July 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 186118 : July 28, 2009]

JAIME L. PAULE V. THE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS AND INVESTIGATIONS [BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE] OF THE SENATE OF THE 14TH CONGRESS AND ITS MEMBERS; SENATOR RICHARD J. GORDON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE; SENATOR JUAN PONCE ENRILE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SENATE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND (RET.) MAJOR GENERAL JOSE BALAJADIA, JR., IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SENATE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS


Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated July 28, 2009

G.R. No. 186118 (Jaime L. Paule v. The Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations [Blue Ribbon Committee] of the Senate of the 14^th Congress and its Members; Senator Richard J. Gordon, in his capacity as the Chairman of the Blue Ribbon Committee; Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, in his capacity as Senate President of the Philippines; and (Ret.) Major General Jose Balajadia, Jr., in his official capacity as Senate Sergeant-at-Arms)

The instant petition was filed under Rule 102 of the Rules of Court on Habeas Corpus. The petition seeks the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus for this Court to command respondents to produce the body of petitioner Jaime L. Paule and to provisionally release him pending the hearing of the case or at least to admit bail.[1]Petitioner also seeks, after hearing, a final order to be issued by the Court declaring his arrest and detention as unlawful and directing his permanent release from illegal arrest and detention.[2]

The instant controversy started with the Senate investigations in aid of legislation on the alleged mismanagement and misuse of the fertilizer fund of the Department of Agriculture's <I>Ginintuang Masaganang Ani (Golden Abundant Harvest) Program. During these investigations, petitioner's name was mentioned by several of the resource persons.

Thus, the Blue Ribbon Committee issued a subpoena for petitioner to attend the hearings before the Senate on the issue of the fertilizer fund. Despite the issuance of the subpoena, petitioner was absent during the subsequent hearing before the Senate. Petitioner claims that the subpoena was never served upon him.

Nevertheless, on December 17, 2008, the Blue Ribbon Committee issued a warrant of arrest against petitioner for his failure to attend the hearings. On December 21, 2008, respondent Balajadia attempted to serve this warrant on petitioner at his residence. The warrant was, however, left unserved, as petitioner was not present at his residence.

Thereafter, on December 23, 2008, allegedly after returning from an out-of-town trip, petitioner went to the office of Senator Gordon and promised to be present during the next hearing of the Blue Ribbon Committee. Thus, on January 20, 2009, he appeared before the Blue Ribbon Committee and answered the questions that were propounded to him by the Committee members. Later, petitioner also attended the January 26, 2009 hearing of the Committee.

On the allegation that his answers during the hearing were false and evasive, there was a motion by Senator Panfilo Lacson, one of the committee members, to cite petitioner for contempt. This motion was deliberated upon by the committee, which issued an Order dated February 4, 20093 citing petitioner for contempt and ordering his arrest and detention at the Pasay City Jail for three days.

On February 11, 2009, respondent Balajadia, with other members of the Office of the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms (OSSA), went to serve the warrant on petitioner at his residence. They were, however, informed by petitioner's lawyer that he was at St. Luke's Medical Center after feeling ill the day before. Thus, that afternoon, the arresting team proceeded to St. Luke's. Upon reaching the hospital, the arresting team conferred with the attending doctors of petitioner, who advised against moving him at that time. Thus, members of the OSSA were posted outside the door of the hospital room of petitioner, who was placed under the custody of the Senate.

Hence, we have this petition.

The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that on February 12, 2009, petitioner was released from St. Luke's and taken to the Pasay City Jail by the elements of the OSSA, and that on February 16, 2009 was released from jail upon the order of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee.

Based on the foregoing facts, the petition has become moot and academic.

Rule 102 of the Rules of Court contains the requisites for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to wit:

SEC. 3. Requisites of application therefor.- Application for the writ shall be by petition signed and verified either by the party for whose relief it is intended, or by some person on his behalf, and shall set forth:

(a) That the person in whose behalf the application is made is imprisoned or restrained of his liberty;

(b) The officer or name of the person by whom he is so imprisoned or restrained; or, if both are unknown or uncertain, such officer or person may be described by an assumed appellation, and the person who is served with the writ shall be deemed the person intended;

(c) The place where he is so imprisoned or restrained, if known;

(d) A copy of the commitment or cause of detention of such person, if it can be procured without impairing the efficiency of the remedy; or, if the imprisonment or restraint is without any legal authority, such fact shall appear. (Emphasis supplied.)

Relative to the above rule, the Court has ruled in a long line of cases4 that upon the release of the person subject of the application for a writ of habeas corpus, the petition is rendered moot and academic.

We stated later in Pulido v. Abu:[5]

When the release of the persons in whose behalf the application for a "Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed is effected, the Petition for the issuance of the writ becomes moot and academic. With the release of both Mesa and Gonzales, the Petition for Habeas Corpus has, indeed, been rendered moot. Courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights will not consider questions where no actual interests are involved. Thus, the well-settled rule that courts will not determine a moot question. Where the issues have become moot and academic, there ceases to be any justiciable controversy, thus rendering the resolution of the same of no practical value. This Court will therefore abstain from expressing its opinion in a case where no legal relief is needed or called for. (Emphasis supplied.)

In the instant case, petitioner was already released from the custody of the Senate when he was released from the Pasay City Jail on February 16, 2009. Hence, the release of the person subject of the petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus has rendered the petition moot and academic.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED."

Brion, J., on official leave.

Endnotes:

[1] Rollo, p. 38.

[2] Id.

[3] Id. at 82-84.

[4] Office of the Solicitor General v. De Castro, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2018, August 3, 2007, 529 SCRA 157, 171; In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Atty. Fernando Arguelles, Jr., et al v. Balajadia, Jr., G.R. No. 167211, March 14, 2006, 484 SCRA 653, 657; Olaguer v. Military Commission No. 34, No. L-54558, May 22, 1987, 150 SCRA 144, 153; Arriba v. People, No. L-57069, August 31, 1981, 107 SCRA 191, 193.

[5]G.R. No. 170924, July 4, 2007, 526 SCRA 483, 495-496.

Back to Home | Back to Main