Proclamation No.

1959 did not only place the Province of Mindanao under martial law but also it suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the said place. This article aims to explain in the most common understanding what the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is all about under the Philippine laws. When a person was detained without legal cause, one of the legal remedies that he can resort to is to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in a court with competent jurisdiction. Once approved, the court will issue an order known as writ of habeas corpus or privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. These two legal terms differ in some ways. The writ of habeas corpus is an order issued by a competent court, directed to a person detaining another, commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place, to explain the time and cause of the caption and detention, and to follow what the court or judge awarding the writ shall consider in behalf of the prisoner. The purpose of the issuance of the writ is to inquire on the legality of the restraint or detention without necessarily ordering the release of the prisoner. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, on the other hand, is an order coming from the court to (immediately) release the prisoner if the court finds that the detention is without legal cause or authority. A return is a written explanation of the cause of the caption and detention of the prisoner. The judge will have to study the return to determine whether the detention is authorized. If so, the prisoner will be sent back to jail. If not, the prisoner will be freed by the judge. The principal purpose of the writ, therefore, is to restore the liberty of the person subjected to physical restraint. However, there is an instance when the privilege of the writ may be suspended. Section 15, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion when the public safety requires it.

What does the suspension of the privilege of the writ habeas corpus means?
When the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended, the courts are momentarily prevented from determining the legality of a detention. This is true most especially in martial law proclaimed areas like in Maguindanao. This means that people who have committed the crime of rebellion (or even suspected ones) may be arrested without warrant of arrest and objects that were used in the commission of the crime of rebellion may be seized without search warrant. The purpose of the law, therefore, in suspending the privilege of the writ is to hold in preventive imprisonment persons who plotted or committed acts that endanger the existence of the State pending their investigation and trial (Padilla vs. Ponce Enrile, L-61388, April 20, 1983).

Grounds for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
Section 15, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion when the public safety requires it. Section 18, Article VII of the same Constitution provides that the suspension of the privilege of the writ is one of the military powers of the President, meaning that just like martial law, it is only the President of the Philippines who could suspend the privilege of the writ and it must be based on the following conditions: 1) There must be invasion or rebellion; AND 2) The public safety requires it The other conditions for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus are also the same as that with the proclamation of martial law (please refer to the related article in this site: Martial Law in Maguindanao [Philippines]: To Fear or Not to Fear). However, it shall only apply to persons judicially charged for rebellion or inherent in or directly connected with invasion and not to those who are only suspected of committing rebellion or invasion. A person arrested or detained must be released if not judicially charged within three (3) days (1987 Philippine Constitution, Section 18, Article VII, last par) The proclamation of martial law does not automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.

Is the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under Proclamation No. 1959 constitutional?
My answer is NO. Going back to the conditions before its suspension which is similar to the proclamation of martial law, no actual case of rebellion or invasion exists in the Province of Maguindanao, therefore, the suspension of the privilege of the writ is unconstitutional (please read related article in this site: Defining the Crime of Rebellion in Relation to Proclamation 1959).

A Writ of Kalikasan is a legal remedy under Philippine law which provides for the protection ones right to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature, as provided for in Section 16, Article II of the Philippine Constitution. It is compared with the writ of amparo but protects ones right for a healthy environment rather than constitutional rights. Provision for the Writ of Kaliksaan was made in 2010 by the Supreme Court of the Philippines under Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases as a Special Civil Action. The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Reynato Puno took the initiative and issued Rules of Procedure for Environmental Case because Section 16, Article II of the Philippines 1986 Constitution was not a self-executing provision. The writ of Kailkasan may be sought to deal with environmental damage of such magnitude that it threatens life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. Writ of Amparo Recurso de amparo From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The writ of amparo (also called recurso de amparo or juicio de amparo) is a remedy for the protection of constitutional rights, found in certain jurisdictions. In some legal systems, predominantly those of the Spanishspeaking world, the amparo remedy or action is an effective and inexpensive instrument for the protection of individual rights. Amparo, generally granted by a supreme or constitutional court, serves a dual protective purpose: it protects the citizen and his basic guarantees, and protects the constitution itself by ensuring that its principles are not violated by statutes or actions of the state that undermine the basic rights enshrined therein. It resembles, in some respects, constitutional remedies such as the writ of security available in Brazil and the constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) procedure found in Germany. In many countries, an amparo action is intended to protect all rights other than physical liberty, which may be protected instead by habeas corpus remedies. Thus, in the same way that habeas corpusguarantees physical freedom, amparo protects other basic rights. It may therefore be invoked by any person who believes that any of his rights, implicitly or explicitly protected by the constitution (or by applicable international treaties), is being violated. Habeas corpus From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Habeas corpus ; Latin: you must present the person in court) is a writ (legal action) which requires a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court. This ensures that a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention, in other words, detention lacking sufficient cause or evidence. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to the prisoners aid. The legal right to apply for a habeas corpus is also called by the same name. This right originated in the English legal system to assist wealthy landowners, but it is now available in many nations. It has historically been an important legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom of certain individuals against arbitrary state action. A writ of habeas corpus, also known as the Great Writ, is a summons with the force of a court order; it is addressed to the custodian (a prison official for example) and demands that a prisoner be taken before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether the custodian has lawful authority to detain the person. If the custodian does not have authority to detain the prisoner, then they must be released from custody. The prisoner, or another person acting on his or her behalf, may petition the court, or a judge, for a writ of habeas corpus. One reason for the writ to be sought by a person other than the prisoner is that the detainee might be held incommunicado. Most civil law jurisdictions provide a similar remedy for those unlawfully detained, but this is not always called habeas corpus. For example, in some Spanish-speaking nations, the equivalent remedy for unlawful imprisonment is the amparo de libertad (protection of freedom). Habeas corpus has certain limitations. It is technically only a procedural remedy; it is a guarantee against any detention that is forbidden by law, but it does not necessarily protect other rights, such as the entitlement to a fair trial. So if an imposition such as internment without trial is permitted by the law then habeas corpus may not be a useful remedy. Furthermore, in many countries, the process may be suspended due to a national emergency. The right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus has nonetheless long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. The jurist Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the British Habeas Corpus Acts declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty. The writ of habeas corpus is one of what are called the extraordinary, common law, or prerogative writs, which were historically issued by the English courts in the name of the monarch to control inferior courts and public authorities within the kingdom. The most common of the other such prerogative writs are quo warranto, prohibito, mandamus, procedendo, and certiorari.
The due process for such petitions is not simply civil or criminal, because they incorporate the presumption of non-authority. The official who is the respondent has the burden to prove his authority to do or not do something. Failing this, the court must decide for the petitioner, who may be any person, not just an interested party. This differs from a motion in a civil process in which the movant must have standing, and bears the burden of proof. Writ of amparo; nature; special proceeding. The remedy of the Writ ofAmparo is an equitable and extraordinary remedy to safeguard the right of the people to life, liberty and security as enshrined in the 1987 Constitution. The Rule on the Writ of Amparo was issued as an exercise of the Supreme Courts power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. It aims to address concerns such as, among others, extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.

xxx It is clear from this rule that this type of summary procedure only applies to MTC/MTCC/MCTCs. It is mind-boggling how this rule could possibly apply to proceedings in an RTC. Aside from that, this Court limited the application of summary procedure to certain civil and criminal cases. A writ of Amparois a special proceeding. It is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right or particular fact. It is not a civil nor a criminal action, hence, the application of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure is seriously misplaced. Secretary Leila M. De Lima, Director Nonnatus R. Rojas and Deputy Director Reynaldo O. Esmeralda v. Magtanggol B. Gatdula; G.R. No. 204528. February 19, 2013 Writ of amparo; procedure. Due to the delicate and urgent nature of these controversies, the procedure was devised to afford swift but decisive relief. It is initiated through a petition to be filed in a Regional Trial Court, Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court. The judge or justice then makes an immediate evaluation of the facts as alleged in the petition and the affi davits submitted with the attendant circumstances detailed. After evaluation, the judge has the option to issue the Writ ofAmparo or immediately dismiss the case. Dismissal is proper if the petition and the supporting affidavits do not show that the petition ers right to lie liberty or security is under threat or the acts complained of are not unlawful. On the other hand, the issuance of the writ itself sets in motion presumptive judicial protection for the petitioner. The court compels the respondents to appear before a court of law to show whether the grounds for more permanent protection and interim relies are necessary. The respondents are required to file a Return after the issuance of the writ through the clerk of court. The Return serves as the responsive pleading to the petition. Unlike an Answer, the Return has other purposes aside form identifying the issues in the case, Respondents are also required to detail the actions they had taken to determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party. If the respondents are public officials or employees, they are also required to state the actions they had taken to: (i) verify the identity of the aggrieved party; (ii) recover and preserve evidence related to the death or disappearance of the person identified in the petition; (iii) identify witnesses and obtain statements concerning the death or disappearance; (iv) determine the cause, manner, location, and time of death or disappearance as well as any patter or practice that may have brought about the death or disappearance; and (v) bring the suspected offenders before a competent court. Clearly these matters are important to the judge so that s/he can calibrate the means and methods that will be required to further the protections, if any, that will be due to the petitioner. There will be a summary hearing only after the Return is filed to determine the merits of the petition and whether interim reliefs are warranted. If the Return is not filed, the hearing will be done ex parte. After the hearing, the court will render the judgment within ten (10) days from the time the petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations are proven with substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper ans appropriate. The judgment should contain measures which the judge views as essential for the continued protection of the petitioner in the Amparo case. These measures must be detailed enough o that the judge may be able to verify and monitor the actions taken by the respondents. It is this judgment that could be subject to appeal to the Supreme Court via Rule 45. After the measures have served their purpose, the judgment will be satisfied. In Amparo cases, this is when the threats to the petitioners life, liberty and security cease to exist as evaluated by the court that renders the judgment. Parenthetically, the case may also be terminated through consolidation should a subsequent case be filed either criminal or civil. Until the full satisfaction of the judgment, the extraordinary remedy of Amparo allows vigilant judicial monitoring to ensure the protection of constitutional rights.Secretary Leila M. De Lima, Director Nonnatus R. Rojas and Deputy Director Reynaldo O. Esmeralda v. Magtanggol B. Gatdula; G.R. No. 204528. February 19, 2013 Writ of Amparo; writ is an interlocutory order. The Decision dated 20 March 2012 assailed by the petitioners could not be the judgment or final order that is appealable under Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ ofAmparo. x x x This Decision pertained to the issuance of the writ under Section 6 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, not the judgment under Section 18. The Decision is thus an interlocutory order, as suggested by the fact that temporary protection, production and inspection orders were given together with the decision. The temporary protection, production and inspection orders are interim reliefs that may be granted by the court upon filing of the petition but before final judgment is rendered. Secretary Leila M. De Lima, Director Nonnatus R. Rojas and Deputy Director Reynaldo O. Esmeralda v. Magtanggol B. Gatdula; G.R. No. 204528. February 19, 2013 Writ of Amparo; the Return is the proper responsive pleading; memorandum is a prohibited pleading. First the insistence on filing an Answer was inappropriate. It is the Return that serves as the responsive pleading for petitions for the issuance of Writs of Amparo. The requirement to file an Answer is contrary to the intention of the Court to provide a speedy remedy to those whose right to life, liberty and security are violated or are threatened to be violated. In utter disregard of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, Judge Pampilo insisted on issuing summons and requiring an Answer. xxx The Return in Amparo cases allows the respondents to frame the issues subject to a hearing. Hence, it should be done prior to the hearing, not after. A memorandum, on the other hand, is a synthesis of the claims of the party litigants and is a final pleading usually required before the case is submitted for decision. One cannot substitute for the other since these submissions have different functions in facilitating the suit. More importantly, a memorandum is a prohibited pleading under the Rule on the writ of Amparo. Secretary Leila M. De Lima, Director Nonnatus R. Rojas and Deputy Director Reynaldo O. Esmeralda v. Magtanggol B. Gatdula; G.R. No. 204528. February 19, 2013 Writ of Amparo; difference between the privilege of the Writ of Amparo and the actual order called the Writ of Amparo. The privilege of the Writ of Amparo should be distinguished from the actual order called the Writ of Amparo. The privilege includes the availment of the entire procedure outlined in A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, the rule on the Writ of Amparo. After examining the petition and its attached affidavits, the Return and the evidence presented in the summary hearing, the judgment should detail the required acts from the respondent that will mitigate, if not totally eradicate, the violation of or threat to the petitioners life, liberty or secu rity. A judgment which simply grants the privilege of the writ cannot be executed. It is tantamount to a failure of the judge to intervene and grant judicial succor to the petitioner. Petitions filed to avail of the privilege of the Writ of Amparo arise out of very real and concrete circumstances. Judicial responses cannot be as tragically symbolic or ritualistic as granting the privilege of the Writ of Amparo. Secretary Leila M. De Lima, Director Nonnatus R. Rojas and Deputy Director Reynaldo O. Esmeralda v. Magtanggol B. Gatdula; G.R. No. 204528. February 19, 2013