G.R. No. 252117 , July 28, 2020
IN THE MATTER OF THE URGENT PETITION FOR THE RELEASE OF PRISONERS ON HUMANITARIAN GROUNDS IN THE MIDST OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, DIONISIO S. ALMONTE, ET AL., PETITIONERS, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, EDUARDO AÑO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners are detainees, represented by family members, who filed an urgent petition for their temporary release on recognizance or bail on humanitarian grounds due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They cited their advanced age, compromised health conditions, and the severe congestion of jails, which makes social distancing impossible and heightens the risk of infection. They argued that their continued detention under these conditions violates their constitutional right against cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment, as well as their rights to life, health, and security. They invoked international law principles and cited examples from other countries that had released vulnerable prisoners. They also prayed for the creation of a “prisoner release committee” to implement the release of similarly situated individuals.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petitioners’ request for temporary release on humanitarian grounds due to the COVID-19 pandemic and jail congestion, and what legal mechanisms are available to address such concerns.

RULING

Justice Leonen, in his Separate Opinion, concurred with the Court’s unanimous decision to refer the case to the trial courts to determine, upon proper motion or petition, if factual bases exist to support temporary release. He clarified several points for the guidance of the Bench and Bar:
1. The traditional modes for securing release are through bail or recognizance, which must be sought in the trial courts in compliance with the Constitution, laws, and rules.
2. Persons deprived of liberty may file an action for violations of their constitutional rights against cruel punishment and to life, health, and security. To avail of such relief, they must allege and prove: (a) existing inhuman detention conditions; (b) violation of a clear statutory or constitutional provision; (c) a clear demand made to relevant government agencies; and (d) intentional or persistent refusal or negligence by the government to address the situation.
3. He proposed the creation of a new judicial remedy—a “writ of kalayaan“—similar to the writ of kalikasan or continuing mandamus in environmental cases, but aimed at addressing jail congestion. This writ would be issued when conditions constituting cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment are established and would prioritize the release of those with the lowest penalties and crimes linked to poverty, under the supervision of an executive judge.
The opinion emphasizes the Court’s duty to provide guidance on addressing jail congestion, a perennial problem exacerbated by the pandemic, while respecting the roles of the executive and legislative branches and the proper judicial procedures for seeking release.