way as to entitle him to the writ of habeas corpus.

This rule bears directly on the case, because Socorro's release on bail removed the very restraint that the writ was meant to test.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Socorro's release from detention upon her filing of a bail bond on June 15, 1982 had, for all intents and purposes, rendered the petition moot and academic. The Court quoted the governing rule:

No rule is better established and better known than the one which provides that the writ of habeas corpus will not issue in behalf of a person not actually restrained of his liberty; a person discharged on bail is not imprisoned or restrained of his liberty in such a way as to entitle him to the writ of habeas corpus.

On the second issue, following that rule, the Court held that the writ could not issue, since the person in whose behalf it was sought was no longer imprisoned or restrained of her liberty. The Court observed that all the effort, energy, and manhours expended by the parties, their counsel, and the Court had come to naught, but that all of this could have been avoided had the officers of the Aviation Security Command and the intelligence service responded promptly to the mother's inquiries instead of giving her the runaround by referring her from one office to another. The Court also rejected the respondents' claim that no formal request for visits had been made, since it was undisputed that counsel had sent a letter to the intelligence service, which the respondents did not answer. The Court suggested that the intelligence service establish an information and assistance office, as many government offices maintain, so that a repetition of the petitioner's plight would be avoided.

On the third issue, the Court held that, not being a trier of facts, it would not inquire into the veracity of the allegations of maltreatment and their denials. It stated that redress for the alleged violation of Socorro's constitutional rights may be secured through appropriate civil, criminal, or administrative charges. The Chief Justice, concurring, emphasized that the Court has always adopted, and will continue to adopt, the most liberal attitude in applications for the writ of habeas corpus, and that an allegation of maltreatment during detention is not ignored, for if proven, criminal prosecution lies, or the offended party may file an administrative complaint or a civil action for damages. One Justice, concurring, would have ordered an investigation of the charges of maltreatment through the appointment of a commissioner, as the Court had done in earlier habeas corpus cases.

Doctrine

The writ of habeas corpus will not issue in behalf of a person not actually restrained of her liberty. A person discharged on bail is not imprisoned or restrained of her liberty in such a way as to entitle her to the writ. Consequently, the release of the detainee on bail renders the petition moot and academic. The Court is not a trier of facts, so allegations of maltreatment during detention are not resolved in the habeas corpus proceeding itself; redress lies through appropriate civil, criminal, or administrative charges. Finally, public officers must promptly respond to inquiries about persons in their custody, and the giving of the runaround to anxious relatives is condemned.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, with no costs, because the detainee's release on bail had rendered it moot and academic.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the writ of habeas corpus will not issue in behalf of a person not actually restrained of her liberty, and a person discharged on bail is not so restrained. Examiners use this case to test the mootness of habeas corpus after release on bail, and to illustrate that allegations of torture during detention are pursued not in the habeas corpus petition but through separate civil, criminal, or administrative actions.