View
217
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
7/28/2019 Habeas Corpus and Amparo
1/21
CANLAS, LIM, NUESTRO, POON, ROXAS, SAN JUAN, YANG
GROUP 5 Writ of Habeas Corpus and Writ of Amparo
E2016
Part I - Writ of Habeas Corpus
1. Provisions of the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Constitution 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 15:The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be
suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.
1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 18.The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of allarmed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such
armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of
invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding
sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ ofhabeas corpus or place the Philippines or any
part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial
law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall
submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a
vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke suchproclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon
the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such
proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or
rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such
proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the
sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must
promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant
the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment
of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to
function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ ofhabeas corpus.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ ofhabeas corpus shall apply only to persons
judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with,
invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ ofhabeas corpus, any person thus
arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be
released.
7/28/2019 Habeas Corpus and Amparo
2/21
2. What is the Writ of Habeas Corpus? Habeas corpus ("may you have the body") is a prerogative writ of liberty employed to test
the validity of a persons detention (Cruz, Constitutional Law).
The writ is directed to the person detaining another, commanding him to produce the bodyof the prisoner at a designated time and place, with the day and cause of his caption and
detention, to do, to submit to, and receive whatever the court or judge awarding the writ
shall consider in his behalf (Cruz, Constitutional Law, citing Moran, Rules of Court, Vol. II,
499).
The writ of habeas corpus was devised and exists as a speedy and effectual remedy torelieve persons from unlawful restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of
personal freedom. (Veluz, citing Villavicencio v. Lukban)
Distinction between the Writ and the Privilege of the WritIt should be emphasized that what is suspended by the Executive is not the writ but the
privilege of the writ. The writ always issues as a matter of course and the officer to
whom it is directed is bound to honor it. If, however, a person is detained on reasonable
belief of participation in a crime covered by the suspension of the privilege, the officer
states such fact in his Answer and Return and asks the court to proceed no further.
(Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, A Commentary).
3. History of the Writ and Suspension of the Privilege of the WritSource Provision on the Bill of Rights Notes
Section 5, Philippine Bill of
1902
That the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus shall not be
suspended, unless when in cases of
rebellion, insurrection, or invasion
the public safety may require it, in
either of which events the same
may be suspended by the President,or by the Governor-General with the
approval of the Philippine
Commission, whenever during such
period the necessity for such
suspension shall exist.
1. The first constitutional guarantee of the
availability of the writ found in the Philippine Bil
both guaranteed the right to the writ and set the
limit to its availability.
2. Authority to suspend the privilege of the wri
of habeas corpus was with the GovernorGeneral, jointly with the Philippine Commission
In Barcelon, following strictly the doctrine o
separation of powers, the SC refused to
interfere with the action of the politica
departments.
Paragraph 14, Section 3,
1935 Constitution
The privilege of the writ of Habeas
Corpus shall not be suspended
except in cases of invasion,
insurrection or rebellion when the
public safety requires it, in any of
which events the same may besuspended whenever during such
period the necessity for such
suspension shall exist.
1. There were two provisions on the suspension
of the writ of habeas corpus in that Constitution
one on the Bill of Rights, and the other in the
article on the Executive Department. The Bill o
Rights provision guaranteed the availability o
the writ and set the grounds for suspension. Theprovision under the Executive Department
besides setting the grounds for suspension, also
specified the seat of power to suspend.
2. Thus it was under the 1935 Constitution the
question arose as to which enumeration o
grounds for suspension of the privilege should
7/28/2019 Habeas Corpus and Amparo
3/21
prevail the enumeration under the BOR or that
under the article on Executive Department.
3. In Lansang, the Court overruled Barcelon
saying that it was unanimous in the conviction
that it had the authority to inquire into the
existence of said factual bases in order to
determine the constitutional sufficiency
thereof.
Section 15, Article IV, 1973
Constitution.
The privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus shall not be suspended
except in cases of invasion,
insurrection, or rebellion, or
imminent danger thereof, when the
public safety requires it.
Under the 1973 Constitution, the question (refe
to 1935 notes above) became academic because
BOR was harmonized with Article IX, Section 12
(1973), which said in part: In case of invasion
insurrection, or rebellion, or imminent dange
thereof, when public safety requires it [Prime
Minister] may suspend the privilege of the wri
of habeas corpus. It is clear that the power to
suspend the privilege belongs to the Executive.Section 15, Article III, 1987
Constitution
The privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus shall not be suspended
except in cases of invasion or
rebellion when the public safety
requires it.
1. The power to suspend ceased to be an almost
exclusively executive affair. The President may
suspend for a period not exceeding 60 days, and
Congress is given the power to revoke
suspension.
2. Congress, upon initiative of President, may
also extend the suspension.
3. Supreme Court may also now review the
sufficiency of factual basis of the suspensionbecause of judicial review.
4. The word insurrection is dropped as a
ground for suspension.
Case Name Fast Facts Doctrine/Ratio Previous Doctrine Cited
Barcelon v. Baker Because of the open
insurrection of a group
of ladrones (thieves) in
Batangas and Cavite,
the Governor-General
pursuant to a resolution
and request of the
Philippine Commission,
suspended the privilege
of the writ of habeas
corpus in the two
provinces, in
accordance with
Section 5 of the Act of
Habeas Corpus;
Suspension
Only the President or
the Governor-General
can determine the
existence of the
grounds specified in the
Constitution for the
suspension of the
privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus. This
power is discretionary
and therefore not
7/28/2019 Habeas Corpus and Amparo
4/21
Congress (Philippine
Bill).
justiciable.
