WRIT OF Report on

AMPARO
Special
Proceedings
GROUP MEMBERS
 HISTORY OF WRIT OF AMPARO

The word AMPARO comes from the Spanish word

amparar which literally means to protect.
Recursor de Amparo is a remedy against acts that
violate any of the individual guarantee in the Mexican
Constitution. It may be invoked in in civil, criminal and
administrative trials.
It is a protective writ against acts or omissions of
public authorities in violation of constitutional rights.
It is enshrined in the Latin America legal systems such
as Bolivia, Chile, Nicaragua and eventually in the
Philippines.
 HISTORY OF WRIT OF AMPARO

It later blossomed as a remedial tool having several

purposes:

1. Amparo Libertad - for the protection of personal

freedom (habeas corpus writ)
2. Amparo contra leyes - for the judicial review of the
constitutionality of statutes
3. Amparo casacion - for the judicial review of the
legality of a judicial decision
4. Amparo administrativo- for the judicial review of
administrative actions
5. Amparo agrari o- for the protection of pesants rights
derived from the agrarian reform process
THE NEED FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO
IN THE PHILIPPINE LEGAL SYSTEM
amenable to the idea of confi ning the proposed
rules only to cases of extralegal killings and enforce
disappearances. All violations of the Constitution are
wrongs, they are actionable wrongs and there are
remedies. But in view of the times there is a need
to make the remedy more attuned to what is needed,
the present remedy of habeas corpus is not adequate
enough, it is not expeditious enough and responsive.
That is why we have to revise the rules, so the rules
have to be confi ned to the phenomenon of
extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.
(Supreme Court Committee)
THE NEED FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO
IN THE PHILIPPINE LEGAL SYSTEM
On July 16, 2007, former Philippine Chief Justice
Reynato Puno and Justice Adolfo Azcuna offi cially
declared the legal conception of the writ of Amparo
and later the amparos twin Habeas Data.

Eff ectivity date: October 24, 2007

 DEFINITION AND NATURE

The writ of amparo is a remedy available to any

person whose right to life, liberty, and security has
been violated or is threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of a public offi cial or
employee, or of a private individual or entity. The writ
covers extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances or threats thereof.(Sec. 1, Rule on the
Writ of Amparo, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, 25 September
2007)

The amparo remedy of the Philippines, on the other

hand, is of a relatively limited purpose. It only deals
with the violation or threatened violation of the right
to life, liberty and security of the people which
includes the problem of extrajudicial killings and
enforced disappearances.
 BASIS OF WRIT OF AMPARO

The 1987 Philippine Constitution, in Article VIII, Sec.5

(5) thereof, vests the power to the Philippine
Supreme Court to "promulgate rules concerning the
protection and enforcement of constitutional rights..."
This served as the legal basis for the formulation of
the Philippine writ of amparo.
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO

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 offi cial or employee, or of a
private individual or entity.

The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced

disappearances or threats thereof
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO

Extralegal killings - as used in the United Nations

instruments, this refer to killings committed without
due process of law i.e. without legal safeguards of
judicial proceedings.

It includes illegal taking of lives and salvagings.

Enforced disappearances- are attended by the

following characteristics: an arrest, detention or
abduction of a person by a government offi cial or
organized groups or private individuals acting with
the direct or indirect acquiescence of the
government; the refusal of the State to disclose the
fate or whereabouts of the person concerned or a
refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty
which places such persons outside the protection of
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO

SEC. 2.Who May File. The petition may be fi led by the

aggrieved party or by any qualifi ed person or entity in the
following order:
Any member of the immediate family, namely: the
spouse, children and parents of the aggrieved party;
Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the
aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affi nity, in default of those mentioned
in the preceding paragraph; or
Any concerned citizen, organization, association or
institution, if there is no known member of the
immediate family or relative of the aggrieved party.
The fi ling of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends
the right of all other authorized parties to fi le similar
petitions. Likewise, the fi ling of the petition by an
authorized party on behalf of the aggrieved party
suspends the right of all others, observing the order
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO

SEC. 3.Where to File. The petition may be fi led 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
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO

SEC. 4.No Docket Fees. The petitioner shall be

exempted from the payment of the docket and other
lawful fees when fi ling the petition. The court, justice
or judge shall docket the petition and act upon it
immediately.
 THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO
SEC. 5. Contents of Petition. The petition shall be signed and
verifi ed and shall allege the following:
The personal circumsta nces of the petitioner;
The name and persona l circumstances of the respondent
responsible for the threa t, a ct or omission, or, if the name is
unknown or uncer tain, the respondent may be described by an
assumed appellation;
The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated
or threatened with violation by a n unlawful act or omission of the
respondent, and how such threa t or viola tion is committed with the
attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affi davits;
The investigation conducted, if a ny, specifying the na mes, personal
circumstances, and addresses of the investiga ting a uthority or
individuals, as well as the ma nner a nd conduct of the investiga tion,
together with any report;
The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the
fa te or whereabouts of the a ggrieved pa rty a nd the identity of the
person responsible for the threat, a ct or omission; a nd
The relief prayed for.
The petition may include a gener al pra yer for other just a nd equitable
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO

SEC. 6.Issuance of the Writ. Upon the fi ling 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 offi cer 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.
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO

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 offi cer 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.
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO

Sec. 9.Return; Contents.- WithinFIVE (5)

WORKING DAYSafter service of the writ, the
respondent shall fi le a verifi ed written return together
with supporting affi davits 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 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; and
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO

( d ) I f t h e re s p o n d e n t i s a p u b l i c o ffi c i a l o r e m p l o y e e , t h e re t u rn s h a l l
f u r th er s ta te th e a c t i o n s t h a t h a v e b e e n o r w i l l s t i l l b e t a ken :
( i ) to v e r i fy th e i d e n t i ty o f th e a g g r i e v e d p a r t y ;
( i i ) t o rec o v e r a n d p re s e r v e e v i d e n c e re l a te d t o t h e d ea t h o r
d i s a p p e a r a n c e o f th e p er s o n i d e n t i fi e d i n t h e p e ti ti o n w h i c h m a y a i d i n
t h e p ro s e c u ti o n o f th e p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s re s p o n s i b l e ;
( i i i ) t o i d e n t i fy w i t n e s s e s a n d o b ta i n s ta t e m e n t s f ro m t h e m c o n c e rn i n g
t h e d e a th o r d i s a p p e a r a n c e ;
( i v ) to d e te rm i n e th e c a u s e , m a n n e r , l o c a ti o n a n d t i m e o f d e a t h o r
d i s a p p e a r a n c e a s w el l a s a n y p a tt e rn o r p r a c t i c e th a t m a y h a v e b ro u g h t
a b o u t th e d e a t h o r d i s a p p e a r a n c e ;
( v ) to i d e n t i fy a n d a p p reh e n d t h e p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s i n v o l v e d i n t h e
d ea t h o r d i s a p p e a r a n c e ; a n d
( v i ) t o b r i n g th e s u s p e c t e d o ff e n d e r s b e f o re a c o m p e t e n t c o u r t .

T h e re tu rn s h a l l a l s o s ta te o t h e r m a t te r s re l e v a n t to th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , i t s
re s o l u ti o n a n d th e p ro s ec u t i o n o f t h e c a s e.
A g e n e r a l d e n i a l o f th e a l l e g a ti o n s i n th e p et i ti o n s h a l l n o t b e a l l o w e d .
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO

S E C . 1 0 . D e f e n s e s n o t P l e a d e d D e e m e d Wa i v e d . A l l d e f e n s e s s h a l l
b e r a i s e d i n t h e re t u rn , o t h e r w i s e , t h e y s h a l l b e d e e m e d w a i v e d .

Sec. 11. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions .- The following pleadings

a n d m o t i o n a re p ro h i b i t e d :
(a) Motion to dismiss;
( b ) M o t i o n f o r ex t e n s i o n o f t i m e t o fi l e o p p o s i t i o n , a ffi d a v i t , p o s i t i o n p a p e r
and other pleadings;
(c) Dilatory motion for postponement;
( d ) M o t i o n f o r a b i l l o f p a r ti c u l a r s ;
( e ) C o u n t e rc l a i m o r c ro s s - c l a i m ;
( f ) T h i rd - p a r t y c o m p l a i n t ;
( g ) Re p l y ;
( h ) M o t i o n t o d e c l a re re s p o n d e n t i n d e f a u l t ;
(i) Intervention;
(j) Memorandum;
( k ) M o t i o n f o r re c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f i n t e r l o c u t o r y o rd e r s o r i n t e r i m re l i e f
o rd e r s ; a n d
(l) Pe t i ti o n for certiorari, mandamus or p ro h i b i t i o n against any
i n t e r l o c u t o r y o rd e r.
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO

SEC. 12.Eff ect of Failure to File Return. In case

the respondent fails to fi le 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
 THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO

S E C . 1 4 . In t e r im Re li e f s . U p o n fi l i n g o f th e p e ti ti o n o r at an y ti m e
b e fo re fi n al j u d g m e n t, th e co u r t, j u s ti c e o r j u dg e m a y g r an t an y o f the
fo l l o w i n g re l i e fs :
( a) Te m p o r a r y Pro te cti o n Ord e r. T h e c o u r t, j u s ti c e o r j u d g e , u po n
m o ti o n o r m o tu p ro p r i o , m ay o rd e r th at th e p e ti ti o n e r o r th e ag g r ie v e d
p ar ty a n d an y m e m b e r o f th e i m m e d i a te fa m i l y b e p ro te c te d i n a
g o v e rn m e n t a g e nc y o r b y an ac c re d i te d p e r s o n o r p r i v ate i n s ti tu ti o n
c ap a bl e o f ke e p i ng a n d s e c u r in g th e i r s afe ty. If th e p e ti ti o n e r i s an
o rg a n i z ati o n, as s o c i ati o n o r i n s ti tu ti o n re fe rre d to i n Se c ti o n 3 ( c ) o f
th i s Ru l e , th e p ro te c ti o n m a y b e ex te n d e d to th e o ffi ce r s i n v o l v e d .

