June Karl Cepida, JD2 – LO1 HRIHL Assignment # 1 | October 8, 2020

1. The writs of habeas corpus and amparo are known remedies against the arbitrary
exercise of State power, particularly in cases of deprivation of liberty. While they
substantially intersect, they also substantially differ. What are the semblances and
differences of the two writs?

Answer:

The writs habeas corpus and amparo are alike in the case that both of them deals
with the issue of deprivation of liberty, a matter of supreme importance to the human
rights movement and to resistance formations against despotic governments, but
technically, each of them have a different and specific purpose.

The writ of habeas corpus is designed to enforce the right to freedom of the person,
whereas amparo is designed to protect those other fundamental human rights
enshrined in the Constitution but not covered by the writ of habeas corpus.

2. What are the interim reliefs which may be issued by the Court under the Rules on the
Writ of Amparo? Explain each briefly.

Answer:

(1) Temporary Protection Order - issued by a judge before trial that forces or
prevents an action for a specified time frame; it is issued by a court to preserve the
status quo until the hearing of an application for preliminary injunction.

(2) Inspection Order - The court, justice or judge orders 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.

(3) Production Order - a judicial order addressed to a specified person to produce

for the inspection of an authorized person any document that identifies or locates any
property subject to forfeiture or confiscation or that determines the value of the
property or benefit derived by a defendant from criminal conduct.

(4) Witness Protection Order – the court refers to the DOJ any person who has
witnessed or has knowledge or information on the commission of a crime and has
testified or is testifying or about to testify before any judicial or quasi-judicial body, or
before any investigating authority. 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.

3. What do you understand about the "precautionary principle“ under the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases?

Answer:

The precautionary principle is a preventive measure against a person, group of

persons, or a company that is intending or irresponsibly causing an irreversible damage
to the environment, even if it is uncertain or improbable. The fact that science predicts
the impending destruction to be plausible shall not be ignored. It basically adheres to
the saying that prevention is better than cure.

4. Who may file a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data and where can the
petition be filed?

Answer:
 Any aggrieved party may file a petition for the writ of habeas data. However, in
cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, the petition may be filed by any
member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party, namely: the spouse, children
and parents; or any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party
within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity.

5. What is the Supreme Court’s basis in issuing the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases?

Answer:

The basis of the Supreme Court in issuing the Rules of Procedure for Environmental
Cases was enshrined in its objectives, namely; to protect and advance the constitutional
right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology; to provide a simplified, speedy
and inexpensive procedure for the enforcement of environmental rights and duties
recognized under the Constitution, existing laws, rules and regulations, and
international agreements; to introduce and adopt innovations and best practices
ensuring the effective enforcement of remedies and redress for violation of
environmental laws; and to enable the courts to monitor and exact compliance with
orders and judgments in environmental cases.

It is also noted that the case of Oposa vs Factoran largely influenced the direction
and course of the protection and management of the environment in the Philippines. In
the mentioned case, the Supreme Court has effectively recognized in the present
generation the right to sue in its behalf and in behalf of the succeeding generations.

6. Juan Dela Cruz has been receiving death threats from several anonymous personas,
whom he believes are members of police intelligence groups. Juan needs to secure
copies of highly classified intelligence reports from the police collected by P/Supt. Pedro
Santos who is from the Provincial Investigation and Detective Management Branch of
the Police Provincial Office. What is the proper legal remedy he must employ to attain
his objective/s? And where should he file it?

Answer:

Juan Dela Cruz should file for a petition of writ of habeas data and file it to the
Regional Trial Court.

The petition for 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 official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in
the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family,
home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.

At the case at bar, Juan Dela Cruz has the belief that he is being threatened by
anonymous members of the police intelligence groups because he needs to secure
copies of highly classified intelligence reports. This means he is eligible to file because he
is engaged securing data or information which can be classified as “storing”.

As stated in the provision provided in the Rules on the Writ of Habeas Data, the
petition may be filed with the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals or the
Sandiganbayan when the action concerns public data files of government offices.

At the present case, the data and information which Juan is tasked to secure is a
highly classified intelligence reports, which means this is does not belong to “public data
files”, and therefore should not be brought up to the courts mentioned in the previous
paragraph.
 Juan should instead file it to the Regional Trial Court, as default, because the data or
information is not a public data file.