Acosta, J. took the basic position that “this Court should always stand as a guarantor of the basic constitutional and human rights and it has the bounden duty to see to it that these rights are respected and enforced.” A clear statement of principle. Upon that foundation he was able to build the case for judicial supervision of all acts of State agents regardless of any case law to the contrary. First, he quoted from his own chosen precedents e g a 1994 decision of the Supreme Court, Allado vs Diokno: “The Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, defines the limits beyond which lie unsanctioned state actions. But on occasion, for one reason or another, the State transcends this parameter. In consequence, individual liberty unnecessarily suffers. The case before us, if uncurbed, can be illustrative of a dismal trend. Needless injury of the sort inflicted by government agents is not reflective of responsible government.”
From this Acosta went straight to the point: “This Court, sitting as a Habeas Corpus court, has the power to inquire into the legality of every aspect of the detention, despite the subsequent filing of the several informations against the 43 detainees…this Court is duty-bound not to take on its face the fact that informations have been filed against the detainees, and consider them as a cure to whatever violations the law enforcers may have committed against the basic constitutional rights of the detainees.”
Having set out the principled position challenging the majority decision, Acosta then turned his guns on the basis for that decision: “It becomes apparent that the doctrine in Ilagan vs. Enrile, which notably was decided during the Martial Law regime, has been used as a shield by law enforcers to escape from the court’s claws of judicial inquiry. And it is precisely pursuant to that doctrine that the court’s hands are tied thereby preventing Us to pass judgment on the very reason why the Petitioners instituted the instant case.”
Now he piles on added weight and, in effect, makes the case that the basic premise of the majority decision is an unworthy and anti-Constitutional element : “To quote the words of Justice Sarmiento in his dissenting opinion in Umil vs. Ramos ‘In my considered opinion, Ilagan vs. Enrile does not rightfully belong in the volumes of Philippine jurisprudence.’ ”
After setting out his position and undermining the very basis for the majority decision, it was simply a mopping up operation, though deftly done. Referencing the Constitution, Acosta made it clear that the search warrant was not valid because it lacked the required specificity. Since that is so, he rightly points out that it was as if there was no search, thus the items seized-being the “fruit of the poisonous tree”- could not be used in any judicial proceeding against the detainees.
He further showed that the arrests of the 43 were also invalid. There was no arrest warrant, and there were no grounds for an arrest without warrant. The latter because there was no crime being committed, or recently committed, by any of the 43. ( Even if they were communist NPAs, that is not by itself a crime). And the firearms and explosives were not in their possession when found in and under beds. (It seems they were planted during the search, which was carried out while all people in the group were held outside the buildings they had been dragged out of.)
The main safeguard against arbitrary prosecution of detained persons is a thorough Preliminary Investigation (or Inquest) by a Prosecutor supposedly independent of the arresting authority. It is their task to test the case against the accused and to determine whether it should proceed to trial. This is the Constitutional position in the Philippines. But in this instance, the Prosecutor (and his Senior Supervisor) simply fell into line with those authorities and gave them the thumbs up on the processes of the detention , and the allegations they filed in support of criminal charges. With the recommendation of the State Prosecutor that charges be laid and that the Regional Trial Court take jurisdiction over the mandated trial, the State was then in a position to argue that the Ilagan vs. Enrile concept of “curative information” could apply. With that, the fundamental illegalities of the State agents, and the serious violations of the rights of the 43, would be wiped from the slate. There is a ‘cure” for everything if that gets the State and its agents off the hook.
Again referencing the Constitution, as well as Republic legislation, Acosta was scathing about the Inquest which was held to determine what charges-if any-should be filed against the 43. Despite a clear Constitutional requirement that accused persons have a right in all criminal proceedings to be represented by legal counsel, and the elaboration of that right through the legislative requirement that “Any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel”, the detainees here were refused legal counsel throughout the 5 days of their detention, including the Inquest which was, in fact, entirely perfunctory. There was no investigation whatsoever, simply a Roll Call and the Inquest was complete! The Justice commented on the nature of an Inquest that “it is subject to the requirements of both substantive and procedural due process…it goes to the very heart of the Bill of Rights provisions of the Constitution. In effect, to deny an accused of any of his rights during the conduct of an inquest proceedings would be to deprive him of his right of due process, thereby invalidating the entire proceedings. The subsequent filing of the Information based on a defective proceedings would just put at naught the most cherished right in all civilized nations. We might as well relegate the right to liberty from its prime position among the protected rights in our fundamental law to just some obscure crevice not worth revisiting. Any action on Our part upholding the detention bodes ill for this Court and the entire nation. It is a desertion of our most solemn duty as the guardian of civil liberties, instead of continuously bearing, mighty and proud, the torch of freedom to illuminate the nooks and crannies of our democratic country.”
