PRESS RELEASE
March 11, 2010

The League of Filipino Students challenged the Supreme Court to reverse the split Court of Appeals decision on the Morong 43 habeas corpus petition and abandon ‘Marcosian habeas corpus doctrines’ in light of the privileged status of human rights and civil liberties under the 1987 Constitution.

“Upon the passage of the 1987 Constitution, human rights and civil liberties have been raised to the level of an express constitutional protection to individual freedoms, especially against arbitrary arrests and charges, and it should be within this framework that the Supreme Court must resolve the Morong 43 petition.”

Ridon insisted that the filing of the Information against the Morong 43 had been erroneous, in light of the inadmissibility of evidence which constituted the filing of charges against the health workers – the illegal recovery of supposed explosives and firearms on the basis of a defective search and arrest warrant.

“The CA decision is legally untenable as the appellate court merely reiterated old habeas corpus doctrines which were decided in the darkest days of martial rule and clearly favored the atmosphere of military terror and repression at the time. The Morong 43 case may be the test case for human rights and civil liberties under the 1987 Constitution”
This was the statement of Terry Ridon, National Chairperson of the League of Filipino Students and senior student at the UP College of Law, upon receiving news that the CA ruled in favor of the arrests by the military.

Ridon intimated that similar to the Ilagan v. Enrile case, the filing of the Information against the Morong 43 was in the nature of an ‘arbitrary filing of precipitate, vindictive and oppressive charges in gross violation of their right and rudimentary requirements of due process and fair play’ as the health workers were prevented from challenging the finding of probable cause and the inadmissibility of the evidence gathered against them.

“It is about time to reverse the doctrine laid down by the leading case of Ilagan v. Enrile, where the mere filing of Information prevented the release of political detainees despite the patent illegality of a person’s arrest and detention.”

He said that the present SC should refer to the dissenting opinion of former Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee in responding to the challenge of reversing the Marcosian Supreme Court doctrines, who stated thus, “The judiciary [assisted by the bar] stands between the citizen and the State as a bulwark against executive excesses and misuse or abuse of power by the executive.”

“Our good justices must respond to this historic challenge.” Ridon said finally.