REPUBLIC ACT NO.
10368 victims and/or their families for the deaths, injuries, sufferings, deprivations and damages they
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REPARATION AND RECOGNITION OF VICTIMS OF HUMAN
RIGHTS VIOLATIONS DURING THE MARCOS REGIME, DOCUMENTATION OF SAID
VIOLATIONS, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
assembled:
CHAPTER I
PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS
Section 1. Short Title. — This Act shall be known as the "Human Rights Victims Reparation
and Recognition Act of 2013″.
Section 2. Declaration of Policy. — Section 11 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines declares that the State values the dignity of every human, person
and guarantees full respect for human rights. Pursuant to this declared policy, Section 12 of
Article III of the Constitution prohibits the use of torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or
any other means which vitiate the free will and mandates the compensation and rehabilitation
of victims of torture or similar practices and their families.
By virtue of Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution adopting generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land, the Philippines adheres to international human
rights laws and conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention Against
Torture (CAT) and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which
imposes on each State party the obligation to enact domestic legislation to give effect to the
rights recognized therein and to ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms have been
violated shall have an effective remedy, even if the violation is committed by persons acting in
an official capacity. In fact, the right to a remedy is itself guaranteed under existing human
rights treaties and/or customary international law, being peremptory in character (jus
cogens) and as such has been recognized as non-derogable.
Consistent with the foregoing, it is hereby declared the policy of the State to recognize the
heroism and sacrifices of all Filipinos who were victims of summary execution, torture, enforced
or involuntary disappearance and other gross human rights violations committed during the
regime of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos covering the period from September 21, 1972
to February 25, 1986 and restore the victims’ honor and dignity. The State hereby
acknowledges its moral and legal obligation to recognize and/or provide reparation to said
suffered under the Marcos regime.
Similarly, it is the obligation of the State to acknowledge the sufferings and damages inflicted
upon persons whose properties or businesses were forcibly taken over, sequestered or used,
or those whose professions were damaged and/or impaired, or those whose freedom of
movement was restricted, and/or such other victims of the violations of the Bill of Rights.
Section 3. Definition of Terms. — The following terms as used in this Act shall mean:
(a) Detention refers to the act of taking a person into custody against his will by persons
acting in an official capacity and/or agents of the State.
(b) Human rights violation refers to any act or omission committed during the period
from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986 by persons acting in an official capacity
and/or agents of the State, but shall not be limited to the following:
(1) Any search, arrest and/or detention without a valid search warrant or
warrant of arrest issued by a civilian court of law, including any warrantless
arrest or detention carried out pursuant to the declaration of Martial Law by
former President Ferdinand E. Marcos as well as any arrest., detention or
deprivation of liberty carried out during the covered period on the basis of an
"Arrest, Search and Seizure Order (ASSO)", a "Presidential Commitment
Order {PCO)" or a "Preventive Detention Action (PDA)" and such other similar
executive issuances as defined by decrees of former President Ferdinand E.
Marcos, or in any manner that the arrest, detention or deprivation, of liberty
was effected;
(2) The infliction by a person acting in an official capacity and/or an agent of
the State of physical injury, torture, killing, or violation of other human rights,
of any person exercising civil or political rights, including but not limited to the
freedom of speech, assembly or organization; and/or the right to petition the
government for redress of grievances, even if such violation took place during
or in the course of what the authorities at the time deemed an illegal assembly
or demonstration: Provided, That torture in any form or under any
circumstance shall be considered a human rights violation;
(3) Any enforced or involuntary disappearance caused upon a person who was
arrested, detained or abducted against one’s will or otherwise deprived of
one’s liberty, as defined in Republic Act No. 103501, otherwise known as the
"Anti-Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance Act of 2012″;
 (4) Any force or intimidation causing the involuntary exile of a person from the
Philippines;
(5) Any act of force, intimidation or deceit causing unjust or illegal takeover of
a business, confiscation of property, detention of owner/s and or their families,
deprivation of livelihood of a person by agents of the State, including those
caused by Ferdinand E. Marcos, his spouse Imelda R. Marcos, their immediate
relatives by consanguinity or affinity, as well as those persons considered as
among their close relatives, associates, cronies and subordinates under
Executive Order No. 1, issued on February 28, 1986 by then President
Corazon C. Aquino in the exercise of her legislative powers under the Freedom
Constitution;
(6) Any act or series of acts causing, committing and/or conducting the
following:
(i) Kidnapping or otherwise exploiting children of persons suspected
of committing acts against the Marcos regime;
(ii) Committing sexual offenses against human rights victims who are
detained and/or in the course of conducting military and/or police
operations; and
(iii) Other violations and/or abuses similar or analogous to the above,
including those recognized by international law.
(c) Human Rights Violations Victim (HRVV) refers to a person whose human rights
were violated by persons acting in an official capacity and/or agents of the State as
defined herein. In order to qualify for reparation under this Act, the human rights
violation must have been committed during the period from September 21, 1972 to
February 25, 1986: Provided, however, That victims of human rights violations that
were committed one (1) month before September 21, 1972 and one (1) month after
February 25, 1986 shall be entitled to reparation, under this Act if they can establish
that the violation was committed:
(1) By agents of the State and/or persons acting in an official capacity as
defined hereunder;
(2) For the purpose of preserving, maintaining, supporting or promoting the
said regime; or
(3) To conceal abuses during the Marcos regime and/or the effects of Martial
Law.
(d) Persons Acting in an Official Capacity and/or Agents of the State.—The following
persons shall be deemed persons acting in an official capacity and/or agents of the
State under this Act:
(1) Any member of the former Philippine Constabulary (PC), the former
Integrated National Police (INP), the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
and the Civilian Home Defense Force (CHDF) from September 21, 1972 to
February 25, 1986 as well as any civilian agent attached thereto; and any
member of a paramilitary group even if one is not organically part of the PC,
the INP, the AFP or the CHDF so long as it is shown that the group was
organized, funded, supplied with equipment, facilities and/or resources, and/or
indoctrinated, controlled and/or supervised by any person acting in an official
capacity and/or agent of the State as herein defined;
(2) Any member of the civil service, including persons who held elective or
appointive public office at any time from September 21, 1972 to February 25,
1986;
(3) Persons referred to in Section 2(a) of Executive Order No. 1, creating the
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), issued on February
28, 1986 and related laws by then President Corazon C. Aquino in the exercise
of her legislative powers under the Freedom Constitution, including former
President Ferdinand E. Marcos, spouse Imelda R. Marcos, their immediate
relatives by consanguinity or affinity, as well as their close relatives,
associates, cronies and subordinates; and
(4) Any person or group/s of persons acting with the authorization, support or
acquiescence of the State during the Marcos regime.
(e) Torture refers to any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or
mental, is intentionally inflicted on any person under the custody of persons acting in
an official capacity and/or agents of the State, as defined by law, jurisprudence,
international conventions and Republic Act No. 9745, otherwise known as the "Anti-
Torture Act of 2009″.
Section 4. Entitlement to Monetary Reparation. — Any HRVV qualified under this Act shall
receive reparation from the State, free of tax, as herein prescribed: Provided, That for a
deceased or involuntary disappeared HRVV, the legal heirs as provided for in the Civil Code
of the Philippines, or such other person named by the executor or administrator of the deceased
or involuntary disappeared HRVV’s estate in that order, shall be entitled to receive such
reparation: Provided, further, That no special power of attorney shall be recognized in the
actual disbursement of the award, and only the victim or the aforestated successor(s)-in-
interest shall be entitled to personally receive said reparation form the Board, unless the victim
involved is shown to be incapacitated to the satisfaction of the Board: Provided,
furthermore, That the reparation received under this Act shall be without prejudice to the receipt
of any other sum by the HRVV from any other person or entity in any case involving violations
of human rights as defined in this Act.
Section 5. Nonmonetary Reparation. — The Department of Health (DOH), the Department of
Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), the Department of Education (DepED), the
Commission on Higher Education (CHED), the Technical Education and Skills Development
Authority (TESDA), and such other government agencies shall render the necessary services
as nonmonetary reparation for HRVVs and/or their families, as may be determined by the Board
pursuant to the provisions of this Act. The amount necessary for this purpose shall be sourced
from the budget of the agency concerned in the annual General Appropriations Act (GAA).
Section 6. Amount of Reparation. — The amount of reparation under this Act shall be in
