Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

180906 October 7, 2008

THE SECRETARY O NAT!ONA" #E ENSE, THE CH!E O STA , ARME# ORCES O THE PH!"!PP!NES,petitioners, vs. RAYMON# MANA"O $%& REYNA"#O MANA"O, respondents. DECISION PUNO, C.J.' While victi s of enforced disappearances are separated fro the rest of the !orld behind secret !alls, the" are not separated fro the constitutional protection of their basic ri#hts. $he constitution is an overarchin# s%" that covers all in its protection. $he case at bar involves the ri#hts to life, libert" and securit" in the first petition for a !rit of Amparo filed before this Court. $his is an appeal via Petition for Revie! under Rule &' of the Rules of Court in relation to Section ()( of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, see%in# to reverse and set aside on both *uestions of fact and la!, the Decision pro ul#ated b" the Court of +ppeals in C.+. ,.R. AMPARO No. ----(, entitled .Ra" ond Manalo and Re"naldo Manalo, petitioners, versus $he Secretar" of National Defense, the Chief of Staff, +r ed /orces of the Philippines, respondents.. $his case !as ori#inall" a Petition for Prohibition, In0unction, and $e porar" Restrainin# Order 1$RO23 filed before this Court b" herein respondents 1therein petitioners2 on +u#ust 34, 3--5 to stop herein petitioners 1therein respondents2 and6or their officers and a#ents fro deprivin# the of their ri#ht to libert" and other basic ri#hts. $herein petitioners also sou#ht ancillar" re edies, Protective Custod" Orders, +ppoint ent of Co issioner, Inspection and +ccess Orders, and all other le#al and e*uitable reliefs under +rticle 7III, Section '1'2 4 of the ()85 Constitution and Rule (4', Section 9 of the Rules of Court. In our Resolution dated +u#ust 3&, 3--5, !e 1(2 ordered the Secretar" of the Depart ent of National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the +/P, their a#ents, representatives, or persons actin# in their stead, includin# but not li ited to the Citi:ens +r ed /orces ,eo#raphical ;nit 1C+/,;2 to sub it their Co ent< and 132 en0oined the fro causin# the arrest of therein petitioners, or other!ise restrictin#, curtailin#, abrid#in#, or deprivin# the of their ri#ht to life, libert", and other basic ri#hts as #uaranteed under +rticle III, Section (& of the ()85 Constitution.'

While the +u#ust 34, 3--5 Petition !as pendin#, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo too% effect on October 3&, 3--5. /orth!ith, therein petitioners filed a Manifestation and O nibus Motion to $reat E=istin# Petition as AmparoPetition, to +d it Supportin# +ffidavits, and to ,rant Interi and /inal Amparo Reliefs. $he" pra"ed that> 1(2 the petition be considered a Petition for the Writ of Amparo under Sec. 399 of the Amparo Rule< 132 the Court issue the !rit co andin# therein respondents to a%e a verified return !ithin the period provided b" la! and containin# the specific atter re*uired b" la!< 142 the" be #ranted the interi reliefs allo!ed b" the Amparo Rule and all other reliefs pra"ed for in the petition but not covered b" the Amparo Rule< 1&2 the Court, after hearin#, render 0ud# ent as re*uired in Sec. (8 5 of the Amparo Rule< and 1'2 all other 0ust and e*uitable reliefs. 8 On October 3', 3--5, the Court resolved to treat the +u#ust 34, 3--5 Petition as a petition under the AmparoRule and further resolved, viz> W?ERE/ORE, let a WRI$ O/ +MP+RO be issued to respondents re*uirin# the to file !ith the C+ 1Court of +ppeals2 a verified !ritten return !ithin five 1'2 !or%in# da"s fro service of the !rit. We REM+ND the petition to the C+ and desi#nate the Division of +ssociate @ustice Aucas P. Bersa in to conduct the su ar" hearin# on the petition on Nove ber 8, 3--5 at 3>-- p. . and decide the petition in accordance !ith the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.) On Dece ber 39, 3--5, the Court of +ppeals rendered a decision in favor of therein petitioners 1herein respondents2, the dispositive portion of !hich reads, viz> ACCOR#!NG"Y, the PR!(!"EGE O THE )R!T O AMPARO is GRANTE#. $he respondents SECRETARY O STA are hereb" REC;IRED> NAT!ONA" #E ENSE and A P CH!E O

