Ian Alfredo Magno   “JUST an idea,” the Palace says as it attempts to downplay Digong’s yet again contentious outburst to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Let’s just put it this way, it’s just too heavy a pronouncement to ignore, albeit a “passing thought.” What is this habeas corpus anyway? Literally it means, “You may have the body.” In a nutshell, it is a quick remedy against any and all forms of illegal confinement, detention or imprisonment.  It does not grant any right, it being a mere privilege. But its efficacy as a safeguard of one’s constitutional rights cannot be downplayed. As the British jurist and constitutional theorist Albert Venn Dicey wrote: “... habeas corpus declares no principle and defines no rights, but it is for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty.” Section 15, Article III Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution states: “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.” Corollary to this, Section 18, Article VII Executive Department of the 1987 Constitution lays down the necessary procedure provides: “... In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus... Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation... the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it. “... The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. “... The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion. “... During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.” Such a meaty provision, which in fact illuminates upon certain crucial considerations vis-à-vis President Digong’s “passing thought.” For one, is lawlessness a ground to suspend the writ?  Apparently, not.  Specifically, is the deepening war on drugs a ground for suspending the writ?  The answer is, again, a resounding “No.” Early on in the campaign, Digong foretold he could end the drug menace within six months from his assumption to office. Roughly, his self-imposed timeline would last until January 2017.  As the plot thickens, however, there is more in this drug war than meets the eye. It appears that more and more influential officials are found to be involved, in one way or another.  And accordingly, it will need more than just a semester to ultimately uproot this illicit yet lucrative trade. It leads us, meanwhile, to also speculate that suspending the writ could be two-pronged: to fortify the President’s stance against drugs, or could it be one way to save face, so to speak, for not being able to fully stamp out drugs within six months as promised? Regardless, suspending the writ is too heavy a dice to roll, and too stiff a price to pay. In the case of Salibo vs. Warden G.R. no. 197597 dated April 8, 2015, the Supreme stated: “Called the ‘great writ of liberty,’ the writ of habeas corpus ‘was devised and exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom.’ The remedy of habeas corpus is extraordinary and summary in nature, consistent with the law’s ‘zealous regard for personal liberty.” Where the writ of habeas corpus is supposedly suspended, by then it becomes irrelevant whether or not martial law is declared. In all practicality, Isn’t it the same? Is not an unsecured liberty the worst nightmare of a freedom-loving nation? They say, with the suspension of the writ--which is the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom--it shall be “game over.”   (Lawyer Ian Alfredo T. Magno is an associate at Atty. Francis U. Ku & Associates, and deputy legal officer at Philhealth. E-mail: ianalfredom@gmail.com)