T h e S u p re m e C o u r t s h al l a c c re d i t the p e r s o n s an d p r i v a te i ns ti tu ti o n s
th at s h a l l ex te n d te m p o r ar y p ro te cti o n to th e pe ti ti o n e r o r th e
ag g r i e v e d p a r ty a n d an y m e m b e r o f the i m m e d i ate fam i l y , i n
ac c o rd a n c e w i th g u i d e l i n e s w h i c h i t s h al l is s u e .

T h e ac c re d ite d p e r s o ns an d p r iv a te i n s ti tu ti o ns s h al l c o m p l y w i th th e
r u l e s a n d c o n d i ti o n s tha t m a y b e i m p o s e d by th e c o u r t, j u s ti c e o r j u d g e .
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO

( b ) I n s p e c t i o n O rd e r. T h e c o u r t , j u s t i c e o r j u d g e , u p o n v e r i fi e d m o t i o n a n d
a ft e r d u e h e a r i n g , m a y o rd e r a n y p e r s o n i n p o s s e s s i o n o r c o n t ro l o f a
d e s i g n a t e d l a n d o r o t h e r p ro p e r t y , t o p e rm i t e n t r y f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f
i n s p e c t i n g , m e a s u r i n g , s u r v e y i n g , o r p h o t o g r a p h i n g t h e p ro p e r t y o r a n y
re l e v a n t o b j e c t o r o p e r a t i o n t h e re o n .

The motion shall state in detail the place or places to be inspected. It shall
b e s u p p o r t e d b y a ffi d a v i t s o r t e s t i m o n i e s o f w i t n e s s e s h a v i n g p e r s o n a l
k n o w l e d g e o f t h e e n f o rc e d d i s a p p e a r a n c e o r w h e re a b o u t s o f t h e a g g r i e v e d
p a r t y.

I f t h e m o t i o n i s o p p o s e d o n t h e g ro u n d o f n a t i o n a l s e c u r i t y o r o f t h e
p r i v i l e g e d n a t u re o f t h e i n f o rm a t i o n , t h e c o u r t , j u s t i c e o r j u d g e m a y c o n d u c t
a h e a r i n g i n c h a m b e r s t o d e t e rm i n e t h e m e r i t o f t h e o p p o s i t i o n .

T h e m o v a n t m u s t s h o w t h a t t h e i n s p e c t i o n o rd e r i s n e c e s s a r y t o e s t a b l i s h t h e
r i g h t o f t h e a g g r i e v e d p a r t y a l l e g e d t o b e t h re a t e n e d o r v i o l a t e d .
T h e i n s p e c t i o n o rd e r s h a l l s p e c i fy t h e p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s a u t h o r i z e d t o m a ke
the inspection and the date, time, place and manner of making the inspection
a n d m a y p re s c r i b e o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s t o p ro t e c t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s o f a l l
p a r t i e s . T h e o rd e r s h a l l ex p i re fi v e ( 5 ) d a y s a ft e r t h e d a t e o f i t s i s s u a n c e ,
u n l e s s e x t e n d e d f o r j u s t i fi a b l e re a s o n s .
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO

c) Production Order. The court, justice or judge, upon

verifi ed 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
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO

(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 Benefi t 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.
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO

SEC. 15.Availability of Interim Reliefs to

Respondent. Upon verifi ed 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 affi davits or testimonies of witnesses having
personal knowledge of the defenses of the respondent.

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 fi ne.
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO

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 offi cial 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 offi cial or employee cannot invoke the

presumption that offi cial duty has been regularly performed to
evade responsibility or liability.
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO

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.
SEC. 19.Appeal. Any party may appeal from the fi nal
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 fi ve (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
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO

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 Offi ce of the Court

Administrator a consolidated list of archived cases under this
Rule not later than the fi rst week of January of every year
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO

SEC. 21.Institution of Separate Actions. This

Rule shall not preclude the fi ling of separate criminal,
civil or administrative actions.

SEC. 22.Eff ect of Filing of a Criminal Action.

When a criminal action has been commenced, no
separate petition for the writ shall be fi led. 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.
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO

SEC. 23.Consolidation. When a criminal action is

fi led subsequent to the fi ling 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

fi led 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.
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO

SEC . 24 . Sub stantive Rig hts. This Rule shall not d iminish,
increa se or mod ify s ub stantive rig hts recog nized and protec ted
b y the Cons titution.

