G.R. No. 115576. August 4, 1994.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF LEONARDO PAQUINTO AND JESUS
CABANGUNAY. CHAIRMAN SEDFREY A. ORDOÑEZ, COMM. SAMUEL M. SORIANO, COMM. HESIQUIO R.
MALLILLIN, COMM. NARCISO C. MONTEIRO, COMM. PAULYNN PAREDES-SICAM, THE COMMISSION ON
HUMAN RIGHTS, petitioners, vs. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, respondent.

Constitutional Law; Due Process; Military Tribunals; Courts; Failure to file before civilian courts the
corresponding charges against the prisoners, who are detained by virtue of their previous conviction by
military commissions, due to the loss of records of the cases can not justify their continued detention.—
It has been seven years since the Olaguer decision nullifying the convictions of Paquinto and
Cabangunay by the military commissions was promulgated. It has been six years since our decision in
the Cruz case directed the Secretary of Justice to file the appropriate informations against the civilians
still detained under convictions rendered by the military tribunals. The prisoners have been confined
since 1974. We can only guess at the validity of their convictions as the records of their cases have
allegedly been burned. The loss of these records is the main reason the Department gives for its failure
to file the corresponding charges against the two detainees before the civil courts. It is unacceptable, of
course. It is not the fault of the prisoners that the records cannot now be found. If anyone is to be
blamed, it surely cannot be the prisoners, who were not the custodian of those records. It is illogical and
even absurd to suggest that because the government cannot prosecute them, the prisoners’ detention
must continue.

Same; Same; Same; Same; If no information can be filed against the prisoners because the records have
been lost, in the eyes of the law they are not guilty or appear to be guilty of any crime for which they
may be validly held.—There is absolutely no question that the prisoners’ plea should be heeded. The
government has failed to show that their continued detention is supported by a valid conviction or by
the pendency of charges against them or by any legitimate cause whatsoever. If no information can be
filed against them because the records have been lost, it is not the prisoners who should be made to
suffer. In the eyes of

_______________

* EN BANC.

153

VOL. 235, AUGUST 4, 1994

153

Ordoñez vs. Director of Prisons

the law, Paquinto and Cabangunay are not guilty or appear to be guilty of any crime for which they may
be validly held. Hence, they are entitled to be set free.
Same; Same; Liberty; When a person is deprived of liberty, all of us are diminished and debased for
liberty is total and indivisible.—Liberty is not a gift of the government but the right of the governed.
Every person is free, save only for the fetters of the law that limit but do not bind him unless he affronts
the rights of others or offends the public welfare. Liberty is not derived from the sufferance of the
government or its magnanimity or even from the Constitution itself, which merely affirms but does not
grant it. Liberty is a right that inheres in every one of us as a member of the human family. When a
person is deprived of this right, all of us are diminished and debased for liberty is total and indivisible.

ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Habeas Corpus.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

CRUZ, J.:

Why are Leonardo Paquinto and Jesus Cabangunay still in prison?

These persons are among the civilians who were tried by the military commissions during the period of
martial law. Both were originally condemned to die by musketry, but their sentence was commuted by
the new Constitution to reclusion perpetua.

Their convictions were subsequently nullified by this Court in the case of Olaguer v. Military Commission
No. 34,1 where we held that the military tribunals had no jurisdiction to try civilians when the courts of
justice were functioning.

Accordingly, in the case of Cruz v. Ponce Enrile,2 this Court directed the Department of Justice to file the
corresponding informations in the civil courts against the petitioners within 180 days from notice of the
decision.

No information has so far been filed against Paquinto and Cabangunay, but they have remained under
detention.

_______________

1 150 SCRA 144.

2 160 SCRA 700.

154

154

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ordoñez vs. Director of Prisons

On May 27, 1992, Ernesto Abaloc, together with Cabangunay and Paquinto, wrote to the United Nations
Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) complaining that their continued detention violated their rights
under Articles 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.3

In its decision dated October 14, 1993, the UNHRC declared their communication as admissible and
requested the Republic of the Philippines to submit a written explanation of their complaint within six
months from the date of transmittal.4

The Department of Foreign Affairs furnished the Commission on Human Rights with a copy of the
decision. Thereupon, the Commission, through its Chairman Sedfrey A. Ordoñez, wrote the Secretary of
Justice of its intention to sue for the release of the complainants unless criminal charges had already
been filed against them.5

On June 7, 1994, the Department of Justice informed the Commission that Abaloc had been released on
September 29, 1992, and that Paquinto and Cabangunay were still detained at the National Penitentiary.
There was the intimation that it would not object to a petition for habeas corpus that the Commission
might choose to file for Paquinto and Cabangunay.6 This assurance was later confirmed in a letter from
the Depart-ment dated May 31, 1994.7

The present petition for habeas corpus was filed with this Court on June 13, 1994. The writ was
immediately issued, returnable on or before June 22, 1994, on which date a hearing was also scheduled.

At the hearing, Chairman Ordoñez argued for the prisoners and pleaded for their immediate release in
view of the failure of the Department of Justice to file charges against them within the period specified
in the Cruz case. He stressed that their continued detention despite the nullification of their convictions
was a clear violation of their human rights.

