G.R. No. L-62992 September 28, 1984 (SGD.) WILFREDO C.

ESTRADA
Brig. General, AFP (Ret.)
ARLENE BABST, ODETTE ALCANTARA CERES P. DOYO, Chairman
JO ANN Q. MAGLIPON, DOMINI TORREVILLAS SUAREZ,
LORNA KALAW-TIROL, CIELO BUENAVENTURA, SYLVIA Aside from the interrogations, a criminal complaint for
MAYUGA, SHEILA S. CORONEL, ET AL., petitioners, libel was filed by Brig. Gen. Artemio Tadiar, Jr. on
vs. February 9, 1983 with the Office of the City Fiscal,
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE BOARD, SPECIAL Manila, against petitioners Domini Torrevillas-Suarez,
COMMITTEE NO. 2, BRIG. GEN. WILFREDO ESTRADA editor of the Panorama, and Ma. Ceres Doyo based on
(ret.), COL. RENATO ECARMA, NBI ASST. DIRECTOR an article written by Doyo and published in the March
PONCIANO FERNANDO, COL. BALBINO DIEGO, COL. 28, 1982 issue of the Panorama, on which the author
GALILEO KINTANAR, COL. EUSTAQUIO PERALTA, ET had been interrogated by respondents. The complaint
AL., respondents. included an staggering P10 million claim for damages.
(An information for libel has since been filed with the
RESOLUTION Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Region
against Suarez and Doyo.)
 PLANA, J.:
Petitioners maintain that the respondents have no
This was originally a petition for prohibition with jurisdiction over the proceedings which are violative of
preliminary injunction which was superseded by the the constitutional guarantee on free expression since
amended and supplemental petition for prohibition they have the effect of imposing restrictive guidelines
with preliminary injunction filed by petitioners on and norms on mass media; that they are a punitive
March 3, 1983, seeking to prohibit the respondents (a) ordeal or subsequent punishment of petitioners for
from issuing subpoenas or letters of invitation to lawful publications; that they amount to a system of
petitioners and interrogating them, and (b) from filing censorship, curtailing the "free flow of information and
libel suits on matters that have been the subject of petition and opinion," indispensable to the right of the
inquiry by respondent National Intelligence Board (NIB). people to know matters of public concern guaranteed in
Section 6 of Article IV of the Constitution; and that they
Petitioners are columnists, feature article writers and constitute intrusions into spheres of individual liberty.
reporters of various local publications. At different Regarding the libel charge against Suarez and Doyo,
dates since July, 1980, some of them have allegedly petitioners denounce the filing as instituted with intent
been summoned by military authorities who have to intimidate and based on illegally obtained evidence,
subjected them to sustained interrogation on various referring to the matters inquired into by respondents in
aspects of their works, feelings, sentiments, beliefs, previously conducted, allegedly illegal interrogations.
associations and even their private lives. Typical of the
letters received by the petitioners from respondent NIB In their comment, respondents counter that no issue of
is that addressed to petitioner Arlene Babst, dated jurisdiction exists since they do not pretend to exercise
December 20,1982, which reads: jurisdiction over the petitioners; that what respondents
have sent to petitioners were neither subpoenas nor
Madam: summonses, but mere invitations to dialogues which
were completely voluntary, without any compulsion
Pursuant to the authority vested in me employed on petitioners; that the dialogues themselves
by law, you are hereby requested to were designed simply to elicit information and
appear before this Special Committee at exchange Ideas and that the expression of personal
Philippine Army Officer's Clubhouse, preferences and opinions by members of the
Fort Bonifacio, Metro Manila (sketch respondent Board is not equivalent to the imposition of
attached), 9:00 A.M., December 22, norms and guidelines to be followed by petitioners.
1982, to shed light on confidential Relative to the libel case, respondents contend that
matters being looked into by this petitioners have no cause of action against respondent
Committee. Board since respondent General Tadiar is not a member
of respondent Board and has filed the libel case in his
Your failure to appear on the specified personal capacity; and the libel case is not pending
date and place shall be considered as a before any of the respondents. Furthermore,
waiver on your part and this Committee respondents aver that this case has been rendered
will be constrained to proceed in moot and academic because the proceedings before
accordance with law. NIB Special Committee No. 2 (which conducted the
interrogations) have already been ordered terminated
Very truly yours, by General Fabian C. Ver in his capacity as Director
General and Chairman of the NIB, and said proceedings
have in fact been terminated.

Page 1 of 2
The petition is premised upon the alleged illegality and Finally, the right to seek redress when libeled is a
unconstitutionality of the issuance by respondent NIB to personal and individual privilege of the aggrieved party,
petitioners of letters of invitation, their subsequent and no one among the respondent officials has the
interrogation, and the filing of the aforementioned libel authority to restrain any of his subordinates who has
suit. been libeled from vindicating his right by instituting a
libel suit. Brig. Gen. Tadiar has filed the libel case
Under the circumstances of the case, the petition against petitioners Suarez and Doyo in his personal
cannot be granted. capacity. Moreover, he is not even a member of
respondent NIB. And the NIB does not appear to have
The assailed proceedings have come to an end. The acts anything to do with Gen. Tadiar's private right to
sought to be prohibited (i.e., the issuance of letters of complain of libel.
invitation petition and subsequent interrogations) have
therefore been abated, thereby rendering the petition WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed.
moot and academic as regards the aforesaid matters.
SO ORDERED.
Be that as it may, it is not Idle to note that ordinarily, an
invitation to attend a hearing and answer some Melencio-Herrera, Escolin, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De la
questions, which the person invited may heed or refuse Fuente and Cuevas, JJ., concur.
at his pleasure, is not illegal or constitutionally
objectionable. Under certain circumstances, however, Makasiar, and Aquino, JJ., concur in the result
such an invitation can easily assume a different
appearance. Thus, where the invitation comes from a Concepcion, Jr. and Guerrero, JJ., are on leave.
powerful group composed predominantly of ranking
military officers issued at a time when the country has  
just emerged from martial rule and when the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
has not entirely been lifted and the designated
interrogation site is a military camp, the same can easily
be taken, not as a strictly voluntary invitation which it
purports to be, but as an authoritative command which
one can only defy at his peril, especially where, as in the
instant case, the invitation carries the ominous seaming
that "failure to appear . . . shall be considered as a
waiver . . . and this Committee will be constrained to
proceed in accordance with law." Fortunately, the NIB
director general and chairman saw the wisdom of
terminating the proceedings and the unwelcome
interrogation.

Similarly, prohibition will not issue in respect of the libel

charges now pending in court against two of the
petitioners and similar suits that might be filed.

Firstly, the writ of prohibition is directed against a

tribunal, board or person acting without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion vis-a-vis
certain proceedings pending before it. The libel cases
adverted to are not pending before respondent NIB or
any other respondent.

Secondly, the issue of validity of the libel, charges by

reason of their alleged collision with freedom of
expression, is a matter that should be raised in the
proper forum, i.e., before the court where the libel
cases are pending or where they may be filed. The same
rule applies to the issue of admissibility as evidence of
matters that have been elicited in the course of an
inquiry or interrogation conducted by respondent NIB,
which petitioners claim to have been illegally obtained.

Page 2 of 2