## Facts

- Ángel Siri was the director and proprietor of the newspaper *Mercedes* in the City of Mercedes, Province of Buenos Aires.
- Beginning in early 1956, provincial police closed the premises where the newspaper operated and kept a continuous police guard at the location, preventing the paper from functioning.
- Siri filed a petition before the Third Criminal Court in Mercedes alleging that the closure violated constitutional protections of freedom of the press and the right to work.
- Because Argentina lacked a general, specifically regulated procedure for immediate judicial protection of constitutional rights, the criminal court treated Siri’s petition as one for habeas corpus.
- At the trial judge’s request, the local police commissioner reported that the closure had been carried out pursuant to an order received from the provincial police Directorate of Security around the time Siri was detained, and that the guard and closure had continued since then.
- The trial judge also sought reports from higher provincial authorities (including the provincial chief of police and the provincial Ministry of Government), who stated that they did not know the reasons for the closure or which authority had ordered it.
- The trial court dismissed the case, reasoning that habeas corpus protects only physical liberty and does not extend to freedom of the press or the right to work.
- The appellate criminal court affirmed.
- Siri filed an extraordinary appeal to the Supreme Court of Argentina; the police authority did not articulate a specific legal basis or justification for continuing to restrict operation of the newspaper.

## Issues

1. Whether courts must grant immediate judicial protection when a constitutional liberty (such as freedom of the press and the right to work) is plainly restricted by public authorities without competent order or stated cause.
2. Whether the lack of an expressly codified procedural action (beyond habeas corpus) bars the judiciary from ordering restoration of constitutional rights not limited to physical liberty.
3. Whether a petition labeled or processed as habeas corpus may nevertheless justify judicial relief to end an ongoing, unjustified restriction on non-custodial constitutional freedoms.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the appellate judgment.
- The Court held that constitutional guarantees protect individuals by virtue of being stated in the Constitution, and courts have a duty to secure them even without implementing legislation or a specially designed procedural vehicle.
- The Court found it sufficient that the record showed an evident restriction of constitutional freedoms maintained without an identified competent authority or an expressed justification.
- The Court ruled that protection of constitutional guarantees not strictly included in habeas corpus should not be left to ordinary administrative or judicial processes when immediate restoration is required.
- The Court remanded with instructions that the lower tribunal notify the police authority that it must cease the restriction imposed on Siri as director-proprietor of the newspaper.

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional rights are judicially enforceable by their constitutional status alone; the absence of a regulating statute does not make them merely aspirational.
- When there is immediate verification that a constitutional liberty is clearly restricted without competent order or stated cause, the judiciary must restore the guarantee fully.
- Effective judicial protection is not limited to safeguarding physical liberty; courts may order cessation of unlawful executive interference with other fundamental freedoms such as freedom of the press and the right to work.
- An unlawful administrative or police measure that blocks protected activity without lawful authority and justification must be terminated by judicial order.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Argentina ordered the police to end the continuing shutdown of Siri’s newspaper and recognized that courts must provide prompt, effective protection for evident constitutional violations even when no specific statutory procedure exists, laying the foundation for what later became known as the Argentine writ of protection (acción de amparo).


Angel Siri v. Police Commissioner, District of Mercedes, 239 F.C.S. 459 (1957)