SEC . 25 . Sup p le tory A pp lication of the Rule s of Court.

The Rules of Court shall ap p ly supp letorily insofar as it is not
incons is tent with this Rule.

SEC . 26 . Ap p licability to Pe nd ing C ase s. This Rule shall

g ov ern c ases inv olving ex traleg al killing s and enforc ed
d isa p p earances or threats thereof pending in the trial and
a pp ella te courts.

SEC . 27 . Eff e ctivity. This Rule shall take eff ec t on O ctob er

2 4, 2 00 7 , following its p ub lication in three (3 ) new sp ap ers of
g enera l circulation.
AMPARO VS HABEAS CORPUS
WRIT OF AMPARO
DEFINITION It is a remedy available to any A Latin phrase which literally
person whose right to life,
liberty, and security has been
violated or is threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or
omission of public official or
employee, or of a private
individual or entity. The writ
covers extralegal killings and
and enforced disappearances
or threats thereof.
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
means you have the body.
Basically, it is a writ directed to
the person detaining another,
commanding him to produce
the body of the prisoner at a
designated time and place,
with the day and cause of his
capture and detention, to do,
submit to, and receive
whatsoever the court or judge
awarding the writ shall
consider in that behalf
AMPARO VS HABEAS CORPUS
WRIT OF AMPARO
REMEDY FOR Sec. 1 To any person whose
right to life, liberty and
security is violated or
threatened with violation by
an unlawful act, or omission
or a public official or
employee, or of a private
individual or entity.
EFFECTIVITY 24 October 2007
PETITIONER Sec. 2 By the aggrieved
party, or by any qualified
person or entity in the order
provided in Sec. 2
WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS
Sec. 1 To all cases of illegal
confinement or detention:
1. By which any person is
deprived of his liberty; or
2. By which the rightful
custody of any person is
withheld from the person
entitled thereto.
01 July 1997
Sec. 3 By the party for
whose relief it is
intended, or by some
other person in his behalf
AMPARO VS HABEAS CORPUS
WRIT OF AMPARO
VENUE Sec. 3 SC, CA AND SB:
Manila;
RTC of the place where the
threat, act or omission was
committed or any of its
elements occurred.
EXTENT OF Anywhere in the Philippines
EN-
FORCEABILITY
WHEN TO FILE On any day and at any time
WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS
Rule 4, Sec. 2 Where the
plaintiff resides or where the
defendant resides, or in the
case of non-resident
defendant, where he may be
found, at the election of the
plaintiff.
SC, CA and SB: anywhere in
the Philippines
RTC: only within its judicial
district
On any day and at any time
AMPARO VS HABEAS CORPUS

WRIT OF AMPARO WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS
HEARING Summary hearing shall be Date and time of hearing is
conducted not later than 7 specified in the writ
days from the date of the
issuance of the writ
HOW SERVED Served upon the Served to the person to
respondent personally, but whom it is directed and if not
if it cannot be served found or has not the prisoner
personally, the rules on in his custody, to the other
substituted service shall person having or exercising
apply. such custody.
FAILURE TO Php1,000 or punished for Punished with imprisonment
MAKE RETURN contempt or fine for committing
contempt
AMPARO VS HABEAS CORPUS

WRIT OF AMPARO WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS
WHO FILES THE Respondent Officer by whom the prisoner
RETURN is imprisoned or the person
in whose custody the
prisoner is found
 CASES ON WRIT OF AMPARO

G.R. No. 186640 February 11, 2010

GEN. ALEXANDER B. YANO, Chief of Staff , Armed
Forces of the Philippines et al Petitioners,
vs.
CLEOFAS SANCHEZ and MARCIANA
MEDINA,Respondents.

FACTS:
On September 17, 2006 at around 8:00 p.m., Nicolas
Sanchez and Heherson Medina were catching frogs
outside their home in Sitio Dalin, Barangay Bueno,
Capas, Tarlac; that at around 1:00 a.m. of the next
day, September 18, 2006, Nicolas "wives" Lourdez
and Rosalie Sanchez, who were
 CASES ON WRIT OF AMPARO

(cont. of Facts)
Then at home, heard gunshots and saw armed men in
soldiers uniforms passing by; that at around 4:00 a.m. of
the same day, Lourdez and Rosalie went out to check on
Nicolas and Heherson but only saw their caps, slippers,
pana and airgun for catching frogs, as well as
bloodstains; and that they immediately reported the
matter to the barangay offi cials.

Josephine Galang Victoria, also known as Antonina

Galang (Josephine), niece of a neighbor, later informed
them that she had seen two men inside Camp Servillano
Aquino of the Northern Luzon Command (Nolcom) in San
Miguel, Tarlac and later at Aqua Farm.
 CASES ON WRIT OF AMPARO

ISSUE: WON the victims life, liberty and security had been
and continued to be violated on account of their forced
disappearance, hence, granting the issuance of a writ of
Amparo.

