SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 197597, April 08, 2015
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO, DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, QUEZON CITY JAIL ANNEX, BJMP BUILDING, CAMP BAGONG DIWA, TAGUIG CITY AND ALL OTHER PERSONS ACTING ON HIS BEHALF AND/OR HAVING CUSTODY OF DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
Habeas corpus is the proper remedy for a person deprived of liberty due to mistaken identity. In such cases, the person is not under any lawful process and is continuously being illegally detained.
This is a Petition for Review1 on Certiorari of the Court of Appeals Decision2 reversing the Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 153, Pasig City (Taguig Hall of Justice) granting Datukan Malang Salibo's Petition for Habeas Corpus.
From November 7, 2009 to December 19, 2009, Datukan Malang Salibo (Salibo) and other Filipinos were allegedly in Saudi Arabia for the Hajj Pilgrimage.4 "While in Saudi Arabia, . . . Salibo visited and prayed in the cities of Medina, Mecca, Arpa, Mina and Jeddah."5 He returned to the Philippines on December 20, 2009.6
On August 3, 2010, Salibo learned that police officers of Datu Hofer Police Station in Maguindanao suspected him to be Butukan S. Malang.7
Butukan S. Malang was one of the 197 accused of 57 counts of murder for allegedly participating in the November 23, 2009 Maguindanao Massacre. He had a pending warrant of arrest issued by the trial court in People of the Philippines v. Datu Andal Ampatuan, Jr., et al.8
Salibo presented himself before the police officers of Datu Hofer Police Station to clear his name. There, he explained that he was not Butukan S. Malang and that he could not have participated in the November 23, 2009 Maguindanao Massacre because he was in Saudi Arabia at that time.9
To support his allegations, Salibo presented to the police "pertinent portions of his passport, boarding passes and other documents"10 tending to prove that a certain Datukan Malang Salibo was in Saudi Arabia from November 7 to December 19, 2009.11
The police officers initially assured Salibo that they would not arrest him because he was not Butukan S. Malang.12
Afterwards, however, the police officers apprehended Salibo and tore off page two of his passport that evidenced his departure for Saudi Arabia on November 7, 2009. They then detained Salibo at the Datu Hofer Police Station for about three (3) days.13
The police officers transferred Salibo to the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group in Cotabato City, where he was detained for another 10 days. While in Cotabato City, the Criminal Investigation and Detention Group allegedly made him sign and affix his thumbprint on documents.14
On August 20, 2010, Salibo was finally transferred to the Quezon City Jail Annex, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology Building, Camp Bagong Diwa, Taguig City, where he is currently detained.15
On September 17, 2010, Salibo filed before the Court of Appeals the Urgent Petition for Habeas Corpus16 questioning the legality of his detention and deprivation of his liberty.17 He maintained that he is not the accused Butukan S. Malang.18
In the Resolution19 dated September 21, 2010, the Court of Appeals issued a Writ of Habeas Corpus, making the Writ returnable to the Second Vice Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Pasig City (Taguig Hall of Justice).20 The Court of Appeals ordered the Warden of the Quezon City Jail Annex to file a Return of the Writ one day before the scheduled hearing and produce the person of Salibo at the 10:00 a.m. hearing set on September 27, 2010.21
Proceedings before the trial court
On September 27, 2010, the jail guards of the Quezon City Jail Annex brought Salibo before the trial court. The Warden, however, failed to file a Return one day before the hearing. He also appeared without counsel during the hearing.22
Thus, the trial court canceled the hearing and reset it to September 29, 2010 at 2:00 p.m.23
On September 28, 2010, the Warden filed the Return of the Writ. However, during the September 29, 2010 hearing on the Return, the Warden appeared with Atty. Romeo L. Villante, Jr., Legal Officer/Administering Officer of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology.24
Salibo questioned the appearance of Atty. Romeo L. Villante, Jr. on behalf of the Warden and argued that only the Office of the Solicitor General has the authority to appear on behalf of a respondent in a habeas corpus proceeding.25
The September 29, 2010 hearing, therefore, was canceled. The trial court reset the hearing on the Return to October 1, 2010 at 9:00 a.m.26
