Secretary of National Defense v.

Manalo
Petitioner: Secretary of National Defense; Chief of staff, AFP
Respondent: Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo
G.R. No. 180906 / 7 October 2008
Ponente: CJ Puno
Facts:
CA Decision being appealed
1. The Manalo brothers filed, on 23 August 2007, a Petition for Prohibition,
Injunction, and Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against petitioners
and their officers from depriving them of their right to liberty and other
basic rights.
The Writ of Amparo was approved on Aug 24, 2007 and
petitioners filed Motion to Treat Existing Petition as Amparo
Petition.
2. The CA rendered a decision in favor of the Manalo brothers and
ordered the current petitioners to:

To confirm in writing the present places of official assignment of

M/Sgt Hilario aka Rollie Castillo and Donald Caigas

Ito na talaga

o
o
o

Feb. 14, 2006 - Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo, brothers and

herein respondents, were abducted by elements of the military
(AFP and Citizen Armed Force Geographical Unit or CAFGU) from
their house in Buhol na Mangga, San Ildefonso, Bulacan.

The abductors were looking for a certain Bestre. Manalo brothers

were suspected of being members of the NPA
The white L300 van was driven by M/Sgt. Rizal Hilario aka Rollie
Castillo
The brothers were repeatedly beaten and tortured and questioned
about their knowledge of the NPA.

Sometime in the third week of detention, Raymond attempted to

escape. He discovered that they were in Fort Magsaysay
(Palayan, Nueva Ecija). He was however recaptured and
tortured. Detention in Fort Magsaysay lasted for 3 and a half
months.
One day, Rizal Hilario took the Manalo brothers to Pinaud, San
Ildefonso, Bulacan and then beaten up. They remained there for
one or two weeks.
Then brought to Sapang, San Miguel, Bulacan to meet Maj. Gen.
Jovito Palparan, Commanding General, 7th Infantry Division.

Gen. Palparan told the Manalo brother to tell their parents

to not go to rallies and hearings regarding their
disappearance. Instead, they should help in the capture of
Bestre.
Respondents were then brought to their parents house to
deliver Palparans message. Their parents agreed out of
fear.

Manalo brothers were given medicine named Alive. Gen. Palparan

said that this would make them feel better, but the real effect was
drowsiness and a heavy feeling after waking up.
After 3 months in Sapang, Raymond was brought to Camp Tecson. He
was ordered to clean outside the barracks of the Army Rangers.
o Met Sherlyn Cadapan, a UP student who was also abducted,
tortured and raped by the military.
Reynaldo was brought to Camp Tecson a week later. Other captives
(Karen Empeo and Manuel Merino) also arrived.
o All the captives were chained every night. They were told that
their families would be killed if they escaped.
o Cadapan, Empeo and Merino would later on be killed. Merino
would even be burned.
o November 22, 2006 the captives were transferred to a camp of
the 24th Infantry Battalion in Limay, Bataan. They were
continually beaten and made to do chores.
o Here, respondents witnessed how soldiers killed an old man
suspected of harboring the NPA and also of an Aeta who was
subsequently burned.
The captives were then brought to Zambales, in a safehouse near the
sea. They were brought back to Limay on June 2007 by Caigas, the
commander of the 24th Infantry Battalion.
June 13, 2007 Respondents were brought to Pangasinan to farm the
land of Caigas. Here, they started to save their earnings to aid in their
escape. When they saved 1000 pesos, they were able to acquire a
cellphone.
August 13, 2007 Reynaldo and Raymond Manalo were able to
escape and board a bus bound for Manila.
The respondents were able to corroborate each others affidavits.
Dr. Benito Molino also corroborated the accounts of the Manalo
brothers. He specializes in forensic medicine. He conducted a medical
exam on the respondents
After their escape. The scars and wounds of respondents were
consistent with their account of physical injuries inflicted on them. He
followed the Istanbul Protocol in the medical exam.
Petitioners also submitted affidavits
Gen. Palparan and M/Sgt. Hilario filed their affidavits late.
Lt. Col. Ruben Jimenez, Provost Marshall and witness for the petitioner,
conducted an investigation on May 29, 2006, from 8am to 10pm.

All 6 persons (CAFGU members) implicated in the abduction denied

the allegation. They had alibis (some were building a chapel, some
were just at home)
Discovered that Ka Bestre is actually Rolando Manalo, elder
brother of the respondents.
Recommendation was for the dismissal of the case.

Issue:
WON the privilege of the writ of amparo was properly given
Dispositive: Petition dismissed. CA decision reaffirmed.
Held:
History of the Amparo Rule

The adoption of the Amparo Rule is a result of the two-day National

Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced
Disappearances sponsored by the Court on July 16-17, 2007.
o It was an exercise for the first time of the Courts expanded
power to promulgate rules to protect our peoples constitutional
rights

Amparo literally means protection in Spanish

o Amparo thus combines the principles of judicial review derived
from the U.S. with the limitations on judicial power characteristic
of the civil law tradition which prevails in Mexico.
o It enables 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
This concept evolved into the (1) amparo libertad for the protection of
personal freedom, equivalent to the 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 constitutionality and
legality of a judicial decision; (4) amparo administrativo for the judicial
review of administrative actions; and (5) amparo agrario for the
protection of peasants rights derived from the agrarian reform process
In Latin American countries, except Cuba, the writ of amparo has been
constitutionally adopted to protect against human rights abuses
especially committed in countries under military juntas.
In the Philippines, while the 1987 Constitution does not explicitly
provide for the writ of amparo, several of the above amparo
protections are guaranteed by our charter. The second paragraph of
Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, the Grave Abuse Clause,
provides for the judicial power to determine whether or not there has
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of

jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the

Government. The Clause accords a similar general protection to
human rights extended by the amparo contra leyes, amparo casacion,
and amparo administrativo. Amparo libertad is comparable to the
remedy of habeas corpus found in several provisions of the 1987
Constitution.
Was the grant proper? YES

Promulgated in October 24, 2007. First time that the Supreme Court
exercised its expanded power in the 1987 Constitution to promulgate
rules to protect the peoples constitutional rights (life, liberty,
property)
Coverage of which is confined to:
o Extralegal killings killings committed without due process of
the law
o Enforced disappearances an arrest, detention or abduction by
the government; refusal of the State to disclose the fate or
whereabouts places him outside the protection of the law
Amparo literally means protection in Spanish. Writ of Amparo
originated in Mexico (Yucatan State). Eventually incorporated into the
Mexican Constitution in 1847. Spread across the Western hemisphere
and eventually to the Philippines.
Provides for swift relief because of the summary nature of its
proceedings. Only substantial evidence is required.
There is still a threat to the life, liberty, and a violation of their right to
security of the Manalo brothers because their captors, whom they
escaped from, still remain at large.
o Right to security is in Art. III, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution.
o It is the right to enjoyment of life.
Three ways of exercising right to security:
o Freedom from fear.
Enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR) Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security
of person.
It is the right to security of person as the word
security itself means freedom from fear.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), Art. 9 (1)
Everyone has the right to liberty and security of
person.
Freedom from fear is the right and any threat to
the rights to life, liberty or security is the
actionable wrong. Fear is a state of mind, a
reaction; threat is a stimulus, a cause of action. (PH
is a signatory to both conventions)

Guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity or security.

Article III, Section II of the 1987 Constitution guarantees
against search without warrant
ELKs and EDs involve Physical torture, force, and violence
are a severe invasion of bodily integrity.
It constitutes an invasion of both bodily and psychological
integrity as the dignity of the human person includes the
exercise of free will
Note: The consti also guarantees against torture
Guarantee of protection of ones right by the Government
The writ of amparo, this right is built into the
guarantees of the right to life and liberty under
Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution and the
right to security of person under Article III, Section 2.
Protection includes conducting effective investigations,
organization of the government apparatus to extend
protection to victims of ELKs and EDs as well as their
families
Right to security of persons can exist independently of the
right to liberty. (the court cited several cases here,
Delgado Paez v. Colombia; Bwaya v. Zambia; Bahamonde
v. Equatorial Guinea)
They have a positive duty to protect right to liberty and
not just a prohibition for arbitrary deprivation of such
rights. (ECHR in Kurt v. Turkey)

The continuing threat on the life of the Manalo brothers is apparent.

This threat vitiates their free will because they are forced to limit their
movements and activities. Threats to liberty, security, and life are
actionable through a petition for a writ of amparo.
The military failed to provide protection for the respondents. They were
even the ones who actually tortured them. The one-day investigation
conducted by Jimenez was limited, superficial and one-sided.
In sum, we conclude that respondents right to security as freedom
from threat is violated by the apparent threat to their life, liberty and
security of person. Their right to security as a guarantee of protection
by the government is likewise violated by the ineffective investigation
and protection on the part of the military.