Lansang v. Garcia Two grenades were
thrown at the miting de
avance of the Liberal
Party killing 8 persons
and injuring many.
President Marcos
subsequently issued
proclamation 889,
suspending the privilege
the writ of habeas
corpus. Members of the
Philippine Constabulary
by virtue of said
proclamation
apprehended herein
petitioners.
Habeas Corpus;
Suspension
(The doctrine
established in Barcelon
and Montenegro was
abandoned in this case).
The grant of power to
suspend the privilege of
writ of habeas corpus is
neither absolute nor
unqualified. Like the
limitations and
restrictions imposed by
the Constitution upon
the legislativedepartment, adherence
thereto and compliance
therewith may, within
proper bounds, be
inquired into by courts
of justice.
Barcelon v Baker, Montenegro
doctrine abandoned.
4. Preliminary ConsiderationsA. Standing Sec. 3, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court
Section 3, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court allows: any person who has a legally justifiedinterest in the freedom of the person whose liberty is restrained or who shows someauthorization to make the application (Velasco).
B. Jurisdiction - Sec 2, Rule 102, ROC The writ of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, or any member
thereof, on any day and at any time, or by the Court of Appeals or any member thereof
in the instances authorized by law, and if so granted it shall be enforceable anywhere in
the Philippines, and may be made returnable before the court or any member thereof,
or before the Court of First Instance, or any judge thereof for the hearing and decision
on the merits. It may also be granted by a Court of First Instance, or a judge thereof, on
any day and at any time, and returnable before himself, enforceable only within his
judicial district.
5. Nature The writ ofhabeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by
which any person is deprived of his liberty or by which the rightful custody of a person is
being withheld from the one entitled thereto. It is issued when one is either deprived of
liberty or is wrongfully being prevented from exercising legal custody over another
person. Thus, it contemplates two instances:
i. deprivation of a persons liberty either through illegal confinement orthrough detention and
7/28/2019 Habeas Corpus and Amparo
5/21
ii. withholding of the custody of any person from someone entitled to suchcustody (Veluz)
A. Illegal detention/ Involuntary Restraint of Liberty The essential purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner of
involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and to relieve a person therefrom
if such restraint is illegal (Manalo).
A prime specification of an application for a writ of HC is an actual and effective and notmerely nominal or moral, illegal restraint of liberty (Manalo).
o Restrictive CustodyRestrictive custody is not a form of illegal detention or restraint of liberty; it is a
nominal restraint beyond the ambit of habeas corpus, a precautionary measure to
account for charged PNP officers (Manalo, Ampatuan).
Case Name Fast Facts Doctrine/Ratio
Manalo v. Calderon Several police officers, petitioners
in this case, were implicated in theburning of an elementary school in
Taysan, Batangas at the height of
the May 2007 national and local
elections for failing to timely
respond to the incident. Acting on
the report, PNP superiors placed
them under restrictive custody
which directed that: 1. All their
movements within camp should be
monitored; 2. When situation
warrants their movement outside
camp, they should be properlyescorted on one-on-one basis; and
3. A logbook should be maintained
to record the accounting of their
place of destination, name of
escort, estimated time of departure
and return to the station.
Petitioners contend that their
restrictive custody status
amounted to an illegal restraint of
their liberty.
A petition for habeas corpus will be given due course
only if it shows that petitioner is being detained orrestrained of his liberty unlawfully. A restrictive
custody and monitoring of movements or
whereabouts of police officers under investigation
by their superiors is not a form of illegal detention o
restraint of liberty.
Restrictive custody is at best nominal restraint which
is beyond the ambit of habeas corpus. It is a
permissible precautionary measure to assure the
PNP authorities that the police officers concerned
are always accounted for.
RA 6975 (DILG Act of 1990), as amended by RA 8551
(PNP Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998) clearly
provdes that members of the police force are
subject to the administrative disciplinary machinery
of the PNP. Section 41 (b) of the law enumerates
disciplinary actions including restrictive custody that
may be imposed by duly designated supervisors and
officers.
Ampatuan v. Macaraig Wife of PO1 Ampatuan filed for apetition for a writ of habeas corpus
when the PO1 Ampatuan was held
under restrictive custody by the
PNP for allegedly killing two
COMELEC Legal Officers.
PNP did not heed the writ, invoking
Habeas Corpus; Restrictive Custody
A restrictive custody and monitoring of movements
or whereabouts of police officers under
investigation by their superiors is not a form of
illegal detention or restraint of liberty.
The restrictive custody is a permissible
7/28/2019 Habeas Corpus and Amparo
6/21
the doctrine of Manalo v Calderon,
which held that habeas corpus will
not lie for a PNP personnel under
restrictive custody. They asserted
that PO1 Ampatuan was facing an
administrative charge for grave
misconduct and under Section 52,
par. 4, of RA 8551, the PNP Chief
can place the PNP personnel under
restrictive custody pending the
administrative case.
precautionary measure to assure the PNP
authorities that police officers are always accounted
for.
Supreme Court upheld the PNPs arguments and
reiterated the doctrine that restrictive custody
under the PNPs governing rule is anothe
circumstance to which a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus will not lie.
