CANLAS, LIM, NUESTRO, POON, ROXAS, SAN JUAN, YANG GROUP 5 Writ of Habeas Corpus and Writ of Amparo

o E2016 Part I - Writ of Habeas Corpus 1. Provisions of the Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Constitution 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 15: The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it. 1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it. The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call. The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion. During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.

2. What is the Writ of Habeas Corpus? Habeas corpus ("may you have the body") is a prerogative writ of liberty employed to test the validity of a persons detention (Cruz, Constitutional Law). The writ is 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 caption and detention, to do, to submit to, and receive whatever the court or judge awarding the writ shall consider in his behalf (Cruz, Constitutional Law, citing Moran, Rules of Court, Vol. II, 499). The writ of habeas corpus was devised and exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom. (Veluz, citing Villavicencio v. Lukban) Distinction between the Writ and the Privilege of the Writ It should be emphasized that what is suspended by the Executive is not the writ but the privilege of the writ. The writ always issues as a matter of course and the officer to whom it is directed is bound to honor it. If, however, a person is detained on reasonable belief of participation in a crime covered by the suspension of the privilege, the officer states such fact in his Answer and Return and asks the court to proceed no further. (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, A Commentary). 3. History of the Writ and Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ Source Provision on the Bill of Rights Section 5, Philippine Bill of That the privilege of the writ of 1902 habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion, insurrection, or invasion the public safety may require it, in either of which events the same may be suspended by the President, or by the Governor-General with the approval of the Philippine Commission, whenever during such period the necessity for such suspension shall exist. Paragraph 14, Section 3, The privilege of the writ of Habeas 1935 Constitution Corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion, insurrection or rebellion when the public safety requires it, in any of which events the same may be suspended whenever during such period the necessity for such suspension shall exist. Notes 1. The first constitutional guarantee of the availability of the writ found in the Philippine Bill both guaranteed the right to the writ and set the limit to its availability. 2. Authority to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was with the GovernorGeneral, jointly with the Philippine Commission. In Barcelon, following strictly the doctrine of separation of powers, the SC refused to interfere with the action of the political departments. 1. There were two provisions on the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in that Constitution, one on the Bill of Rights, and the other in the article on the Executive Department. The Bill of Rights provision guaranteed the availability of the writ and set the grounds for suspension. The provision under the Executive Department, besides setting the grounds for suspension, also specified the seat of power to suspend. 2. Thus it was under the 1935 Constitution the question arose as to which enumeration of grounds for suspension of the privilege should

prevail the enumeration under the BOR or that under the article on Executive Department. 3. In Lansang, the Court overruled Barcelon, saying that it was unanimous in the conviction that it had the authority to inquire into the existence of said factual bases in order to determine the constitutional sufficiency thereof. Under the 1973 Constitution, the question (refer to 1935 notes above) became academic because BOR was harmonized with Article IX, Section 12 (1973), which said in part: In case of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, or imminent danger thereof, when public safety requires it [Prime Minister] may suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. It is clear that the power to suspend the privilege belongs to the Executive. 1. The power to suspend ceased to be an almost exclusively executive affair. The President may suspend for a period not exceeding 60 days, and Congress is given the power to revoke suspension. 2. Congress, upon initiative of President, may also extend the suspension. 3. Supreme Court may also now review the sufficiency of factual basis of the suspension, because of judicial review. 4. The word insurrection is dropped as a ground for suspension. Doctrine/Ratio Previous Doctrine Cited Habeas Corpus; Suspension Only the President or the Governor-General can determine the existence of the grounds specified in the Constitution for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. This power is discretionary and therefore not

Section 15, Article IV, 1973 The privilege of the writ of habeas Constitution. corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, or imminent danger thereof, when the public safety requires it.

Section 15, Article III, 1987 The privilege of the writ of habeas Constitution corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.

Case Name Barcelon v. Baker

Fast Facts Because of the open insurrection of a group of ladrones (thieves) in Batangas and Cavite, the Governor-General pursuant to a resolution and request of the Philippine Commission, suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the two provinces, in accordance with Section 5 of the Act of

Lansang v. Garcia

Congress (Philippine Bill). Two grenades were thrown at the miting de avance of the Liberal Party killing 8 persons and injuring many. President Marcos subsequently issued proclamation 889, suspending the privilege the writ of habeas corpus. Members of the Philippine Constabulary by virtue of said proclamation apprehended herein petitioners.

justiciable. Barcelon v Baker, Montenegro Habeas Corpus; doctrine abandoned. Suspension (The doctrine established in Barcelon and Montenegro was abandoned in this case). The grant of power to suspend the privilege of writ of habeas corpus is neither absolute nor unqualified. Like the limitations and restrictions imposed by the Constitution upon the legislative department, adherence thereto and compliance therewith may, within proper bounds, be inquired into by courts of justice.