(. $o furnish to the petitioners and to this Court !ithin five da"s fro notice of this decision all official and unofficial reports of the investi#ation underta%en in connection !ith their case, e=cept those alread" on file herein< 3. $o confir in !ritin# the present places of official assi#n ent of M6S#t ?ilario a%a Rollie Castillo and Donald Cai#as !ithin five da"s fro notice of this decision. 4. $o cause to be produced to this Court all edical reports, records and charts, reports of an" treat ent #iven or reco ended and edicines prescribed, if an", to the petitioners, to include a list of edical and 1sic2 personnel 1 ilitar" and civilian2 !ho attended to the fro /ebruar" (&, 3--9 until +u#ust (3, 3--5 !ithin five da"s fro notice of this decision. $he co pliance !ith this decision shall be ade under the si#nature and oath of respondent +/P Chief of Staff or his dul" authori:ed deput", the latterDs authorit" to be e=press and ade apparent on the face of the s!orn co pliance !ith this directive.

SO ORDERED.(?ence, this appeal. In resolvin# this appeal, !e first unfurl the facts as alle#ed b" herein respondents> Respondent Ra" ond Manalo recounted that about one or t!o !ee%s before /ebruar" (&, 3--9, several unifor ed and ar ed soldiers and e bers of the C+/,; su oned to a eetin# all the residents of their barangay in San Idelfonso, Bulacan. Respondents !ere not able to attend as the" !ere not infor ed of the #atherin#, but Ra" ond sa! so e of the soldiers !hen he passed b" the barangay hall.(( On /ebruar" (&, 3--9, Ra" ond !as sleepin# in their house in Buhol na Man##a, San Ildefonso, Bulacan. +t past noon, several ar ed soldiers !earin# !hite shirts, fati#ue pants and ar " boots, entered their house and roused hi . $he" as%ed hi if he !as Bestre, but his other, Ester Manalo, replied that he !as Ra" ond, not Bestre. $he ar ed soldier slapped hi on both chee%s and nud#ed hi in the sto ach. ?e !as then handcuffed, brou#ht to the rear of his house, and forced to the #round face do!n. ?e !as %ic%ed on the hip, ordered to stand and face up to the li#ht, then forcibl" brou#ht near the road. ?e told his other to follo! hi , but three soldiers stopped her and told her to sta". (3 + on# the en !ho ca e to ta%e hi , Ra" ond reco#ni:ed brothers Michael de la Cru:, Madnin# de la Cru:, .Puti. de la Cru:, and .Pula. de la Cru:, !ho all acted as loo%out. $he" !ere all e bers of the C+/,; and residin# in Manu:on, San Ildefonso, Bulacan. ?e also reco#ni:ed brothers Rand" Mendo:a and Rud" Mendo:a, also e bers of the C+/,;. While he !as bein# forcibl" ta%en, he also sa! outside of his house t!o barangaycouncilors, Pablo Cunanan and Bernardo Ain#asa, !ith so e soldiers and ar ed en. (4 $he en forced Ra" ond into a !hite A4-- van. Once inside, he !as blindfolded. Before bein# blindfolded, he sa! the faces of the soldiers !ho too% hi . Aater, in his (8 onths of captivit", he learned their na es. $he one !ho drove the van !as Ri:al ?ilario alias Rollie Castillo, !ho he esti ated !as about &- "ears of a#e or older. $he leader of the tea !ho entered his house and abducted hi !as .,anata.. ?e !as tall, thin, curl"Ehaired and a bit old. +nother one of his abductors !as .,eor#e. !ho !as tall, thin, !hiteEs%inned and about 4- "ears old. (& $he van drove off, then ca e to a stop. + person !as brou#ht inside the van and ade to sit beside Ra" ond. Both of the !ere beaten up. On the road, he reco#ni:ed the voice of the person beside hi as his brother Re"naldoDs. $he van stopped several ti es until the" finall" arrived at a house. Ra" ond and Re"naldo !ere each brou#ht to a different roo . With the doors of their roo s left open, Ra" ond sa! several soldiers continuousl" hittin# his brother Re"naldo on the head and other parts of his bod" !ith the butt of their #uns for about (' inutes. +fter !hich, Re"naldo !as brou#ht to his 1Ra" ondDs2 roo and it !as his 1Ra" ondDs2 turn to be beaten up in the other roo . $he soldiers as%ed hi if he !as a e ber of the Ne! PeopleDs +r ". Each ti e he said he !as not, he !as hit !ith the butt of their #uns. ?e !as *uestioned !here his co rades !ere, ho! an" soldiers he had %illed, and ho! an" NP+ e bers he had helped. Each ti e he ans!ered none, the" hit hi . ('

