Writ of Habeas Corpus - Guava III 2025 SDIC 2

Writ of Habeas Corpus — Guava III [2025] SDIC 2

Date of judgment	17th July 2025
Judge	Judge ppatpat
Writ	Habeas Corpus
Verdict	Writ of Habeas Corpus granted
Result	Petitioner Guava III released
Applicable persuasive precedent

JUDGMENT by Judge ppatpat

Introduction

[1] On July 17th, 2025, a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus from _xxxiii4 (ID: 1315519807793270805) on behalf of Guava III (ID: 820642564591714366) who was a Citizen of SimDemocracy before being banned from it. This Court has jurisdiction since Guava III falls under the Jurisdiction of SimDemocracy Law for their Actions and as far as their presence on the SimDemocracy Discord Server is concerned.

[2] The Petition made the following claims:

[2.1] That Guava III had been banned for a period of 2+ months without being given a trial, convicted on any crime, having a complaint filed, or given any other due process required by law (as far as the petitioner could see from their research).

[3] The petition for a writ was to all judges, made in the discord channel “court-case-request”.

Factual Findings

[4] In accordance with precedent from Writ of Habeas Corpus — Guava [2025] SDIC 1, I found the following in my own investigation. Guava’s ban was issued on 12 April 2025 and later included within a retroactive ECTPO on 14 April 2025. No criminal charges were filed by 12 May 2025 or 14 May 2025, thereby exceeding the lawful charging period following the initial ban and ECTPO issuance. On 26 May 2025, the account Guava III was banned.

[5] Given these facts, the ban of Guava III could not lawfully constitute Resisting Arrest, as no lawful ban or pending charges were in force against the alleged main account (Guava) at that time. Even if Article 23a of the Criminal Code 2020 allows for summary bans, such bans cannot be indefinite and must comply with Article 17 of the Courtroom Procedures Act 2025, which limits them to 72 hours absent judicial proceedings. Furthermore, no judicial approval appears to have been sought under the Fair Use of Alternate Accounts Act 2025 for the banning of Guava III, rendering that provision inapplicable.

[6] Accordingly, pursuant to Article 10 §4 of the Constitution, I ordered the competent authorities, (namely, the President, Attorney General, SDBI Director and SDBI Agents) to provide a full and satisfactory explanation for the legal basis of the detention or banning of Guava III within 12 hours.

[7] The competent authorities gave no satisfactory explanation beyond my findings.

Verdict

[8] At the heart of our legal order lies the principle that no person may be deprived of their liberty without due process of law. The right to liberty and security is not a privilege granted by the State but a fundamental guarantee owed by the State to all within its jurisdiction. This Court reaffirms that constitutional rights are not passive assurances but active protections that must be respected in all circumstances even, and especially, when they are inconvenient to those in power. The guarantee of liberty means nothing if it is only honored in ordinary times. It is when rights are challenged that the courts must speak most clearly: no person shall be detained, punished, or cast out from our community without the full measure of due process the law requires.

[9] The Court finds the fundamental rights of Guava III have been violated by the Department of Justice by upholding a ban without having respected the right to liberty and security of the person.

[10]The State is hereby ordered, through any competent party with the necessary Permissions, as per Art. 10 §4 of the Constitution, to immediately unban Guava III (ID: 820642564591714366).

Citations

<references />