4. Preliminary Considerations A. Standing Sec. 3, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court Section 3, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court allows: any person who has a legally justified interest in the freedom of the person whose liberty is restrained or who shows some authorization to make the application (Velasco). B. Jurisdiction - Sec 2, Rule 102, ROC The writ of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, or any member thereof, on any day and at any time, or by the Court of Appeals or any member thereof in the instances authorized by law, and if so granted it shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines, and may be made returnable before the court or any member thereof, or before the Court of First Instance, or any judge thereof for the hearing and decision on the merits. It may also be granted by a Court of First Instance, or a judge thereof, on any day and at any time, and returnable before himself, enforceable only within his judicial district. 5. Nature The writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty or by which the rightful custody of a person is being withheld from the one entitled thereto. It is issued when one is either deprived of liberty or is wrongfully being prevented from exercising legal custody over another person. Thus, it contemplates two instances: i. deprivation of a persons liberty either through illegal confinement or through detention and

withholding of the custody of any person from someone entitled to such custody (Veluz) A. Illegal detention/ Involuntary Restraint of Liberty The essential purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal (Manalo). A prime specification of an application for a writ of HC is an actual and effective and not merely nominal or moral, illegal restraint of liberty (Manalo). o Restrictive Custody Restrictive custody is not a form of illegal detention or restraint of liberty; it is a nominal restraint beyond the ambit of habeas corpus, a precautionary measure to account for charged PNP officers (Manalo, Ampatuan).

ii.

Case Name Manalo v. Calderon

Ampatuan v. Macaraig

Fast Facts Several police officers, petitioners in this case, were implicated in the burning of an elementary school in Taysan, Batangas at the height of the May 2007 national and local elections for failing to timely respond to the incident. Acting on the report, PNP superiors placed them under restrictive custody which directed that: 1. All their movements within camp should be monitored; 2. When situation warrants their movement outside camp, they should be properly escorted on one-on-one basis; and 3. A logbook should be maintained to record the accounting of their place of destination, name of escort, estimated time of departure and return to the station. Petitioners contend that their restrictive custody status amounted to an illegal restraint of their liberty. Wife of PO1 Ampatuan filed for a petition for a writ of habeas corpus when the PO1 Ampatuan was held under restrictive custody by the PNP for allegedly killing two COMELEC Legal Officers. PNP did not heed the writ, invoking

Doctrine/Ratio A petition for habeas corpus will be given due course only if it shows that petitioner is being detained or restrained of his liberty unlawfully. A restrictive custody and monitoring of movements or whereabouts of police officers under investigation by their superiors is not a form of illegal detention or restraint of liberty. Restrictive custody is at best nominal restraint which is beyond the ambit of habeas corpus. It is a permissible precautionary measure to assure the PNP authorities that the police officers concerned are always accounted for. RA 6975 (DILG Act of 1990), as amended by RA 8551 (PNP Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998) clearly provdes that members of the police force are subject to the administrative disciplinary machinery of the PNP. Section 41 (b) of the law enumerates disciplinary actions including restrictive custody that may be imposed by duly designated supervisors and officers. Habeas Corpus; Restrictive Custody A restrictive custody and monitoring of movements or whereabouts of police officers under investigation by their superiors is not a form of illegal detention or restraint of liberty. The restrictive custody is a permissible

the doctrine of Manalo v Calderon, which held that habeas corpus will not lie for a PNP personnel under restrictive custody. They asserted that PO1 Ampatuan was facing an administrative charge for grave misconduct and under Section 52, par. 4, of RA 8551, the PNP Chief can place the PNP personnel under restrictive custody pending the administrative case.

precautionary measure to assure the PNP authorities that police officers are always accounted for. Supreme Court upheld the PNPs arguments and reiterated the doctrine that restrictive custody under the PNPs governing rule is another circumstance to which a petition for a writ of habeas corpus will not lie.