proportion to the gravity of the human rights violation committed on the HRVV and in
accordance with the number of points assigned to the individual under Section 19 hereof.
Section 7. Source of Reparation. — The amount of Ten billion pesos (P10,000,000,000.00)
plus accrued interest which form part of the funds transferred to the government of the Republic
of the Philippines by virtue of the December 10, 1997 Order of the Swiss Federal Supreme
Court, adjudged by the Supreme Court of the Philippines as final and executory in Republic vs.
Sandiganbayan on July 15, 2003 (G.R. No. 152154) as Marcos ill-gotten wealth and forfeited
in favor of the Republic of the Philippines, shall be the principal source funds for the
implementation of this Act.
CHAPTER II
THE HUMAN RIGHTS VICTIMS’ CLAIMS BOARD
Section 8. Creation and Composition of the Human Rights Victims’ Claims Board. — There is
hereby created an independent and quasi-judicial body to be known as the Human Rights
Victims’ Claims Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board. It shall be composed of nine (9)
members, who shall possess the following qualifications:
(a) Must be of known probity, competence and integrity;
(b) Must have a deep and thorough understanding and knowledge of human rights and
involvement in efforts against human rights violations committed during the regime of
former President Ferdinand E. Marcos;
(c) At least three (3) of them must be members of the Philippine Bar who have been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten (10) years; and
(d) Must have a clear and adequate understanding and commitment to human rights
protection, promotion and advocacy.
The Human Rights Victims’ Claims Board shall be attached to but shall not be under the
Commission on Human Rights (CHR).
The Board shall organize itself within thirty (30) days from the completion of appointment of all
nine (9) members and shall thereafter organize its Secretariat.
Section 9. Appointment to the Board. — The President shall appoint the Chairperson and the
other eight (8) members of the Board: Provided, That human rights organizations such as, but
not limited to, the Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP), the Free Legal Assistance
Group (FLAG), the Movement of Attorneys for Brotherhood, Integrity and Nationalism
(MABINI), the Families of Victims of Involuntary Disappearance (FIND) and the Samahan ng
mga Ex-Detainees Laban sa Detensyon at Aresto (SELDA) may submit nominations to the
President.
Section 10. Powers and Functions of the Board. — The Board shall have the following powers
and functions:
(a) Receive, evaluate, process and investigate applications for claims under this Act;
(b) Issue subpoena/s ad testificandum and subpoena/s duces tecum;
(c) Conduct independent administrative proceedings and resolve disputes over claims;
(d) Approve with finality all eligible claims under this Act;
(e) Deputize appropriate government agencies to assist it in order to effectively perform
its functions;
(f) Promulgate such rules as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act,
including rules of procedure in the conduct of its proceedings, with the Revised Rules
of Court of the Philippines having suppletory application;
 (g) Exercise administrative control and supervision over its Secretariat;
(h) The Board, at its discretion, may consult the human rights organizations mentioned
in Section 9 herein; and
(i) Perform such other duties, functions and responsibilities as may be necessary to
effectively attain the objectives of this Act.
Section 11. Resolution, of Claims. — The Board shall be composed of three (3) divisions which
shall function simultaneously and independently of each other in the resolution of claims for
reparation. Each division shall be composed of one (1) Chairperson, who shall be a member
of the Philippine Bar and two (2) members to be appointed by the Board en banc.
Section 12. Emoluments. — The Chairperson and members of the Board shall have the rank,
salary, emoluments and allowances equivalent to s Presiding Justice and Associate Justice of
the Court of Appeals, respectively.
Section 13. Secretariat of the Board. — The Board shall be assisted by a Secretariat which
may come from the existing personnel of the CHR, without prejudice to the hiring of additional
personnel as determined by the Board to accommodate the volume of required work. The
following shall be the functions of the Secretariat:
(a) Receive, evaluate, process and investigate applications for claims under this Act;
(b) Recommend to the Board the approval of applications for claims;
(c) Assist the Board in technical functions; and
(d) Perform other duties that may be assigned by the Board.
The Chairperson of the Board shall appoint a Board Secretary who shall head the Secretariat
for the duration of the existence of the Board. There shall be a Technical Staff Head assisted
by five (5) Legal Officers and three (3) Paralegal Officers; and an Administrative Staff Head
assisted by three (3) Administrative Support Staff.
When necessary, the Board may hire additional contractual employees or contract a service
provider to provide services of counselors, psychologists, social workers and public education
specialists, among others, to augment the services of the Secretariat: Provided, That the
maximum contract amount per year shall not exceed more than fifteen percent (15%) of the
total annual operating budget of the Board.
Section 14. Operating Budget of the Board.— The operating budget of the Board shall be
funded from the Ten billion peso {P10,000,000,000.00) fund, with Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) as its initial operating budget: Provided, That it shall not exceed Fifty million
pesos (P50,000,000.00) a year
Section 15. Proper Disposition of Funds. — The Board shall ensure that funds appropriated or
those which may become available as reparation for HRVVs are properly disbursed in
accordance with the policies stated by Congress and relevant government rules, regulations
and accounting procedures.
CHAPTER III
CLAIMANTS, REPARATION AND RECOGNITION
Section 16. Claimants. — Any person who is an HRVV may file a claim with the Board for
reparation and/or recognition in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Section 17. Conclusive Presumption That One is an HRVV Under This Act. — The claimants
in the class suit and direct action plaintiffs in the Human Rights Litigation Against the Estate of
Ferdinand E. Marcos (MDL No. 840, CA No. 88-0390) in the US Federal District Court of
Honolulu, Hawaii wherein a favorable judgment has been rendered, shall be extended the
conclusive presumption that they are HRVVs: Provided, That the HRVVs recognized by the
Bantayog Ng Mga Bayani Foundation shall also be accorded the same conclusive
presumption: Provided, further, That nothing herein shall be construed to deprive the Board of
its original jurisdiction and its inherent power to determine the extent of the human rights
violations and the corresponding reparation and/or recognition that may be granted.
Section 18. Motu Proprio Recognition. — The Board may take judicial notice motu proprio of
individual persons who suffered human rights violations as defined herein and grant such
persons recognition as HRVVs and included in the Roll of Victims as provided for in Section 26
hereof.
Section 19. Determination of Award. — (a) The Board shall follow the point system in the
determination of the award. The range shall be one (1) to ten (10) points, as follows:
(1) Victims who died or who disappeared and are still missing shall be given ten (10)
points;
(2) Victims who were tortured and/or raped or sexually abused shall he given six (6) to
nine (9) points:
 (3) Victims who were detained shall be given three (3) to five (5) points; and
(4) Victims whose rights were violated under Section 3, paragraph (b), nos. (4), (5) and
(6) under this Act shall be given one (1) to two (2) points.
The Board shall exercise its powers with due discretion in the determination of points for each
victim, which shall be based on the type of violation committed against the HRVV, frequently
and duration of the violation. In each category, HRVVs who had suffered more would receive
more points. In instances where a victim is classified in more than one category, one shall be
awarded the points in the higher category: Provided, That in cases where there are several
eligible claims filed for reparation by or on behalf of a particular HRVV, the Board shall award
only one (1) valid claim which corresponds to the category obtaining the highest number of
points for each eligible claimant.
(b) The Board shall proceed to determine the award for each claimant classified under Sections
16, 17 and 18 of this Act.
(c) The Board shall then compute the final monetary value of one’s award that is equivalent to
the numerical value of one point multiplied by the number of points that a claimant is entitled
to, as previously determined by the Board.
(d) Within thirty (30) days after the Board has approved with finality each eligible claim pending
before it and after due publication of such legitimate claim, the award of monetary
compensation shall take effect: Provided., That any pending appeal filed by an aggrieved
claimant or opposite before the Board en banc must resolved by it sixty (60) days before the
Board becomes functus officio.
CHAPTER IV
GENERAL- PROVISIONS
Section 20. Transfer of Funds. — Pursuant to the judgment mentioned in Section 7 hereof, the
amount of Ten billion pesos (P10,000,000,000.00) plus the accrued interest are hereby set
aside and appropriated to fund the purposes of this Act.
Section 21. Documentation of Human — Rights Violations Committed by the Marcos Regime.
— In the implementation of this Act and without prejudice to any other documentary or other
evidence that may be required for the award of any reparation, any HRVV seeking reparation
shall execute a detailed sworn statement narrating the circumstances of the pertinent human
rights violation/s committed.
Section 22. Publication. — Consistent with Section 23 herein, the Board, after having been
duly convened, shall set the period for the commencement and termination of applications by
HRVVs and cause the publication of the same: Provided, That such period shall only become
operative fifteen (15) days after its last publication, which shall be once a week for three (3)
consecutive weeks in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.
Section 23. Period for Filing of Claims; Waiver. — An HRVV shall file an application for
reparation with the Board within six (6) months from the effectivity of the implementing rules
and regulations (IRR) of this Act: Provided, That failure to file an application within said period
is deemed a waiver of the right to file the same: Provided, further, That for HRVVs who are