RULING: NO, the writ of Amparo cannot be granted for failure

of the private respondents to establish their claims by
substantial evidence.

SECTION 17- The parties shall establish their claims by

substantial evidence.

Substantial evidence- which a reasonable mind might accept as

adequate to support a conclusion. The requisite standard of
proof substantial evidence - speaks of the clear intent of the
Rule to have the equivalent of an administrative proceeding,
albeit judicially conducted, in resolving amparo petitions.
 CASES ON WRIT OF AMPARO

The failure to establish that the public offi cial

observed extraordinary diligence in the performance
of duty does not result in the automatic grant of the
privilege of theamparowrit. 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 offi cial provides, however, some
basis for the petitioner to move and for the court to
grant certain interim reliefs.
 CASES ON WRIT OF AMPARO

G. R . N o . 1 8 2 7 9 5 Ju n e 5 , 2 0 0 8
A R M A ND O Q . CA N L A S , M IG UE L D . C A P IS T R A NO, M A R R I E TA
PIA , p e ti ti o n e r s ,
vs.
N A P IC O H O M E O W N E R S A SS N . , I X I II, I NC . , E T
A L ., re s p o n d e nts .
Fa c t s :
Pe ti ti o n e r s a re s e ttl e r s i n a c e r tai n p a rce l o f l a n d s i tu ate d i n B ar an g ay
M an g g ah an , Pas i g C i ty. T h e i r d w e l l i n g s /h o u s e s h a v e e i th e r b e e n
d e m o l i s h e d as o f th e ti m e o f fi l i n g o f th e p e ti ti o n , o r i s ab o u t to b e
d e m o l i s h e d p u r s u a nt to a c o u r t j u d g m e nt. T h e y c l a i m th at s o -c a l l e d
" s y n d i c ate s " cl o th e d w i th g o v e rn m e n tal fu n c ti o n s , i n c ah o o ts w i th th e
" s q u atti n g s y n di c a te s " i s s u e fr au d u l e n t Tr an s fe r c e r ti fi c a te s o f ti tl e , i f
u n ab a te d w o u l d c e r tai n l y r u i n an d / o r d e s tro y th e e ffi c ac y o f th e
To rre n s S y s te m o f l an d re g i s tr a ti o n i n th i s C o un tr y. It i s th e re fo re th e
ard e n t i n i ti a ti v e s o f th e h e re i n Pe ti ti o n e r s , b y w ay o f th e s a i d p r ay e r
fo r th e i s s u an c e o f th e Wr i t o f A m p ar o , th at th e s e u n p r i n c i p l e d L an d
O ffi ci a l s b e s u m m o n e d to a n s w e r th e i r p ar ti ci p a ti o n i n th e i s s u an c e s
o f th e s e fr au d u l e n t an d s p u r i o u s ti tl e s , n o w , i n th e h an d s o f th e
Pr i v ate Re s p o n de n ts
 CASES ON WRIT OF AMPARO

Iss ue:
Whe the r or not the issu ance of the writ of Amp aro is the prope r
remed y for such cas e.

H eld:
Th e threate ned d emolition of a dwe lling by virtue of a fi nal
ju dgmen t of the cou rt is not include damon g the e numer ation of
rights as re medy of a writ of amparo . Th e ir claim to th eir
dwe lling, as suming the y still have any de spite the fi nal and
exe cutor y jud gme nt ad ve rse to the m, does n ot constitute r ig ht to
life , libe rty and se curity. The re is , the re fore , no le gal basis for th e
is suance of the wr it of ampar o . This n e w re me dy of writ of
amparo wh ich is made available by this Cou rt is in te nde d for the
prote ction of the highe st possible rights of any p er son, w hich is
his or he r right to life , lib er ty an d se curity. The Court will not
spare any time or e ff or t on its part in ord er to give pr iority to
petitions of this nature . Howe ve r, the Cou rt w ill als o not waste its
prec ious time an d eff ort on matte rs not cove re d by the writ.
 CASES ON WRIT OF AMPARO

GR No. 182161 December 3, 2009

Reverend Father Robert P. Reyes, Petitioner
Vs.
Raul M. Gonzalez, in his capacity as the secretary of the
Court of Appeals, secretary Department of Justice, and
Commissioner Marcelino C. Libana, in his capacity as The
Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration, Respondents.

Facts: Petitioner was one of those arrested for Rebellion

and/or inciting to Rebellion during Manila Peninsula Hotel
siege. No probable cause was ascertained but his name
was listed in Hold Departure Order. He petitioned for the
issuance of a Writ of Amparo but this was dismissed, thus
this petition for review.
 CASES ON WRIT OF AMPARO

Issue: Whether the right to travel covers the issuance

of the Writ of Amparo.