Extended detention- post conviction remedy o Once a deprivation of a constitutional right (right to liberty) is shown to exist, the court that rendered judgment is deemed ousted of jurisdiction and Habeas Corpus is the appropriate remedy to assail the legality of the detention. (Gumabon). Fast Facts v. The Court ruled in People v. of Hernandez that there is no complex crime of rebellion with murder, arson or robbery. Herein petitioners, having been convicted of the said complex crime, raised their constitutional right to equal protection and invoked that the ruling in Hernandez be applied to them. They contend that they already served more than the maximum penalty that could have been imposed upon them. Doctrine Habeas Corpus; Retroactivity Previous Doctrine Cited

Case Name Gumabon Director Prisons

People v Hernandez, Judicial decisions favorable to the No crime of rebellion accused must be applied complexed with murder, retroactively. Once a deprivation arson, or robbery. of a constitutional right is shown to exist, the court that rendered judgment is deemed ousted of jurisdiction and Habeas Corpus is the appropriate remedy to assail the legality of the detention.

Cures - Supervening events - Section 4, Rule of the Writ of Amparo o If it appears that the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the judgment, or to make the order, the writ shall not be allowed; or if the jurisdiction appears after the writ is allowed, the person shall not be discharged by reasons of any informality or defect in the process, judgment, or order. Nor shall anything in this rule be held to authorize the discharge of a person charged with or convicted of an offense in the Philippines, or of a person suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment. INFORMATION

BAIL It is settled that the giving or posting of bail by the accused is tantamount to submission of his person to the jurisdiction of the court. (Velasco). BAIL TO JURISDICTION if it appears that the person arranged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer by virtue of a court order and that court had jurisdiction to make the order, the writ shall not be allowed. (Velasco). Doctrine/Ratio Even if the arrest of a person is illegal, supervening events may bar his release or discharge from custody. What is to be inquired into is the legality of his detention as of, at the earliest, the filing of the application for a writ of habeas corpus, for even if the detention is at its inception illegal, it may, by reason of some supervening events, such as the instances mentioned in Section 4 of Rule 102, be no longer illegal at the time of the filing of the application. By filing his motion for bail, Larkins admitted that he was under the custody of the court and voluntarily submitted his person to its jurisdiction. The court order denying his motion for bail was an unequivocal assertion of its authority to keep in custody the person of Larkins. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus will not prosper because his detention has become legal by virtue of the filing before the court the complaint against him for the crime of rape and by the issuance of the January 5 order denying his motion for bail.

Case Name Fast Facts Velasco v. Court of Petitioners, members of the NBI, Appeals want to set aside the CAs order granting Lawrence Larkins petition for habeas corpus and immediate release because he has already been charged with the crime of rape and his motion for bail was denied by the lower court. In this case, a warrant of arrest was issued by an RTC judge against Larkins for violation of BP22. Meanwhile, a certain Desiree Alinea filed a complaint-affidavit with the NBI accusing Larkins of the crime of rape. The NBI apprehended Larkins without a warrant and detained him in the NBI headquarters because of said complaint. The RTC judge set aside the warrant issued against him for violating BP22 and ordered his release unless otherwise detained for some other cause. However, the NBI personnel refused to release Larkins because of the complaint filed against him for rape. Larkins, through counsel Ulep, filed a motion for bail, which was denied by the court. Larkins new conselTe filed a motion for dismissal on the ground of the illegality of his warrantless arrest, which the court also denied. Larkins common-law wife filed for petition of habeas corpus, which the CA granted because of the illegality of the warrantless arrest.

Transition from Illegal detention to custody o In this case, the issue is not whether the custody of Eufemia is being rightfully withheld from petitioner but whether Eufemia is being restrained of her liberty.

Significantly, although petitioner admits that he did not have legal custody of Eufemia, he nonetheless insists that respondents themselves have no right to her custody. Thus, for him, the issue of legal custody is irrelevant. What is important is Eufemias personal freedom. (Veluz). Case Name Veluz v. Villanueva Fast Facts The petitioner had been the guardian of 94-year old Eufemia Rodriguez since 2000. In 2005, the legally adopted children of said Eufemia Rodriguez took the latter to take care for her. The petitioner prayed for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to regain custody over Eufemia. Doctrine/Ratio Habeas Corpus -In this case, the issue is not whether the custody of Eufemia is being rightfully withheld from petitioner but whether Eufemia is being restrained of her liberty. Significantly, although petitioner admits that he did not have legal custody of Eufemia, he nonetheless insists that respondents themselves have no right to her custody. Thus, for him, the issue of legal custody is irrelevant. What is important is Eufemias personal freedom. iii. In passing upon a petition for habeas corpus, a court or judge must first inquire into whether the petitioner is being restrained or deprived of his liberty. If the alleged cause is thereafter found to be unlawful, then the writ should be granted and the petitioner discharged. There was no proof that Eufemia was being detained or restrained of her liberty by respondents. Nothing on record revealed that she was forcibly taken. Petition DENIED. B. Custody Different rationale o In custody cases involving minors, the question of illegal and involuntary restraint of liberty is not the underlying rationale for the availability of the writ as a remedy; rather, the writ is prosecuted for the purpose of determining the right of custody over a child (Sombong). o In passing on the writ in a child custody case, the court deals with a matter of an equitable nature and not on personal freedom because a minor is presumed to be in the custody of someone until he reaches majority age (Sombong). 3 requisites for custody i. That the petitioner has the right of custody over the minor; ii. That the rightful custody of the minor is being withheld from the petitioner by the respondent; and iii. That it is to the best interest of the minor concerned to be in the custody of petitioner and not that of the respondent (Sombong)