deceased, incapacitated, or missing due to enforced disappearance, their legal heir/s or
representatives, shall be entitled to file an application for reparation on their behalf.
Any opposition to the new application/s pursuant to Section 16 hereof shall only be entertained
if such is filed within fifteen (15) days from the date of the last publication of the official list of
eligible claimants as may be determined by the Board. The Board shall cause the publication
of the official list of eligible claimants once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in at least
two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.
Section 24 Appeal. — Any aggrieved claimant or oppositor may file an appeal within ten (10)
calendar days from the receipt of the Resolution of the Division, to the Board en banc, whose
decision shall then become final and executory.
Section 25. Penalties; Applicability of the Revised Penal Code. — Any claimant who is found
by the Board, after due hearing, to have filed a fraudulent claim, shall be referred to the
appropriate office for prosecution. If convicted, he shall suffer the imprisonment of eight (8) to
ten (10) years, shall be disqualified from public office and employment and shall be deprived
of the right to vote and be voted for in any national or local election, even after the service of
sentence unless granted absolute pardon.
Any member of the Board and its Secretariat, public officer, employee of an agency or any
private individual mandated to implement this Act, who shall misuse, embezzle or
misappropriate the funds for the reparation of HRVVs or who shall commit fraud in the
processing of documents and claims of HRVVs, or shall conspire with any individual to commit
the same, shall also be prosecuted,
Any member of the Board and its Secretariat, public officer, employee of an agency or any
private individual mandated to implement this Act, who may have been found guilty of
committing any or all of the prohibited acts stated in the preceding paragraph, or those acts
punishable under the Revised Penal Code, shall be penalized under the pertinent provisions
in the Code and relevant special penal laws.
Section 26. Roll of Victims. — Persons who are HRVVs, regardless of whether they opt to
seek reparation or not, shall be given recognition by enshrining their names in a Roll of Human
Rights Victims to be prepared by the Board.
A Memorial/Museum/Library shall be established in honor and in memory of the victims of
human rights violations whose names shall be inscribed in the Roll. A compendium of their
sacrifices shall be prepared and may be readily viewed and accessed in the internet. The
Memorial/Museum/Library/Compendium shall have an appropriation of at least Five hundred
million pesos (P500,000,000.00) from the accrued interest of the Ten billion peso
(P10,000,000,000.00) fund.
The Roll may also be displayed in government agencies as maybe designated by the HRVV
Memorial Commission as created hereunder.
Section 27. Human, Rights Violations Victims’ Memorial Commission.. — There is hereby
created a Commission to be known as the Human Rights Violations Victims’ Memorial
Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission, primarily for the establishment,
restoration, preservation and conservation of the Memorial/Museum/Library/Compendium in
honor of the HRVVs during the Marcos regime.
The powers and functions of the Commission shall be assumed by the Board of Trustees which
shall be composed of the following; Chairperson of the CHR as Chairperson; Chairperson of
the National Historical Commission as Co-Chairperson; and Chairpersons of the CHED, the
National Commission on Culture and the Arts (NCCA), the Secretary of the Department of
Education and the Head of the University of the Philippines Diliman Main Library, as members.
The Board of Trustees shall have the authority to hire and appoint its officials and employees,
receive donations and grants for and on its behalf, and generate revenues for the benefit of the
Commission.
The Commission shall be attached to the CHR solely for budgetary and administrative
purposes. The operating budget of the Commission shall be appropriated from the General
Appropriations Act.
The Commission shall also coordinate and collaborate with the DepED and the CHED to
ensure that the teaching of Martial Law atrocities, the lives and sacrifices of HRVVs in our
history are included in the basic, secondary and tertiary education curricula.
CHAPTER V
FINAL PROVISIONS
Section 28. Guidelines for the Implementing Rules and Regulations (1RR). — In implementing
this Act and in formulating the corresponding rules and regulations, and to ensure that all
applications are properly screened for fraudulent claims, the Board must provide for:
(a) Transparency in the processing of the claims;
(b) A procedure that allows any concerned party to oppose an application or claim on
the ground that it is fraudulent, fictitious or spurious and gives that party the opportunity
to question the same and to present evidence in support thereof; and
(c) A procedure that is speedy and expeditious without sacrificing any of the parties’
fundamental rights.
Within fifteen (15) days from the date of its organization, the Board shall promulgate the
necessary IRR and procedures for the effective implementation of this Act. The IRR shall be
effective fifteen (15) days after its publication in two (2) national newspapers of general
circulation.
Section 29. Work Period; Sunset Clause. — The Board shall complete its work within two (2)
years from the effectivity of the IRR promulgated by it. After such period, it shall become functus
officio.
Section 30. Separability Clause. — If, for any reason, any section or provision of this Act is
declared unconstitutional or invalid, such other sections or provisions not affected thereby shall
remain in full force and effect.
Section 31. Repealing Clause. — All laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations or
parts thereof inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act, including Section 63(b)
of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law of 1988 and Section 40(a) of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local
Government Code of 1991, are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly. 1âwphi1
Section 32. Effectivity Clause. — This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete
publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) national newspapers of general
circulation.
Approved,
Republic Act No. 7309 March 30, 1992
AN ACT CREATING A BOARD OF CLAIMS UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FOR VICTIMS OF UNJUST IMPRISONMENT OR DETENTION AND VICTIMS OF VIOLENT
CRIMES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
assembled::
Section 1. Creation and Composition of the Board. – There is hereby created a Board of
Claims under the Department of Justice, hereinafter referred to as the Board, to be composed
of one (1) chairman and two (2) members to be appointed by the Secretary of the said
department.
Section 2. Powers and Functions of the Board. – The Board shall have the following powers
and functions:
(a) to receive, evaluate, process and investigate application for claims under this Act;
(b) to conduct an independent administrative hearing and resolve application for
claims, grant or deny the same; lawphi 1Ÿ
(c) to deputize appropriate government agencies in order to effectively implement its
functions; and
(d) to promulgate rules and regulations in order to carry out the objectives of this Act.
Section 3. Who may File Claims. – The following may file claims for compensation before the
Board:
(a) any person who was unjustly accused, convicted and imprisoned but subsequently
released by virtue of a judgment of acquittal;
(b) any person who was unjustly detained and released without being charged;
(c) any victim of arbitrary or illegal detention by the authorities as defined in the Revised
Penal Code under a final judgment of the court; and l aw phi 1©
(d) any person who is a victim of violent crimes. For purposes of this Act, violent crimes
shall include rape and shall likewise refer to offenses committed with malice which
resulted in death or serious physical and/or psychological injuries, permanent
incapacity or disability, insanity, abortion, serious trauma, or committed with torture,
cruelly or barbarity.
Section 4. Award Ceiling. – For victims of unjust imprisonment or detention, the
compensation shall be based on the number of months of imprisonment or detention and every
fraction thereof shall be considered one month; Provided, however, That in no case shall such
compensation exceed One Thousand pesos (P1,000.00) per month.
In all other cases, the maximum amount for which the Board may approve a claim shall not
exceed Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) or the amount necessary to reimburse the claimant
the expenses incurred for hospitalization, medical treatment, loss of wage, loss of support or
other expenses directly related to injury, whichever is lower. This is without prejudice to the
right of the claimant to seek other remedies under existing laws.
Section 5. When to File Claims. – Any person entitled to compensation under this Act must,
within six (6) months after being released from imprisonment or detention, or from the date the
victim suffered damage or injury, file his claim with the Department, otherwise, he is deemed
to have waived the same. Except as provided for in this Act, no waiver of claim whatsoever is
valid.
Section 6. Filing of Claims by Heirs. – In case of death or incapacity of any person entitled
to any award under this Act, the claim may be filed by his heirs, in the following order: by his
surviving spouse, children, natural parents, brother and/or sister.
Section 7. Resolution of Claims. – The Board shall resolve the claim within thirty (30) working
days after filing of the application.
The Board shall adopt an expeditious and inexpensive procedure for the claimants to follow in
order to secure their claims under this Act.
Section 8. Appeal. – Any aggrieved claimant may appeal, within fifteen (15) days from receipt
of the resolution of the Board, to the Secretary of Justice whose decision shall be final and
executory.
Section 9. Funding. – For purposes of this Act, the initial amount of Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) is hereby authorized to be appropriated from the funds of the National
Treasury not otherwise appropriated.
The subsequent annual funding shall also partly come from one percent (1%) of the net income
of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation and one percent (1%) of the proceeds
and sales and other disposition and military camps ion Metro Manila by the Base Conversion
and Development Authority.