Extended detention- post conviction remedyo Once a deprivation of a constitutional right (right to liberty) is shown to exist, the
court that rendered judgment is deemed ousted of jurisdiction and Habeas Corpus is
the appropriate remedy to assail the legality of the detention. (Gumabon).
Case Name Fast Facts Doctrine Previous Doctrine Cited
Gumabon v.
Director of
Prisons
The Court ruled in People v.
Hernandez that there is no
complex crime of rebellion
with murder, arson or
robbery. Herein petitioners,
having been convicted of the
said complex crime, raised
their constitutional right to
equal protection and invokedthat the ruling in Hernandez
be applied to them. They
contend that they already
served more than the
maximum penalty that could
have been imposed upon
them.
Habeas Corpus; Retroactivity
Judicial decisions favorable to the
accused must be applied
retroactively. Once a deprivation
of a constitutional right is shown
to exist, the court that rendered
judgment is deemed ousted of
jurisdiction and Habeas Corpus isthe appropriate remedy to assail
the legality of the detention.
People v Hernandez,
No crime of rebelli
complexed with murd
arson, or robbery.
Cures - Supervening events - Section 4, Rule of the Writ of Amparoo If it appears that the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody
of an officer under process issued by a court or judge or by virtue of a judgment or
order of a court of record, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the
process, render the judgment, or to make the order, the writ shall not be allowed;
or if the jurisdiction appears after the writ is allowed, the person shall not be
discharged by reasons of any informality or defect in the process, judgment, or
order. Nor shall anything in this rule be held to authorize the discharge of a person
charged with or convicted of an offense in the Philippines, or of a person suffering
imprisonment under lawful judgment.
INFORMATION
7/28/2019 Habeas Corpus and Amparo
7/21
BAIL It is settled that the giving or posting of bail by the accused istantamount to submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court.
(Velasco).
BAIL TO JURISDICTION if it appears that the person arranged to berestrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer by virtue of a court
order and that court had jurisdiction to make the order, the writ shall not be
allowed. (Velasco).
Case Name Fast Facts Doctrine/Ratio
Velasco v. Court of
Appeals
Petitioners, members of the NBI,
want to set aside the CAs order
granting Lawrence Larkins petition
for habeas corpus and immediate
release because he has already been
charged with the crime of rape and
his motion for bail was denied by
the lower court. In this case, a
warrant of arrest was issued by anRTC judge against Larkins for
violation of BP22. Meanwhile, a
certain Desiree Alinea filed a
complaint-affidavit with the NBI
accusing Larkins of the crime of
rape. The NBI apprehended Larkins
without a warrant and detained him
in the NBI headquarters because of
said complaint. The RTC judge set
aside the warrant issued against him
for violating BP22 and ordered hisrelease unless otherwise detained
for some other cause. However,
the NBI personnel refused to release
Larkins because of the complaint
filed against him for rape. Larkins,
through counsel Ulep, filed a motion
for bail, which was denied by the
court. Larkins new conselTe filed a
motion for dismissal on the ground
of the illegality of his warrantless
arrest, which the court also denied.
Larkins common-law wife filed for
petition of habeas corpus, which the
CA granted because of the illegality
of the warrantless arrest.
Even if the arrest of a person is illegal, supervening
events may bar his release or discharge from custody.
What is to be inquired into is the legality of his
detention as of, at the earliest, the filing of the
application for a writ of habeas corpus, for even if the
detention is at its inception illegal, it may, by reason of
some supervening events, such as the instances
mentioned in Section 4 of Rule 102, be no longer
illegal at the time of the filing of the application.
By filing his motion for bail, Larkins admitted that he
was under the custody of the court and voluntarily
submitted his person to its jurisdiction.
The court order denying his motion for bail was an
unequivocal assertion of its authority to keep in
custody the person of Larkins.
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus will not
prosper because his detention has become legal by
virtue of the filing before the court the complain
against him for the crime of rape and by the issuance
of the January 5 order denying his motion for bail.
Transition from Illegal detention to custodyo In this case, the issue is not whether the custody of Eufemia is being rightfully
withheld from petitioner but whether Eufemia is being restrained of her liberty.
7/28/2019 Habeas Corpus and Amparo
8/21
Significantly, although petitioner admits that he did not have legal custody of
Eufemia, he nonetheless insists that respondents themselves have no right to her
custody. Thus, for him, the issue of legal custody is irrelevant. What is important is
Eufemias personal freedom. (Veluz).
Case Name Fast Facts Doctrine/Ratio
Veluz v. Villanueva The petitioner had been the
guardian of 94-year old Eufemia
Rodriguez since 2000. In 2005, the
legally adopted children of said
Eufemia Rodriguez took the latter to
take care for her. The petitioner
prayed for the issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus to regain custody
over Eufemia.
Habeas Corpus
-In this case, the issue is not whether the custody of
Eufemia is being rightfully withheld from petitioner
but whether Eufemia is being restrained of her liberty.
Significantly, although petitioner admits that he did
not have legal custody of Eufemia, he nonetheless
insists that respondents themselves have no right to
her custody. Thus, for him, the issue of legal custody is
irrelevant. What is important is Eufemias personal
freedom.
iii. In passing upon a petition for habeas corpus, acourt or judge must first inquire into whether the
petitioner is being restrained or deprived of his
liberty. If the alleged cause is thereafter found to be
unlawful, then the writ should be granted and the
petitioner discharged. There was no proof that
Eufemia was being detained or restrained of her
liberty by respondents. Nothing on record revealed
that she was forcibly taken.
Petition DENIED.
