Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is unwarranted

By Alfredo C. Garvida, Jr.

Contributor

Senator Richard Gordon has filed a senate resolution to grant President Rodrigo R. Duterte emergency powers and to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in response to the president's ongoing war on drugs and the possible escalation of terrorism nationwide, as the recent Davao bombing that claimed 14 innocent lives and injured 70 more could seem to portend.

Notwithstanding the overwhelming number of pro-administration people in both houses of congress, some members who could be considered as experts in law, however, object to Gordon's resolution as being unconstitutional and overreaching. 

Habeas corpus is a Latin word that means "you have the body." The writ of habeas corpus therefore is a court order to any person or the government to produce in court the body of someone who claims to have been unlawfully restrained or detained by the respondent so that the judge will determine if his detention is lawful, otherwise, he will order the person under restraint to be released. 

In simple terms, if the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended, the government shall be privileged to arrest anyone without the benefit of an arrest warrant and his detention or arrest may not be questioned in court because his privilege to do so is suspended. 

The power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus is granted by the constitution to the president and scrutinized by the court and congress. Under Art. 3, Sect 15 of our constitution, however, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended only in cases of invasion or rebellion, and when the public safety requires it.

This is the framework of party-list congressman Harry Roque's opposition to Mr. Gordon's proposal—given that the senator's basis for the writ's suspension is only on Mr. Duterte's current drug war and the threat of terrorism escalation off that Davao bombing. Clearly, there is no invasion or rebellion existing to justify the writ's suspension, therefore, Mr. Roque's stand, in our view is correct.

There is great danger to our civil liberties when the police are granted the power to arrest any person without a court warrant. The government's ongoing war against the proliferation of illegal drugs in the country has resulted to numerous deaths on a daily basis of suspected drug personalities by the police. And their normal defense to justify the killings has always been that the suspects fired at them first that they had to fire back to defend themselves. 

No one has come out with a concrete evidence to refute this police defense yet because frankly, this defense is next to impossible to overcome in the face of the people's belief that our tough-talking President has the police's back covered at all times no matter the circumstance; that it would therefore be useless, and even dangerous, to challenge this oft-repeated police defense of self-defense given this presidential cuddling they enjoy.

Then there are also those arrested on a search warrant or the buy-bust system who claim that they have been planted with evidence, but no one has yet succeeded to overturn the arrest because it is next to impossible, likewise, to prove in court the illegal search and seizure. For one thing, it is hard to find nowadays a prosecutor or a judge to go against the grain of the Duterte doctrine at peril of their incurring the president's ire that they could find their names on the list of tainted government officials that the President would publish next.

But these scenarios are the result of the public fear on Mr. Duterte's mode of dealing with criminals and corrupt people in government. And this is good in many aspects as long as those affected are real criminals and thieves in government.

But how about the law-abiding citizens and honest people in government? How can they be spared from wrongful death, arrest or even suspicion? The President's assurance of his administration's adherence to the rule of law in his latest pronouncements are reassuring nonetheless, and if the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not transpire, there will be no cause to further our apprehensions about our civil liberties' infringement. 

Mr. Gordon's resolution does not conform to our constitution, therefore, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus should not be suspended. Furthermore, with the police's licentious style of dealing with criminals these days covered of course by presidential tolerance, what good does a warrant of arrest serve at this point?