The proceeds from any contract relating to the depiction of a crime in a movie, book,
newspaper, magazine, radio or television production, or live entertainment, of any kind, or in
any other form of commercial exploitation of any convict's story, recollection, opinion and
emotions with regard to the offense committed shall not be released to convict in a criminal
case or his heirs, agents, assignees or successors in interest until full compensation for
damages suffered by a awarded to, the victim, his heirs or successors in interest is paid or
arranged for, and the state is able to collect/assess fines and costs and any other amounts due
it in case of a conviction by final judgment. Such damages shall include, but shall not be limited
to, judicial awards, funeral expenses, medical expenses, lost earning and the like. lawphi1ŸITC

To ensure the continuity of the funding requirements under this Act, the amount of Five pesos
(P5.00) shall be set aside from each filing fee in every civil case filed with the court, the total
proceeds of which shall constitute the Victim Compensation Fund to be administered by the
Department of Justice.

Section 10. Repealing Clause. – All Laws, executive orders and executive issuances
inconsistent with this Act are hereby deemed repealed or modified accordingly.

Section 11. Separability Clause. – If for any reason any section or provision of this Act shall
be declared unconstitutional or invalid, no other section or provision shall be affected thereby.

Section 12. Effectivity Clause. – This Act shall take effect after its publication in two (2)
newspapers of general circulation.

Approved: March 30, 1992. l awphi1Ÿ

Republic vs. Sandoval 220 SCRA 124
Sunday, January 25, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law
Facts: Farmer-rallyists marched to Malacanang calling for a genuine land reform program. There was a
marchers-police confrontation which resulted in the death of 12 rallyists and scores were wounded. As
a result, then Pres. Aquino issued AO 11 creating the Citizens Mendiola Commission for the purpose of
conducting an investigation. The most significant recommendation of the Commission was for the heirs
of the deceased and wounded victims to be compensated by the government. Based on such
recommendation, the victims of Mendiola massacre filed an action for damages against the Republic
and the military/police officers involved in the incident.
Issues:
(1) Whether or not there is a valid waiver of immunity
(2) Whether or not the State is liable for damages
Held: The Court held that there was no valid waiver of immunity as claimed by the petitioners. The
recommendation made by the Commission to indemnify the heirs of the deceased and the victims does
not in any way mean that liability attaches to the State. AO 11 merely states the purpose of the creation
of the Commission and, therefore, whatever is the finding of the Commission only serves as the basis
for a cause of action in the event any party decides to litigate the same. Thus, the recommendation of
the Commission does not in any way bind the State.
The State cannot be made liable because the military/police officers who allegedly were responsible
for the death and injuries suffered by the marchers acted beyond the scope of their authority. It is a
settled rule that the State as a person can commit no wrong. The military and police officers who were
responsible for the atrocities can be held personally liable for damages as they exceeded their
authority, hence, the acts cannot be considered official.
ABERCA v. VER
FACTS
Task Force Makabansa (TFM) was ordered by General Fabian Ver to conduct pre-emptive strikes against
Communist- Terrorist underground houses. TFM raided several houses, employing in most cases
defectively judicial search warrants, arrested people without warrant of arrest, denied visitation rights,
and interrogated them with the use of threats and tortures. A motion to dismiss was filed by
defendants, stating that 1) plaintiffs may not cause a judicial inquiry about their detention because the
writ of habeas corpus was suspended; 2) defendants are immune from liability for acts done in their
official duties; 3) there was no cause of action. On Nov 8, 1983, Judge Fortun granted the motion to
dismiss, which prompted plaintiffs to file a MR on Nov 18, 1983. He later inhibited himself and was
replaced Judge Lising, who denied the MR for being filed out of time. Another MR was filed, and was
only modified to include Maj. Aguinaldo and MSgt. Balaba for officers accountable in the said
complaint.
ISSUES
1. Whether or not immunity from suit may be invoked?
2. Whether petitioners have the right to question the alleged violation of their rights in the
constitution?
3. Whether the superior officers who gave the orders are liable?
HELD
1. NO, Article 32 of the Civil Code provides a sanction to rights and freedom enshrined in the
constitution. These rights cannot be violated just because of an order given by a superior. The rule of
law must prevail, or else liberty will perish. Even though they just followed the orders of their superior,
these do not authorize them to disregard the rights of the petitioners, and therefore cannot be
considered “acts done in their official duties”. Article 32 speaks of any public officer or private
individual, and violation of these constitutional rights does not exempt them from responsibility.
2. YES, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus does not prevent petitioners from claiming damages
for the illegal arrest and detention in violation of their constitutional rights by seeking judicial authority.
What the writ suspends is merely the right of an individual to seek release from detention as a speedy
means of obtaining liberty. It cannot suspend their rights and cause of action for injuries suffered due
to violation of their rights.
3. YES, Article 32 speaks of the liabilities of people who are in direct violation of the rights stated, as
well as people who are indirectly responsible for such acts. In the case at hand, the superior officers
are the ones who gave the order, and can be considered indirectly responsible. It was also stated in the G.R. No. 180906 October 7, 2008
complaint who were the ones who directly and indirectly participated in those acts. By filing a motion
Secretary of National Defense and Chief of Staff of Armed Forces of the Philippines; Petitioners
to dismiss, they admitted all the facts stated in the complaint.
Vs.

