Ateneo de Davao University

College of Law

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements in

Special Proceedings

A WRITTEN REPORT ON
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO
A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC

Submitted to:
Atty. Geraldine Quimosing-Tiu

Submitted by:
ALIGATO, Trisha Ann Samantha
BABAN, Neil Dante
BALGOA, Patricia Nicole

31 March 2020
 THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO
A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC

History of the Rule

The 1987 Philippine Constitution bestowed upon the Supreme Court a

very significant power not found in prior constitutions—the expanded
rulemaking power in the enforcement of constitutional rights in article
VIII, Section (5) 5, to wit:

SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and

enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and
procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the
Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such
rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for
the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of
the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and
quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved
by the Supreme Court.

In a keynote speech, Former Chief Justice Reynato Puno remarked that

“the constitution transformed the court from passivity to activism. This
transformation, dictated by our distinct experience as a nation, is not
merely evolutionary, but revolutionary.”1

The issue on extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances in the

country had escalated to an alarming scale. On July 2007 a national
consultative summit on extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearances was held and two months later , or on September 25,
2007, the rule on the Writ of Amparo was promulgated by the Supreme
Court of the Philippines which then took effect on October 24 of the
same year.

The purpose of the Rule on Writ of Amparo is to provide an expeditious

and effective relief to any person whose right to life, liberty and security
is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission
of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.

What is Writ of Amparo?

Amparo, from the word “amparar” means protection.

1Gozon, Jr., Felipe Enrique M., et al. Watching the Watchers: A Look into the Drafting of the Writ of Amparo,
Ateneo Law Journal, 2007

Page 1 of 29
 The Writ of Amparo was first introduced in Mexico in 1841 where it
was provided for their Constitution. Few decades later, El Salvador
introduced the same in their Constitution of 1886.

Some of the countries which adapted in their Constitutions Writ of

Amparo are Honduras on 1894, Nicaragua on 1911, Guatemala on
1921, Panama on 1941, and Venezuela on 1967.2

Different forms of Amparo

1. In Chile and some countries, Amparo, is regarded as an

equivalent to habeas corpus, being available only to protect
the individual from unlawful acts or from irregularities in
criminal proceedings;
2. In Mexico, Argentina, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Costa Rica
among others, Amparo means an instrument for the
protection of constitutional rights with the exception of
freedom of the person, which is protected by the traditional
habeas corpus; and
3. In Nicaragua, Honduras, as in Mexico, Amparo serves as a
petition for judicial review to challenge unconstitutional
laws

In the Philippines, the Petition for a Writ of Amparo is defined in

Section 1 of AM No. 07-9-12-SC:

SECTION 1. Petition. – The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available

to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened
with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee,
or of a private individual or entity.
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or
threats thereof.

Extralegal killings defined

Extralegal killings are defined as “those committed without due

process of law”, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings.

Enforced disappearance and Enforced

or involuntary disappearance of persons defined

“Enforced disappearances” is defined as 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

2 Azcuna, Adolfo S., The Writ of Amparo: A Remedy to Enforce Fundamental Rights

Page 2 of 29
whereabouts of the disappeared person which place such a person
outside the protection of the law. (Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis, .GR. No. 182498,
Dec. 3, 2009, 606 SCRA 598)

NAVIA V. PARDICO3
Petitioners are mere security guards at the Grand Royale
subdivision in Malolos City and their principal, the Asian Land,
is a private entity. They do not work for the government and
nothing has been presented that would link or connect them
to some covert police, military or governmental operation.
From the statutory definition of enforced disappearance, thus,
we can derive the following elements that constitute it:
(a) that there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any
form of deprivation of liberty;
(b) that it be carried out by, or with the authorization,
support or acquiescence of, the State or a political
organization;
(c) that it be followed by the State or political
organizations refusal to acknowledge or give information on
the fate or whereabouts of the person subject of the amparo
petition; and,
(d) that the intention for such refusal is to remove subject
person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period
of time.

Under Section 1 of AM 07-9-12-SC, a Writ of Amparo may lie against a

private individual or entity. But even if the person sought to be held
accountable in an amparo petition is a private individual or entity, still,
government involvement in the disappearance remains an
indispensable element.

SEC. 2. Who May File. – The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party or by
any qualified person or entity in the following order:
a. Any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse, children
and parents of the aggrieved party;
b. 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; or
c. 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.

Persons who may file the petition

The petition may be filed by:

1. The AGGRIEVED PARTY, or
2. Any QUALIFIED person or entity IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER AND
WHICH ORDER MUST BE OBSERVED:

3 G.R. No. 184467, June 19, 2012

Page 3 of 29
 a. Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party,
namely:
1. the spouse,
2. children and
3. parents

There seem to be no order of preference among the immediate

family of the aggrieved party and the petition can therefore be
filed by any of them and in any order;

b. Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the

aggrieved party within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or
affinity, in default of the members of the immediate family of the
aggrieved party as mentioned above;

c. If there is no known member of the immediate family or relative

of the aggrieved party, then ANY of the following:
1. concerned citizen
2. concerned organization or association
3. concerned institution

Suspension of the right of other authorized

parties to file similar petitions

If the AGGRIEVED PARTY files the petition, the said filing suspends the
right of all other authorized parties to file a similar petition. Moreover,
the filing of a petition by an authorized party on behalf of the aggrieved
party suspends the right of all others.

SEC. 3. Where to File. – 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.
When issued by a Regional Trial Court or any judge thereof, the writ shall be
returnable before such court or judge.
When issued by the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of their
justices, it may be returnable before such court or any justice thereof, or to
any Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, act or omission was
committed or any of its elements occurred.
When issued by the Supreme Court or any of its justices, it may be returnable
before such Court or any justice thereof, or before the Sandiganbayan or the
Court of Appeals or any of their justices, or to any Regional Trial Court of the
place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements
occurred.