Held: Petition dismissed. Petitioner failed to show any

clear threat to right to life, liberty or security.
 CASES ON WRIT OF AMPARO

DAVID E. SO v. HON. ESTEBAN A . TACLA, JR.

G.R . No. 190108, 19 October 2010
Facts:
Petitioner David E. So (So) fi led the petition for the writs of
habeas corpus and amparo on behalf of his daughter, Ma.
Elena So Guisande, accused of Qualifi ed Theft in the criminal
case pending before Judge Tacla. Petitioner So alleged that
Guisande was under a "life-threatening" circumstances
surrounding her confi nement at the NCMH, which supposedly
worsened her mental condition and violated her
constitutional rights against solitary detention and
assistance of counsel. During the pendency of the case,
Criminal Case for Qualifi ed Theft against Guisande was
dismissed and in view of this, Judge Tacla contends that the
cases for issuance of the writs of habeas corpus and amparo
and the petition for review on certiorari should be dismissed
for having been rendered moot and academic.
 CASES ON WRIT OF AMPARO

Issue: WHETHER THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS

AND AMPARO SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR HAVING BEEN
RENDERED MOOT AND ACADEMIC

Ruling : The dismissal of the criminal prosecution for

qualifi ed theft against Guisande rendered the issue
moot and academic Certainly, she is no longer under
peril to be confi ned in a jail facility, much less at the
NCMH. The privilege of the writ of amparo is aimed at
protecting and guaranteeing the rights to life, liberty,
and security of persons As was held in Rubrico v.
Macapagal-Arroyo, the privilege of the writ of amparo
is envisioned basically to protect and guarantee the
rights to life, liberty, and security of persons, free from
fears and threats that vitiate the quality of this life.
 CASES ON WRIT OF AMPARO

G . R . N o . 1 8 2 4 9 8 Fe br u a r y 1 6 , 2 0 1 0
G E N. AV EL IN O I. RA Z O N , JR . , C h ie f, P h ilip pin e Na tio na l P olice
(P NP ) ; P o lic e C hief Su pe r in te n d en t RAU L C A STA E DA , C hief,
C r im in al I nv es tiga tio n a n d De tect io n G r o u p ( C ID G ); P o lice
S en io r S up er intend en t LE O N A RD O A . E SP I N A , C hief, P o lice
A n ti-C r im e and Em erg en cy Res po n se ( PA C ER); a nd G EN . JO EL
R . G O LT I A O, Reg io n al Dir ec to r o f A RMM , P NP, Pet it io ner s,
vs .
M A RY JE A N B . TA G I TI S, h er ein r e pr es en te d by AT T Y. F EL IP E P.
A RC I LLA , JR ., A t to r n e y- in -Fa ct, Resp on d en t .
Fa ct s:
Co l . J u la si ri m A ha d in Ka si m (C o l. Ka sim ) in fo rm ed t he res po nd ent
M ar y Jea n Ta git is ( resp o n den t ) a n d h er frien ds t h a t h er h us ba nd h a d
b een u n der s ur veilla n ce si n ce J a n u a r y 2 007 beca us e an in fo rm a nt
n o t ifi ed t he a u t ho r it ies , t h ro u gh a let t er , t h at Ta git is w a s a li ai so n
f or t h e J I ; 5t h a t he w a s " in g o od h a n ds " a n d un der c us t o dia l
i nvest iga t i o n fo r co m p lici t y w it h t h e J I a ft er h e w a s s een t a lk ing t o
o n e O m a r Pa t i k a nd a cer t a in "Sa n t o s" of B u la ca n , a "B ali k I sl am "
c ha rged w it h t erro r ism (Ka si m evid en ce).
 CASES ON WRIT OF AMPARO

( c o n t . Fa c t s )
C A re n d e re d a d e c i s i o n c o n fi rm i n g t h e e n f o rc e d d i s a p p e a r a n c e o f
E ng i n e e r M o rc e d N . Ta g i t i s ( Ta g i t i s ) a n d g r a n t i n g t h e Wr i t o f A m p a ro
b a s e d o n t h e f o l l o w i n g g ro u n d s :

We ex p l a i ne d t ha t a l t h o u g h t h e Ka s i m e v i d e n c e w a s p a t e n t l y h e a r s a y
(and was thus incompetent and inadmissible under our rules of evidence),
t h e u n i q u e e v i d e n t i a r y d i ffi c u l t i e s p o s e d b y e n f o rc e d d i s a p p e a r a n c e c a s e s
c o m p e l u s t o a d o p t s t a n d a rd s t h a t w e re a p p ro p r i a t e a n d re s p o n s i v e t o t h e
e v i d e nt i a r y d i ffi c u l t i e s f a c e d . We n o t e d t h a t w h i l e w e m u s t f o l l o w t h e
s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e r u l e , w e m u s t a l s o o b s e r v e fl ex i b i l i t y i n c o n s i d e r i n g
t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t w e s h a l l t a ke i n t o a c c o u n t .