In the ne=t da"s, Ra" ondDs interro#ators appeared to be hi#h officials as the soldiers !ho beat hi up !ould salute the , call the .sir,. and treat the !ith respect. ?e !as in blindfolds !hen interro#ated b" the hi#h officials, but he sa! their faces !hen the" arrived and before the blindfold !as put on. ?e noticed that the unifor of the hi#h officials !as different fro those of the other soldiers. One of those officials !as tall and thin, !ore !hite pants, tie, and leather shoes, instead of co bat boots. ?e spo%e in $a#alo# and %ne! uch about his parents and fa il", and a habeas corpus case filed in connection !ith the respondentsD abduction. (9 While these officials interro#ated hi , Ra" ond !as not anhandled. But once the" had left, the soldier #uards beat hi up. When the #uards #ot drun%, the" also anhandled respondents. Durin# this ti e, Ra" ond !as fed onl" at ni#ht, usuall" !ith leftEover and rotten food. (5 On the third !ee% of respondentsD detention, t!o en arrived !hile Ra" ond !as sleepin# and beat hi up. $he" doused hi !ith urine and hot !ater, hit his sto ach !ith a piece of !ood, slapped his forehead t!ice !ith a .&' pistol, punched hi on the outh, and burnt so e parts of his bod" !ith a burnin# !ood. When he could no lon#er endure the torture and could hardl" breathe, the" stopped. $he" then sub0ected Re"naldo to the sa e ordeal in another roo . Before their torturers left, the" !arned Ra" ond that the" !ould co e bac% the ne=t da" and %ill hi .(8 $he follo!in# ni#ht, Ra" ond atte pted to escape. ?e !aited for the #uards to #et drun%, then ade noise !ith the chains put on hi to see if the" !ere still a!a%e. When none of the ca e to chec% on hi , he ana#ed to free his hand fro the chains and 0u ped throu#h the !indo!. ?e passed throu#h a helipad and firin# ran#e and stopped near a fishpond !here he used stones to brea% his chains. +fter !al%in# throu#h a forested area, he ca e near a river and an I#lesia ni Fristo church. ?e tal%ed to so e !o en !ho !ere doin# the laundr", as%ed !here he !as and the road to ,apan. ?e !as told that he !as in /ort Ma#sa"sa". () ?e reached the hi#h!a", but so e soldiers spotted hi , forcin# hi to run a!a". $he soldiers chased hi and cau#ht up !ith hi . $he" brou#ht hi to another place near the entrance of !hat he sa! !as /ort Ma#sa"sa". ?e !as bo=ed repeatedl", %ic%ed, and hit !ith chains until his bac% bled. $he" poured #asoline on hi . $hen a soEcalled .Ma . or .Mada . suddenl" called, sa"in# that she !anted to see Ra" ond before he !as %illed. $he soldiers ceased the torture and he !as returned inside /ort Ma#sa"sa" !here Re"naldo !as detained. 3/or so e !ee%s, the respondents had a respite fro all the torture. $heir !ounds !ere treated. When the !ounds !ere al ost healed, the torture resu ed, particularl" !hen respondentsD #uards #ot drun%.3( Ra" ond recalled that so eti e in +pril until Ma" 3--9, he !as detained in a roo enclosed b" steel bars. ?e sta"ed all the ti e in that s all roo easurin# ( = 3 eters, and did ever"thin# there, includin# urinatin#, re ovin# his bo!els, bathin#, eatin# and sleepin#. ?e counted that ei#hteen people33 had been detained in thatbartolina, includin# his brother Re"naldo and hi self.34 /or about three and a half onths, the respondents !ere detained in /ort Ma#sa"sa". $he" !ere %ept in a s all house !ith t!o roo s and a %itchen. One roo !as ade into