Case Name Fast Facts Sombong v. Court of Petitioner prays for the reversal of Appeals the CA decision denying the petition for habeas corpus filed by her. Petitioner is the mother of ArabellaSombong who she brought to the Sir John Clinic owned by private respondents Dr. and Dra. Ty. Because petitioner didnt have enough money to pay for the bills, the spouses refused to discharge Arabella. 2 years after, petitioner claimedArabella but was unsuccessful. Dra. Ty stated that there is a possibility that Arabella was given to a certain Marietta NeriAlviar since they thought that she had abandoned her daughter. NBI conducted an investigation and found a female child with the name of Cristina Neri who was adopted by the Neris from the clinic. There is no evidence; however to prove that Cristina is Arabella.

Doctrine/Ratio The Court cannot grant her the writ of habeas corpus because the evidence does not support a finding that the child, Cristina, is in truth and in fact her child, Arabella. Neither is there sufficient evidence to support the finding that private respondents custody of Cristina is illegal to warrant the grant of the writ. Habeas corpus may be resorted to in cases where the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto. Thus, although the writ of habeas corpus ought not to be issued if the restraint is voluntary, we have held time and again that the said writ is the proper legal remedy to enable parents to regain the custody of a minor child even if the latter be in the custody of a third person of her own free will. The grant of the writ in the instant case will depend on the concurrence of the following requisites: 1. That the petitioner has the right of custody over the minor; 2. That the rightful custody of the minor is being withheld from the petitioner by the respondent; and 3. That it is to the best interest of the minor concerned to be in the custody of petitioner and not that of respondent.

PART II - Difference of HC and Amparo The act or omission or the threatened act or omission complained of should be illegal or unlawful i. habeas corpus; confinement and custody for ii. amparo; violations of, or threat to violate, a person's life, liberty, and security. It also covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances and threats. (So v. Tacla). Case Name So v. Tacla Fast Facts So filed writs of habeas corpus and amparo on behalf of his daughter accused of qualified theft before Judge Tacla. Prior to the criminal proceedings, Sos daughter Elena Guisande was committed in the Makati Medical Center. Judge Tacla transferred Guisande to the NCMH, a government Doctrine/Ratio Amparo iii. The writ of amparo should be granted judiciously, lest the ideal sought by the Amparo Rule be diluted and undermined by indiscriminate filing. Habeas Corpus; Illegal and Involuntary

hospital, to determine if she could stand trial. Guisande claimed to experience life-threatening circumstances in her confinement. Hence, her father filed for the writs. The NCMH reported eventually that Guisande could indeed stand trial.

Deprivation iv. Nurhida Juhuri Ampatuan v. Judge Macaraig: the most basic criterion for the issuance of the writ is that the individual seeking such relief is illegally deprived of his freedom of movement or place under some form of illegal restraint. The nature of the restraint must be illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of action.

Justice Pizarro, pursuant to the directive of the SC, ordered the transfer of Guisande to St. Clares Medical v. If a person is not being restrained of Center, her hospital of Choice, under liberty, the writ will be refused. strict watch. When Guisandes case was dismissed, she was not The criminal charges against Guisande confined in a jail facility, the NCMH, or under any were dismissed, hence the writs of involuntary deprivation. amparo and habeas became moot and academic. So filed a comment opposing the dismissal of the criminal and administrative cases against Judge Tacla and Dr. Vicente of the NCMH. PART III - Writ of Amparo 1. Source Rules of Court 2. History (Secretary of National Defense) Originated in Mexico during the time when Mexican jurists became interested in Americas concept of Judicial Review o 1847 Yucatan Constitution (in Mexico) embodied a constitutional provision granting the judges the power to protect all persons in the enjoyment of their constitutional and legal rights, which reads: The federal courts shall protect any inhabitant of the Republic in the exercise and preservation of those rights granted to him by this Constitution and by laws enacted pursuant thereto, against attacks by the Legislative and Executive powers of the federal or state governments, limiting themselves to granting protection in the specific case in litigation, making no general declaration concerning the statute or regulation that motivated the violation. o Implications of the provision: enables the courts to enforce the constitution by protecting individual rights in particular cases, but prevents them from using this power to make law for the entire nation The concept of amparo evolved to address violation of particular Constitutional rights (i.e. amparo libertad, amparo contra leyes, amparo administrative, amparo agrario)

