THE Court of Appeals (CA) has granted the habeas corpus petition of four foreign nationals who were among those arrested in the June 27 raid by the Philippine National Police Anti-Cyber Crime Group (PNP-ACG) on a Philippine Offshore Gaming Operation (POGO) service provider hub in Las Piñas City.
A writ of habeas corpus is an order to present a person before the court to determine if the arrest and detention is legal or if a person must be released from custody or detention.
In an 18-page decision promulgated on July 28, the appellate court’s Tenth Division granted the petition of Chinese nationals Ang Chin Keong, Choo Jun Cheng, Choo Wei Jazz and a certain “Edy” and ordered the PNP-ACG to release them from custody.
“The petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus dated July 3, 2023 is granted. The PNP through, BGen. Jose Melencio Nartatez Jr., BGen. Sidney Hernia, Col. Arvie Paraon-Bueno and Col. Nova De Castro, and all those acting their instructions and command, including those who may have taken actual, legal and or constructive custody of Keong, et al., are ordered to immediately discharge and or release (them) from custody, detention, confinement and or other restraint which is currently undertaken at Hong Tai Compound, 501 Alabang Zapote Road, Almanza Uno, Las Piñas City, the following: Ang Chin Keong, Choo Wei Jazz, Choo Jun Cheng, and Edy unless there are other lawful causes warranting their continuing restraint,” said the CA decision penned by Associate Justice Rex Bernardo Pascual and concurred in by Associate Justices Myra Garcia-Fernandez and Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon.
Aside from the four Chinese, law enforcers also arrested and detained more than 2,700 POGO individuals who were working at the POGO hub. Most of the workers were Filipinos, but also included an estimated 600 Chinese, 180 Vietnamese, 140 Indonesians and 130 Malaysians.
Most of the arrested Filipino workers have already been released by the PNP-ACG.
In filing the habeas corpus plea, the four foreign workers, through their lawyer Jocel Isidro Dilag, said they were being detained “against their will, without any running water of food rations” and were even required to get police permission to gain access to a working toilet or buy potable water from the compound’s convenience store.
The PNP-ACG defended the operation and told the CA that the foreign nationals, instead of performing POGO operations, were actually doing cyber fraud activities.
It added they were not allowed to leave the premises during the conduct of the raid because they were considered as potential victims of human trafficking.
The PNP-ACG also said they had already referred the foreign nationals to the Bureau of Immigration and the Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking for assessment as potential trafficking victims.
But the appellate court disagreed and sided with the petitioners, ruling that their purported custody by the police actually constituted a restraint within the purview of a habeas corpus petition.
“Thus, absent any express provision of the law akin to immediately preceding Republic Act 8551, Section 52, which places a detention beyond the purview of a habeas corpus, then Rule 102 of the Revised Rules of Court as amended, Section 1 would apply – all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld,” the CA said.
The CA further held that “no judicial process was presented to the Court by the PNP to allow for the continued detention of Keong et al.”
It also declared that while a search warrant may have precipitated the detention of the petitioners, neither the PNP return dated July 7, 2023 nor its memorandum dated July 20, 2023 did not even mention any search warrant.
“The fact that no search warrants were presented by the PNP would show that the warrants are adverse to it. Section 3 (e), Rule 131 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if produced, unless contradicted and overcome by other evidence,” the CA said, adding that “there is no process which will support the continued detention or ‘custody’ of Keong et al.”
The appellate court said even the purported protective custody of Keong et al does not justify their continued restraint.
Likewise, while the PNP cited the Expanded Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012 as the process to secure and restrict the movement of the said foreign nationals who are possible victims of human trafficking, the appellate court held that the absence of the latter’s consent is “fatal to their continued detention.”
“We agree with Keong et al., when they argued the need for consent in that in all circumstances their express content to be treated as trafficked persons must be shown by the respondents as provided by Section 19 of RA 11862 or the Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2022,” the CA said, adding that the totality of the circumstances does not justify their continued detention.
The appellate court also noted that the four Chinese nationals legally entered the country and have valid passports and working or tourist visas that allows them continued stay in the country.
The CA also said they are not in the BI’s hold departure, blacklist and or with derogatory records.
But the appellate court stressed that its ruling is not a pronouncement on the validity of the June 27 operation, adding that its promulgation is based only on the circumstances affecting the habeas corpus petitioners.