The Return was finally heard on October 1, 2010. Assistant Solicitors Noel Salo and Isar Pepito appeared on behalf of the Warden of the Quezon City Jail Annex and argued that Salibo's Petition for Habeas Corpus should be dismissed. Since Salibo was charged under a valid Information and Warrant of Arrest, a petition for habeas corpus was "no longer availing."27
Salibo countered that the Information, Amended Information, Warrant of Arrest, and Alias Warrant of Arrest referred to by the Warden all point to Butukan S. Malang, not Datukan Malang Salibo, as accused. Reiterating that he was not Butukan S. Malang and that he was in Saudi Arabia on the day of the Maguindanao Massacre, Salibo pleaded the trial court to order his release from detention.28
The trial court found that Salibo was not "judicially charged"29 under any resolution, information, or amended information. The Resolution, Information, and Amended Information presented in court did not charge Datukan Malang Salibo as an accused. He was also not validly arrested as there was no Warrant of Arrest or Alias Warrant of Arrest against Datukan Malang Salibo. Salibo, the trial court ruled, was not restrained of his liberty under process issued by a court.30
The trial court was likewise convinced that Salibo was not the Butukan S. Malang charged with murder in connection with the Maguindanao Massacre. The National Bureau of Investigation Clearance dated August 27, 2009 showed that Salibo has not been charged of any crime as of the date of the certificate.31 A Philippine passport bearing Salibo's picture showed the name "Datukan Malang Salibo."32
Moreover, the trial court said that Salibo "established that [he] was out of the country"33 from November 7, 2009 to December 19, 2009. This fact was supported by a Certification34 from Saudi Arabian Airlines confirming Salibo's departure from and arrival in Manila on board its flights.35 A Flight Manifest issued by the Bureau of Immigration and Saudi Arabian Airlines Ticket No. 0652113 also showed this fact.36
Thus, in the Decision dated October 29, 2010, the trial court granted Salibo's Petition for Habeas Corpus and ordered his immediate release from detention.
Proceedings before the Court of Appeals
On appeal37 by the Warden, however, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the trial court's Decision.38 Through its Decision dated April 19, 2011, the Court of Appeals dismissed Salibo's Petition for Habeas Corpus.
Contrary to the trial court's finding, the Court of Appeals found that Salibo's arrest and subsequent detention were made under a valid Information and Warrant of Arrest.39 Even assuming that Salibo was not the Butukan S. Malang named in the Alias Warrant of Arrest, the Court of Appeals said that "[t]he orderly course of trial must be pursued and the usual remedies exhausted before the writ [of habeas corpus] may be invoked[.]"40 According to the Court of Appeals, Salibo's proper remedy was a Motion to Quash Information and/or Warrant of Arrest.41
Salibo filed a Motion for Reconsideration,42 which the Court of Appeals denied in the Resolution43 dated July 6, 2011.
Proceedings before this court
On July 28, 2011,44 petitioner Salibo filed before this court the Petition for Review (With Urgent Application for a Writ of Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction). Respondent Warden filed a Comment,45 after which petitioner Salibo filed a Reply.46
Petitioner Salibo maintains that he is not the Butukan S. Malang charged with 57 counts of murder before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 221, Quezon City. Thus, contrary to the Court of Appeals' finding, he, Datukan Malang Salibo, was not duly charged in court. He is being illegally deprived of his liberty and, therefore, his proper remedy is a Petition for Habeas Corpus.47
Petitioner Salibo adds that respondent Warden erred in appealing the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 153, Pasig City before the Court of Appeals. Although the Court of Appeals delegated to the trial court the authority to hear respondent Warden on the Return, the trial court's Decision should be deemed a Decision of the Court of Appeals. Therefore, respondent Warden should have directly filed his appeal before this court.48
As for respondent Warden, he maintains that petitioner Salibo was duly charged in court. Even assuming that he is not the Butukan S. Malang named in the Alias Warrant of Arrest, petitioner Salibo should have pursued the ordinary remedy of a Motion to Quash Information, not a Petition for Habeas Corpus.49
The issues for our resolution are:
First, whether the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 153, Pasig City on petitioner Salibo's Petition for Habeas Corpus was appealable to the Court of Appeals; and Second, whether petitioner Salibo's proper remedy is to file a Petition for Habeas Corpus.