In the Philippines, there are already existing provisions that afford protection to the Constitutional rights (i.e. Grave Abuse Clause in Art VIII, Sec 1, and Writ of Habeas Corpus) However, these existing protection are not enough to address cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, both of which require immediate granting of reliefs Hence, the Writ of Amparo was born: o promulgated on 24 October 2007 o exercise for the first time of the Courts expanded power to promulgate the rules to protect the peoples constitutional rights; response to the prevalence of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances

3. Definition The writ of amparo is an extraordinary and independent remedy that provides rapid judicial relief, as it partakes of a summary proceeding that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate interim and permanent reliefs available to the petitioner. It is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, or liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence, or administrative responsibility requiring substantial evidence that will require full and exhaustive proceedings. (Secretary of National Defense, Rodriguez). It is preventive in that it breaks the expectation of impunity in the commission of these offenses, and it is curative in that it facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators by inevitably leading to subsequent investigation and action (Secretary of National Defense, Rodriguez). 4. Preliminary Considerations A. Standing Section 2, Rule on the Writ of Amparo 1. Any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse, children and parents of the aggrieved party; 2. 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 3. 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. o The parents of Sherlyn and Karen who filed for the Writ of Amparo did NOT have standing to file a writ of amparo on behalf of Manuel Merino. This is according to Section 2 of the rule on the Writ of Amparo which provides who may file the writ. In this case, the parents failed to allege that there were no known members of the immediate family or relatives of Merino. However, they could file the writ for habeas corpus. (Boac). B. Jurisdiction - Sec 3, Rule of the Writ of Amparo 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.

5. Requisites for court to grant Writ of Amparo Sec. 5, Rule on the Writ of Amparo A. Personal circumstances by 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; Substantial proof o Sec. 17 & 18 of Rule on WOA requires that substantial evidence prove the allegations in the petition. o Substantial evidence such relevant evidence as a reasonable man might accept as adequate to support a conclusion o The remedy provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a summary proceeding that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner; it is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, or liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence, or administrative responsibility requiring substantial evidence that will require full and exhaustive proceedings. (Secretary of National Defense). Totality of Evidence o Quoted ruling in Razon: The fair and proper rule, to our mind, is to consider all the pieces of evidence adduced in their totality, and to consider any evidence otherwise inadmissible under our usual rules to be admissible if it is consistent with the admissible evidence adduced. In other words, we reduce our rules to the most basic test of reason i.e., to the relevance of the evidence to the issue at hand and its consistency with all other pieces of adduced evidence. Thus, even hearsay evidence can be admitted if it satisfies this basic minimum test. (Rodriguez). 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. 6. Liability/ who can be impleaded A. Doctrine of Command Responsibility "Responsibility of commanders for crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other persons subject to their control in international wars or domestic conflict." (Roxas, citing Rubrico). As then formulated, command responsibility is "an omission mode of individual criminal liability," whereby the superior is made responsible for crimes committed by his subordinates for failing to prevent or punish the perpetrators (as opposed to crimes he ordered). (Roxas, citing Rubrico). The inapplicability of the doctrine of command responsibility in an amparo proceeding does not, by any measure, preclude impleading military or police commanders on the