Where to File

The petition for a writ of amparo, as provided by Section 3 of the rule

on the writ of amparo, limits the courts to which the petition may be

Page 4 of 29
filed. The said provision provides that only the following are allowed to
accept the petition for a writ of amparo, to wit:
1. Regional Trial Court where the threat, act, or omission was
committed or any of its elements occurred. In any case, the writ
is enforceable anywhere in the Philippines;
2. Sandiganbayan;
3. Court of Appeals;
4. Supreme Court; or
5. by any of the justices of the Sandiganbayan, Court of Appeals and
of the Supreme Court.

Enforceability

The writ is enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.

Where to Return the Writ

The above section also provides for the return requirements of the writ.
Should the Writ be issued by the RTC, it should be returned to the court
or judge which issued the writ. Should the writ be issued by the CA or
Sandiganbayan, it may be returned either to the RTC where the threat,
act, omission was committed or any of its element took place, or to the
CA or Sandiganbayan, or any of their justices. Finally, When the Writ
was issued by the Supreme Court itself, it may be returned to the latter,
or to the Sandiganbayan, CA, or any of their justices, or it may be
returned to the RTC where the threat, act, omission was committed or
any of its element took place.

Where issued Where to return the writ issued

Regional Trial Court
where the threat, act, or
Regional Trial Court or judge omission was committed or
any of its elements occurred.
(SAME COURT WHICH
ISSUED)

Regional Trial
where the threat, act, or
omission was committed or
any of its elements occurred.
Sandiganbayan, or any of its
justices

Sandiganbayan, or any of its

justices

Regional Trial Court

Petition where the threat, act, or
omission was committed or
any of its elements occurred.
Court of Appeals or any of its
justices

Court of Appeals or any of its

justices

Regional Trial Court

where the threat, act, or
omission was committed or
any of its elements occurred.

Supreme Court or any of its Sandiganbayan, or any of its

justices justices

Court of Appeals or any of its

justices

Figure 1. Return of the Writ

Page 5 of 29
SEC. 4. No Docket Fees. – The petitioner shall be exempted from the payment
of the docket and other lawful fees when filing the petition. The court, justice
or judge shall docket the petition and act upon it immediately.

No Docket Fee Requirements

The ruling in the case of Manchester Development v. CA4 was clear in

its pronouncement that “The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case
only upon the payment of the prescribed docket fee.” However, in cases
of a petition for a writ of amparo, the acting court or justice shall docket
the petition and act upon it immediately. It exempts the petitioner from
payment of such docket and other lawful fees when filing the petition.

SEC. 5. Contents of Petition. – The petition shall be signed and verified and
shall allege the following:
a. The personal circumstances of the petitioner;
b. 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 with violation 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;
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 of the aggrieved party and the identity of the person
responsible for the threat, act or omission; and
f. The relief prayed for.
The petition may include a general prayer for other just and equitable reliefs.

Contents of the Petition

The petition must be:

a. signed, and
b. verified by the petitioner. 5

Allegations in the petition

a. The personal circumstances of the petitioner;
b. The name and personal circumstances of the person or entity
(called the respondent) responsible for the threat, act or omission;
c. If the name of the respondent is unknown or uncertain, the
respondent may be described by an assumed appellation;
d. Ex. John Doe, Jane Doe, etc.
e. The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated
or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of the

4GR No. 75919, May 7, 1987

5Verification – A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations
therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records. (Rule 7, Sec. 4, Rules of
Court)

Page 6 of 29
 respondent, and how such threat or violation is committed with the
attendant circumstances detailed in SUPPORTING AFFIDAVITS;
f. 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;
g. The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the
fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of the
person responsible for the threat, act or omission; and
h. The relief prayed for.

The petition may include a general prayer for other just and equitable
remedies.

The following cases emphasized on what an Amparo Writ must contain:

MISON V. KU6
Section 5 of the Amparo Rule enumerates what an amparo
petition should contain, among which is the right to life,
liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or
threatened with violation 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

RAZON V. TAGITIS7
As to the requirement in Section 5(c) of AM 07-9-12-SC that
the attendant circumstances must be alleged in the petition,
the Supreme interpreted this requirement as follows: as in
any other initiatory pleading the pleader must state the
ultimate facts constituting the cause of action omitting
evidentiary rules. The framers of the Amparo Rule never
intended Section 5(c) to be complete in every detail in stating
the threatened or actual violation of a victim’s rights.
The Amparo petitioner needs only to properly comply with
the substance and form requirements of a Writ of Amparo
petition and prove the allegations by substantial evidence.

In Contrast to Ordinary Civil Actions

Section 2 of the Rules on Civil Procedure provides that unless otherwise

authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or
defended in the name of the real party in interest. However, a peculiar
trait in the petition for a writ of amparo is that under Section 5, a
respondent may be described in an assumed appellation. Thus, a mere
assumed appellation qualifies as for a petition for the issuance of a writ
of amparo.

It is also important to include in the petition the right to life, liberty, and
security that was threatened or was threatened with violation by the

6 GR No. 210759, June 23, 2015

7 GR No. 182498, December 3, 2009

Page 7 of 29
unlawful act or omission of the respondent. In view of that, the rules
allow the attachment of supporting affidavits to further describe and
clarify the right violated or threatened to be violated, as well as the
attending circumstances thereof.

SEC. 6. Issuance of the Writ. – Upon the filing of the petition, the court, justice
or judge shall immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its face it ought
to issue. The clerk of court shall issue the writ under the seal of the court; or
in case of urgent necessity, the justice or the judge may issue the writ under
his or her own hand, and may deputize any officer or person to serve it.
The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the petition
which shall not be later than seven (7) days from the date of its issuance.

SEC. 7. Penalty for Refusing to Issue or Serve the Writ. – A clerk of court who
refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or a deputized person who refuses
to serve the same, shall be punished by the court, justice or judge for contempt
without prejudice to other disciplinary actions.

SEC. 8. How the Writ is Served. – The writ shall be served upon the respondent
by a judicial officer or by a person deputized by the court, justice or judge who
shall retain a copy on which to make a return of service. In case the writ cannot
be served personally on the respondent, the rules on substituted service shall
apply.

