G.R. No. L-62992 September 28, 1984
ARLENE BABST, ET AL., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE BOARD, SPECIAL COMMITTEE NO. 2, BRIG. GEN. WILFREDO ESTRADA (ret.), ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, who are columnists, feature writers, and reporters, filed a petition for prohibition to restrain respondents, predominantly military officers comprising a National Intelligence Board (NIB) Special Committee, from issuing subpoenas or letters of invitation to interrogate them and from filing libel suits based on matters inquired into. Since July 1980, some petitioners had been summoned for sustained interrogations regarding their work, beliefs, associations, and private lives. The letters, styled as invitations, contained language implying compulsion, such as a warning that failure to appear would be considered a waiver and the Committee would proceed “in accordance with law.” Additionally, a criminal libel complaint with a P10 million damages claim was filed by Brig. Gen. Artemio Tadiar, Jr., in his personal capacity, against two petitioners based on a previously interrogated-about article. An information was subsequently filed in court.
Petitioners argued the proceedings violated constitutional guarantees on free expression, amounted to a punitive ordeal and a system of censorship, and intruded into individual liberty. They contended the libel case was instituted to intimidate and was based on evidence from illegal interrogations. Respondents countered that the letters were mere voluntary invitations for dialogue, not subpoenas, and that the libel case was a personal action not pending before the NIB. Crucially, respondents averred the petition was moot as the NIB Director General had ordered the termination of the Special Committee’s proceedings, which had in fact ended.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of prohibition should be issued to restrain the respondents’ interrogation proceedings and the filing or prosecution of libel cases arising therefrom.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Regarding the interrogation proceedings, the petition was rendered moot and academic as the acts sought to be prohibited—the issuance of invitations and the conduct of interrogations by the NIB Special Committee—had already been terminated by order of the NIB Director General. The Court, however, made an instructive observation: while an invitation to answer questions is ordinarily legal, the specific circumstances here—where the invitation came from a powerful military group shortly after martial rule, with the interrogation set in a military camp and carrying an ominous warning—could easily be perceived not as voluntary but as an authoritative command, creating a chilling effect on constitutional freedoms. The termination of the proceedings was thus noted as fortunate.
Concerning the libel charges, the Court ruled prohibition would not lie. The writ of prohibition is directed against a tribunal, board, or person exercising judicial or ministerial functions. The libel case was filed personally by Gen. Tadiar and is pending before the Regional Trial Court, not before the respondent NIB officials. Therefore, respondents have no control over the prosecution of that case, and prohibition cannot be issued against them to restrain a judicial proceeding in another forum. The Court did not rule on the merits of the libel case itself.