RAYMOND MANALO and REYNALDO MANALO;

Respondents

FACTS:

The brothers Raymond and Reynald Manalo, farmers from Bulacan were abducted, detained in various
locations, tortured by Citizen Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU) on the suspicion that they were
members and supporters of the New People’s Army (NPA). After eighteen (18) months of restrained
liberty, torture, and other dehumanizing acts, were able to escape. Ten days after their escape, they
filed a Petition for Prohibition, Injunction, and Temporary Restraining Order before the Supreme Court
to prevent military officers and agents from depriving them of their right to liberty and other basic
rights. Existing petition was treated as Amparo petition. The Supreme Court granted the Writ of
Amparo and ordered the Court of Appeals to conduct the summary hearing and decide the petition.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not statements from the victims is sufficient for amparo petitions.

2. Whether or not actual deprivation of liberty is necessary to invoke the right to security of a person

RULING:

1. Yes. Much of the information and evidence of the ordeal will come from the victims themselves, and
the veracity of their account will depend on their credibility and candidness in their written and oral
statements. Their statements can be corroborated by other evidence such as physical evidence left by
the torture they suffered or landmarks they can identify in the places where they were detained.

2. Yes. Covered by the privilege of the writ, respondents must meet the threshold requirement that
their right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with an unlawful act or omission. The
right to security of person is “freedom from fear.” In The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
states that “a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from
fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.” Moreover, the
right to security of person is a guarantee of protection of one’s rights by the government. As the
government is the chief guarantor of order and security, the Constitutional guarantee of the rights to
life, liberty and security of person is rendered ineffective if government does not afford protection to
these rights especially when they are under threat.
CASTILLO VS CRUZ
MARCH 30, 2013
GR 182165
Facts:
Respondent Amanda Cruz (Amanda) who, along with her husband Francisco G. Cruz (Spouses Cruz),
leased a parcel of land situated at Barrio Guinhawa, Malolos (the property), refused to vacate the
property, despite demands by the lessor Provincial Government of Bulacan (the Province) which
intended to utilize it for local projects.
Several cases were filed by both parties to enforce their rights over the property. The pertinent case
among the filed cases was the issuance by the MTC an alias Writ of Demolition in favor of the Province.
Respondents filed a motion for TRO in the RTC, which was granted. However, the demolition was
already implemented before the TRO issuance.
On February 21, 2008, petitioners Police Superintendent Felixberto Castillo et al., who were deployed
by the City Mayor in compliance with a memorandum issued by Governor Joselito R. Mendoza
instructing him to “protect, secure and maintain the possession of the property,” entered the property.
Amanda and her co-respondents refused to turn over the property, however. Insisting that the RTC
Order of Permanent Injunction enjoined the Province from repossessing it, they shoved petitioners,
forcing the latter to arrest them and cause their indictment for direct assault, trespassing and other
forms of light threats.
Thus, respondents filed a Motion for Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data.
Issue:
WON Amparo and Habeas Data is proper to property rights; and,
WON Amparo and Habeas Data is proper when there is a criminal case already filed.
Held:
On the 1st issue:
Section 1 of the Rules of Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data provides that the coverage of the writs is
limited to the protection of rights to life, liberty and security, and the writs cover not only actual but
also threats of unlawful acts or omissions.
Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo teaches: “As the Amparo Rule was intended to address the
intractable problem of “extralegal killings” and “enforced disappearances.” Tapuz v. Del Rosario also
teaches: “What it is not is a writ to protect concerns that are purely property or commercial. Neither is
it a writ that we shall issue on amorphous and uncertain grounds.”
To thus be covered by the privilege of the writs, respondents must meet the threshold requirement
that their right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with an unlawful act or omission.
Evidently, the present controversy arose out of a property dispute between the Provincial Government
and respondents. Absent any considerable nexus between the acts complained of and its effect on
respondents’ right to life, liberty and security, the Court will not delve on the propriety of petitioners’
entry into the property.
It bears emphasis that respondents’ petition did not show any actual violation, imminent or continuing
threat to their life, liberty and security. Bare allegations of petitioners will not suffice to prove
entitlement to the remedy of the writ of amparo. No undue confinement or detention was present. In
fact, respondents were even able to post bail for the offenses a day after their arrest.
On the 2nd issue:
Respondents’ filing of the petitions for writs of amparo and habeas data should have been barred, for
criminal proceedings against them had commenced after they were arrested in flagrante delicto and
proceeded against in accordance with Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. Validity of the arrest
or the proceedings conducted thereafter is a defense that may be set up by respondents during trial
and not before a petition for writs of amparo and habeas data.
RAZON VS TAGITIS
G.R. No. 182498 December 3, 2009
Syllabus:
We review in this petition for review on certiorari the decision dated March 7, 2008 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A-G.R. AMPARO No. 00009. This CA decision confirmed the
enforced disappearance of Engineer Morced N. Tagitis (Tagitis) and granted the Writ of
Amparo at the petition of his wife, Mary Jean B. Tagitis (respondent). The dispositive portion
of the CA decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petition is hereby GRANTED. The Court hereby FINDS
that this is an "enforced disappearance" within the meaning of the United Nations
instruments, as used in the Amparo Rules. The privileges of the writ of amparo are hereby
extended to Engr. Morced Tagitis.
Consequently: (1) respondent GEN. EDGARDO M. DOROMAL, Chief, Criminal Investigation
and Detention Group (CIDG) who should order COL. JOSE VOLPANE PANTE, CIDG-9 Chief,
Zamboanga City, to aid him; (2) respondent GEN. AVELINO I. RAZON, Chief, PNP, who
should order his men, namely: (a) respondent GEN. JOEL GOLTIAO, Regional Director of
ARMM PNP, (b) COL. AHIRON AJIRIM, both head of TASK FORCE TAGITIS, and (c)
respondent SR. SUPERINTENDENT LEONARDO A. ESPINA, Chief, Police Anti-Crime and
Emergency Response, to aid him as their superior- are hereby DIRECTED to
exert extraordinary diligence and efforts, not only to protect the life, liberty and security of
Engr. Morced Tagitis, but also to extend the privileges of the writ of amparo to Engr. Morced
Tagitis and his family, and to submit a monthly report of their actions to this Court, as a way
of PERIODIC REVIEW to enable this Court to monitor the action of respondents.
This amparo case is hereby DISMISSED as to respondent LT. GEN. ALEXANDER YANO,
Commanding General, Philippine Army, and as to respondent GEN. RUBEN RAFAEL, Chief
Anti-Terror Task Force Comet, Zamboanga City, both being with the military, which is a
separate and distinct organization from the police and the CIDG, in terms of operations,
chain of command and budget.
This Decision reflects the nature of the Writ of Amparo – a protective remedy against
violations or threats of violation against the rights to life, liberty and security. It embodies, as
a remedy, the court’s directive to police agencies to undertake specified courses of action to
address the disappearance of an individual, in this case, Engr. Morced N. Tagitis. It does not
determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the disappearance; rather, it determines
responsibility, or at least accountability, for the enforced disappearance for purposes of
imposing the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance.
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.
Accountability, on the other hand, refers to the measure 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 of
disclosure; or those who carry, but have failed to discharge, the burden of extraordinary
diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance. In all these cases, the issuance
of the Writ of Amparo is justified by our primary goal of addressing the disappearance, so
that the life of the victim is preserved and his liberty and security are restored.
FACTS:
The established facts show that Tagitis, a consultant for the World Bank and the Senior
Honorary Counselor for the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) Scholarship Programme, was
last seen in Jolo, Sulu. Together with Arsimin Kunnong (Kunnong), an IDB scholar, Tagitis
arrived in Jolo by boat in the early morning of October 31, 2007 from a seminar in
Zamboanga City. They immediately checked-in at ASY Pension House. Tagitis asked Kunnong
to buy him a boat ticket for his return trip the following day to Zamboanga. When Kunnong
returned from this errand, Tagitis was no longer around. The receptionist related that Tagitis
went out to buy food at around 12:30 in the afternoon and even left his room key with the
Heeding an advise of one police officer, she went to the different police headquarters namely
desk. Kunnong looked for Tagitis and even sent a text message to the latter’s Manila-based
Police Headquarters in Cotabato City, Davao City, Zamboanga City and eventually in the
secretary who did not know of Tagitis’ whereabouts and activities either; she advised
National Headquarters in Camp Crame in Quezon City but her efforts produced no positive
Kunnong to simply wait.
results. These trips exhausted all of her resources which pressed her to ask for financial help
from friends and relatives.