Issuance and Service of the Writ

Immediate issuance of the writ

Upon the filing of the petition, the court, justice or judge shall
immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its face it ought to issue.
The clerk of court shall issue the writ under the seal of the court; or in
case of urgent necessity, the justice or judge may issue the writ under
his or her own hand and may deputize any officer or person to serve it.

DE LIMA V. GATDULA8
The return in Amparo cases allows the respondents to frame
the issues subject to a hearing. Hence, it should be done PRIOR
to a hearing, not after.
The privilege of the Writ of Amparo should be distinguished
from the actual order called the Writ of Amparo. The privilege
includes availment of the entire procedure outlined in AM 07-
9-12-SC. After the examining the petition and its attached
affidavits, the Return and the evidence presented in the
summary hearing, the judgment should detail the required
acts from the respondents that will mitigate, if not totally
eradicate, the violation of or the threat to the petitioner’s life,
liberty or security.

Setting the date and time for summary hearing of the petition
The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the
petition which shall not be later than seven (7) days from the date of its
issuance.

8 GR No. 204528, February 19, 2013

Page 8 of 29
 Who Issues the Writ
As a general procedure, it is the clerk of court who will issue the writ
under the seal of the court. It is only when in cases of urgent necessity
will the writ be issued by the justice or judge under his or her own hand,
and may deputize any officer or person to serve it. As a general rule, the
writ should be served personally by a judicial officer or through a
person deputized by the court, justice, or judge. It is only when personal
service cannot be had the writ may be served using substituted service.
In any case, however, a clerk of court who refuses to issue the writ , after
its allowance, or a deputized person who refuses to serve the same,
shall pe punished for contempt without prejudice to other disciplinary
measures.

where to file
Regional Trial Court
where the threat, act, or who may serve
omission was committed or
any of its elements
occurred.

Sandiganbayan how issued Judicial Office

how issued
The clerk of court shall issue the writ
under the seal of the court; or in case of Personally or, if not
applicable, through REPONDENT
Court of Appeals urgent necessity, the justice or the judge
may issue the writ under his or her own substituted service
Petition
hand, and may deputize any officer or
person to serve it.

Supreme Court Person Deputized by

Court

Ant Justice of CA SB,SC

Figure 2. Issuance and Service of the Writ

SEC. 9. Return; Contents. – Within seventy-two (72) hours after service of the
writ, the respondent shall file a verified written return together with
supporting affidavits which shall, among other things, contain the following:
a. The lawful defenses to show that the respondent did not violate or
threaten with violation the right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved
party, through any act or omission;
b. The steps or actions taken by the respondent to determine the fate or
whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the person or persons responsible for
the threat, act or omission;
c. All relevant information in the possession of the respondent
pertaining to the threat, act or omission against the aggrieved party; and
d. If the respondent is a public official or employee, the return shall
further state the actions that have been or will still be taken:
i. to verify the identity of the aggrieved party;
ii. to recover and preserve evidence related to the death or
disappearance of the person identified in the petition which may aid in the
prosecution of the person or persons responsible;
iii. to identify witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning the
death or disappearance;
iv. to determine the cause, manner, location and time of death or
disappearance as well as any pattern or practice that may have brought about
the death or disappearance;

Page 9 of 29
 v. to identify and apprehend the person or persons involved in the death
or disappearance; and
vi. to bring the suspected offenders before a competent court.
The return shall also state other matters relevant to the investigation, its
resolution and the prosecution of the case.
A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed.

Contents of a Return

Contents; in general
a. The lawful defenses to show that the respondent did not violate or
threaten with violation the right to life, liberty and security of the
aggrieved party, through any act or omission
b. The steps or actions taken by the possession to determine the fate
or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the person or persons
responsible for the threat, act or omission
c. All relevant information in the possession of the respondent
pertaining to the threat, act or omission against the aggrieved party

HOWEVER, if the respondent is a public official or employee, the return

shall further state the actions that have been or will still be taken:
i. to verify the identity of the aggrieved party;
ii. to recover and preserve evidence related to the death or
disappearance of the person identified in the petition which may aid
in the prosecution of the person or persons responsible;
iii. to identify witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning
the death or disappearance;
iv. to determine the cause, manner, location and time of death or
disappearance as well as any pattern or practice that may have
brought about the death or disappearance;
v. to identify and apprehend the person or persons involved in the
death or disappearance; and
vi. to bring the suspected offenders before a competent court.
vii. The return shall also state other matters relevant to the
investigation, its resolution and the prosecution of the case.

Respondents’ duty after service of writ

Within seventy-two (72) hours (amended to 5 working days)9 after
service of the writ, the respondent shall file:
(1) verified written return
(2) supporting affidavits

The respondents are required to file a Return after the issuance of the
writ through the clerk of court. The Return serves as the responsive
pleading to the petition. Unlike an Answer, the Return has other
purposes aside from identifying the issues in the case. Respondents are

9 As amended under A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, October 16, 2007

Page 10 of 29
required to detail the actions they had taken to determine the fate or
whereabouts of the aggrieved party.10

Extension of the Period for Return

General Rule: No.
Exception: Only on HIGHLY MERITORIOUS ground.

General Denial not Permitted

A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall NOT be allowed.
All defenses shall be raised in the return, otherwise, they shall be
deemed waived.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE

DIRECTOR/HEAD OF THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
AND DETECTION GROUP (CIDG), PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
POLICE (PNP), Petitioner
vs.
REGINA N. CA YANAN AND SPOl ROLANDO V. PASCUA,
Respondents11

FACTS
Regina filed a petition for habeas corpus in the R TC alleging
that Pablo, her husband, was being illegally detained by the
Director/Head of the CIDG; that on July 9, 2007 a group of
armed men identifying themselves as operatives of the CIDG,
led by Pascua, had forcibly arrested Pablo on Magalang Street,
East A venue, Diliman, Quezon City without any warrant of
arrest, and had then detained him at the office of the CIDG in
Camp Crame, Quezon City. Pablo had not been found or heard
from since then and despite repeated demands by her and her
relatives, the CIDG operatives had not produced the body of
Pablo.
On August 21, 2007, the CIDG received the petition for habeas
corpus brought in behalf of Pablo. On August 28, 2007, the
CIDG filed its return on the writ wherein it denied having the
custody of Pablo or having detained him. It prayed for the
dismissal of the petition for habeas corpus.
On October 24, 2007, Regina, albeit reiterating the allegations
of the petition for habeas corpus, amended her petition to now
seek instead the issuance of a writ of amparo.
On October 24, 2007, the RTC issued the writ of amparo.
Pascua did not appear in the proceedings in the RTC. He
tendered explanations for his non-appearance, specifically:
for the initial hearing, he was then suffering acute
gastroenteritis; and for the later hearings, he wanted to
protect his identity as part of his defenses in the criminal case
of kidnapping brought against him in the Department of
Justice.