the bartolina. $he house !as near the firin# ran#e, helipad and an#o trees. +t da!n, soldiers arched b" their house. $he" !ere also so eti es detained in !hat he onl" %ne! as the .D$;..3& +t the D$;, a ale doctor ca e to e=a ine respondents. ?e chec%ed their bod" and e"es, too% their urine sa ples and ar%ed the . When as%ed ho! the" !ere feelin#, the" replied that the" had a hard ti e urinatin#, their sto achs !ere achin#, and the" felt other pains in their bod". $he ne=t da", t!o ladies in !hite arrived. $he" also e=a ined respondents and #ave the edicines, includin# orasol, a o=icillin and efena ic acid. $he" brou#ht !ith the the results of respondentsD urine test and advised the to drin% plent" of !ater and ta%e their edicine. $he t!o ladies returned a fe! ore ti es. $hereafter, edicines !ere sent throu#h the . aster. of the D$;, .Master. Del Rosario alias Carin"oso at Puti. Respondents !ere %ept in the D$; for about t!o !ee%s. While there, he et a soldier na ed Efren !ho said that ,en. Palparan ordered hi to onitor and ta%e care of the . 3' One da", Ri:al ?ilario fetched respondents in a Revo vehicle. $he", alon# !ith Efren and several other ar ed en !earin# fati#ue suits, !ent to a detach ent in Pinaud, San Ildefonso, Bulacan. Respondents !ere detained for one or t!o !ee%s in a bi# t!oEstore" house. ?ilario and Efren sta"ed !ith the . While there, Ra" ond !as beaten up b" ?ilarioDs en. 39 /ro Pinaud, ?ilario and Efren brou#ht respondents to Sapan#, San Mi#uel, Bulacan on board the Revo. $he" !ere detained in a bi# unfinished house inside the co pound of .Fapitan. for about three onths. When the" arrived in Sapan#, ,en. Palparan tal%ed to the . $he" !ere brou#ht out of the house to a bas%etball court in the center of the co pound and ade to sit. ,en. Palparan !as alread" !aitin#, seated. ?e !as about t!o ar sD len#th a!a" fro respondents. ?e be#an b" as%in# if respondents felt !ell alread", to !hich Ra" ond replied in the affir ative. ?e as%ed Ra" ond if he %ne! hi . Ra" ond lied that he did not. ?e then as%ed Ra" ond if he !ould be scared if he !ere ade to face ,en. Palparan. Ra" ond responded that he !ould not be because he did not believe that ,en. Palparan !as an evil an. 35 Ra" ond narrated his conversation !ith ,en. Palparan in his affidavit, viz> $inanon# a%o ni ,en. Palparan, .N#a"on na %aharap o na a%o, di %a ba natata%ot sa a%inG. Su a#ot a%on#, .Si"e pre po, natata%ot din.... Sabi ni ,en. Palparan> .Si#e, bibi#"an %o %a"o n# isan# pa#%a%ataon na abuha", bastaDt sundin nD"o an# lahat n# sasabihin %o... sabihin o sa a#ulan# o E hu!a# pu unta sa #a rali, sa hearin#, sa Farapatan at sa ?u an Ri#ht dahil nilolo%o lan# %a"o. Sabihin sa a#ulan# at lahat sa baha" na hu!a# palo%o doon. $ulun#an %a i na %ausapin si Bestre na su u%o na sa #ob"erno.. 38 Respondents a#reed to do as ,en. Palparan told the as the" felt the" could not do other!ise. +t about 4>-- in the ornin#, ?ilario, Efren and the for erDs en E the sa e #roup that abducted the E brou#ht the to their parentsD house. Ra" ond !as sho!n to his parents !hile