On November 4, 2007, Kunnong and Muhammad Abdulnazeir N. Matli, a UP professor of

Muslim studies and Tagitis’ fellow student counselor at the IDB, reported Tagitis’
She has exhausted all administrative avenues and remedies but to no avail, and under the
disappearance to the Jolo Police Station. On November 7, 2007, Kunnong executed a sworn
circumstances, she has no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy to protect and get the
affidavit attesting to what he knew of the circumstances surrounding Tagitis’ disappearance.
release of her husband, Engr. Morced Tagitis, from the illegal clutches of his captors, their
intelligence operatives and the like which are in total violation of the subject’s human and
constitutional rights, except the issuance of a WRIT OF AMPARO.
More than a month later (on December 28, 2007), Mary Jean Tagitis filed a Petition for the
Writ of Amparo (petition) with the CA through her Attorney-in-Fact, Atty. Felipe P. Arcilla.The
petition was directed against Lt. Gen. Alexander Yano, Commanding General, Philippine
On the same day the petition was filed, the CA immediately issued the Writ of Amparo, set
Army; Gen. Avelino I. Razon, Chief, Philippine National Police (PNP); Gen. Edgardo M.
the case for hearing on January 7, 2008, and directed the petitioners to file their verified
Doromal, Chief, Criminal Investigation and Detention Group (CIDG); Sr. Supt. Leonardo A.
return within seventy-two (72) hours from service of the writ.
Espina, Chief, Police Anti-Crime and Emergency Response; Gen. Joel Goltiao, Regional
Director, ARMM-PNP; and Gen. Ruben Rafael, Chief, Anti-Terror Task Force Comet.

In their verified Return filed during the hearing of January 27, 2008, the petitioners denied
any involvement in or knowledge of Tagitis’ alleged abduction. They argued that the
Mary Jean said in her statement that she approached some of her co-employees with the
allegations of the petition were incomplete and did not constitute a cause of action against
Land Bank in Digos branch, Digos City, Davao del Sur who likewise sought help from some of
them; were baseless, or at best speculative; and were merely based on hearsay evidence. In
their friends in the military who could help them find/locate the whereabouts of her husband.
addition, they all claimed that they exhausted all means, particularly taking pro-active
All of her efforts did not produce any positive results except the information from persons in
measures to investigate, search and locate Tagitis and to apprehend the persons responsible
the military who do not want to be identified that Engr. Tagitis is in the hands of the
for his disappearance.
uniformed men. According to reliable information she received, subject Engr. Tagitis is in the
custody of police intelligence operatives, specifically with the CIDG, PNP Zamboanga City,
being held against his will in an earnest attempt of the police to involve and connect Engr.
Tagitis with the different terrorist groups particularly the Jemaah Islamiyah or JI. THE CA RULING

She then filed her complaint with the PNP Police Station in the ARMM in Cotobato and in Jolo,
seeking their help to find her husband, but was told of an intriguing tale by the police that
her husband was not missing but was with another woman having good time somewhere,
which is a clear indication of the refusal of the PNP to help and provide police assistance in
locating her missing husband.
On March 7, 2008, the CA issued its decision confirming that the disappearance of Tagitis
was an "enforced disappearance" under the United Nations (UN) Declaration on the
Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances. The CA held that "raw reports" from
an "asset" carried "great weight" in the intelligence world. It also labeled as "suspect" Col.
Kasim’s subsequent and belated retraction of his statement that the military, the police, or
the CIDG was involved in the abduction of Tagitis.
 The disappearance of Engr. Morced Tagitis is classified as an enforced disappearance, thus
the privilege of the Writ of Amparo applies.
The CA characterized as "too farfetched and unbelievable" and "a bedlam of speculation"
police theories painting the disappearance as "intentional" on the part of Tagitis. He had no
previous brushes with the law or any record of overstepping the bounds of any trust
Under the UN Declaration enforced disappearance as "the arrest, detention, abduction or any
regarding money entrusted to him; no student of the IDB scholarship program ever came
other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons
forward to complain that he or she did not get his or her stipend. The CA also found no basis
acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to
for the police theory that Tagitis was "trying to escape from the clutches of his second wife,"
acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the
on the basis of the respondent’s testimony that Tagitis was a Muslim who could have many
disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law." Under this
wives under the Muslim faith, and that there was "no issue" at all when the latter divorced
his first wife in order to marry the second. Finally, the CA also ruled out kidnapping for definition, the elements that constitute enforced disappearance are essentially fourfold:
ransom by the Abu Sayyaf or by the ARMM paramilitary as the cause for Tagitis’
disappearance, since the respondent, the police and the military noted that there was no
acknowledgement of Tagitis’ abduction or demand for payment of ransom – the usual modus (a) arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty;
operandi of these terrorist groups.
(b) carried out by agents of the State or persons or groups of persons acting with the
Based on these considerations, the CA thus extended the privilege of the writ to Tagitis and authorization, support or acquiescence of the State;
his family, and directed the CIDG Chief, Col. Jose Volpane Pante, PNP Chief Avelino I. Razon,
(c) followed by a refusal to acknowledge the detention, or a concealment of the fate of the
Task Force Tagitis heads Gen. Joel Goltiao and Col. Ahiron Ajirim, and PACER Chief Sr. Supt.
disappeared person;
Leonardo A. Espina to exert extraordinary diligence and efforts to protect the life, liberty and
security of Tagitis, with the obligation to provide monthly reports of their actions to the CA. (d) placement of the disappeared person outside the protection of the law.
At the same time, the CA dismissed the petition against the then respondents from the
military, Lt. Gen Alexander Yano and Gen. Ruben Rafael, based on the finding that it was
PNP-CIDG, not the military, that was involved. There was no direct evidence indicating how the victim actually disappeared. The direct
evidence at hand only shows that Tagitis went out of the ASY Pension House after depositing
his room key with the hotel desk and was never seen nor heard of again. The undisputed
On March 31, 2008, the petitioners moved to reconsider the CA decision, but the CA denied conclusion, however, from all concerned – the petitioner, Tagitis’ colleagues and even the
the motion in its Resolution of April 9, 2008. police authorities – is that Tagistis disappeared under mysterious circumstances and was
never seen again.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the privilege of the Writ of Amparo should be extended to Engr. Morced
Tagitis. A petition for the Writ of Amparo shall be signed and verified and shall allege, among others
(in terms of the portions the petitioners cite):