B. Custody Different rationale
o In custody cases involving minors, the question of illegal and involuntary restraint ofliberty is not the underlying rationale for the availability of the writ as a remedy;
rather, the writ is prosecuted for the purpose of determining the right of custody
over a child (Sombong).
o In passing on the writ in a child custody case, the court deals with a matter of anequitable nature and not on personal freedom because a minor is presumed to be in
the custody of someone until he reaches majority age (Sombong).
3 requisites for custodyi. That the petitioner has the right of custody over the minor;ii. That the rightful custody of the minor is being withheld from the petitioner by
the respondent; and
iii. That it is to the best interest of the minor concerned to be in the custody ofpetitioner and not that of the respondent (Sombong)
7/28/2019 Habeas Corpus and Amparo
9/21
Case Name Fast Facts Doctrine/Ratio
Sombong v. Court of
Appeals
Petitioner prays for the reversal of
the CA decision denying the petition
for habeas corpus filed by her.
Petitioner is the mother of
ArabellaSombong who she brought
to the Sir John Clinic owned by
private respondents Dr. and Dra. Ty.
Because petitioner didnt have
enough money to pay for the bills,
the spouses refused to discharge
Arabella. 2 years after, petitioner
claimedArabella but was
unsuccessful. Dra. Ty stated that
there is a possibility that Arabella
was given to a certain Marietta
NeriAlviar since they thought thatshe had abandoned her daughter.
NBI conducted an investigation and
found a female child with the name
of Cristina Neri who was adopted by
the Neris from the clinic. There is no
evidence; however to prove that
Cristina is Arabella.
The Court cannot grant her the writ of habeas corpus
because the evidence does not support a finding that
the child, Cristina, is in truth and in fact her child,
Arabella. Neither is there sufficient evidence tosupport the finding that private respondents custody
of Cristina is illegal to warrant the grant of the writ.
Habeas corpus may be resorted to in cases where the
rightful custody of any person is withheld from the
person entitled thereto. Thus, although the writ of
habeas corpus ought not to be issued if the restraint is
voluntary, we have held time and again that the said
writ is the proper legal remedy to enable parents to
regain the custody of a minor child even if the latterbe in the custody of a third person of her own free
will.
The grant of the writ in the instant case will depend on
the concurrence of the following requisites:
1. That the petitioner has the right of custody over the
minor;
2. That the rightful custody of the minor is being
withheld from the petitioner by the respondent; and
3. That it is to the best interest of the minor concerned
to be in the custody of petitioner and not that of
respondent.
PART II - Difference of HC and Amparo
The act or omission or the threatened act or omission complained of should be illegal or unlawful
i. habeas corpus; confinement and custody forii. amparo; violations of, or threat to violate, a person's life, liberty, and security. It also covers
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances and threats. (So v. Tacla).
Case Name Fast Facts Doctrine/Ratio
So v. Tacla
So filed writs of habeas corpus andamparo on behalf of his daughter
accused of qualified theft before Judge
Tacla. Prior to the criminal
proceedings, Sos daughter Elena
Guisande was committed in the Makati
Medical Center. Judge Tacla transferred
Guisande to the NCMH, a government
Amparo
iii. The writ of amparo should be grantedjudiciously, lest the ideal sought by the Amparo
Rule be diluted and undermined by
indiscriminate filing.
Habeas Corpus; Illegal and Involuntary
7/28/2019 Habeas Corpus and Amparo
10/21
hospital, to determine if she could
stand trial. Guisande claimed to
experience life-threatening
circumstances in her confinement.
Hence, her father filed for the writs.
The NCMH reported eventually that
Guisande could indeed stand trial.
Justice Pizarro, pursuant to the
directive of the SC, ordered the transfer
of Guisande to St. Clares Medical
Center, her hospital of Choice, under
strict watch.
The criminal charges against Guisande
were dismissed, hence the writs of
amparo and habeas became moot and
academic.
So filed a comment opposing the
dismissal of the criminal and
administrative cases against Judge
Tacla and Dr. Vicente of the NCMH.
Deprivation
iv. Nurhida Juhuri Ampatuan v. JudgeMacaraig: the most basic criterion for the
issuance of the writ is that the individual seeking
such relief is illegally deprived of his freedom of
movement or place under some form of illegal
restraint. The nature of the restraint must be
illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of
action.
v. If a person is not being restrained ofliberty, the writ will be refused.
When Guisandes case was dismissed, she was no
confined in a jail facility, the NCMH, or under any
involuntary deprivation.
PART III - Writ of Amparo
1. Source Rules of Court
2. History (Secretary of National Defense)
Originated in Mexico during the time when Mexican jurists became interested in Americasconcept of Judicial Review
o 1847 Yucatan Constitution (in Mexico) embodied a constitutional provisiongranting the judges the power to protect all persons in the enjoyment of their
constitutional and legal rights, which reads:
The federal courts shall protect any inhabitant of the
Republic in the exercise and preservation of those rights granted
to him by this Constitution and by laws enacted pursuant
thereto, against attacks by the Legislative and Executive powers
of the federal or state governments, limiting themselves to
granting protection in the specific case in litigation, making no
general declaration concerning the statute or regulation thatmotivated the violation.
