G.R. No. L-40134 September 12, 1975
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF SATURNINO LASAM and EDGARDO LASAM, and for PROHIBITION, ENCARNACION B. LASAM, petitioners, vs. HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Secretary of National Defense, and COL. THOMAS MANLONGAT, PC Provincial Commander, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Saturnino Lasam and Edgardo Lasam were arrested and detained on January 18, 1975, pursuant to an Arrest, Search and Seizure Order (ASSO) issued by the Secretary of National Defense. The ASSO was based on alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Revised Penal Code. They filed a petition for habeas corpus and prohibition, challenging the validity of the ASSO on several grounds, including the procedure for determining probable cause, the scope of crimes described in the order, and whether the charged crimes involved national security to justify the suspension of the privilege of the writ.
Subsequently, the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and Motion, informing the Court that on July 30, 1975, separate criminal informations for graft and estafa were filed against the petitioners before the Circuit Criminal Court. Judicial warrants of arrest were issued on August 4, 1975, and bail was fixed. The Solicitor General argued that since the judicial warrants were based on the same acts and transactions underlying the ASSO, the petition had been rendered moot and academic. Petitioners countered that the case was not moot, pointing to alleged inconsistencies in the respondents’ pleadings regarding the complainants and witnesses, and emphasized that the petition also sought prohibition to test the constitutionality of the ASSO.

ISSUE

Whether the filing of criminal informations in court and the issuance of judicial warrants of arrest rendered the petition for habeas corpus and prohibition moot and academic.

RULING

Yes, the petition was rendered moot and academic. The Court agreed with the Solicitor General’s position. The pivotal legal logic is that the supervening issuance of judicial warrants of arrest by the Circuit Criminal Court, based on the same acts for which the petitioners were originally detained under the ASSO, fundamentally altered the nature of their detention. Their confinement was no longer solely pursuant to the administrative ASSO but was now under the authority of the court’s judicial process. The primary purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into the legality of a person’s detention. When a detainee is subsequently charged in court and a judicial warrant is issued, any challenge to the prior administrative arrest order becomes irrelevant to the present cause of detention. The proper forum to question any alleged illegality of the initial ASSO is in a separate appropriate action, not within the habeas corpus proceeding which had been overtaken by these judicial events. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition.