San Beda University College of Law

Criminal Law I | MHPR

Case Name Lopez v De los Reyes
Topic What is Constitution?
Case No. | Date G.R. No. | L- 34361 November 5, 1930
Ponente Malcolm, J.
The warrant of arrest that the Speaker of the House, Manuel Roxas, signed is valid and the
lack of an express oath taken in the act does not detract from the legal express oath.
Case Summary Therefore, the legislature still had full power and authority to bring into effect the order of
arrest complained of at the time of the consideration of the petition for the writ of Habeas
Corpus.
A power essential to permit the House of Representatives to perform their duties without
impediment, as contemplated with the organic act, must be assumed.
Doctrine And although the legislative power continues perpetual, the legislative body ceases to exist on the
moment of its adjournment or periodical dissolution. It follows that imprisonment must follow with
its adjournment.

RELEVANT FACTS
 The writ of Habeas Corpus is applied in order 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.
 In October 23, 1989, Candido Lopez attacked and assaulted honorable Jose Dimayuga, a member of the
house of Representatives while on his way to the hall of the house of Rep. to attend a session which was
about to begin. This disabled him to attend for that day and for the next two days which also arose the
threats made by Lopez.
 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.
 A new warrant of arrest was issued by the Speaker on September 17, 1930. Here, Lopez was taking into
custody by Colonel De Los Reyes, Assistant Chief of the Constabulary on the 19 th
 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 Representatives had no authority and jurisdiction to try and punish for alleged assault
because it lies exclusively on judicial department.
b.) Because the act was committed and that the session adjourned on Nov. 8,1929, any order issued after
that period of that session is without force and effect
 The trial 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.
 San Beda University College of Law
Criminal Law I | MHPR

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
Whether the Philippine The Philippine Legislature has practically the same powers in the Philippine Islands, within
House of the sphere in which it may operate, as the Congress of the United States. There is as much
Representatives has necessity for the House in a territorial legislature to possess the power to punish for
power to order the contempt as there is for the Houses in the Congress of the United States and the Houses
commitment of persons in the State Legislatures to possess this power. Accordingly, we rule that a limited power to
guilty of contempt punish persons not members for contempt resides in the House of Representatives of the
against it Philippine Legislature. However, the United States Supreme Court has twice definitely held
that the power is limited to imprisonment during the session of the legislative body
affected by the contempt. The language of the higher court in the case first cited was:
"And although the legislative power continues perpetual, the legislative body ceases to
exist on the moment of its adjournment or periodical dissolution. It follows, that
imprisonment must terminate with the adjournment."

RULING
When the liberty of the citizen is concerned, the legality of the action taken by the legislative body in punishing for
contempt is a proper subject for inquiry on Habeas Corpus.