Re"naldo sta"ed in the Revo because he still could not !al%. In the presence of ?ilario and other soldiers, Ra" ond rela"ed to his parents !hat ,en. Palparan told hi . +s the" !ere afraid, Ra" ondDs parents acceded. ?ilario threatened Ra" ondDs parents that if the" continued to 0oin hu an ri#hts rallies, the" !ould never see their children a#ain. $he respondents !ere then brou#ht bac% to Sapan#.3) When respondents arrived bac% in Sapan#, ,en. Palparan !as about to leave. ?e !as tal%in# !ith the four . asters. !ho !ere there> +r an, ,anata, ?ilario and Cabalse. 4- When ,en. Palparan sa! Ra" ond, he called for hi . ?e !as in a bi# !hite vehicle. Ra" ond stood outside the vehicle as ,en. Palparan told hi to #ain bac% his stren#th and be health" and to ta%e the edicine he left for hi and Re"naldo. ?e said the edicine !as e=pensive at Php4'.-- each, and !ould a%e the stron#. ?e also said that the" should prove that the" are on the side of the ilitar" and !arned that the" !ould not be #iven another chance. 4( Durin# his testi on", Ra" ond identified ,en. Palparan b" his picture. 43 One of the soldiers na ed +r an ade Ra" ond ta%e the edicine left b" ,en. Palparan. $he edicine, na ed .+live,. !as #reen and "ello!. Ra" ond and Re"naldo !ere each #iven a bo= of this edicine and instructed to ta%e one capsule a da". +r an chec%ed if the" !ere #ettin# their dose of the edicine. $he .+live. ade the sleep each ti e the" too% it, and the" felt heav" upon !a%in# up.44 +fter a fe! da"s, ?ilario arrived a#ain. ?e too% Re"naldo and left Ra" ond at Sapan#. +r an instructed Ra" ond that !hile in Sapan#, he should introduce hi self as .Oscar,. a ilitar" trainee fro Saria"a, Cue:on, assi#ned in Bulacan. While there, he sa! a#ain ,anata, one of the en !ho abducted hi fro his house, and #ot ac*uainted !ith other ilitar" en and civilians.4& +fter about three onths in Sapan#, Ra" ond !as brou#ht to Ca p $ecson under the 3&th Infantr" Battalion. ?e !as fetched b" three unidentified en in a bi# !hite vehicle. Efren !ent !ith the . Ra" ond !as then blindfolded. +fter a 4-E inute ride, his blindfold !as re oved. Chains !ere put on hi and he !as %ept in the barrac%s. 4' $he ne=t da", Ra" ondDs chains !ere re oved and he !as ordered to clean outside the barrac%s. It !as then he learned that he !as in a detach ent of the Ran#ers. $here !ere an" soldiers, hundreds of the !ere trainin#. ?e !as also ordered to clean inside the barrac%s. In one of the roo s therein, he et Sherl"n Cadapan fro Aa#una. She told hi that she !as a student of the ;niversit" of the Philippines and !as abducted in ?a#ono", Bulacan. She confided that she had been sub0ected to severe torture and raped. She !as cr"in# and lon#in# to #o ho e and be !ith her parents. Durin# the da", her chains !ere re oved and she !as ade to do the laundr".49 +fter a !ee%, Re"naldo !as also brou#ht to Ca p $ecson. $!o da"s fro his arrival, t!o other captives, Faren E peHo and Manuel Merino, arrived. Faren and Manuel !ere put in the roo !ith .+llan. !hose na e the" later ca e to %no! as Donald Cai#as, called . aster. or .co ander. b" his en in the 3&th Infantr" Battalion. Ra" ond and Re"naldo !ere put in the

ad0oinin# roo . +t ti es, Ra" ond and Re"naldo !ere threatened, and Re"naldo !as beaten up. In the da"ti e, their chains !ere re oved, but !ere put bac% on at ni#ht. $he" !ere threatened that if the" escaped, their fa ilies !ould all be %illed. 45 On or about October 9, 3--9, ?ilario arrived in Ca p $ecson. ?e told the detainees that the" should be than%ful the" !ere still alive and should continue alon# their .rene!ed life.. Before the hearin# of Nove ber 9 or 8, 3--9, respondents !ere brou#ht to their parents to instruct the not to attend the hearin#. ?o!ever, their parents had alread" left for Manila. Respondents !ere brou#ht bac% to Ca p $ecson. $he" sta"ed in that ca p fro Septe ber 3--9 to Nove ber 3--9, and Ra" ond !as instructed to continue usin# the na e .Oscar. and holdin# hi self out as a ilitar" trainee. ?e #ot ac*uainted !ith soldiers of the 3& th Infantr" Battalion !hose na es and descriptions he stated in his affidavit.48 On Nove ber 33, 3--9, respondents, alon# !ith Sherl"n, Faren, and Manuel, !ere transferred to a ca p of the 3&th Infantr" Battalion in Ai a", Bataan. $here !ere an" huts in the ca p. $he" sta"ed in that ca p until Ma" 8, 3--5. So e soldiers of the battalion sta"ed !ith the . While there, battalion soldiers !ho Ra" ond %ne! as .Mar. and .Bill". beat hi up and hit hi in the sto ach !ith their #uns. Sherl"n and Faren also suffered enor ous torture in the ca p. $he" !ere all ade to clean, coo%, and help in raisin# livestoc%. 4) Ra" ond recalled that !hen .Operation Aubo#. !as launched, Cai#as and so e other soldiers brou#ht hi and Manuel !ith the to ta%e and %ill all s" pathi:ers of the NP+. $he" !ere brou#ht to Baran#a" Ba"anEba"anan, Bataan !here he !itnessed the %illin# of an old an doin# kaingin. $he soldiers said he !as %illed because he had a son !ho !as a e ber of the NP+ and he coddled NP+ e bers in his house. &- +nother ti e, in another .Operation Aubo#,. Ra" ond !as brou#ht to Baran#a" Orion in a house !here NP+ en sta"ed. When the" arrived, onl" the old an of the house !ho !as sic% !as there. $he" spared hi and %illed onl" his son ri#ht before Ra" ondDs e"es.&( /ro Ai a", Ra" ond, Re"naldo, Sherl"n, Faren, and Manuel !ere transferred to Ia bales, in a safehouse near the sea. Cai#as and so e of his en sta"ed !ith the . + retired ar " soldier !as in char#e of the house. Ai%e in Ai a", the five detainees !ere ade to do errands and chores. $he" sta"ed in Ia bales fro Ma" 8 or ), 3--5 until @une 3--5. &3 In @une 3--5, Cai#as brou#ht the five bac% to the ca p in Ai a". Ra" ond, Re"naldo, and Manuel !ere tas%ed to brin# food to detainees brou#ht to the ca p. Ra" ond narrated !hat he !itnessed and e=perienced in the ca p,viz> Isan# #abi, sinabihan %a i ni Donald 1Cai#as2 na atulo# na %a i. Na%ita %o si Donald na inaa"os an# %an"an# baril, at nila#"an n# silenser. Sabi ni Donald na %un# a"roon an %a in# a%ita o arini#, !alan# nan#"ari. Finau a#ahan, na%ita na in# an# ban#%a" n# isa sa #a biha# na dinala sa %a po. Ma"roon# binuhos sa %an"an# %ata!an at itoD" sinuno#. Masansan# an# a o".