ground that the complained acts in the petition were committed with their direct or indirect acquiescence. Commanders may therefore be impleadednot actually on the basis of command responsibilitybut rather on the ground of their responsibility, or at least (Balao, citing Roxas). B. Responsibility Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have been established by substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way, by action or omission, in an enforced disappearance, as a measure of the remedies this Court shall craft, among them, the directive to file the appropriate criminal and civil cases against the responsible parties in the proper courts. (Rubrico, Razon, cited in Rodriguez). C. Accountability Accountability, on the other hand, refers to the measure of remedies that should be addressed to those i. who exhibited involvement in the enforced disappearance without bringing the level of their complicity to the level of responsibility defined above ii. or who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure iii. or those who carry, but have failed to discharge, the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance. (Rubrico, Razon, cited in Rodriguez). We conclude that the PNP and the AFP have so far failed to conduct an exhaustive and meaningful investigation into the disappearance of Jonas Burgos, and to exercise the extraordinary diligence (in the performance of their duties) that the Rule on the Writ of Amparo requires. (Burgos) The standard of diligence required the duty of public officials and employees to observe extraordinary diligence called for extraordinary measures expected in the protection of constitutitional rights and in the consequent rights and in the consequent handling and investigation of extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearance. From the evidence gathered, respondents clearly failed to discharge their burden of extraordinary diligence required in the investigation of Balaos abduction. (Balao). Case Name Roxas MacapagalArroyo Fast Facts v. Petitioner Roxas is assailing the decision of the court of appeals which extended to her the privilege of the writs of Amparo and Habeas Data but dined her prayers for an inspection order (of Fort Magsaysay), production order and the return of her belongings. Roxas claims that police and military focibly abducted her and held Doctrine/Ratio GMA Immune, presidential immunity. Amparo; Command Responsibility: iv. Since the application of command responsibility presupposes an imputation of individual liability, it is more aptly invoked in a fullblown criminal or administrative case rather than in a summary amparo proceeding. Command responsibility; Rubrico v Arroyo - "Responsibility of commanders for crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other persons subject to their control in

her in Fort Magsaysay for 5 The obvious reason lies in the days, allegedly being part of nature of the writ itself: the CPP-NPA. Being blindfloded v. While the principal the whole time however, she objective of its proceedings is the was unable to posetively initial determination of whether identify her abductors as being an enforced disappearance, part of the police, military or to extralegal killing or threats convince the court/ prove that thereof had transpiredthe writ she was actually taken to Fort does not, by so doing, fix liability Magsaysay. for such. - Instead, commanders may be impleaded NOT ON THE BASIS OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY, but rather on the ground of their responsibility. Same; Same; Responsibilityvi. The totality of the evidence does not inspire reasonable conclusion that her abductors were military or police personnel and that she was detained at fort Magsaysay. Petition DENIED.

international wars or domestic conflict. Same; Razon v Tagitis; Responsibilityvii. Refers to the extent the actors have been established by substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way, by action or omission, in an enforced disappearance, as a measure of the remedies this Court shall craft, among them, the directive to file the appropriate criminal and civil cases against the responsible parties in the proper courts Same; Same; Accountabilityviii. Refers to the measure of remedies that should be addressed to those who exhibited involvement in the enforced disappearance without bringing the level of their complicity to the level of responsibility defined above; or who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure; or those who carry, but have failed to discharge, the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance

Burgos MacapagalArroyo

v. Edita Burgos filed a petition for Habeas Corpus and Amparo on behalf of her son Joseph Burgos who was allegedly abducted by a group of four men in Ever Gotesco mall. The CA denied the writ of Habeas Corpus, and partially granted the writ of Amaparo. The facts show that Burgos was forcibly taken while in Ever Gotesco, the plate number of the vehicle used to abduct him was traced back to the AFP, 56th Infantry batallion Impound lot. Upon inspection of the impound lot it was found that the plate number was missing and the vehicle was scrapped. Defendants on the other hand contend that Burgos was abducted by member of the CPP-NPA. Evidence presented fails to establish connection between military and the abductors of Burgos. v. Armed men abducted Sherlyn Cadapan, Karen Empeno, and Manuel Merino. Their family members filed a petition for habeas corpus against the members of the military. After the trial, the petition was dismissed because it was not the appropriate remedy. During pendency of the reconsideration, their family members filed a petition for Writ of Amparo against the same military soldiers. The two petitions were consolidated. The trial called upon Raymond Manalo whose testimony revealed that he indeed met the tree abducted individuals in

Amparo; Standard of dilligence ix. Writ of Amparo require the AFP and PNP to conduct an exhaustive and meaningful investigation into disappearances and to exercise extraordinary diligence in the performance of their duties. x. Because of the investigative shorcomings, WE CAN NOT RULE on the case until a more meaningful investigation using extraordinary dilligence is undertaken. There were significant lapses in handling of the investigation. Further investigation and monitoring should be undertaken. Directs CHR to conduct examination with aid of PNP, AFP.

