Lopez vs de Los Reyes

Lopez vs. De Los Reyes This is an appeal from a judgement of the CFI of Manila Facts 1. This is an application for the writ of habeas corpus to relieve the petitioner from restrain of his liberty, by a ranking officer of the Constabulary, under a warrant of arrest issued by the Speaker of the House finding the petitioner guilty of contempt. 2. In October 23, 1929, Candido Lopez attacked and assaulted Honorable Jose Dimayuga, a member of the House of Reps. while on his way to the hall of the House of Reps. to attend a session which was about to begin. This disabled him to attend the said sessions for that day and for the next two days which also arose from the threats made by Lopez. 3. A resolution was given by the house requiring the Speaker to order the arrest of Lopez and be confined in Bilibid Prison for 24 hours on Nov. 6 1929. The House session was adjourned on Nov 8 which no arrest has been served for Lopez. 4. A new warrant of arrest was issued by the Speaker on Sept. 17, 1930. Here, Lopez was taking into custody by Colonel De los Reyes, Assistant Chief of the Constabulary on the 19th. 5. A writ of habeas corpus was obtained with 8 reasons for the illegal restraint of the petitioner but two were most important namely: a. That the House of Reps. had no authority and jurisdiction to try and punish for alleged assault because it lies exclusively on the judicial department. b. Because the act was committed on October 23, 1929, and that the session adjourned on Nov 8, 1929, any order issued after that period of that session is without force and effect. 6. The trial judge judge dismissed the petition for habeas corpus and remanded the petitioner to the custody of the respondent for the compliance of the order of the House. Issue: 1. WON the House of Reps. has jurisdiction to punish cases for contempt. 2. WON Lopez would still be punishable in spite of the adjournment of the session Held: Trial court erred in refusing to grant the writ of Habeas Corpus and Lopez is discharged from custody 1. Yes 2. No Reason:

1. The legislative power to punish for contempt arises from implication, is justified only by the right of self-preservation, and is the least possible power adequate to the end proposed. It is an essential to permit the legislature to perform its duties without impediment. 2. Imprisonment from contempt of a legislative body must terminate with that of adjournment of the session the contempt occurred. The session was adjourned as provided by law, without the resolution affecting Lopez having been enforced. It was this session beyond which the imprisonment could not be extended as based from the US Laws.