We grant the Petition.cralawlawlibrary
[T]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action. . . . The scope and flexibility of the writ — its capacity to reach all manner of illegal detention — its ability to cut through barriers of form and procedural mazes — have always been emphasized and jealously guarded by courts and lawmakers. The very nature of the writ demands that it be administered with the initiative and flexibility essential to insure that miscarriages of justice within its reach are surfaced and corrected.95cralawlawlibraryIn Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro,96 the Provincial Board of Mindoro issued Resolution No. 25, Series of 1917. The Resolution ordered the Mangyans removed from their native habitat and compelled them to permanently settle in an 800-hectare reservation in Tigbao. Under the Resolution, Mangyans who refused to establish themselves in the Tigbao reservation were imprisoned.97
SEC. 4. When writ not allowed or discharge authorized.—If it appears that the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the judgment, or make the order, the writ shall not be allowed; or if the jurisdiction appears after the writ is allowed, the person shall not be discharged by reason of any informality or defect in the process, judgment, or order. Nor shall anything in this rule be held to authorize the discharge of a person charged with or convicted of an offense in the Philippines, or of a person suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment.In Ilagan v. Hon. Ponce Enrile,114 elements of the Philippine Constabulary-Integrated National Police arrested Atty. Laurente C. Ilagan (Atty. Ilagan) by virtue of a Mission Order allegedly issued by then Minister of National Defense, Juan Ponce Enrile (Minister Enrile). On the day of Atty. Ilagan's arrest,115 from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Davao Chapter visited Atty. Ilagan in Camp Catitipan, where he was detained.115
As contended by respondents, the petition herein has been rendered moot and academic by virtue of the filing of an Information against them for Rebellion, a capital offense, before the Regional Trial Court of Davao City and the issuance of a Warrant of Arrest against them. The function of the special proceeding of habeas corpus is to inquire into the legality of one's detention. Now that the detained attorneys' incarceration is by virtue of a judicial order in relation to criminal cases subsequently filed against them before the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, the remedy of habeas corpus no longer lies. The Writ had served its purpose.128 (Citations omitted)This court likewise dismissed the Petitions for habeas corpus in Umil v. Ramos.129 Roberto Umil, Rolando Dural, Renato Villanueva, Amelia Roque, Wilfredo Buenaobra, Atty. Domingo Anonuevo, Ramon Casiple, Vicky A. Ocaya, Deogracias Espiritu, and Narciso B. Nazareno were all arrested without a warrant for their alleged membership in the Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army.130
It is to be noted that, in all the petitions here considered, criminal charges have been filed in the proper courts against the petitioners. The rule is, that if a person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process or make the order, or if such person is charged before any court, the writ of habeas corpus will not be allowed.132 (Emphasis in the original)In such cases, instead of availing themselves of the extraordinary remedy of a petition for habeas corpus, persons restrained under a lawful process or order of the court must pursue the orderly course of trial and exhaust the usual remedies.133 This ordinary remedy is to file a motion to quash the information or the warrant of arrest.134
SEC. 3. Grounds.—The accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the following grounds:chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryIn filing a motion to quash, the accused "assails the validity of a criminal complaint or information filed against him [or her] for insufficiency on its face in point of law, or for defects which are apparent in the face of the information."136 If the accused avails himself or herself of a motion to quash, the accused "hypothetical[ly] admits the facts alleged in the information."137 "Evidence aliunde or matters extrinsic from the information are not to be considered."138ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense; (b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged; (c) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused;. (d) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so; (e) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form; (f) That more than one offense is charged except when a single punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law; (g) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished; (h) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; and (i) That the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.—A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryIt is undisputed that petitioner Salibo presented himself before the Datu Hofer Police Station to clear his name and to prove that he is not the accused Butukan S. Malang. When petitioner Salibo was in the presence of the police officers of Datu Hofer Police Station, he was neither committing nor attempting to commit an offense. The police officers had no personal knowledge of any offense that he might have committed. Petitioner Salibo was also not an escapee prisoner.In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on- personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 3-60.
