Herrera v. Enrile
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Trinidad Herrera filed a petition for habeas corpus on February 21, 1975, seeking her release from detention. She alleged that she was detained by elements of the Metropolitan Police Command on February 19, 1975, for "interrogation" and subsequently booked for alleged violation of Presidential Decree No. 33 and General Order No. 51. She contended that her arrest and detention were illegal as the documents she allegedly circulated were not subversive and that the respondents lacked jurisdiction to prosecute her for violation of General Order No. 51. She also claimed her detention was intended to harass her for being a petitioner in another case and to instill fear in her organization. 2. Procedural History: On February 21, 1975, the Supreme Court issued a writ of habeas corpus returnable on February 24, 1975, and set the hearing for February 25, 1975. The respondents were required to file an answer and not to move to dismiss 3. The Petition: The Petition sought the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the petitioner and to order her immediate release, or in the alternative, to fix bail.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for habeas corpus has become moot and academic due to the release of the petitioner. Whether the arrest and detention of the petitioner were illegal.
Ruling
The petition for habeas corpus is dismissed for being moot and academic.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of mootness: The Court noted that on February 24, 1975, the respondents filed a return to the writ and an answer, manifesting that the petitioner had been released from custody. This release rendered the petition for habeas corpus moot and academic, as the primary purpose of the writ is to secure the liberty of a person unlawfully detained. Once the person is released, there is no longer any detention to challenge through habeas corpus. The Court cited several previous cases where petitions for habeas corpus were dismissed on the ground of mootness due to the release of the petitioners. Therefore, no further action was necessary by the Court as the petitioner was no longer under detention. On the legality of the arrest and detention: While the Court did not delve into the merits of the legality of the arrest and detention due to the mootness of the petition, the respondents' return indicated that the petitioner was arrested and detained by virtue of Arrest, Search and Seizure Order No. 3285 and Commitment Order No. 919 for alleged violation of Presidential Decree No. 33 and Presidential Decree No. 90 in connection with General Order No. 51-A. The respondents asserted that the arrest was derived from the martial law powers of the President and was issued pursuant to General Order No. 2-A, which they claimed suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. They further stated that the freedom of discussion under General Order No. 51-A could not be used as a cover for subversive propaganda or to promote insurrection or rebellion. However, upon review, considering the spirit behind the amendments in General Order No. 51-A and in the desire to encourage people to manifest their true will, it was decided to release the petitioner.
Main Doctrine
A petition for habeas corpus becomes moot and academic when the petitioner has been released from detention.