Boac Cadapan

Presidential immunity from suit The President cannot be sued in any civil or criminal case during his tenure of office or actual incumbency. Amparo; Standing; Who may file xi. The parents of Sherlyn and Karen who filed for the writ of Amparo did NOT have standing to file a writ of amparo on behalf of Manuel Merino. This is according to Section 2 of the rule on the Writ of Amparo which provides who may file the writ. In this case, the parents failed to allege that there were no known members of the immediate family or relatives

Rubrico v. Macapagal Arroyo on command responsibility Razon Jr. v. Tagitis: defining what constitutes responsibility and accountability

Rodriguez MacapagalArroyo

the Camp Tecson. The court of Merino. However, they could ruled that Raymond Manalos file the writ for habeas corpus. testimony was truthful, taking judicial notice of its decision in Amparo; Command Responsibility Secretary of National Defense xii. The court maintains its v. Manalo. adherence to Rubrico as far as amparo cases are concerned. This means that command responsibility in amparo cases should not be used to determine criminal liability. However, Rubrico recognizes the application of command responsibility to determine those who are responsible and accountable to protect the rights of the aggrieved party. xiii. Such identification may be a preliminary determination of criminal liability, subject to further investigation by the appropriate government agency. xiv. RA 9851 includes command responsibility as a form of criminal complicity in crimes against international humanitarian law. There is no need to file a motion for execution for an amparo or habeas corpus decision. v. Rodriguez was abducted and tortured by the military, forcing Presidential immunity from suit him to name the location of the NPA camp. He was later freed The presidential immunity from and at the camp, he was made suit is concurrent only with his to sign an affidavit that he was tenure and not his term. Former a surrenderee and was never President Arroyo cannot use the beaten up. A few months after presidential immunity from suit to his release, he noticed that shield herself from judicial scrutiny several suspicious-looking men that would assess whether, within are following him. He filed for a the context of amparo proceedings, Petition for the Writ of Amparo she was responsible or accountable and Writ of Habeas Data with for the abduction of Rodriguez. Prayers for Protection Orders, Amparo; Command responsibility Inspection of Place, and Production of Documents and - Nothing precludes this Court from Personal Properties applying the doctrine of command impleading GMA and several

Amparo; Command Responsibility; Boac v Cadapan; Opinion of Carpio- Morales xviii. Rubrico categorically denies the application of command responsibility in amparo cases to determine criminal liability. The Court maintains its adherence to this pronouncement as far as amparo proceedings are concerned. xxx Command responsibility

officers of the 17th Infantry responsibility in amparo Batallion of the Philippine proceedings to ascertain Army. responsibility and accountability in extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. GMA can be impleaded as a respondent under the doctrine of command responsibility. Same; Same; Liability; 3 Elements of Doctrine of Command of Responsibility xv. The existence of a superiorsubordinate relationship between the accused as superior and the perpetrator of the crime as his subordinate xvi. The superior knew or had reason to know that the crime was about to be or had been committed; and xvii. The superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measure to prevent the criminal acts or punish the perpetrators thereof. No substantial evidence proving GMA's neither responsibility nor accountability.

may be loosely applied in amparo cases in order to identify those accountable individuals that have the power to effectively implement whatever processes an amparo court would issue. Same; Totality of evidence; Razon xix. The fair and proper rule, to our mind, is to consider all the pieces of evidence adduced in their totality, and to consider any evidence otherwise inadmissible under our usual rules to be admissible if it is consistent with the admissible evidence adduced. In other words, we reduce our rules to the most basic test of reason i.e., to the relevance of the evidence to the issue at hand and its consistency with all other pieces of adduced evidence. Thus, even hearsay evidence can be admitted if it satisfies this basic minimum test. xx. Substantial evidence provided to prove responsibility and accountability of some military respondents.

Balao Macapagal-

v. James Balao, who founded the left-leaning group Cordilera Amparo; Substantial Evidence for

Cited Rubrico, which was also cited in Roxas v

Arroyo

Peoples Allicance (CPA) was Responsibility and Accountability abducted in La Trinidad, Such documented practice Benguet by armed men. One of xxi. of targeting activists in the the armed men was heard militarys counter-insurgency telling the driver of the van program by itself does not fulfil that they are going to proceed the evidentiary standard in the to Camp Dangwa (PNP Amparo rule to establish an Provincial Headquarters in La enforced disappearance. Trinidad Benguet). Siblings of Accordingly, the trial court cannot James Balao filed a Petition for simply infer government the Writ of Amparo, ordering involvement in the abduction of the respondents (GMA, several James Balao from past similar Department Secretaries and incidents in which victims also several AFP and PNP worked or affiliated with the CPA commanders) to disclose and other left-leaning groups. where James is detained or Such pronouncement of confined, to release James, and responsibility on the part of the to cease and desist from public respondents cannot be further inflicting harm upon his made given the insufficiency of person. evidence. Same; Standard of diligence required xxii. Duty of public officials and employees to observe extraordinary diligence called for extraordinary measures expected in the protection of constitutitional rights and in the consequent rights and in the consequent handling and investigation of extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearance. From the evidence gathered, respondents clearly failed to discharge their burden of extraordinary diligence required in the investigation of Balaos abduction. Same; Command responsibility xxiii. The doctrine of command responsibility has little bearing, if at all, in amparo proceedings. The inapplicability of the doctrine of

Macapagal-Arroyo

command responsibility in an amparo proceeding does not, by any measure, preclude impleading military or police commanders on the ground that the complained acts in the petition were committed with their direct or indirect acquiescence. Commanders may therefore be impleaded not actually on the basis of command of responsibility but rather on the ground of their responsibility, or at least accountability.