2 Id. at 65-82. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia and concurred in by Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang (Chair) and Samuel H. Gaerlan of the Ninth Division.
3 Id. at 129-138. The Decision was penned by Judge Briccio C. Ygana of Branch 153 of the Regional Trial Court, Pasig City.
4 Id. at 183.
5 Id. at 184.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Crim. Case Nos. Q-09-16214872, Q-09-162216-31, and Q-10-162662-66. The cases are currently pending in the sala of Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes. See Re: Petition for Radio and Television Coverage of the Multiple Murder Cases against Mindanao Governor Ampatuan, et al., 667 Phil. 128, 131 (2011) [Per J. Carpio-Morales, En Banc].
9Rollo, pp. 184-185.
10 Id. at 185.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id. at 185-186.
16 Id. at 182-197.
17 Id. at 190.
18 Id.
19 Id. at 199-201.
20 Id. at 200.
21 Id.
22 Id. at 132.
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 Id. at 132-133.
26 Id. at 133.
27 Id.
28 Id. at 133-135.
29 Id. at 137.
30 Id. at 137-138.
31 Id. at 136-137 and 175.
32 Id. at 136 and 164.
33 Id. at 135.
34 Id. at 140.
35 Id. at 136.
36 Id. at 131 and 136.
37 Id. at 204-206.
38 Id. at 81.
39 Id. at 76-77.
40 Id. at 79.
41 Id. at 77.
42 Id. at 87-124.
43 Id. at 84-86. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia and concurred in by Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang (Chair) and Samuel H. Gaerlan of the Ninth Division.
44 Id. at 3.
45 Id. at 277-298.
46 Id. at 327-346.
47 Id. at 16-42.
48 Id. at 42-50.
49 Id. at 291-292.
50 CONST., art. VIII, sec. 5(1); RULES OF COURT, Rule 102, sec. 2.
51 Batas Blg. 129 (1981), sec. 9(1); RULES OF COURT, Rule 102, sec. 2.
52 Batas Blg. 129 (1981), sec. 21(1);RULES OF COURT, Rule 102, sec. 2.
53 RULES OF COURT, Rule 102, sec. 6.
54 RULES OF COURT, Rule 102, sec. 12.
55 RULES OF COURT, rule 102, sec. 6; See Medina v. Gen. Yan, 158 Phil. 286, 296 (1974) [Per J. Fernandez, En Banc]; See also Saulo v. Brig. Gen. Cruz, etc., 109 Phil. 378, 382 (1960) [Per J. J. B. L. Reyes, En Banc].
56Medina v. Gen. Yan, 158 Phil. 286, 298 (1974) [Per J. Fernandez, En Banc],
57See Medina v. Gen. Yan, 158 Phil. 286, 298-299 (1974) [Per J. Fernandez, En Banc]. See also Saulo v. Brig. Gen. Cruz, etc., 109 Phil. 378, 382 (1960) [Per J. J.B.L. Reyes, En Banc].
58 109 Phil. 378 (1960) [Per J. J.B.L. Reyes, En Banc].
59 Id. at 379.
60 Id.
61 Id. at 380-381.
62 Id. at 382.
63 Id.
64 Id.
65 Id.
66 Id.
67 158 Phil. 286 (1974) [Per J. Fernandez, En Banc].
