DOJ brings Urbina case to SC

MANILA, Philippines - The case of the drug suspect who was detained for five years while charges rotted in the Department of Justice (DOJ) has reached the Supreme Court (SC).

This after the DOJ, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), asked the high court to reverse a Court of Appeals (CA) order earlier this month for the release of Joanne Urbina from the Philippine National Police (PNP) Custodial Center in Camp Crame, Quezon City.

Urbina, together with a certain Ben Ryan Chua, was arrested by the PNP Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force on Dec. 14, 2007. A day later, inquest proceedings were conducted.

On Jan. 25, 2008, the DOJ  dismissed the case against Chua while charging Urbina with violation of Sections 11 and 12 of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 for possession of illegal drugs and possession of equipment and apparatus for dangerous drugs.

However, despite finding probable cause against Urbina, no case against her has been filed in court. 

In a 28-page petition for review, the DOJ specifically questioned why the CA’s seventh division nullified a belated resolution approving the filing of charges of possession of illegal drugs against Urbina in granting her petition for habeas corpus.

Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza argued that the CA should not have granted Urbina’s plea since the DOJ already filed a case against her before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court last May 9.

Jardeleza said the filing of case in court – although years late – was a supervening event that could justify Urbina’s detention.

“Even if the arrest of a person is illegal, supervening events may bar his/her release or discharge from custody. What is to be inquired into is the legality of his detention as of, at the earliest, the filing of the application for a writ of habeas corpus, for even if the detention is at its inception illegal, it may, by reason of some supervening events, be no longer illegal at the time of filing of the application,” the OSG stressed.

In the assailed ruling, the CA held that Urbina’s incarceration was a violation of her constitutional right to speedy disposition of the case and also her human rights.

It described the case as “unreasonable,” “intolerable” and “shockingly unimaginable,” and even likened it to “Guantanamo Bay detainees who have never been allowed a speedy and fair trial, a civil right granted to all by the Constitution.”

But the OSG stressed that the 30-day period for deciding cases under automatic review such as violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act is not mandatory but only “as far as practicable.”

Jardeleza pointed out that the resolution approving the filing of the case against Urbina went through “rigorous review” from various offices of the DOJ.