7. Application - Applies only to unlawful acts or omissions which result in violations, or threats to: a. Life b. Liberty c. Security immunity of ones person, including extensions of his/ her person houses, papers, and effects against government intrusion can exist independent of the right to liberty has 3 ASPECTS: i. Freedom from fear/ threat (threat to the life, liberty, and security of the person) ii. Guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity or security (freedom from torture/ force/ violence that vitiates the exercise of freewill; proscribed in Sec 12, Art III, 1987 Const.) iii. Guarantee of protection of ones rights by the government Case Name Manalo v. Calderon Fast Facts Manalo brothers were illegally detained for 18 months by alleged CAFGU members, during which they were repeatedly tortured and beaten up. They were able to escape from their guards. After which, they filed a petition for injunction, prohibition and temporary restraining order against petitioners Secretary of National Defense and AFP Chief of Staff, the said petition was treated by the Court as an Amparo petition. Court of Appeals granted the petition and ordered herein petitioners to furnish the reports Doctrine/Ratio Amparo: Proof necessary Substantial evidence - such relevant evidence as a reasonable man might accept as adequate to support a conclusion necessary to prove the allegations embodied in the petition for the WOA Amparo: Right to security defined Right to security of a person embodied in Sec 2, Art III, 1987 Previous Doctrine Cited Cited Rubrico, which was also cited in Roxas v Macapagal-Arroyo

of the investigation and the information regarding the incident. Supreme Court upheld CA, holding that respondents right to security of a person had been violated, which warrants the issuance of the writ in their favor.

Const. (The right of the people to be secure in their persons, xxx shall be inviolable xxx) immunity of ones person, including extensions of his/ her person houses, papers, and effects against government intrusion can exist independent of the right to liberty (not intended to be narrowed to situations of formal deprivation of liberty only) It has 3 different permutations: 1.freedom from fear/ freedom from threat the right embodied in Section 1 of the Amparo rule any threat to the rights of life, liberty or security is a violation of this right 2. guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity or security proscribed by Sec 12, Article III, 1987 Const. -Torture, force, and violence, when employed to vitiate the free will of the victim, constitutes an invasion of both bodily and psychological integrity as the dignity of the human person includes the exercise of free will. 3. guarantee of protection of ones rights by the government embodied in the right to life and liberty in Sec. 1, Art III, 1987 Const.; corollary of State policy that guarantees full respect for human rights under Sec. 11, Art II, 1987

*Does not apply to Property What is clear from the statements of the petitioners is the overriding involvement of property issues. Issues relating to the right to life or to liberty can hardly be discerned except to the extent that the occurrence of past

violence has been alleged. None of the supporting affidavits show that the threat to the rights to life, liberty and security of the petitioners is imminent or continuing. (Tapuz) It applies only to cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, not in cases concerning property or commercial rights. (Salcedo)

Case Name Tapuz v. del Rosario

Fast Facts Doctrine/Ratio A case for forcible entry was filed by Amparo. the Sanson spouses against petitioners Tapuz et. al wherein they The writ of amparo is intended to address violations were forced to vacate a disputed of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or security. It land. One of the reliefs sought by is not a writ to protect concerns that are purely Tapuz was the writ of amparo, property or commercial. alleging in their application that 12 men intruded into the property and Amparo; Property-related cases. two of these men burned two houses of the petitioners and that these acts The alleged violent incidents appear to be purely constitute TERRORISM and the property-related and focused on the disputed land. threats against the life and security of Issues relating to the right to life or to liberty can the petitioners continue because the hardly be discerned except to the extent that the Sanson spouses have under their occurrence of past violence has been alleged. None of employ armed men and they are the supporting affidavits show that the threat to the influential with the police authorities rights to life, liberty and security of the petitioners is owing to their financial and political imminent or continuing. If the petitioners wish to seek clout. redress, the remedy may lie more within the realm of ordinary criminal prosecution rather than the extraordinary remedy of the writ of amparo. Petition DENIED.