o Implications of the provision: enables the courts to enforce the constitution byprotecting individual rights in particular cases, but prevents them from using this
power to make law for the entire nation
The concept ofamparo evolved to address violation of particular Constitutional rights (i.e.amparo libertad, amparo contra leyes, amparo administrative, amparo agrario)
7/28/2019 Habeas Corpus and Amparo
11/21
In the Philippines, there are already existing provisions that afford protection to theConstitutional rights (i.e. Grave Abuse Clause in Art VIII, Sec 1, and Writ of Habeas Corpus)
However, these existing protection are not enough to address cases of extrajudicial killingsand enforced disappearances, both of which require immediate granting of reliefs
Hence, the Writ of Amparo was born:o
promulgated on 24 October 2007o exercise for the first time of the Courts expanded power to promulgate the rules to
protect the peoples constitutional rights; response to the prevalence of extralegal
killings and enforced disappearances
3. Definition
The writ of amparo is an extraordinary and independent remedy that provides rapid judicialrelief, as it partakes of a summary proceeding that requires only substantial evidence to make
the appropriate interim and permanent reliefs available to the petitioner. It is not an action to
determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, or liability for damages
requiring preponderance of evidence, or administrative responsibility requiring substantial
evidence that will require full and exhaustive proceedings. (Secretary of National Defense,
Rodriguez).
It is preventive in that it breaks the expectation of impunity in the commission of these offenses,and it is curative in that it facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators by inevitably
leading to subsequent investigation and action (Secretary of National Defense, Rodriguez).
4. Preliminary ConsiderationsA. Standing Section 2, Rule on the Writ of Amparo
1. Any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse, children and parents of
the aggrieved party;
2. Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the
fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those mentioned in the
preceding paragraph; or3. Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution, if there is no known
member of the immediate family or relative of the aggrieved party.
The filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends the right of all other authorized
parties to file similar petitions. Likewise, the filing of the petition by an authorized party
on behalf of the aggrieved party suspends the right of all others, observing the order
established herein.
o The parents of Sherlyn and Karen who filed for the Writ of Amparo did NOThave standing to file a writ of amparo on behalf of Manuel Merino. This is
according to Section 2 of the rule on the Writ of Amparo which provides
who may file the writ. In this case, the parents failed to allege that there
were no known members of the immediate family or relatives of Merino.
However, they could file the writ for habeas corpus. (Boac).
B. Jurisdiction - Sec 3, Rule of the Writ of Amparo The petition may be filed on any day and at any time with the Regional Trial Court of
the place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements
occurred, or with the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, or any
justice of such courts. The writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
7/28/2019 Habeas Corpus and Amparo
12/21
5. Requisites for court to grant Writ of Amparo Sec. 5, Rule on the Writ of AmparoA. Personal circumstances by the petitionerB. The name and personal circumstances of the respondent responsible for the threat, act or
omission, or, if the name is unknown or uncertain, the respondent may be described by an
assumed appellation;
C. The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or threatened withviolation by an unlawful act or omission of the respondent, and how such threat or violation
is committed with the attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits;
Substantial proofo Sec. 17 & 18 of Rule on WOA requires that substantial evidence prove the
allegations in the petition.
o Substantial evidence such relevant evidence as a reasonable man mightaccept as adequate to support a conclusion
o The remedy provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a summaryproceeding that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate
reliefs available to the petitioner; it is not an action to determine criminal
guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, or liability for damages
requiring preponderance of evidence, or administrative responsibilityrequiring substantial evidence that will require full and exhaustive
proceedings. (Secretary of National Defense).
Totality of Evidenceo Quoted ruling in Razon: The fair and proper rule, to our mind, is to
consider all the pieces of evidence adduced in their totality, and to consider
any evidence otherwise inadmissible under our usual rules to be admissible
if it is consistent with the admissible evidence adduced. In other words, we
reduce our rules to the most basic test of reason i.e., to the relevance of
the evidence to the issue at hand and its consistency with all other pieces of
adduced evidence. Thus, even hearsay evidence can be admitted if it
satisfies this basic minimum test. (Rodriguez).D. The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal circumstances, and
addresses of the investigating authority or individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of
the investigation, together with any report;
E. The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the fate or whereabouts ofthe aggrieved party and the identity of the person responsible for the threat, act or
omission; and
F. The relief prayed for.6. Liability/ who can be impleaded
A. Doctrine of Command Responsibility "Responsibility of commanders for crimes committed by subordinate members of the
armed forces or other persons subject to their control in international wars or domestic
conflict." (Roxas, citing Rubrico).
As then formulated, command responsibility is "an omission mode of individualcriminal liability," whereby the superior is made responsible for crimes committed by his
subordinates for failing to prevent or punish the perpetrators (as opposed to crimes he
ordered). (Roxas, citing Rubrico).
The inapplicability of the doctrine of command responsibility in an amparo proceedingdoes not, by any measure, preclude impleading military or police commanders on the
7/28/2019 Habeas Corpus and Amparo
13/21
ground that the complained acts in the petition were committed with their direct or
indirect acquiescence. Commanders may therefore be impleadednot actually on the
basis of command responsibilitybut rather on the ground of their responsibility, or at
least (Balao, citing Roxas).
B. Responsibility Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have been established by substantial
evidence to have participated in whatever way, by action or omission, in an enforced
disappearance, as a measure of the remedies this Court shall craft, among them, the
directive to file the appropriate criminal and civil cases against the responsible parties in
the proper courts. (Rubrico, Razon, cited in Rodriguez).
C. Accountability Accountability, on the other hand, refers to the measure of remedies that should be
addressed to those
i. who exhibited involvement in the enforced disappearance withoutbringing the level of their complicity to the level of responsibility
defined above
ii. or who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforceddisappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure
iii. or those who carry, but have failed to discharge, the burden ofextraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced
disappearance. (Rubrico, Razon, cited in Rodriguez).
We conclude that the PNP and the AFP have so far failed toconduct an exhaustive and meaningful investigation into
the disappearance of Jonas Burgos, and to exercise the
extraordinary diligence (in the performance of their duties)
that the Rule on the Writ ofAmparo requires. (Burgos)
The standard of diligence required the duty of publicofficials and employees to observe extraordinary diligence
called for extraordinary measures expected in theprotection of constitutitional rights and in the consequent
rights and in the consequent handling and investigation of
extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearance. From the
evidence gathered, respondents clearly failed to discharge
their burden of extraordinary diligence required in the
investigation of Balaos abduction. (Balao).
Case Name Fast Facts Doctrine/Ratio
Roxas v.
Macapagal-
Arroyo
Petitioner Roxas is assailing the
decision of the court of appeals
which extended to her the
privilege of the writs of Amparo
and Habeas Data but dined her
prayers for an inspection order
(of Fort Magsaysay),
production order and the
return of her belongings. Roxas
claims that police and military
focibly abducted her and held
GMA Immune, presidential
immunity.
Amparo; Command Responsibility:iv. Since the application of
command responsibility
presupposes an imputation of
individual liability, it is more aptly
invoked in a fullblown criminal or
administrative case rather than in
a summary amparo proceeding.
Command responsibility;
Rubrico v Arroyo
- "Responsibility of
commanders for crimes
committed by
subordinate members of
the armed forces or
other persons subject to
their control in
7/28/2019 Habeas Corpus and Amparo
14/21
her in Fort Magsaysay for 5
days, allegedly being part of
the CPP-NPA. Being blindfloded
the whole time however, she
was unable to posetively
identify her abductors as being
part of the police, military or to
convince the court/ prove that
she was actually taken to Fort
Magsaysay.
The obvious reason lies in the
nature of the writ itself:
v. While the principalobjective of its proceedings is the
initial determination of whether
an enforced disappearance,extralegal killing or threats
thereof had transpiredthe writ
does not, by so doing, fix liability
for such.
- Instead, commanders may be
impleaded NOT ON THE BASIS OF
COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY, but
rather on the ground of their
responsibility.
Same; Same; Responsibility-vi. The totality of the evidence
does not inspire reasonable
conclusion that her abductors
were military or police personnel
and that she was detained at fort
Magsaysay.
Petition DENIED.
international wars or
domestic conflict.
Same; Razon v Tagitis;
Responsibility-
vii. Refers to theextent the actors have
been established by
substantial evidence to
have participated in
whatever way, by
action or omission, in
an enforced
disappearance, as a
measure of the
remedies this Court
shall craft, among them,
the directive to file theappropriate criminal
and civil cases against
the responsible parties
in the proper courts
Same; Same;
Accountability-
viii. Refers to themeasure of remedies
that should be
addressed to those who
exhibited involvement
in the enforced
disappearance without
bringing the level of
their complicity to the
level of responsibility
defined above; or who
are imputed with
knowledge relating to
the enforced
disappearance and who
carry the burden ofdisclosure; or those
who carry, but have
failed to discharge, the
burden of extraordinary
diligence in the
investigation of the
enforced disappearance
7/28/2019 Habeas Corpus and Amparo
15/21
Burgos v.
Macapagal-
Arroyo
Edita Burgos filed a petition for
Habeas Corpus and Amparo on
behalf of her son Joseph
Burgos who was allegedly
abducted by a group of four
men in Ever Gotesco mall. The
CA denied the writ of Habeas
Corpus, and partially granted
the writ of Amaparo. The facts
show that Burgos was forcibly
taken while in Ever Gotesco,
the plate number of the vehicle
used to abduct him was traced
back to the AFP, 56th Infantry
batallion Impound lot. Upon
inspection of the impound lot itwas found that the plate
number was missing and the
vehicle was scrapped.
Defendants on the other hand
contend that Burgos was
abducted by member of the
CPP-NPA.
Evidence presented fails to
establish connection between
military and the abductors of
Burgos.
Amparo; Standard of dilligence
ix. Writ of Amparo require theAFP and PNP to conduct an
exhaustive and meaningful
investigation into disappearancesand to exercise extraordinary
diligence in the performance of
their duties.
x. Because of theinvestigative shorcomings, WE
CAN NOT RULE on the case until a
more meaningful investigation
using extraordinary dilligence is
undertaken.
There were significant lapses in
handling of the investigation.
Further investigation and
monitoring should be undertaken.
Directs CHR to conduct
examination with aid of PNP, AFP.
Boac v.
Cadapan
Armed men abducted Sherlyn
Cadapan, Karen Empeno, and
Manuel Merino. Their family
members filed a petition for
habeas corpus against the
members of the military. After
the trial, the petition was
dismissed because it was not
the appropriate remedy.
During pendency of the
reconsideration, their family
members filed a petition forWrit of Amparo against the
same military soldiers. The two
petitions were consolidated.
The trial called upon Raymond
Manalo whose testimony
revealed that he indeed met
the tree abducted individuals in
Presidential immunity from suit
The President cannot be sued in
any civil or criminal case during his
tenure of office or actual
incumbency.
Amparo; Standing; Who may file
xi. The parents of Sherlyn andKaren who filed for the writ of
Amparo did NOT have standing to
file a writ of amparo on behalf of
Manuel Merino. This is according
to Section 2 of the rule on the
Writ of Amparo which provides
who may file the writ. In this case,
the parents failed to allege that
there were no known members of
the immediate family or relatives
Rubrico v. Macapagal
Arroyo on command
responsibility
Razon Jr. v. Tagitis:
defining what constitutes
responsibility and
accountability
7/28/2019 Habeas Corpus and Amparo
16/21
the Camp Tecson. The court
ruled that Raymond Manalos
testimony was truthful, taking
judicial notice of its decision in
Secretary of National Defense
v. Manalo.
of Merino. However, they could
file the writ for habeas corpus.
Amparo; Command Responsibility
xii. The court maintains itsadherence to Rubrico as far asamparo cases are concerned. This
means that command
responsibility in amparo cases
should not be used to determine
criminal liability. However,
Rubrico recognizes the application
of command responsibility to
determine those who are
responsible and accountable to
protect the rights of the aggrieved
party.xiii. Such identification may be
a preliminary determination of
criminal liability, subject to
further investigation by the
appropriate government agency.
xiv. RA 9851 includes commandresponsibility as a form of criminal
complicity in crimes against
international humanitarian law.
There is no need to file a motion
for execution for an amparo orhabeas corpus decision.
Rodriguez v.
Macapagal-
Arroyo
Rodriguez was abducted and
tortured by the military, forcing
him to name the location of the
NPA camp. He was later freed
and at the camp, he was made
to sign an affidavit that he was
a surrenderee and was never
beaten up. A few months after
his release, he noticed that
several suspicious-looking men
are following him. He filed for a
Petition for the Writ of Amparo
and Writ of Habeas Data with
Prayers for Protection Orders,
Inspection of Place, and
Production of Documents and
Personal Properties
impleading GMA and several
Presidential immunity from suit
The presidential immunity from
suit is concurrent only with his
tenure and not his term. Former
President Arroyo cannot use the
presidential immunity from suit to
shield herself from judicial scrutiny
that would assess whether, within
the context of amparo proceedings,she was responsible or accountable
for the abduction of Rodriguez.
Amparo; Command responsibility
- Nothing precludes this Court from
applying the doctrine of command
Amparo; Command
Responsibility; Boac v
Cadapan; Opinion of
Carpio- Morales
xviii. Rubricocategorically denies the
application of command
responsibility in amparo
cases to determinecriminal liability. The
Court maintains its
adherence to this
pronouncement as far
as amparo proceedings
are concerned. xxx
Command responsibility
7/28/2019 Habeas Corpus and Amparo
17/21
officers of the 17th Infantry
Batallion of the Philippine
Army.
responsibility in amparo
proceedings to ascertain
responsibility and accountability in
extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearances. GMA can be
impleaded as a respondent under
the doctrine of command
responsibility.
Same; Same; Liability; 3 Elements
of Doctrine of Command of
Responsibility
xv. The existence of a superior-subordinate relationship
between the accused as superior
and the perpetrator of the crime
as his subordinate
xvi. The superior knew or hadreason to know that the crime
was about to be or had been
committed; and
xvii. The superior failed to takethe necessary and reasonable
measure to prevent the criminal
acts or punish the perpetrators
thereof.
No substantial evidence proving
GMA's neither responsibility nor
accountability.
may be loosely applied
in amparo cases in
order to identify those
accountable individuals
that have the power to
effectively implement
whatever processes an
amparo court would
issue.
Same; Totality of
evidence; Razon
xix. The fair andproper rule, to our
mind, is to consider all
the pieces of evidence
adduced in theirtotality, and to consider
any evidence otherwise
inadmissible under our
usual rules to be
admissible if it is
consistent with the
admissible evidence
adduced. In other
words, we reduce our
rules to the most basic
test of reason i.e., to
the relevance of the
evidence to the issue at
hand and its consistency
with all other pieces of
adduced evidence.
Thus, even hearsay
evidence can be
admitted if it satisfies
this basic minimum
test.
xx. Substantialevidence provided toprove responsibility and
accountability of some
military respondents.
Balao v.
Macapagal-
James Balao, who founded the
left-leaning group Cordilera Amparo; Substantial Evidence forCited Rubrico, which was
also cited in Roxas v
7/28/2019 Habeas Corpus and Amparo
18/21
Arroyo Peoples Allicance (CPA) was
abducted in La Trinidad,
Benguet by armed men. One of
the armed men was heard
telling the driver of the van
that they are going to proceed
to Camp Dangwa (PNP
Provincial Headquarters in La
Trinidad Benguet). Siblings of
James Balao filed a Petition for
the Writ of Amparo, ordering
the respondents (GMA, several
Department Secretaries and
several AFP and PNP
commanders) to disclose
where James is detained or
confined, to release James, and
to cease and desist fromfurther inflicting harm upon his
person.
Responsibility and Accountability
xxi. Such documented practiceof targeting activists in the
militarys counter-insurgency
program by itself does not fulfil
the evidentiary standard in the
Amparo rule to establish an
enforced disappearance.
Accordingly, the trial court cannot
simply infer government
involvement in the abduction of
James Balao from past similar
incidents in which victims also
worked or affiliated with the CPA
and other left-leaning groups.
Such pronouncement of
responsibility on the part of thepublic respondents cannot be
made given the insufficiency of
evidence.