T h e f a i r a n d p ro p e r r u l e , t o o u r m i n d , i s t o c o ns i d e r a l l t h e p i e c e s o f
e v i d e nc e a d d u c e d i n t h e i r t o t a l i t y , a n d t o c o n s i d e r a n y e v i d e n c e
o t h e r w i s e i n a d m i s s i b l e u nd e r o u r u s u a l r ul e s t o b e a d m i s s i b l e i f i t i s
c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e a d d u c e d . I n o t h e r w o rd s , w e
re d u ce o u r r u l e s t o t h e m o s t b a s i c t e s t o f re a s o n i . e . , t o t h e re l e v a n c e
o f t h e e v i d e n c e t o t h e i s s u e a t h a n d a n d i t s c o n s i s t e n c y w i t h a l l t he o t h e r
p i e c e s o f a d d u c e d e v i d e n c e , T hu s , e v e n h e a r s a y e v i d e n ce c a n b e
a d m i t t e d i f i t s a t i s fi e s t h i s m i n i m u m t e s t . [ E m p h a s i s i n t h e o r i g i n a l ]
 CASES ON WRIT OF AMPARO

I s su e :
W h e th e r o r n o t he ar s ay o r circu m s tan tial e v i de nc e c an b e a g rou n d
in g r anti ng t he wr it o f am p aro.

H e ld :
T h e Ka sim e v id e n ce as su m e s cr iti cal m ate r ial ity giv e n th e de a th of
di re c t e v id e nc e o n th e ab ov e as pe cts o f th e c as e , as it su pp lie s th e
ga ps th at w e re ne v e r l o o ke d in to an d cla rifi e d b y p olic e
in v e st igat io n. I t is th e e v id e n ce , t o o , th at c o lo r s a s im ple m is s ing
pe r so n re p o r t in to an e n fo rc e d di sap pe ara nc e cas e , as it in je ct s th e
e le m e n t o f par ti cip atio n by age nt s o f th e St ate an d th us br in g s in to
qu e sti on ho w th e S t at e re acte d to th e d isap p e ar anc e .
I n cr u de r b ut m o re un de r st an d able l ang uag e , t he r un -aroun d give n
to th e re s p o nd e n t an d th e g o v e rnm e n t re s po ns e s t o th e re q u e st for
m e an ing fu l in v e st ig at io n , co ns id e re d in th e lig h t of th e Kasim
e v id e nc e , p oi nt e d to th e co n clu s io n tha t th e Ta git is aff a ir carr ie d a
"fo u l sm e ll " in di cati v e o f g o v e rn m e nt co m pl icit y or, at th e ve r y
le as t, an atte m p t at c ov e r-u p and c o nc e alm e n t. T his is th e s itu ation
th at the Wr it o f A m p aro s pe cifi cally se e ks to add re s s .
 CASES ON WRIT OF AMPARO

Suffi ce it to say that we continue to adhere to the

substantial evidence rule that the Rule on the Writ of
Amparo requires, with some adjustments for fl exibility
in considering the evidence presented. When we ruled
that hearsay evidence (usually considered inadmissible
under the general rules of evidence) may be admitted
as the circumstances of the case may require, we did
not thereby dispense with the substantial evidence
rule; we merely relaxed the evidentiary rule on
theadmissibility of evidence , maintaining all the time
the standards of reason and relevance that underlie
every evidentiary situation. This, we did, by
considering the totality of the obtaining situation and
the consistency of the hearsay evidence with the other
available evidence in the case.
 CASES ON WRIT OF AMPARO

G.R . Nos. 184379-80 April 24, 2012

RODOLFO NOEL LOZADA, JR ., VIOLETA LOZADA and
ARTURO LOZADA,Petitioners,vs. PRESIDENT GLORIA
MACAPAGAL ARROYO, EDUARDO ERMITA, AVELINO
RAZON, ANGEL ATUTUBO and SPO4 ROGER
VALEROSO, * Respondents.

FACTS: . Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari

of the Decision dated 12 September 2008 of the Court of
Appeals (CA), dismissing the Petition for the Issuance of
a Writ ofAmparo. Petitioner Lozada was the former
President and Chief Executive Offi cer of the Philippine
Forest Corporation (PFC), a government-owned- and
-controlled corporation under the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).
 CASES ON WRIT OF AMPARO

(cont. Facts)
The instant Petition stems from the alleged corruption
scandal precipitated by a transaction between the
Philippine government, represented by the National
Broadband Network (NBN), and ZTE Corporation (ZTE),
a Chinese manufacturer of telecommunications
equipment. Former National Economic Development
Authority (NEDA) Secretary Romulo Neri sought the
services of Lozada as an unoffi cial consultant in the
ZTE-NBN deal. The latter avers that during the course
of his engagement, he discovered several anomalies in
the said transaction involving certain public offi cials.
These events impelled the Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee to conduct an investigation thereon,for
which it issued a subpoena directing Lozada to appear
and testify on 30 January 2008
 CASES ON WRIT OF AMPARO