68 Id. at 290.
69 Id.
70 Id.
71 Id. at 294-297.
72 Id. at 298.
73 Id. at 298299.
74Medina v. Gen. Yan, 158 Phil. 286, 298 (1974) [Per J. Fernandez, En Banc].
75 Batas Blg. 129 (1981), sec. 9(3).
76Morales, Jr. v. Enrile, 206 Phil. 466, 495 (1983) [Per J. Concepcion, Jr., En Banc].
77Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778, 788 (1919) [Per J. Malcolm, En Banc].
78De Villa v. Director, New Bililbid Prisons, 485 Phil. 368, 381 (2004) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, En Banc]; Calvan v. Court of Appeals, 396 Phil. 133, 144 (2000) [Per J. Vitug, Third Division].
79Mangila v. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 160739, July 17, 2013, 701 SCRA 355, 360 [Per J. Bersamin, First Division], citing Caballes v. Court of Appeals, 492 Phil. 410, 422 (2005) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division]; Saulo v. Brig. Gen. Cruz, etc., 105 Phil. 315, 320-321 (1959) [Per J. Concepcion, En Banc], citing 25 Am. Jur., p. 245.
80Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778,789 (1919) [Per J. Malcolm, En Banc].
81 RULES OF COURT, Rule 102, sec. 1.
82Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778, 790 (1919) [Per J, Malcolm, En Banc].
83 Id.
84See Gumabon, et al. v. Director of the Bureau of Prisons, 147 Phil. 362 (1971) [Per J. Fernando, En Banc], Conde v. Rivera and Unson, 45 Phil. 6.50 (1924) [Per J. Malcolm, En Banc], and Ganaway v. Quillen, 42 Phil. 805 (1922) [Per J. Malcolm, En Banc].
85Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778 (1919) [Per J. Malcolm, En Banc]; Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil. 660 (1919) [Per J. Malcolm, En Banc].
86 CONST., art. Ill, sec. 1 provides:
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
87See Gumabon, et al. v. Director of the Bureau of Prisons, A1 Phil. 362 (1971) [Per J. Fernando, En Banc].
88 147 Phil. 362 (1971) [Per J. Fernando, En Banc].
89 Id. at 364.
90 99 Phil. 515 (1956) [Per J. Concepcion, En Banc].
91Gumabon, et al. v. Director of the Bureau of Prisons, 147 Phil. 362, 364 (1971) [Per J. Fernando, En Banc].
92 Id. at 364-365.
93 Id. at 372.
94 22 L Ed 2d 281 (1969).
95Gumabon, et al. v. Director of the Bureau of Prisons, 147 Phil. 362, 367-368 (1971) [Per J. Fernando, En Banc].
96 39 Phil. 660 (1919) [Per J. Malcolm, En Banc].
97 Id. at 667-668.
98 Id. at 666.
99 Id. at 720. This court, however, denied the Petition for Habeas Corpus. It ruled that Resolution No. 25 validly displaced the Mangyans from their native habitat in order to "begin the process of civilization" (Id. at 712).
100 39 Phil. 778, 782 (1919) [Per J. Malcolm, En Banc].
101 Id. at 780.
102 Id. at 780-781.
103 Id. at 782.
104 Id. at 799.
105 Id. at 785-786.
106 Id. at 786.
107 Id
108Gumabon, et al. v. Director of the Bureau of Prisons, 147 Phil. 362, 367 (1971) [Per J. Fernando, En Banc], citing Ganaway v. Quillen, 42 Phil. 805 (1922) [Per J. Malcolm, En Banc].
109 CONST., art. III, sec. 15 provides:
Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.
110Morales, Jr. v. Minister Enrile, et al., 206 Phil. 466, 495 (1983) [Per J. Concepcion, Jr., En Banc].
