The Supreme Court, epistolary jurisdiction, and Leila de Lima

Detained in 2017 on three separate drug-related criminal charges (two of them dismissed after her acquittal), there is no end in sight that former senator Leila de Lima will be released soon. Each passing day is a cruel form of punishment for one who is in her 60s, a mother, experiencing health issues, and facing life-threatening hazards under detention.

The Supreme Court deserves an applause for the timely memorandum issued by Court Administrator Raul B. Villanueva, a former no-nonsense Regional Trial Court judge, to Presiding Judge Romeo S. Buenaventura of Muntinlupa RTC Branch 256 to resolve the last criminal case within nine months.

However, the Supreme Court, the citadel of justice, human rights, and rule of law, can do more to stop the injustice of protracted detention being committed against De Lima, former law professor of San Beda University, former election lawyer, former chair of the Commission on Human Rights, former secretary of justice, and former senator of the Republic. Formidable credentials of a Filipino woman long-deprived of her freedom.

The Supreme Court can explore the use and application of the remedy called epistolary jurisdiction which was mentioned in the ponencia of Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro in the case of Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait, et al., v. Angelo Reyes, et al., (G.R. No. 180771, April 21, 2015).

Epistolary (from the word “epistle” or letter) is a remedial/corrective legal innovation, cleansed of procedural technicalities, through which the violated or wronged person or persons may seek judicial intervention and assistance by means of letters, telegrams, newspaper articles, etc. It is also a new method through liberal interpretation of legal standing in court where ANY person can apply to the court on behalf of the deprived, distressed, and disadvantaged.

Applied extensively in India through various court decisions, it was first used in the United States in Gideon v. Wainwright (372 US 335, 1963), a unanimous decision, where on the basis of a prison stationary, penciled-written by the accused, the Supreme Court gave due course to it. In 1982, an urgent telegram petition for issuance of writ of habeas corpus on behalf of seven detained persons in Camp Catitipan, Davao City, was filed and was allowed by the Supreme Court. The formal petition followed and is entitled “In The Matter of the Petition for the Issuance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus for Rolieto Trinidad, et al., S.P. Case No. 59449, Jan. 21, 1982.”

May the Supreme Court, in the benevolent exercise of its mighty judicial power, wisely consider the use and application of epistolary jurisdiction in the case of De Lima.

Rene V. Sarmiento,
law professor