Ma%araan an# isan# lin#o, dala!an# ban#%a" and ibinaba n# #a unipor adon# sundalo ula sa 9 = 9 na tra% at dinala sa loob n# %a po. Ma" nai!an# #a ba%as n# du#o haban# hinihila nila an# #a ban#%a". Naa o" %o i"on nan# nililinis an# ba%as. Ma%alipas an# isa o dala!an# lin#o, a" dinu%ot sila na dala!an# Ita. Itinali sila sa labas n# %ubo, pinirin#an, i%inadena at labis na binu#bo#. Na%ita %on# na%ata%as an# isa sa %anila at binaril si"a n# sundalo n#unit hindi si"a tina aan. I"on# #abi na%ita %on# pinata" nila i"on# isan# Ita alapit sa Post 4< sinilaban an# ban#%a" at ibinaon ito. Pa#%alipas n# halos ( bu!an, 3 pan# ban#%a" an# dinala sa %a po. Ibinaba an# #a ban#%a" ula sa pic% up tra%, dinala an# #a ban#%a" sa labas n# ba%od. Finau a#ahan na%ita %on# a"roon# sinilaban, at napa%a asan#san# an# a o". Ma" na%ilala rin a%on# ( retiradon# %oronel at ( %asa a ni"a. Pina%ain %o sila. Sabi nila sa a%in na dinu%ot sila sa Bataan. I"on# #abi, inilabas sila at hindi %o na sila na%ita. === === === I%inadena %a i n# 4 ara!. Sa i%atlon# ara!, nilabas ni Aat si Manuel dahil %a%ausapin da! si"a ni ,en. Palparan. Na%apirin# si Manuel, !ala si"an# suot pan#Eitaas, pinosasan. Nila%asan n# #a sundalo an# tuno# na #alin# sa istir"o n# sasa%"an. Di na#ta#al, narini# %o an# hi"a! o un#ol ni Manuel. Su ilip a%o sa isan# hali#i n# %a ali# at na%ita %on# sinisilaban si Manuel. Finau a#ahan, na%aE%adena pa %a i. $inan##al an# #a %adena #a 4 o & na ara! pa#%alipas. Sinabi sa a in na %a"a %a i na%a%adena a" dahil pina#dedesis"unan pa n# #a sundalo %un# papata"in %a i o hindi. $inan##al an# a in# %adena. Finausap %a i ni Donald. $inanon# %a i %un# ano an# sabi ni Manuel sa a in. Sabi ni Donald hu!a# na ra! na in# hanapin an# dala!an# babae at si Manuel, dahil a#%a%asa a na "un# tatlo. Sabi pa ni Donald na %a i ni Re"naldo a" a#ba#on# buha" at itulo" na in ni Re"naldo an# trabaho. Sa #abi, hindi na %a i %ina%adena.&4 On or about @une (4, 3--5, Ra" ond and Re"naldo !ere brou#ht to Pan#asinan, ostensibl" to raise poultr" for Donald 1Cai#as2. Cai#as told respondents to also far his land, in e=chan#e for !hich, he !ould ta%e care of the food of their fa il". $he" !ere also told that the" could far a s all plot ad0oinin# his land and sell their produce. $he" !ere no lon#er put in chains and !ere instructed to use the na es Ro el 1for Ra" ond2 and Rod 1for Re"naldo2 and represent the selves as cousins fro Ri:al, Aa#una.&& Respondents started to plan their escape. $he" could see the hi#h!a" fro !here the" sta"ed. $he" helped far ad0oinin# lands for !hich the" !ere paid Php3--.-- or Php&--.-- and the" saved their earnin#s. When the" had saved Php(,---.-- each, Ra" ond as%ed a nei#hbor ho!