111See In Re: Petition for Habeas Corpus of Villar v. Director Bugarin, 224 Phil. 161, 170 (1985) [Per C.J. Makasiar, En Banc], Celeste v. People, 142 Phil. 308, 312 (1970) [Per J. Fernando, En Banc], Santiago v. Director of Prisons, 77 Phil. 927, 930-931 (1947) [Per J. Tuason, En Banc], Quintos v. Director of Prisons, 55 Phil. 304, 306 (1930) [Per J. Malcolm, En Banc], and Carrihgton v. Peterson, 4 Phil. 134, 138 (1905) [Per J. Johnson, En Banc].
112 In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Harvey v. Hon. Santiago, 245 Phil. 809, 816 (1988) [Per J. Melencio-Herrera, Second Division], citing Cruz v. Gen. Montoya, 159 Phil. 601, 604-605 (1975) [Per J. Fernando, Second Division].
113Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Hon. Ponce Enrile, 223 Phil. 561, 580 (1985) [Per J. Melencio- Herrera, En Banc]; In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Harvey v. Hon. Santiago, 245 Phil. 809, 816 (1988) [Per J. Melencio-Herrera, Second Division], citing Beltran v. P.C. Capt. Garcia, 178 Phil. 590, 594 (1979) [Per Acting C.J. Fernando, Eri Banc].
114Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Hon. Ponce Enrile, 223 Phil. 561 (1985) [Per J. Melencio-Herrera, En Banc].
115 Id. at 573.
116 Id.
117 Id.
118 Id. at 572.
119 Id. at 561 and 573.
120 Id. at 573.
121 Id.
122 Id.
123 Id. at 574.
124 Id.
125 Id. at 575.
126 Id.
127 Id. at 576.
128 Id.
129 G.R. No. 81567, July 9, 1990, 187 SCRA 311 [Per Curiam, En Banc].
130 Id. at 317-331.
131 Id. at 332.
132 Id.
133Caballes v. Court of Appeals, 492 Phil. 410, 422 (2005) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].
134Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Hon. Ponce Enrile, 223 Phil. 561, 577 (1985) [Per J. Melencio- Herrera, En Banc]; Bernarte v. Court of Appeals, 331 Phil. 643, 657 (1996) [Per J. Romero, Second Division].
135 RULES OF COURT, Rule 117, sec. l.
136People v. Odtuhan, G.R. No. 191566, July 17, 2013, 701 SCRA 506, 512 [Per J. Peralta; Third Division].
137 Id.
138 Id.
139 RULES OF COURT, Rule 117, sec. 4.
140 RULES OF COURT, Rule 117, sec. 4.
141 RULES OF COURT, Rule 117, sec. 4.
142Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Hon. Ponce Enrile, 223 Phil. 561 (1985) [Per J. Melencio-Herrera, En Banc].
143 ISAGANI A. CRUZ, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 292 (2007 ed.).
144Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Hon. Ponce Enrile, 223 Phil. 561 (1985) [Per J. Melencio-Herrera, En Banc].
145Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Hon. Ponce Enrile, 223 Phil. 561 (1985) [Per J. Melencio-Herrera, En Banc].
146 J. Teehankee, Dissenting Opinion in Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Hon. Ponce Enrile, 223 Phil. 561, 622 (1985) [Per J. Melencio-Herrera, En Banc].
147 Id.
148Rollo, pp. 164-166.
149 Id. at 168.
150 Id. at 175.
151 Id.
152 Id. at 139.
153 Id. at 140.
154Re: Petition for Radio and Television Coverage of the Multiple Murder Cases against Mindanao Governor Ampatuan, et al., 667 Phil. 128, 131 (2011) [Per J. Carpio-Morales, En Banc].
155 Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, SERENO SPEECH | On Maguindanao Massacre: The culture of impunity and the counter-culture of hope (visited March 11, 2015).
156 Id.
157 J. Teehankee, Dissenting Opinion in Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Hon. Ponce Enrile, 223 Phil. 561, 616 (1985) [Per J. Melencio-Henrera, En Banc].