10 De Lima vs Gatdula, GR No. 204528, February 19, 2013.

11 G.R. No. 181796

Page 11 of 29
On December 13, 2007, the RTC issued the first assailed
resolution, maintaining the writ of amparo earlier issued. The
CIDG forthwith moved for reconsideration; however, the RTC
denied the motion for reconsideration on January 31, 2008
through the second assailed resolution.
Hence, the CIDG has directly appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE 1:
Whether Petitioner discharged its functions as required in its
mandate and exhausted all remedies available under the law.
HELD 1:
NO, THEY DID NOT. The CIDG posits that it was only required
to observe ordinary diligence in conducting its investigation
of the disappearance of Pablo and in determining Pablo's
whereabouts.
The CIDG's position is incorrect. The diligence required of the
CIDG was extraordinary.
Section 9 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo expressly states
that a general denial of the allegations in the petition shall
not be allowed.
In its return, the CIDG only attached passive certificates issued
by its operating divisions to the effect that Pablo was not being
detained by any of them. Said certifications were severely
inadequate. It is almost needless to characterize the
certifications as non-compliant with the requirement for a
detailed return. As such, the certifications amounted to a
general denial on the part of the CIDG. The quoted rule
requires the verified written return of the CIDG to be
accompanied by supporting affidavits. Such affidavits, which
could be those of the persons tasked by the CIDG and other
agencies like the NBI and probably the Land Transportation
Office (LTO) to collaborate in the investigation of the
abduction of Pablo, would have specified and described the
efforts expended in the search for Pablo, if such search was
really conducted, and would have reported the progress of the
investigation of the definite leads given in the
Perez's sinumpaang salaysay on the abduction itself.
Under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, the return should
spell out the details of the investigations conducted by the
CIDG and the NBI in a manner that would enable the RTC
to judiciously determine whether or not the efforts to
ascertain Pablo's whereabouts had been sincere and
adequate. The return by the CIDG was non-compliant in
that regard. To be noted at this juncture is that the CIDG
should have exerted greater effort at complying with both the
letter and spirit of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo in light of
Perez's sinumpaang salaysay having fully placed the
responsibility for the abduction and disappearance of Pablo
right at the very doorsteps of the CIDG in Camp Crame. It is
disheartening for us to see the CIDG's investigation having

Page 12 of 29
 been limited to Pascua despite the circumstances justifying a
broader inquiry.
ISSUE 2: Whether or not the writ is defective
HELD 2: the CIDG reminds that the Rule on the Writ of
Amparo was partly patterned after the rules on the writ
of amparo adopted in Mexico. He posits that it has been an
essential requirement in Mexico for the petition for the writ
of amparo to state where the victim of involuntary
disappearance was being held.
The argument is unfounded.
Section 5 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo lists the matters to
be alleged in the petition for the writ of amparo:
Section 5. Contents of the Petition. - The petition shall be
signed and verified and shall allege the following:
(a) The personal circumstance of the petitioner;
(b) 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 with violation 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;
(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 the report;
(e) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to
determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and
the identity of the person responsible for the threat, act or
omission; and
(f) The relief prayed for.
The petition may include a general prayer for other just and
equitable reliefs.
As Section 5 shows, there is no requirement for the petition
to state the probable whereabouts of the victim. We have
no doubt, however, that Regina was not aware where Pablo
had been kept at the time, she filed her petition for the writ
of habeas corpus.

Degree of Diligence Required for Respondents

Respondents must show that the observance of extraordinary diligence

in the return on the writ of amparo. The return should spell out the
details of the investigations conducted by the respondent in a manner

Page 13 of 29
that would enable the court to judiciously determine whether or not the
efforts to ascertain the aggrieved party’s whereabouts had been sincere
and adequate.

REPUBLIC V. YANAN AND PASCUA12

Substantial evidence is sufficient in proceedings involving
petitions for the writ of amparo. The respondent must show
in the return on the writ of amparo the observance of
extraordinary diligence. Once an enforced disappearance is
established by substantial evidence, the relevant State
agencies should be tasked to assiduously investigate and
determine the disappearance, and, if warranted, to bring to
the bar of justice whoever may be responsible for the
disappearance.

SEC. 10. Defenses not Pleaded Deemed Waived. — All defenses shall be raised
in the return, otherwise, they shall be deemed waived.

Defenses Deemed Waived

The Rules are clear that all defenses shall be raised in the return and
defenses that are not raised in the return are deemed waived.

SEC. 11. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions. – The following pleadings and
motions are prohibited:
a. Motion to dismiss;
b. Motion for extension of time to file return, opposition, affidavit, position
paper and other pleadings;
c. Dilatory motion for postponement;
d. Motion for a bill of particulars;
e. Counterclaim or cross-claim;
f. Third-party complaint;
g. Reply;
h. Motion to declare respondent in default;
i. Intervention;
j. Memorandum;
k. Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory orders or interim relief
orders; and
l. Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against any
interlocutory order.

Prohibited Pleadings and Motions

An interlocutory order does not terminate or finally dismiss or finally

dispose of the case, but leaves something to be done by the court before
the case is finally decided on the merits. It refers to something between
the commencement and end of the suit which decides some point or
matter but it is not the final decision on the whole controversy. At this
point, The Rules of Court, under Rule 41 provides that no appeal shall
be taken from an interlocutory order but the aggrieved party may file
an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65. However, one of the

12 GR No. 181796, November 7, 2017

Page 14 of 29
peculiarities on the rules regarding the issuance for writ of amparo is
that under its Section 11, a petition for certiorari, mandamus, or
prohibition, specifically the remedies under Rule 65, are included in the
list of Prohibited pleadings and motions.