_______________

3 Rollo, p. 17.

4 Rollo, p. 18.

5 Annex “B” to the Petition; rollo, p. 11.

6 Annex “C” to the Petition; rollo, p. 12.

7 Annex “A” to the Memorandum of Petitioners; rollo, p. 86.

155

VOL. 235, AUGUST 4, 1994

155

Ordoñez vs. Director of Prisons

For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General, as counsel for the respondent Director of Prisons, argued
that under our ruling in Tan v. Barrios,8 the Olaguer decision could not be retroactively applied to
decisions of the military tribunals that have already become final or to persons who were already
serving their sentence. It suggested that, under the circumstances, the only recourse of the prisoners
was to reiterate and pursue their applications for executive clemency.

It has been seven years since the Olaguer decision nullifying the convictions of Paquinto and
Cabangunay by the military commissions was promulgated. It has been six years since our decision in
the Cruz case directed the Secretary of Justice to file the appropriate informations against the civilians
still detained under convictions rendered by the military tribunals. The prisoners have been confined
since 1974. We can only guess at the validity of their convictions as the records of their cases have
allegedly been burned.

The loss of these records is the main reason the Department gives for its failure to file the corresponding
charges against the two detainees before the civil courts. It is unacceptable, of course. It is not the fault
of the prisoners that the records cannot now be found. If anyone is to be blamed, it surely cannot be the
prisoners, who were not the custodian of those records. It is illogical and even absurd to suggest that
because the government cannot prosecute them, the prisoners’ detention must continue.

The other excuse of the government must also be rejected. During the hearing, the Office of the Solicitor
General contended that the prisoners had themselves opted to serve their sentences rather than
undergo another trial. Their ultimate objective, so it was maintained, was to secure their release by
applying for executive clemency. To prove this, counsel submitted a letter from one Atty. Anselmo B.
Mabuti to the Secretary of Justice manifesting that Leonardo B. Paquinto “chooses to complete the
service of his sentence so that the Board of Pardons and Parole has jurisdiction over his case.”9 No
mention was made of Jesus Cabangunay.

_______________

8 190 SCRA 686.

9 Rollo, p. 70.

156

156

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ordoñez vs. Director of Prisons

Upon direct questioning from the Court during the hearing, both Paquinto and Cabangunay disowned
Atty. Mabuti as their counsel and said they had never seen nor talked to him before. Paquinto denied
ever having authorized him to write the letter. Instead, the two prisoners reiterated their plea to be
released on the strength of the Olaguer decision.
The petitioners further contend in their memorandum that a re-examination of the ruling in Cruz v.
Enrile 10 in relation to the case of Tan v. Barrios,11 is necessary in view of certain supervening events.
These are the failure of the Department of Justice to file the informations against the prisoners; the
decision of the UNHRC declaring admissible the communication No. 503/1992 of Abaloc, Paquinto and
Cabangunay and thus suggesting the violation of their liberty as guaranteed under the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and the assurance of the Department of Justice that it would have
no objection to the filing of a petition for habeas corpus by the Commission on behalf of Paquinto and
Cabangunay.

The Court stresses that in its en banc resolution dated February 26, 1991, it declared, citing the Tan
case, that “those civilians who were convicted by military courts and who have been serving (but not yet
completed) their sentences of imprisonment for the past many years” . . . “may be given the option
either to complete the service of their sentence, or be tried anew by the civil courts. Upon conviction,
they should be credited in the service of their sentence for the full period of their previous
imprisonment. Upon acquittal, they should be set free.”

Accordingly, it directed “the Department of Justice to forthwith comply with the directive in the ‘Cruz
Cases’ for the filing of the necessary informations against them in the courts having jurisdiction over the
offenses involved, without prejudice to said petitioners’ exercise of the option granted to them by this
Court’s ruling in G.R. Nos. 85481-82, William Tan, et al. v. Hernani T. Barrios, etc., et al., supra.”

The Office of the Solicitor General submitted its memorandum after its second motion for extension was
denied, in view of the

_______________

10 Supra.

11 Supra.

157

VOL. 235, AUGUST 4, 1994

157

Ordoñez vs. Director of Prisons

necessity to decide this petition without further delay.12 The memorandum was admitted just the same,
but we find it adds nothing to the respondent’s original arguments.

There is absolutely no question that the prisoners’ plea should be heeded. The government has failed to
show that their continued detention is supported by a valid conviction or by the pendency of charges
against them or by any legitimate cause whatsoever. If no information can be filed against them because
the records have been lost, it is not the prisoners who should be made to suffer. In the eyes of the law,
Paquinto and Cabangunay are not guilty or appear to be guilty of any crime for which they may be
validly held. Hence, they are entitled to be set free.
Liberty is not a gift of the government but the right of the governed. Every person is free, save only for
the fetters of the law that limit but do not bind him unless he affronts the rights of others or offends the
public welfare. Liberty is not derived from the sufferance of the government or its magnanimity or even
from the Constitution itself, which merely affirms but does not grant it. Liberty is a right that inheres in
every one of us as a member of the human family. When a person is deprived of this right, all of us are
diminished and debased for liberty is total and indivisible.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Jesus Cabangunay and Leonardo Paquinto should not be
detained in prison a minute longer. They are ordered released IMMEDIATELY.

     Narvasa (C.J.), Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno,
Vitug, Kapunan and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Petition granted. Petitioners ordered released.

Note.—Where the delay in the filing of information was due to complexity of the issues, there is no
denial of due process. (Santiago vs. Garchitorena, 228 SCRA 214 [1993])

———o0o———

_______________ Ordoñez vs. Director of Prisons, 235 SCRA 152, G.R. No. 115576 August 4, 1994