The Court of Appeals (CA) has denied former Bamban, Tarlac Mayor Alice Guo’s motion for reconsideration seeking her release through a writ of habeas corpus, citing a “lack of merit.”
In an eight-page resolution dated October 5, the appellate court clarified that Guo was not detained by the Bureau of Immigration (BI) but by virtue of a warrant issued by the Pasig City Regional Trial Court Branch 167.
Guo had argued that her arrest by the BI was unlawful and that the deportation proceedings against her were based on allegedly unconstitutional findings. The BI, however, maintained that habeas corpus should not be granted to a detainee who has already been charged and convicted.
The CA explained that the writ of habeas corpus serves as a remedy against unlawful detention.
“In other words, its vital purposes are to obtain immediate relief from illegal confinement, to liberate those who may be imprisoned without sufficient cause, and to deliver them from unlawful custody,” the court said in a decision penned by Associate Justice Emily San Gaspar-Gito.
The appellate court acknowledged that habeas corpus may be used as a post-conviction remedy under exceptional circumstances, including when detention results from a violation of constitutional rights.
However, it found no allegation or evidence that Guo’s detention violated her constitutional rights to a speedy trial and liberty.
“There is neither allegation nor showing that such detention violated petitioner’s constitutional rights to speedy trial and to liberty,” the CA said.
Guo is detained at the Correctional Institution for Women in Mandaluyong City after being found guilty of qualified human trafficking involving Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations (POGO) in Bamban.
The CA also ruled that its earlier decision involving Joseph Sy, who was detained by the BI under deportation proceedings deemed premature, did not apply to Guo’s case.
While reaffirming its role in protecting constitutional rights, the court stressed that the writ must not be used to invalidate lawful detention ordered by courts with jurisdiction.
“It is not a sledgehammer to clumsily bludgeon the lawful detention mandated by courts, which are not shown to be deprived with jurisdiction, as in this case,” the CA said.