(c) The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or
RULING:
threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of the respondent, and
how such threat or violation is committed with the attendant circumstances well as the actual violation of his right to liberty. Thus, the petition cannot be faulted for any
detailed in supporting affidavits; failure in its statement of a cause of action.

(d) The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal

circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authority or individuals, as well
If a defect can at all be attributed to the petition, this defect is its lack of supporting affidavit,
as the manner and conduct of the investigation, together with any report;(e) The
as required by Section 5(c) of the Amparo Rule. Owing to the summary nature of the
actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the fate or whereabouts of the
proceedings for the writ and to facilitate the resolution of the petition, the Amparo Rule
aggrieved party and the identity of the person responsible for the threat, act or omission.
incorporated the requirement for supporting affidavits, with the annotation that these can be
used as the affiant’s direct testimony. This requirement, however, should not be read as an
absolute one that necessarily leads to the dismissal of the petition if not strictly followed.
The framers of the Amparo Rule never intended Section 5(c) to be complete in every detail in
Where, as in this case, the petitioner has substantially complied with the requirement by
stating the threatened or actual violation of a victim’s rights. As in any other initiatory
submitting a verified petition sufficiently detailing the facts relied upon, the strict need for the
pleading, the pleader must of course state the ultimate facts constituting the cause of action,
sworn statement that an affidavit represents is essentially fulfilled. We note that the failure to
omitting the evidentiary details.76 In an Amparo petition, however, this requirement must be
attach the required affidavits was fully cured when the respondent and her witness (Mrs.
read in light of the nature and purpose of the proceeding, which addresses a situation of
Talbin) personally testified in the CA hearings held on January 7 and 17 and February 18,
uncertainty; the petitioner may not be able to describe with certainty how the victim exactly
2008 to swear to and flesh out the allegations of the petition. Thus, even on this point, the
disappeared, or who actually acted to kidnap, abduct or arrest him or her, or where the petition cannot be faulted.
victim is detained, because these information may purposely be hidden or covered up by
those who caused the disappearance. In this type of situation, to require the level of
specificity, detail and precision that the petitioners apparently want to read into the Amparo
The phenomenon of enforced disappearance arising from State action first attracted notice in
Rule is to make this Rule a token gesture of judicial concern for violations of the
Adolf Hitler’s Nact und Nebel Erlass or Night and Fog Decree of December 7, 1941. The Third
constitutional rights to life, liberty and security.
Reich’s Night and Fog Program, a State policy, was directed at persons in occupied territories
"endangering German security"; they were transported secretly to Germany where they
disappeared without a trace. In order to maximize the desired intimidating effect, the policy
To read the Rules of Court requirement on pleadings while addressing the unique Amparo prohibited government officials from providing information about the fate of these targeted
situation, the test in reading the petition should be to determine whether it contains the
persons.
details available to the petitioner under the circumstances, while presenting a cause of action
showing a violation of the victim’s rights to life, liberty and security through State or private
party action. The petition should likewise be read in its totality, rather than in terms of its
In the Philippines, enforced disappearances generally fall within the first two categories, and
isolated component parts, to determine if the required elements – namely, of the
855 cases were recorded during the period of martial law from 1972 until 1986. Of this
disappearance, the State or private action, and the actual or threatened violations of the
number, 595 remained missing, 132 surfaced alive and 127 were found dead. During former
rights to life, liberty or security – are present.
President Corazon C. Aquino’s term, 820 people were reported to have disappeared and of
these, 612 cases were documented. Of this number, 407 remain missing, 108 surfaced alive
and 97 were found dead. The number of enforced disappearances dropped during former
The properly pleaded ultimate facts within the pleader’s knowledge about Tagitis’
President Fidel V. Ramos’ term when only 87 cases were reported, while the three-year term
disappearance, the participation by agents of the State in this disappearance, the failure of
of former President Joseph E. Estrada yielded 58 reported cases. KARAPATAN, a local non-
the State to release Tagitis or to provide sufficient information about his whereabouts, as
governmental organization, reports that as of March 31, 2008, the records show that there
were a total of 193 victims of enforced disappearance under incumbent President Gloria M.
Arroyo’s administration. The Commission on Human Rights’ records show a total of 636
verified cases of enforced disappearances from 1985 to 1993. Of this number, 406 remained
missing, 92 surfaced alive, 62 were found dead, and 76 still have undetermined
status.Currently, the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary
Disappearance reports 619 outstanding cases of enforced or involuntary disappearances
covering the period December 1, 2007 to November 30, 2008.
Under Philippine Law
The Amparo Rule expressly provides that the "writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances or threats thereof."We note that although the writ specifically covers
"enforced disappearances," this concept is neither defined nor penalized in this jurisdiction.
The records of the Supreme Court Committee on the Revision of Rules (Committee) reveal
that the drafters of the Amparo Rule initially considered providing an elemental definition of
the concept of enforced disappearance:
Justice Puno stated that, “as the law now stands, extra-judicial killings and enforced
disappearances in this jurisdiction are not crimes penalized separately from the component
criminal acts undertaken to carry out these killings and enforced disappearances and are now
penalized under the Revised Penal Code and special laws.”
Although the Court’s power is strictly procedural and as such does not diminish, increase or
modify substantive rights, the legal protection that the Court can provide can be very
meaningful through the procedures it sets in addressing extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearances. The Court, through its procedural rules, can set the procedural standards
and thereby directly compel the public authorities to act on actual or threatened violations of
constitutional rights. To state the obvious, judicial intervention can make a difference – even
if only procedurally – in a situation when the very same investigating public authorities may
have had a hand in the threatened or actual violations of constitutional rights.
The burden for the public authorities to discharge in these situations, under the Rule on the
Writ of Amparo, is twofold. The first is to ensure that all efforts at disclosure and
investigation are undertaken under pain of indirect contempt from this Court when
governmental efforts are less than what the individual situations require. The second is to
address the disappearance, so that the life of the victim is preserved and his or her liberty
and security restored. In these senses, our orders and directives relative to the writ are
continuing efforts that are not truly terminated until the extrajudicial killing or enforced
disappearance is fully addressed by the complete determination of the fate and the
whereabouts of the victim, by the production of the disappeared person and the restoration
of his or her liberty and security, and, in the proper case, by the commencement of criminal
action against the guilty parties.
During the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced
Disappearance (in Paris, France on February 6, 2007, "enforced disappearance" is
considered to be the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty
by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization,
support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of
liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place
such a person outside the protection of the law.