(cont. fa cts )

O n tha t d ate, ins tead of ap pearing b efore the Blue Ribb on

Committee, Lozada left the country for a p urp orted offi c ial trip to
Lond on, as announced b y then D ENR S ecretary L ito Atie nza In
the Pe tition, Lozada allege d that his failure to ap pear at the
s cheduled hearing was upon the ins tructions of then Executive
As sista nt Und ers ecretary Manuel Gaite. Cons equently , the S enate
is sued a n O rd er d ated 30 January 2 00 8: (a) citing Lozada for
c ontemp t; (b ) ordering his arrest and d ete ntion; and (c) directing
the S ena te S erge ant-at-Arms to im pleme nt the O rd er and make a
return thereon.

W hile overseas, Lozad a asked S ec . Atienza whether the former

c ould b e allow ed to g o bac k to the Philip pines . U pon the ap p rova l
of S ec. Atienza, Lozad a informed his family that he was returning
from H ong Kong on 5 Feb ruary 2 00 8 at 4 :4 0 p .m. Lozad a c laims
tha t, upon disemb arking from the aircraft, s everal men held his
a rms a nd took his bag .
 CASES ON WRIT OF AMPARO

(cont. Facts)
Although he allegedly insisted on meeting with his
family, he later realized that it was wiser to just follow
them, especially when he overheard from their radio:
"[H]wag kayong dumaan diyan sir nandyan ang mga
taga senado." He was later driven around and did not
know where they were going. Finally he was brought to
La Salle Greenhills.

In the meantime Lozadas wife fi led a writ of habeas

corpus which was denied for being moot and academic.
Lozadas brother Arturo fi led a writ of Amparo with the
Supreme Court, which referred it to the CA. After
hearing the CA denied the petition. Lozada went to the
SC on certiorari.
 CASES ON WRIT OF AMPARO

ISSUES

I. Whether the CA committed an error in dropping

former President Arroyo as a respondent in the Amparo
case.
II. Whether the CA committed an error in denying
petitioners Motion for the Issuance of a Subpoena Ad
Testifi candum.
III. Whether petitioners should be granted the privilege
of the writ of amparo.
 CASES ON WRIT OF AMPARO

HELD:
1. Presidential immunity from suit.It is settled in
jurisprudence that the President enjoys immunity from suit
during his tenure of offi ce or incumbency.Nonetheless,
examining the merits of the case still results in the denial
of the Petition on the issue of former President Arroyos
alleged responsibility or accountability. A thorough
examination of the allegations postulated and the
evidence adduced by petitioners reveals their failure to
suffi ciently establish any unlawful act or omission on her
part that violated, or threatened with violation, the right
to life, liberty and security of Lozada. There is nothing in
the records that would suffi ciently establish the link of
former President Arroyo to the events that transpired on 5-
6 February 2010, as well as to the subsequent threats that
Lozada and his family purportedly received.
 CASES ON WRIT OF AMPARO

2. The CA correctly denied petitioners Motion for the

Issuance of Subpoena Ad Testifi candum on the ground
that the testimonies of the witnesses sought to be
presented during the trial were prima facie irrelevant
to the issues of the case. All the references of
petitioners to either Sec. Neri or Abalos were solely
with respect to the ZTE-NBN deal, and not to the
events that transpired on 5-6 February 2008, or to the
ensuing threats that petitioners purportedly received.
The testimonies of Sec. Neri or Abalos are nevertheless
not prima facie relevant to the main issue of whether
there was an unlawful act or omission on the part of
respondents that violated the right to life, liberty and
security of Lozada.
 CASES ON WRIT OF AMPARO

3. The SC is in agreement with the factual fi ndings of the CA to

the extent that Lozada was not illegally deprived of his liberty
from the point when he disembarked from the aircraft up to the
time he was led to the departure area of the airport, as he
voluntarily submitted himself to the custody of respondents:

Thus, in amparo actions, 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. In this
case, the totality of the evidence presented by petitioners fails
to meet the requisite evidentiary threshold, and the privilege
of the writ of amparo has already been rendered moot and
academic by the cessation of the restraint to Lozadas liberty.
 CASES ON WRIT OF AMPARO

Finally, with respect to the interim reliefs sought by

petitioners, it would be incongruous to grant herein
petitioners prayer for a TPO and Inspection and
Production Orders and at the same time rule that there
no longer exists any imminent or continuing threat to
Lozadas right to life, liberty and security. Thus, there
is no basis on which a prayer for the issuance of these
interim reliefs can be anchored.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for being

moot and academic. The Court of Appeals denial of the
privilege of the writ of amparo is hereby AFFIRMED.
 CASES ON WRIT OF AMPARO

Sansus case to follow