Module 6 - Case Digest

Assignment on Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data

Sec. of Defense vs. Manalo
G.R. No. 180906

Facts:
The case stemmed from the abduction of two Manalo brother’s by military men on the
suspicion that they were member or supporter of the New People’s Army. The brothers
endured months of torture and captivity until they had the chance to escape their
captors.

They filed a petition for prohibition, injunction and TRO in order to stop the military
from depriving them their liberty and other constitutional rights. While their petition was
pending, the Writ of Amparo took effect which prompted the brothers to file a
manifestation and omnibus motion to treat the existing petition as Amparo petition, to
admit supporting affidavits and to grant interim and final Amparo reliefs.

The CA granted the Writ of Amparo and order the Secretary of National Defense and
the Chief of Staff of the AFP to furnish the Manalos and the courts with all the official
and unofficial reports of investigation undertaken in connection with the case.

Issue:
WON the SC correctly upheld the decision of the court of appeals in issuing the Writ of
Amparo?

Held:
Yes, The SC ruled that there was a continuing violation of the Manalo’s rights to
security. As intended, the Writ of Amparo was to address the intractable problem of
extralegal killing and enforced disappearances which include killings without process
and illegal detention or abduction. Thus it is a remedy available to a person whose right
to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.

Rodriguez vs. Arroyo

G.R. No. 191805

Facts:
Noriel Rodriguez, a member of Alyansang Dagiti Mannalon Iti Cagayan affliated with
Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas, tagged as an enemy of the state under the Oplan
Bantay Laya. The latter was forcibly taken, tied, assaulted, and was forced to confessed
to be a member of the New People’s Army and later was brought to a military camp.
All throughout the ordeal Rodriguez was constantly harassed and feared for life. He was
made to signed documents to the effect of admitting that he is a member of the NPA.
Eventually he was released but was caution of his actions could get him more into
trouble with the military if he did not follow their orders.

Rodriguez filed against then president Arroyo and several military officers whom the
president invoked her immunity from suit. The CA’s decision made the military officer
liable for the abduction and torture of Rodriguez which was affirmed by the Supreme
Court.

Issue:
WON the doctrine of command responsibility can be used in Writs of Amparo and
Habeas Data?

Held:
Yes, it may be used to determine whether the president and the several military officers
were accountable for the abduction of Rodriguez.

Aa such the Amparo proceedings, responsibility may refer to the participation of the
respondents, by action or omission, in enforced disappearances. Accountability on the
other hand, may attach to the respondents who are imputed with knowledge relating to
the enforced disappearances and who carry the burden to disclose.

De Lima et al. Vs. Gatdula

G.R. No. 204528

Facts:
Atty. Magtanggol Gatdula filed a petition for a Writ of Amparo against Justice Secretary
Leila De Lima et al., to cease and desist from framing up the Gatdula for the fake
ambush incident by filing bogus charges of frustrated murder against Gatdula to the
alleged ambush incident.

The judge issued summons and order De lima et al. to file an answer instead of
deciding whether to issue the writ or not. Secretary of Justice Leila De lima on the other
hand during the hearing manifested that a return was proper and not an answer in an
Amparo proceeding.

The judge however insisted that return was not required but rather an answer and
ordering the parties to file their respective memoranda within 5 days. Thereafter the
RTC decided granting the issuance of the Writ of Amparo and other reliefs prayed.
De lima et al. Filed for a motion for reconsideration which was denied prompting the
later for a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Issue:
WON there was a procedural irregularities in the issuance of the Writ of Amparo in the
RTC?

Held:
Yes, there were procedural infirmities. Regarding the assertion of the presiding judge
that the parties are required to submit an answer when the proper responsive pleading
for a petition for the issuance of Writ of Amparo is a return. It being so, a Writ of
Amparo is a special proceeding which is a remedy for a party who eek to establish a
particular fact, or right. It is neither a civil nor criminal action, where the application of
the revised rule on summary proceeding is misplaced.

Further the holding of a hearing prior to the issuance and filling of return as well as the
memorandum which is prohibited pleading under the rule of the Writ of Amparo.
Thus, the court nullified all orders issued by the RTC judge as well as directed the latter
to determine within 48 hours whether to issue the eirt of Amparo is proper on the basis
of the petition and attached affidavits

Vivares and Sps. Suzara vs. St. Theresa’s Colleg, Mylene Escudero and John
Does
G.R. No. 202666

Facts:
Ninita Daluz and Julienne Suzara both minor graduating high school students of St.
Theresa College in Cebu. Sometime in January while changing into their swimsuits took
pictures of themselves clad only in their undergarments. These pictures were then
uploaded by a fellow student, Angela tan in a social media site.

Back in school, a teacher gain knowledge of the pictures and identified the students
involved and was latter confronted by the authorities of the school and were later
informed that they were barred from joining the commencement exercise.

A week before the graduation, a mother of one of the students filed a petition for
injunction and damages before the RTC of Cebu against the school which the court
issued a TRO allowing the students to attend the graduation and then prompting the
school to file motion for reconsideration eventually not allowing the student to be
barred from the exercise.

This prompted the parents to file a Writ of Habeas Data which the RTC answered in the
negative.

Issue:
WON the RTC was correct in denying the Writ of Habeas Data petitioned by the
affected students?
Held:
The court affirmed the decision of the RTC.
The Writ of habeas Data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in
life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a
public or private individual or entity engaged in gathering, collecting or storing data or
information regarding the person, family, home, and correspondence of the aggrieved
party. In a nut shell it was designed to safeguard individual freedom from abuse in the
information age.

Thus, STC did not violate the students privacy.

NUPL et. al vs. Pres. Duterte

G.R. No. 246175

Facts:
National Union of People’s Lawyers is an nationwide voluntary association of human
rights lawyers, law students and legal workers promoting for human rights and assert
national sovereignty. This organizational handles case involving extrajudicial killing,
disappearances among others. Than on April 15, 2019, the NUPL and its officers filed
with the court a petition for Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data highlighting the
increasing number of deaths of its members in the Duterte administration.

The court of Appeals denied the petition declaring that theri was no evidence that
would point to a specific act committed by the president which violates or tends to
violate the petitioners right to life, liberty or security.

Held:

The Supreme Court en banc issued a writ of Amparo and habeas data in favour of the
National Union of People’s Lawyers.

The court also referred the petition to the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals, who
was directed to hear the petition and decide within 10 days after submission of the case
for decision.

The court order Pres. Duterte among others to make a verified return of the Writ of
Amparo and habeas data.