SOLIVEN V MAKASIAR PER CURIAM; November 14, 1988

NATURE - Petition for certiorari and prohibition to review the decision of Manila RTC FACTS - This case consists of three consolidated petitions (Soliven v Makasiar, Beltra v Makasiar and Beltran v Executive Secretary). - The President asked for the prosecution of a newspaper columnist, the publisher and chairman of the editorial board, the business manager and the managing editor for libel. Petitioners Claims - With regard to the third issue, the Presidents immunity from suit results to an automatic correlation that he is also not allowed from filing suits - If criminal suits were allowed, the President may subsequently become a prosecution witness. - This would, in an indirect way, defeat her privilege of immunity from suit, as by testifying on the witness stand, she would be exposing herself to possible contempt of court or perjury. ISSUES 1. WON petitioners were denied due process when informations for libel were filed against them although the finding of the existence of a prima facie case was still under review by the Secretary of Justice and, subsequently, by the President 2. WON the constitutional rights of Beltran were violated when respondent RTC judge issued a warrant for his arrest without personally examining the complainant and the witnesses, if any, to determine probable cause 3. WON the President of the Philippines, under the Constitution, may initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners through the filing of a complaint-affidavit HELD 1. Ratio Due process of law does not require that the respondent in a criminal case actually file his counter-affidavits before the preliminary investigation is deemed completed. All that is required is that the respondent be given the Opportunity to submit counter-affidavits if he is so minded. Reasoning - Instead of submitting his counter-affidavits, he filed a "Motion to Declare Proceedings Closed", in effect waiving his right to refute the complaint by filing counter-affidavits. -The first issue was rendered moot and academic because of events that unfolded. - March 30, 1988 DOJ secretary denied the motion for reconsideration of the petitioners and upheld the resolution of the DOJ undersecretary which sustained the findings of the city fiscal of a prima facie case against the petitioners. - April 7, 1988 a second motion for reconsideration was denied by the DOJ secretary - On appeal the President (through the Executive Secretary) affirmed the resolution of the DOJ secretary - The argument of the petitioners that they have not been granted the administrative remedies available does not hold water. - With regard to Beltrans arguments that he was denied due process of law in the preliminary investigation: 2. Ratio What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. Reasoning - It is not accurate to say that the judge should personally examine the complainant and the witnesses in determining probable cause. - Procedure to be followed by the judge (based on established doctrine and procedure):

1. personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on based on these documents, issue a warrant of arrest 2. if he finds no basis for probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal's report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause - The Supreme Court unanimously adopted Circular # 12 which established the guidelines for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. - In this case, there is no showing that the respondent judge has deviated from the established procedure. The second issue calls for an evaluation of Sec. 2 of Art. 3 (on the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures). The said provision states that the judge should personally determine the probable cause before a search warrant can be issued. 3. The privilege of immunity from suit granted to the President may be waived should the Chief Executive choose to submit him/herself to the jurisdiction of the Court since no Constitutional provision bars her from doing so. - In the issue regarding the chilling effect this suit would have on freedom of speech, the Court has decided to defer judgment on that.