SEC. 12. Effect of Failure to File Return. — In case the respondent fails to file a
return, the court, justice or judge shall proceed to hear the petition ex parte.

Consequence of respondent’s
inability to file a return

Should the respondent fail to file a return, the court, justice, or judge
shall proceed to hear the petition ex parte.

SEC. 13. Summary Hearing. — The hearing on the petition shall be summary.
However, the court, justice or judge may call for a preliminary conference to
simplify the issues and determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations and
admissions from the parties.
The hearing shall be from day to day until completed and given the same
priority as petitions for habeas corpus.

Nature of the hearing on the petition

for the issuance of the writ

The hearing on the petition shall be summary. However, the court,

justice or judge may call for a preliminary conference to simplify the
issues and determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations and
admissions from the parties. The hearing shall be from day to day until
completed and given the same priority as petitions for habeas corpus.

SEC. 14. Interim Reliefs. — Upon filing of the petition or at anytime before final
judgment, the court, justice or judge may grant any of the following reliefs:
(a) Temporary Protection Order. – The court, justice or judge, upon
motion or motu proprio, may order that the petitioner or the aggrieved party
and any member of the immediate family be protected in a government
agency or by an accredited person or private institution capable of keeping
and securing their safety. If the petitioner is an organization, association or
institution referred to in Section 3(c) of this Rule, the protection may be
extended to the officers involved.
The Supreme Court shall accredit the persons and private institutions that
shall extend temporary protection to the petitioner or the aggrieved party and
any member of the immediate family, in accordance with guidelines which it
shall issue.
The accredited persons and private institutions shall comply with the rules
and conditions that may be imposed by the court, justice or judge.
(b) Inspection Order. — The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion
and after due hearing, may order any person in possession or control of a
designated land or other property, to permit entry for the purpose of
inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or any
relevant object or operation thereon.
The motion shall state in detail the place or places to be inspected. It shall be
supported by affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal

Page 15 of 29
knowledge of the enforced disappearance or whereabouts of the aggrieved
party.
If the motion is opposed on the ground of national security or of the privileged
nature of the information, the court, justice or judge may conduct a hearing in
chambers to determine the merit of the opposition.
The movant must show that the inspection order is necessary to establish the
right of the aggrieved party alleged to be threatened or violated.
The inspection order shall specify the person or persons authorized to make
the inspection and the date, time, place and manner of making the inspection
and may prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional rights of all
parties. The order shall expire five (5) days after the date of its issuance,
unless extended for justifiable reasons.
(c) Production Order. – The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion
and after due hearing, may order any person in possession, custody or control
of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs,
objects or tangible things, or objects in digitized or electronic form, which
constitute or contain evidence relevant to the petition or the return, to
produce and permit their inspection, copying or photographing by or on
behalf of the movant.
The motion may be opposed on the ground of national security or of the
privileged nature of the information, in which case the court, justice or judge
may conduct a hearing in chambers to determine the merit of the opposition.
The court, justice or judge shall prescribe other conditions to protect the
constitutional rights of all the parties.
(d) Witness Protection Order. – The court, justice or judge, upon motion
or motu proprio, may refer the witnesses to the Department of Justice for
admission to the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program, pursuant
to Republic Act No. 6981.

The court, justice or judge may also refer the witnesses to other government
agencies, or to accredited persons or private institutions capable of keeping
and securing their safety.

Interim Reliefs

Interim reliefs are remedies that a party can avail of while awaiting final
judgment on the Amparo Petition.

These are provisional reliefs that the courts may grant in order to, inter
alia, protect the witnesses and the rights of the parties, and preserve all
relevant evidence. These are intended to assist the court before it
arrives at a judicious determination of the Amparo petition.

It can be availed of (1) at any time upon the filing of the petition, but (2)
before the rendition of final judgment

Interim Reliefs Available to the Petitioner

Upon filing of the petition or at any time before final judgment, the
court, justice or judge may grant any of the following reliefs:
1. Temporary Protection Order
2. Inspection Order
3. Production Order
4. Witness Protection Order

Page 16 of 29
Temporary Protection Order
The court, justice or judge, upon motion or motu proprio, may issue
Temporary Protection Order directing that the petitioner or the
aggrieved party and any member of the immediate family be protected
in a government agency or by an accredited person or private
institution capable of keeping and securing their safety. If the petitioner
is an organization, association or institution referred to in Section 3(c)
of the Rule, the protection may be extended to the officers involved.
Take note that a temporary protection order extends not only to the
aggrieved party, but also to the members of his immediate family and
to any officers involved.

Accreditation of persons and private

institutions to extend temporary
protection to the petitioner or
aggrieved party
The Supreme Court shall accredit the persons and private institutions
that shall extend temporary protection to the petitioner or the
aggrieved party and any member of the immediate family, in
accordance with guidelines which it shall issue.

The accredited persons and private institutions shall comply with the
rules and conditions that may be imposed by the court, justice or judge.

Inspection Order
An inspection order can only be granted upon a verified motion and due
hearing. it cannot be granted motu proprio like a temporary protection
order.

The court, justice or judge/ may issue an Inspection Order directing any
person in possession or control of a designated land or other property,
to permit entry for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or
photographing the property or any relevant object or operation
thereon.

It shall also state in detail the place or places to be inspected, supported

by affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge of
the enforced disappearance or whereabouts of the aggrieved party.

To note, an inspection order pertains mostly to (1) real property or (2)

those that cannot be brought to court.

Hearing in chambers or “in camera”

If the motion is opposed on the ground of (1) national security or of (2)
the privileged nature of the information, the court, justice or judge may
conduct a hearing in chambers (or “in camera”) to determine the merit
of the opposition.

Page 17 of 29
The term “in chambers” or “in camera” means “in private.” A judicial
proceeding is said to be heard in chambers or in camera:
1. when the same is held before the judge in his/her private
chambers; or
2. when the spectators are excluded from the courtroom.

The movant must show that the inspection order is necessary to

establish the right of the aggrieved party alleged to be threatened or
violated.

What the inspection order should

specify
The inspection order shall specify the person or persons authorized to
make the inspection and the date, time, place and manner of making the
inspection and may prescribe other conditions to protect the
constitutional rights of all parties.

Prescriptive Period
The order shall expire five (5) days after the date of its issuance, unless
extended for justifiable reasons.

NOTE: If you are going to question the issuance of the said order you
can do so through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Production Order
The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion and after due hearing,
may issue Production Order directing any person in possession,
custody or control of any designated documents, papers, books,
accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, or objects in
digitized or electronic form, which constitute or contain evidence
relevant to the petition or the return, to produce and permit their
inspection, copying or photographing by or on behalf of the movant.

Things Subject of an Inspection Order

The things subject to a production order are those brought to be
produced in court which constitute or contain evidence relevant to the
petition or the return.

Grounds for opposing the motion

The motion may be opposed on the ground of (1) national security or
of the (2) privileged nature of the information, in which case the court,
justice or judge may conduct a hearing in chambers to determine the
merit of the opposition.

The court, justice or judge shall prescribe other conditions to protect

the constitutional rights of all the parties.

Page 18 of 29
 SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE V. MANALO13
The constitutional provision on search warrant is a protection
of the people from the unreasonable intrusion of the
government, not a protection of the government from the
demand of the people.
Instead, the AMPARO production order may be likened to the
production of documents or things under Section 1, Rule 27 of
the Rules of Civil Procedure

Thus, a production order can be likened to that of a mode of discovery,

and is not akin to search warrant which purpose is to protect the right
and privacy of private individuals against the government.

Witness Protection Order

The court, justice or judge, upon motion or motu proprio, may issue a
Witness Protection Order and refer the witnesses to the Department of
Justice for admission to the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit
Program, pursuant to Republic Act No. 6981.

The court, justice or judge may also refer the witnesses to other
government agencies, or to accredited persons or private institutions
capable of keeping and securing their safety.

SEC. 15. Availability of Interim Reliefs to Respondent. – Upon verified motion

of the respondent and after due hearing, the court, justice or judge may issue
an inspection order or production order under paragraphs (b) and (c) of the
preceding section.
A motion for inspection order under this section shall be supported by
affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge of the
defenses of the respondent.

Interim reliefs Available to the Respondent

Only the interim reliefs of Inspection Order and Production Order are
available to the respondent. These interim orders may be issued only
after a verified motion is filed by the respondent, supported by
affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge of the
defenses of the respondent, and after due hearing.

NOTE: The government cannot avail protection order and witness

protection order.

SEC. 16. Contempt. – The court, justice or judge may order the respondent who
refuses to make a return, or who makes a false return, or any person who
otherwise disobeys or resists a lawful process or order of the court to be
punished for contempt. The contemnor may be imprisoned or imposed a fine.

Who may be Punished for Contempt

13 GR No. 180906, October 7, 2008

Page 19 of 29
The court, justice or judge may order the following to be punished for
contempt:
1. the respondent who refuses to make a return;
2. the respondent who makes a false return; or
3. any person who otherwise disobeys or resists a lawful process or
order of the court.

The contemnor may be imprisoned or imposed a fine.

SEC. 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. – The parties
shall establish their claims by substantial evidence.
The respondent who is a private individual or entity must prove that ordinary
diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed
in the performance of duty.
The respondent who is a public official or employee must prove that
extraordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations
was observed in the performance of duty.
The respondent public official or employee cannot invoke the presumption
that official duty has been regularly performed to evade responsibility or
liability.

Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required

Required quantum of evidence

The parties shall establish their claims by substantial evidence.

Substantial Evidence is defined as such amount of relevant evidence

which a reasonable mind might accept to justify a conclusion.

To elaborate:

LOZADA v ARROYO14
The failure to prove the observance of extraordinary diligence
in the performance of duty does not result in the automatic
grant of the privilege of the Amparo Writ.
It does not relieve the petitioner from establishing his or her
claim by substantial evidence.
Petitioners must establish their claims by substantial
evidence, and they cannot merely rely on the supposed failure
of respondents to prove either their defenses or their exercise
of extraordinary diligence

The burden is therefore on the petitioner—the one claiming the

privilege of the writ—to establish the propriety of the grant of the writ.
Such must be supported by substantial evidence.

The required standard of proof – substantial evidence – speaks of the

clear intent of the Rule to have the equivalent of an administrative

14 G.R. Nos. 184379-80, April 24, 2013

Page 20 of 29
proceeding, albeit judicially conducted, in resolving Amparo
petitions.15

Suitable to, and consistent with this incipiently unique and informal
treatment of Amparo cases, the Court eventually recognized the
evidentiary difficulties that beset Amparo petitioners, arising as they
normally would from the fact that the State itself, through its own
agents, is involved in the enforced disappearance or extrajudicial
killing.16

Required standard of diligence

The respondent who is a private individual or entity must prove that
ordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations
was observed in the performance of duty.

The respondent who is a public official or employee must prove that

extraordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and
regulations was observed in the performance of duty. Such public
official or employee cannot invoke the presumption that official duty
has been regularly performed to evade responsibility or liability.

The requirement for a government official or employee to observe

extraordinary diligence in the performance of duty stresses the
extraordinary measures expected to be taken in safeguarding every
citizen’s constitutional rights as well as in the investigation of cases of
extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.

Nonetheless, the failure to establish that the public official observed

extraordinary diligence in the performance of duty does not result in
the automatic grant of the privilege of the Amparo writ. It does not
relieve the petitioner from establishing his or her claim by substantial
evidence. The omission or inaction on the part of the public official
provides, however, some basis for the petitioner to move and for the
court to grant interim reliefs.17

Government involvement in the

disappearance is an indispensable
element

To fall within the ambit of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC in relation to R.A. No.
9851 (The Act Defining and penalizing Crimes against International
Humanitarian Law, Genocide and Other Crimes against Humanity), the
disappearance must be attended by some governmental involvement.
This hallmark of State participation differentiates an enforced
disappearance case from an ordinary case of a missing person.

15 Gen. Yano, et al. v. Sanchez and Medina, G.R. No. 186640, February 11, 2010
16 Ladaga v. Mapagu, G.R. No. 189689, G.R. No. 189690, G.R. No. 189691, November 13, 2012
17 Gen. Yano, et al. v. Sanchez and Medina, G.R. No. 186640, February 11, 2010

Page 21 of 29
For the protective writ of amparo to issue, therefore, allegation and
proof that the persons subject thereof are missing are not enough. It
must also be shown and proved by substantial evidence that the
disappearance was carried out by, or with the authorization, support or
acquiescence of the State or a political organization followed by a
refusal to acknowledge the same or give information on the fate or
whereabouts of said missing persons with the intention of removing
them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.18

SEC. 18. Judgment. — The court shall render judgment within ten (10) days
from the time the petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations in the
petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege
of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate; otherwise, the
privilege shall be denied.

Judgment

The court shall render judgment within ten (10) days from the time the
petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations in the petition are
proven by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the
writ and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate; otherwise, the
privilege shall be denied.

In the case of De Lima v. Gatdula19 the Supreme Court said that the
judgment must be one which is capable of enforcement. This means that
the judgment should contain measures which the judge views as
essential for the continued protection of the petitioner in the Amparo
case.

These measures must be detailed enough so that the judge may be able
to verify and monitor the actions taken by the respondents. It is this
judgment that could be subject to appeal to the Supreme Court via Rule
45.

After the measures have served their purpose, the judgment will be
satisfied. In Amparo cases, this is when the threats to the petitioner’s
life, liberty and security cease to exist as evaluated by the court that
renders the judgment.

Moreover, the judgment should detail the required acts from the
respondents that will mitigate, if not totally eradicate, the violation of
or the threat to the petitioner's life, liberty or security.

The SC emphasized in this case that a judgment which simply grants

"the privilege of the writ" cannot be executed. It is tantamount to a

18 Navia v. Pardico, G.R. No. 184467, June 19, 2012

19 GR No. 204528, February 19, 2013

Page 22 of 29
failure of the judge to intervene and grant judicial succor to the
petitioner. Thus, If the judgment merely states in the dispositive
portion that the privilege of the writ of amparo is granted that is not
valid judgment in an amparo petition.

To be valid there has to be a detailed set of actions that the respondents

should perform so that is capable of being verified by the judge,
whether or not the prescribed actions were followed and that is the
only way that you can impose and execute judgment otherwise there is
no basis to execute the judgment.

SEC. 19. Appeal. – Any party may appeal from the final judgment or order to
the Supreme Court under Rule 45. The appeal may raise questions of fact or
law or both.
The period of appeal shall be five (5) working days from the date of notice of
the adverse judgment.
The appeal shall be given the same priority as in habeas corpus cases.

Appeal from final judgment or order

to the Supreme Court

Any party may appeal from the final judgment or order to the Supreme
Court under Rule 45. Contrary to Rule 45, however, the appeal in an
Amparo Writ may raise questions of fact or law or both, within the
period of five (5) working days from the date of notice of the adverse
judgment.

The committee felt that an Amparo proceeding essentially involves a

determination of facts considering that its subject is extralegal killings
or enforced disappearances.

The appeal shall be given the same priority as in habeas corpus cases.

SEC. 20. Archiving and Revival of Cases. – The court shall not dismiss the
petition, but shall archive it, if upon its determination it cannot proceed for a
valid cause such as the failure of petitioner or witnesses to appear due to
threats on their lives.
A periodic review of the archived cases shall be made by the amparo court that
shall, motu proprio or upon motion by any party, order their revival when
ready for further proceedings. The petition shall be dismissed with prejudice
upon failure to prosecute the case after the lapse of two (2) years from notice
to the petitioner of the order archiving the case.
The clerks of court shall submit to the Office of the Court Administrator a
consolidated list of archived cases under this Rule not later than the first week
of January of every year.

Amparo Petitions are to be Archived and Revived and not

Immediately Dismissed

Page 23 of 29
The court shall not dismiss the petition, but shall archive it, if upon its
determination it cannot proceed for a valid cause such as the failure of
petitioner or witnesses to appear due to threats on their lives.

A periodic review of the archived cases shall be made by the amparo

court that shall, motu proprio or upon motion by any party, order their
revival when ready for further proceedings. The petition shall be
dismissed with prejudice upon failure to prosecute the case after the
lapse of two (2) years from notice to the petitioner of the order
archiving the case.

The clerks of court shall submit to the Office of the Court Administrator
a consolidated list of archived cases under this Rule not later than the
first week of January of every year.

SEC. 21. Institution of Separate Actions. — This Rule shall not preclude the
filing of separate criminal, civil or administrative actions.

SEC. 22. Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action. – When a criminal action has been
commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be filed.
The reliefs under the writ shall be available by motion in the criminal case.
The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs
available under the writ of amparo.

SEC. 23. Consolidation. – When a criminal action is filed subsequent to the

filing of a petition for the writ, the latter shall be consolidated with the
criminal action.
When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to a
petition for a writ of amparo, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal
action.
After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to apply to
the disposition of the reliefs in the petition.

Filing of Separate Criminal, Civil or

Administrative Actions not Precluded

The Rule shall not preclude the filing of separate criminal, civil or
administrative actions. However, when a criminal action has been
commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be filed, but the
reliefs under the writ shall be available by motion in the criminal cases,
and the procedure under the Rule shall govern the disposition of the
reliefs available under the Writ of Amparo.

Effect when a Criminal Action is Filed Subsequent To

the Filing of a Petition for the Writ
The petition shall be consolidated with the criminal action.

When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent
to a petition for a Writ of Amparo, the latter shall be consolidated with
the criminal action. After consolidation, the proceeding under the Rule
shall continue to apply the disposition of the reliefs in the petition.

Page 24 of 29
Effect when a Criminal Action is Commenced First
When a criminal action is filed first, there is no need to file a separate
action for the issuance of the writ of amparo. The party can file a motion
in the same criminal case for the issuance of the writ of amparo the
grounds for the issuance of the same are present. However, the
disposition of the motion for the issuance of the writ of amparo is
governed by amparo rules and not anymore by the law on criminal
procedure.

NOTE: The criminal action referred to here is the one already filed in
court. Thus, it is a court action.

Effect when a Criminal Case Filed is Still Pending Preliminary

Investigation in the DOJ
If a criminal case filed is still pending preliminary investigation in the
DOJ, you cannot file a motion there for the issuance of the writ of
amparo. It cannot be availed of yet.

The recourse would be to go to court and file a separate petition for the
issuance of the writ of amparo because the only way that the writ can
be availed of in the same criminal case is when the criminal case is
actually pending in court, and is actually filed in court.20

Effect when a Petition was Commenced First

The Writ of Amparo cannot be availed of by mere motion as of yet. What
should be done is to file a separate case in court.

SEC. 24. Substantive Rights. - This Rule shall not diminish, increase or modify
substantive rights recognized and protected by the Constitution.

SEC. 25. Suppletory Application of the Rules of Court. - The Rules of Court shall
apply suppletorily insofar as it is not inconsistent with this Rule.

SEC. 26. Applicability to Pending Cases. - This Rule shall govern cases
involving extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof
pending in the trial and appellate courts.

Conclusion

To conclude, the very first case applying the Writ of Amparo in the
Philippines is the case of brothers Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo. It
was promulgated on 2008 and its decision was penned by none other
than the Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno.

To borrow the language of the Honorable Reynato S. Puno, we look into

the case of Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo to provide us with

20 Reyes v. Gonzales, GR No. 182161, December 3, 2009

Page 25 of 29
the origin, history, nature, and the legal concept and basis of the Rule
on the Writ of Amparo:

THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE CHIEF OF

STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners,
vs.
RAYMOND MANALO and REYNALDO MANALO,
respondents.21

FACTS
Brothers Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo were abducted by
military men belonging to the CAFGU on the suspicion that
they were members and supporters of the NPA. After 18
months of detention and torture, the brothers escaped on
August 13, 2007.

Ten days after their escape, they filed a Petition for

Prohibition, Injunction, and Temporary Restraining Order to
stop the military officers and agents from depriving them of
their right to liberty and other basic rights. While the said case
was pending, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo took effect on
October 24, 2007. The Manalos subsequently filed a
manifestation and omnibus motion to treat their existing
petition as amparo petition.

On December 26, 2007, the Court of Appeals granted the

privilege of the writ of amparo. The CA ordered the Secretary
of National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the AFP to furnish
the Manalos and the court with all official and unofficial
investigation reports as to the Manalos’ custody, confirm the
present places of official assignment of two military officials
involved, and produce all medical reports and records of the
Manalo brothers while under military custody. The Secretary
of National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the AFP appealed
to the SC seeking to reverse and set aside the decision
promulgated by the CA.

ISSUE
Whether the privilege of the Writ of Amparo was properly
given.

RULING
YES.

The continuing threat on the life of the Manalo brothers is

apparent. This threat vitiates their free will because they are
forced to limit their movements and activities. Threats to
liberty, security, and life are actionable through a petition for
a writ of amparo.

The military failed to provide protection for the respondents.

They were even the ones who actually tortured them. The one-
day investigation conducted by Jimenez was limited,
superficial and one-sided.

“In sum, we conclude that respondents’ right to security as

“freedom from threat” is violated by the apparent threat to

21 G.R. No. 180906, October 7, 2008

Page 26 of 29
their life, liberty and security of person. Their right to security
as a guarantee of protection by the government is likewise
violated by the ineffective investigation and protection on the
part of the military.”

Promulgated in October 24, 2007, this is the first time that the
Supreme Court exercised its expanded power in the 1987
Constitution to promulgate rules to protect the people’s
constitutional rights (life, liberty, property).

The coverage of which is confined to:

Extralegal killings – killings committed without due process of
the law Enforced disappearances – an arrest, detention or
abduction by the government; refusal of the State to disclose
the fate or whereabouts places him outside the protection of
the law .

“Amparo” literally means protection in Spanish. The Writ of

Amparo originated in Mexico (Yucatan State). Eventually
incorporated into the Mexican Constitution in 1847, it spread
across the Western hemisphere and eventually to the
Philippines.

This provides for swift relief because of the summary nature

of its proceedings. Only substantial evidence is required.

Right to security is in Art. III, Sec. 2 of the 1987

Constitution.
It is the right to enjoyment of life.

Three ways of exercising right to security:

1. Freedom from fear.
Enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR) Article 3
• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
• It is the “right to security of person” as the word “security”
itself means “freedom from fear.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
Art. 9 (1)
• Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.
“Freedom from fear” is the right and any threat to the rights to
life, liberty or security is the actionable wrong. Fear is a state
of mind, a reaction; threat is a stimulus, a cause of action. (PH
is a signatory to both conventions)
2. Guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity or
security.
• Article III, Section II of the 1987 Constitution guarantees
against search without warrant
• ELKs and EDs involve Physical torture, force, and violence
are a severe invasion of bodily integrity.
• It constitutes an invasion of both bodily and psychological
integrity as the dignity of the human person includes the
exercise of free will
Note: The constitution also guarantees against torture.
3. Guarantee of protection of one’s right by the
Government
• The right granted by the Writ of Amparo is built into the
guarantees of the right to life and liberty under Article III,

Page 27 of 29
 Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution and the right to security
of person under Article III, Section 2.
• Protection includes conducting effective investigations,
organization of the government apparatus to extend
protection to victims of extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances as well as their families
• Right to security of persons can exist independently of the
right to liberty.
• They have a positive duty to protect right to liberty and not
just a prohibition for arbitrary deprivation of such rights.

Page 28 of 29