In the recent case of Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v. Duque
III, we held that:
Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the sphere of domestic
law either by transformation or incorporation. The transformation method requires that
an international law be transformed into a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism
such as local legislation. The incorporation method applies when, by mere
constitutional declaration, international law is deemed to have the force of
domestic law.
The right to security of person in this third sense is a corollary of the policy that the State
"guarantees full respect for human rights" under Article II, Section 11 of the 1987
Constitution. As the government is the chief guarantor of order and security, the
Constitutional guarantee of the rights to life, liberty and security of person is rendered
ineffective if government does not afford protection to these rights especially when they are
under threat.
Protection includes conducting effective investigations, organization of the
government apparatus to extend protection to victims of extralegal killings or
enforced disappearances (or threats thereof) and/or their families, and bringing
offenders to the bar of justice. The duty to investigate must be undertaken in
a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective.
Evidentiary Difficulties Posed by the Unique Nature of an Enforced Disappearance
The unique evidentiary difficulties presented by enforced disappearance cases; these
difficulties form part of the setting that the implementation of the Amparo Rule shall
encounter. These difficulties largely arise because the State itself – the party whose
involvement is alleged – investigates enforced disappearances. Past experiences in other
jurisdictions show that the evidentiary difficulties are generally threefold.
First, there may be a deliberate concealment of the identities of the direct perpetrators. In
addition, there are usually no witnesses to the crime; if there are, these witnesses are usually
afraid to speak out publicly or to testify on the disappearance out of fear for their own lives.
Second, deliberate concealment of pertinent evidence of the disappearance is a distinct
possibility; the central piece of evidence in an enforced disappearance
Third is the element of denial; in many cases, the State authorities deliberately deny that the
enforced disappearance ever occurred. "Deniability" is central to the policy of enforced
disappearances, as the absence of any proven disappearance makes it easier to escape the
application of legal standards ensuring the victim’s human rights.
Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
The remedy of the writ of amparo provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a summary
proceeding 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 responsibility requiring substantial evidence that will require full and
exhaustive proceedings.
We note in this regard that the use of flexibility in the consideration of evidence is not at all
novel in the Philippine legal system. In child abuse cases, Section 28 of the Rule on
Examination of a Child Witness is expressly recognized as an exception to the
hearsay rule. This Rule allows the admission of the hearsay testimony of a child
describing any act or attempted act of sexual abuse in any criminal or non-
criminal proceeding, subject to certain prerequisites and the right of cross-
examination by the adverse party.
CONCLUSIONS AND THE AMPARO REMEDY
Based on these considerations, we conclude that Col. Kasim’s disclosure, made in an
unguarded moment, unequivocally point to some government complicity in the
disappearance. The consistent but unfounded denials and the haphazard investigations
cannot but point to this conclusion. For why would the government and its officials engage in
their chorus of concealment if the intent had not been to deny what they already knew of the
disappearance? Would not an in-depth and thorough investigation that at least credibly
determined the fate of Tagitis be a feather in the government’s cap under the circumstances
of the disappearance? From this perspective, the evidence and developments, particularly the
Kasim evidence, already establish a concrete case of enforced disappearance that the
Amparo Rule covers. From the prism of the UN Declaration, heretofore cited and quoted,
evidence at hand and the developments in this case confirm the fact of the enforced
disappearance and government complicity, under a background of consistent and unfounded
government denials and haphazard handling. The disappearance as well effectively placed
Tagitis outside the protection of the law – a situation that will subsist unless this Court acts.
Given their mandates, the PNP and PNP-CIDG officials and members were the ones who
were remiss in their duties when the government completely failed to exercise the extral.'
To fully enforce the Amparo remedy, we refer this case back to the CA for appropriate
proceedings directed at the monitoring of the PNP and the PNP-CIDG investigations and
actions, and the validation of their results through hearings the CA may deem appropriate to
conduct.
CASTILLO VS CRUZ
MARCH 30, 2013 ~ VBDIAZ
Castillo vs Cruz
GR 182165
Facts:
Respondent Amanda Cruz (Amanda) who, along with her husband Francisco G. Cruz (Spouses Cruz),
leased a parcel of land situated at Barrio Guinhawa, Malolos (the property), refused to vacate the
property, despite demands by the lessor Provincial Government of Bulacan (the Province) which
intended to utilize it for local projects.
Several cases were filed by both parties to enforce their rights over the property. The pertinent case
among the filed cases was the issuance by the MTC an alias Writ of Demolition in favor of the Province.
Respondents filed a motion for TRO in the RTC, which was granted. However, the demolition was
already implemented before the TRO issuance.
On February 21, 2008, petitioners Police Superintendent Felixberto Castillo et al., who were deployed
by the City Mayor in compliance with a memorandum issued by Governor Joselito R. Mendoza
instructing him to “protect, secure and maintain the possession of the property,” entered the property.
Section 1 of the Rules of Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data provides that the coverage of the writs is
limited to the protection of rights to life, liberty and security, and the writs cover not only actual but
also threats of unlawful acts or omissions.
Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo teaches: “As the Amparo Rule was intended to address the
intractable problem of “extralegal killings” and “enforced disappearances.” Tapuz v. Del Rosario also
teaches: “What it is not is a writ to protect concerns that are purely property or commercial. Neither is
it a writ that we shall issue on amorphous and uncertain grounds.”
To thus be covered by the privilege of the writs, respondents must meet the threshold requirement
that their right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with an unlawful act or omission.
Evidently, the present controversy arose out of a property dispute between the Provincial Government
and respondents. Absent any considerable nexus between the acts complained of and its effect on
respondents’ right to life, liberty and security, the Court will not delve on the propriety of petitioners’
entry into the property.
It bears emphasis that respondents’ petition did not show any actual violation, imminent or continuing
threat to their life, liberty and security. Bare allegations of petitioners will not suffice to prove
entitlement to the remedy of the writ of amparo. No undue confinement or detention was present. In
fact, respondents were even able to post bail for the offenses a day after their arrest.
On the 2nd issue:

Respondents’ filing of the petitions for writs of amparo and habeas data should have been barred, for
criminal proceedings against them had commenced after they were arrested in flagrante delicto and
Amanda and her co-respondents refused to turn over the property, however. Insisting that the RTC
proceeded against in accordance with Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. Validity of the arrest
Order of Permanent Injunction enjoined the Province from repossessing it, they shoved petitioners,
or the proceedings conducted thereafter is a defense that may be set up by respondents during trial
forcing the latter to arrest them and cause their indictment for direct assault, trespassing and other
and not before a petition for writs of amparo and habeas data.
forms of light threats.

Thus, respondents filed a Motion for Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data.

Issue:

WON Amparo and Habeas Data is proper to property rights; and,

WON Amparo and Habeas Data is proper when there is a criminal case already filed.

Held:

On the 1st issue: