E. Amparo (AM 07-9-12-SC)

Instances Which Do Not Fall Under Life, Liberty, or Security

The threatened demolition of a dwelling by virtue of a final judgment of the court is not included among the enumeration of rights for a writ of amparo. Their claim to their dwelling, assuming they still have any despite the final and executory judgment adverse to them, does not constitute right to life, liberty and security. (Canlas v. NAPICO, G.R. No. 182795, 2008).

The writ of amparo is not available against a Barangay Captain’s alleged trespass of petitioner’s property since it is merely a violation of petitioner’s property rights. (Sps. Pador v. Arcayan, G.R. No. 183649, 2013)

The restriction on the petitioner’s right to travel as a consequence of the pendency of the criminal case filed against him was not unlawful, and thus not a valid ground to invoke issuance of Writ of Amparo. (Reyes v. CA, G.R. No. 182161, 2009)

The writ of amparo is not available in order for a biological mother to recover custody of child from the DSWD. There is no enforced disappearance. When what is involved is the issue of child custody and the exercise of parental rights over a child, who, for all intents and purposes, has been legally considered a ward of the State, the Amparo rule cannot be properly applied. (Caram v. Segui, G.R. No. 193652, 2014).

The writ of amparo cannot be availed of by an alien detained by the Bureau of Immigration by virtue of legal process. (Mison v. Gallegos, G.R. Nos. 210759, 211403, and 211590, 2015)

Preventive and Curative Roles of the Writ

The writ of amparo serves both preventive and curative roles in addressing the problem of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.

It is preventive in that it breaks the expectation of impunity in the commission of these offenses;

It is curative in that it facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators as it will inevitably yield leads to subsequent investigation and action.

In the long run, the goal of both the preventive and curative roles is to deter the further commission of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. (Secretary of Defense v. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, 2008).

Distinguish from Habeas Corpus and Habeas Data

Note: See table above for the comparison of Habeas Corpus, Habeas Data and Writ of Amparo

Examples on instances when a writ of habeas data may issue

In the case of Noriel Rodriguez, three separate acts were committed by the respondents which justify the issuance by the CA of the Writ of Amparo. First is the taking videos of the photos of petitioner’s relatives hung on the wall of the house, and the innermost portions of the house. There is no reasonable justification for doing this. Second is the abduction and torture of the petitioner by the respondents. Third, the failure to conduct a fair and effective investigation similarly amounted to a violation of, or threat to Rodriguez’s rights to life, liberty, and security. (In the Matter of the Petition for the Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data in Favor of Noriel Rodriguez, G.R. No. 191805, Apr 16, 2013)

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AMPARO AND SEARCH WARRANT

The production order under the Amparo Rule should not be confused with a search warrant for law enforcement under Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. This Constitutional provision is a protection of the people from the unreasonable intrusion of the government, not a protection of the government from the demand of the people such as respondents.

Instead, the amparo production order may be likened to the production of documents or things under Section 1, Rule 27 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. (The Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, 2008).

WHO MAY FILE

The petition may be filed by:

• Aggrieved Party; or
• Any qualified person or entity in the following order:
• Any member of the immediate family
• Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved within the fourth (4th) civil degree of consanguinity or affinity
• Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution

Filing by the aggrieved OR representative suspends the right of all others. (Sec. 2, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC)

Where to file

• Regional Trial Court - of the place where the threat, act or omission was committed OR any of its elements occurred; or
• Sandiganbayan; or
• Court of Appeals; or
• Supreme Court.

When issued by the Regional Trial Court, the writ shall be returnable to such court or judge.

When issued by the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals, the writ shall be returnable before such court or judge, or to the 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, the writ shall be returnable before such court or judge, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, or the Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred.

The writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. (Sec. 3, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC)

No docket fees shall be paid. (Sec. 4, A.M. No. 07-9- 12-SC)

When respondent’s denial is not supported by affidavits, petition cannot be denied

Section 17 of the Rules for the Writ of Amparo requires that the respondent, who is a public official or employee, must prove that extraordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in the performance of duty. When the petitioner has categorically stated that police cars have driven by her house with alarming regularity after she identified her husband's body, respondent’s blanket denial without affidavits from his police officers is not enough to the deny the issuance of the Writ. Respondent’s failure to exert the extraordinary diligence expected of him hints at a motive against the petitioner. (Sanchez v. Darroca, G.R. No. 242257, October 15, 2019)

INSTITUTION OF SEPARATE ACTION

This Rule shall not preclude the filing of separate criminal, civil or administrative actions. (Sec. 21, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC)

It would be inappropriate to apply to amparo proceedings the doctrine of command responsibility as a form of criminal complicity through omission, for individual respondents’ criminal liability, if there be any, is beyond the reach of amparo. In other words, the Court does not rule in such proceedings on any issue of criminal culpability, even if incidentally a crime or an infraction of an administrative rule may have been committed. (Rubrico v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 183871, 2010)

EFFECT OF FILING A CRIMINAL ACTION

A separate petition for the writ of amparo cannot be filed, but the remedies available under the writ may be availed by motion in the criminal action (Sec. 22, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC).

Command responsibility in amparo proceedings

The doctrine of command responsibility may be used to determine whether respondents are accountable for and have the duty to address the abduction of Rodriguez in order to enable the courts to devise remedial measures to protect his rights. (Rodriguez v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 181805, 2011)

Amparo proceedings determine

• Responsibility, or the extent the actors have been established by substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way, by action or omission, in an enforced disappearance, and
• Accountability, or 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;
• Are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure; or
• Carry, but have failed to discharge, the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance.

Thus, although there is no determination of criminal, civil or administrative liabilities, the doctrine of command responsibility may nevertheless be applied to ascertain responsibility and accountability within these foregoing definitions (Id.).

Hearsay Statements may be considered in an Amparo Proceeding

Though hearsay evidence is generally considered inadmissible under the rules of evidence, such may be considered in a writ of amparo proceeding if required by the unique circumstances of the case. It is the totality of the obtaining situation that must be taken into consideration to determine if a petitioner is entitled to a writ of amparo .Clearly, and based on the totality of obtaining circumstances, X and her children were the subject of surveillance because of their relationship with a suspected member of the NPA, creating a real threat to their life, liberty, or security. (Sanchez v. Darroca, G.R. No. 242257, 2019)