Kelly vs. Director of Prisons

A writ of habeas corpus will not issue on the application of a third person where the person restrained repudiates the proceeding and voluntarily submits to the detention; the restraint is voluntary and the writ is unnecessary.

Sixteen young Russian nationals, members of the crew of a fleet of boats anchored within Philippine jurisdiction, were confined in Bilibid Prison. Their detention was made at the instance of the admiral of the Russian vessels and pursuant to an order of the Governor-General. Amzi B. Kelly, a member of the Philippine Bar, then applied directly to the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus to effect their release.

• Parties: Petitioner Amzi B. Kelly, a member of the Philippine Bar, filed the habeas corpus application on behalf of sixteen young Russian nationals, including Ivon Pumutkin, who were crew members of a fleet anchored in Philippine waters. Respondent was the Director of Prisons.
• Detention: The sixteen Russians were confined in Bilibid Prison. The detention occurred at the request of the Admiral of the Russian ships and was carried out pursuant to orders of the Governor-General.
• Affidavit of Detainees: All sixteen detainees executed a sworn affidavit before the Director of Prisons in which they declared that they did not desire any writ of habeas corpus to be issued in their behalf and that they accepted and abided by the order of the Governor-General, pending any further disposition the Chief Executive might make in their cases.

• Right to Liberty: Petitioner, a member of the bar, maintained that the sixteen Russian crew members were unlawfully restrained of their liberty and that the writ of habeas corpus should issue to secure their release.

• Voluntary Restraint: Respondent, through the Attorney-General, countered that the detainees had expressly repudiated the petition by executing an affidavit attesting they did not desire the writ and consented to the Governor-General’s disposition, thereby rendering the restraint voluntary and the writ unnecessary.

• Availability of Habeas Corpus: Whether a petition for habeas corpus filed by a third person on behalf of detainees should be granted when the detainees themselves disavow the proceeding and voluntarily submit to the custody.

• Availability of Habeas Corpus: The petition was denied. The writ of habeas corpus may be prosecuted by the person unlawfully imprisoned or restrained, or by some person on his behalf. However, when the application is made by a third party and the prisoner repudiates the action, the writ will be denied. The writ is intended to remedy involuntary restraint; where the restraint is voluntary, issuance is unnecessary. The sixteen detainees’ sworn affidavit established that they did not desire the writ and freely submitted to the Governor-General’s order, thus precluding the relief sought.

• Voluntary Restraint Doctrine — A writ of habeas corpus ought not to issue if the restraint is voluntary because the writ’s purpose is to remedy involuntary detention. A third person’s application on behalf of a detainee cannot prevail where the detainee himself repudiates the proceeding and consents to the custody. In this case, the doctrine applied directly: the sixteen Russians voluntarily accepted the Governor-General’s disposition, and the Court therefore declined to inquire further into the legality of their confinement.

• “Where the application is made in the prisoner's behalf by a third person, and where the prisoner repudiates the action taken, the writ will be denied.” This sentence establishes the specific rule on third-party standing when the detainee disavows the proceeding.

• “The writ of habeas corpus ought not to issue if the restraint is voluntary because unnecessary.” This passage articulates the fundamental principle that habeas corpus protects only against involuntary restraint.

Chief Justice Araullo, and Justices Street, Avanceña, Ostrand, Johns, and Romualdez concurred.