Same; Standard of diligence
required
xxii. Duty of public officials andemployees to observe
extraordinary diligence called
for extraordinary measures
expected in the protection of
constitutitional rights and in the
consequent rights and in the
consequent handling and
investigation of extra-judicial
killings and enforced
disappearance. From the evidence
gathered, respondents clearly
failed to discharge their burden of
extraordinary diligence required
in the investigation of Balaos
abduction.
Same; Command responsibility
xxiii. The doctrine of commandresponsibility has little bearing, if
at all, in amparo proceedings. The
inapplicability of the doctrine of
Macapagal-Arroyo
7/28/2019 Habeas Corpus and Amparo
19/21
command responsibility in an
amparo proceeding does not, by
any measure, preclude impleading
military or police commanders on
the ground that the complained
acts in the petition were
committed with their direct or
indirect acquiescence.
Commanders may therefore be
impleaded not actually on the
basis of command of
responsibility but rather on the
ground of their responsibility, or
at least accountability.
7. Application - Applies only to unlawful acts or omissions which result in violations, or threats to:
a. Lifeb. Liberty
c. Security
immunity of ones person, including extensions of his/ her personhouses, papers, andeffectsagainst government intrusion
can exist independent of the right to liberty has 3 ASPECTS:
i. Freedom from fear/ threat (threat to the life, liberty, and security ofthe person)
ii. Guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity or security (freedomfrom torture/ force/ violence that vitiates the exercise of freewill;
proscribed in Sec 12, Art III, 1987 Const.)iii. Guarantee of protection of ones rights by the government
Case Name Fast Facts Doctrine/Ratio Previous Doctrine Cited
Manalo v. Calderon Manalo brothers were illegally
detained for 18 months by alleged
CAFGU members, during which
they were repeatedly tortured and
beaten up. They were able to
escape from their guards. After
which, they filed a petition for
injunction, prohibition and
temporary restraining order
against petitioners Secretary of
National Defense and AFP Chief of
Staff, the said petition was treated
by the Court as an Amparo
petition. Court of Appeals granted
the petition and ordered herein
petitioners to furnish the reports
Amparo: Proof necessary
Substantial evidence - such
relevant evidence as a
reasonable man might accept
as adequate to support a
conclusion
necessary to prove the
allegations embodied in the
petition for the WOA
Amparo: Right to security
defined
Right to security of a person
embodied in Sec 2, Art III, 1987
Cited Rubrico, which
was also cited in Roxas v
Macapagal-Arroyo
7/28/2019 Habeas Corpus and Amparo
20/21
of the investigation and the
information regarding the
incident. Supreme Court upheld
CA, holding that respondents
right to security of a person had
been violated, which warrants
the issuance of the writ in their
favor.
Const. (The right of the people
to be secure in their persons,
xxx shall be inviolable xxx)
immunity of ones person,
including extensions of his/ her
personhouses, papers, and
effectsagainst government
intrusion can exist independent
of the right to liberty (not
intended to be narrowed to
situations of formal deprivation
of liberty only)
It has 3 different permutations:
1.freedom from fear/ freedom
from threat the right embodied
in Section 1 of the Amparo ruleany threat to the rights of life,
liberty or security is a violation
of this right
2. guarantee of bodily and
psychological integrity or
security proscribed by Sec 12,
Article III, 1987 Const.
-Torture, force, and violence,
when employed to vitiate the
free will of the victim,constitutes an invasion of both
bodily and psychological
integrity as the dignity of the
human person includes the
exercise of free will.
3. guarantee of protection of
ones rights by the government
embodied in the right to life
and liberty in Sec. 1, Art III,
1987 Const.; corollary of State
policy that guarantees full
respect for human rights under
Sec. 11, Art II, 1987
*Does not apply to Property
What is clear from the statements of the petitioners is the overridinginvolvement of property issues. Issues relating to the right to life or to liberty
can hardly be discerned except to the extent that the occurrence of past
7/28/2019 Habeas Corpus and Amparo
21/21
violence has been alleged. None of the supporting affidavits show that the
threat to the rights to life, liberty and security of the petitioners is imminent or
continuing. (Tapuz)
It applies only to cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances,not in cases concerning property or commercial rights. (Salcedo)
Case Name Fast Facts Doctrine/Ratio
Tapuz v. del Rosario A case for forcible entry was filed by
the Sanson spouses against
petitioners Tapuz et. al wherein they
were forced to vacate a disputed
land. One of the reliefs sought by
Tapuz was the writ of amparo,
alleging in their application that 12
men intruded into the property and
two of these men burned two houses
of the petitioners and that these acts
constitute TERRORISM and thethreats against the life and security of
the petitioners continue because the
Sanson spouses have under their
employ armed men and they are
influential with the police authorities
owing to their financial and political
clout.
Amparo.
The writ of amparo is intended to address violations
of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or security. It
is not a writ to protect concerns that are purely
property or commercial.
Amparo; Property-related cases.
The alleged violent incidents appear to be purely
property-related and focused on the disputed land.
Issues relating to the right to life or to liberty can
hardly be discerned except to the extent that the
occurrence of past violence has been alleged. None of
the supporting affidavits show that the threat to the
rights to life, liberty and security of the petitioners is
imminent or continuing. If the petitioners wish to seek
redress, the remedy may lie more within the realm of
ordinary criminal prosecution rather than the
extraordinary remedy of the writ of amparo.
Petition DENIED.
Recommended