he could #et a cellular phone as he !anted to e=chan#e te=t essa#es !ith a #irl !ho lived nearb". + phone !as pa!ned to hi , but he %ept it first and did not use it. $he" earned so e ore until the" had saved Php(,&--.-- bet!een the . $here !ere four houses in the co pound. Ra" ond and Re"naldo !ere housed in one of the !hile their #uards lived in the other three. Cai#as entrusted respondents to Nonon#, the head of the #uards. RespondentsD house did not have electricit". $he" used a la p. $here !as no television, but the" had a radio. In the evenin# of +u#ust (4, 3--5, Nonon# and his cohorts had a drin%in# session. +t about (>-- a. ., Ra" ond turned up the volu e of the radio. When none of the #uards a!o%e and too% notice, Ra" ond and Re"naldo proceeded to!ards the hi#h!a", leavin# behind their sleepin# #uards and bar%in# do#s. $he" boarded a bus bound for Manila and !ere thus freed fro captivit".&' Re"naldo also e=ecuted an affidavit affir in# the contents of Ra" ondDs affidavit insofar as the" related to atters the" !itnessed to#ether. Re"naldo added that !hen the" !ere ta%en fro their house on /ebruar" (&, 3--9, he sa! the faces of his abductors before he !as blindfolded !ith his shirt. ?e also na ed the soldiers he #ot ac*uainted !ith in the (8 onths he !as detained. When Ra" ond atte pted to escape fro /ort Ma#sa"sa", Re"naldo !as severel" beaten up and told that the" !ere indeed e bers of the NP+ because Ra" ond escaped. With a .&' caliber pistol, Re"naldo !as hit on the bac% and punched in the face until he could no lon#er bear the pain. +t one point durin# their detention, !hen Ra" ond and Re"naldo !ere in Sapan#, Re"naldo !as separated fro Ra" ond and brou#ht to Pinaud b" Ri:al ?ilario. ?e !as %ept in the house of Fapitan, a friend of ?ilario, in a ountainous area. ?e !as instructed to use the na e .Rodel. and to represent hi self as a ilitar" trainee fro Me"caua"an, Bulacan. So eti es, ?ilario brou#ht alon# Re"naldo in his trips. One ti e, he !as brou#ht to a ar%et in San @ose, del Monte, Bulacan and ade to !ait in the vehicle !hile ?ilario !as bu"in#. ?e !as also brou#ht to $ondo, Manila !here ?ilario delivered bo=es of .+live. in different houses. In these trips, ?ilario drove a blac% and red vehicle. Re"naldo !as blindfolded !hile still in Bulacan, but allo!ed to re ove the blindfold once outside the province. In one of their trips, the" passed b" /ort Ma#sa"sa" and Ca p $ecson !here Re"naldo sa! the si#n board, .Welco e to Ca p $ecson..&9 Dr. Benito Molino, M.D., corroborated the accounts of respondents Ra" ond and Re"naldo Manalo. Dr. Molino speciali:ed in forensic edicine and !as connected !ith the Medical +ction ,roup, an or#ani:ation handlin# cases of hu an ri#hts violations, particularl" cases !here torture !as involved. ?e !as re*uested b" an N,O to conduct edical e=a inations on the respondents after their escape. ?e first as%ed the about their ordeal, then proceeded !ith the ph"sical e=a ination. ?is findin#s sho!ed that the scars borne b" respondents !ere consistent !ith their account of ph"sical in0uries inflicted upon the . $he e=a ination !as conducted on +u#ust (', 3--5, t!o da"s after respondentsD escape, and the results thereof !ere reduced into !ritin#. Dr. Molino too% photo#raphs of the scars. ?e testified that he follo!ed the Istanbul Protocol in conductin# the e=a ination.&5

Petitioners dispute respondentsD account of their alle#ed abduction and torture. In co pliance !ith the October 3', 3--5 Resolution of the Court, the" filed a Return of the Writ of Amparo ad ittin# the abduction but den"in# an" involve ent therein, viz> (4. Petitioners Ra" ond and Re"naldo Manalo !ere not at an" ti e arrested, forcibl" abducted, detained, held inco unicado, disappeared or under the custod" b" the ilitar". $his is a settled issue laid to rest in the habeas corpus case filed in their behalf b" petitionersD parents before the Court of +ppeals in C.+.E,.R. SP No. )&&4( a#ainst M6S#t. Ri:al ?ilario a%a Rollie Castillo, as head of the 3& th Infantr" Battalion< Ma0. ,en. @ovito Palparan, as Co ander of the 5 th Infantr" Division in Au:on< At. ,en. ?er o#enes Esperon, in his capacit" as the Co andin# ,eneral of the Philippine +r ", and e bers of the Citi:ens +r ed /orces ,eo#raphical ;nit 1C+/,;2, na el"> Michael dela Cru:, Puti dela Cru:, Madnin# dela Cru:, Pula dela Cru:, Rand" Mendo:a and Rud" Mendo:a. $he respondents therein sub itted a return of the !rit... On @ul" &, 3--9, the Court of +ppeals dropped as part" respondents At. ,en. ?er o#enes C. Esperon, @r., then Co andin# ,eneral of the Philippine +r ", and on Septe ber (), 3--9, Ma0. 1sic2 @ovito S. Palparan, then Co andin# ,eneral, 5th Infantr" Division, Philippine +r ", stationed at /ort Ma#sa"sa", Pala"an Cit", Nueva Eci0a, upon a findin# that no evidence !as introduced to establish their personal involve ent in the ta%in# of the Manalo brothers. In a Decision dated @une 35, 3--5..., it e=onerated M6S#t. Ri:al ?ilario a%a Rollie Castillo for lac% of evidence establishin# his involve ent in an" capacit" in the disappearance of the Manalo brothers, althou#h it held that the re ainin# respondents !ere ille#all" detainin# the Manalo brothers and ordered the to release the latter. &8 +ttached to the Return of the Writ !as the affidavit of therein respondent 1herein petitioner2 Secretar" of National Defense, !hich attested that he assu ed office onl" on +u#ust 8, 3--5 and !as thus una!are of the Manalo brothersD alle#ed abduction. ?e also clai ed that> 5. $he Secretar" of National Defense does not en#a#e in actual ilitar" directional operations, neither does he underta%e co and directions of the +/P units in the field, nor in an" !a" icro ana#e the +/P operations. $he principal responsibilit" of the Secretar" of National Defense is focused in providin# strate#ic polic" direction to the Depart ent 1bureaus and a#encies2 includin# the +r ed /orces of the Philippines< 8. In connection !ith the Writ of Amparo issued b" the ?onorable Supre e Court in this case, I have directed the Chief of Staff, +/P to institute i ediate action in co pliance !ith Section )1d2 of the AmparoRule and to sub it report of such co pliance... Ai%e!ise, in a Me orandu Directive also dated October 4(, 3--5, I have issued a polic" directive addressed to the Chief of Staff, +/P that the +/P should adopt the follo!in# rules of action in the event the Writ of Amparo is issued b" a co petent court a#ainst an" e bers of the +/P> 1(2 to verif" the identit" of the a##rieved part"<

132 to recover and preserve evidence related to the death or disappearance of the person identified in the petition !hich a" aid in the prosecution of the person or persons responsible< 142 to identif" !itnesses and obtain state ents fro death or disappearance< the concernin# the

0ustice, !hen !arranted b" the findin#s and the co petent evidence that #athered in the process.'-

a" be

+lso attached to the Return of the Writ !as the affidavit of At. Col. /elipe +nontado, IN/ 1,SC2 P+, earlier filed in ,.R. No. (5)))&, another Amparo case in this Court, involvin# Cadapan, E peHo and Merino, !hich averred a on# others, viz> (-2 ;pon readin# the alle#ations in the Petition i plicatin# the 3& th Infantr" Batallion detach ent as detention area, I i ediatel" !ent to the 3& th IB detach ent in Ai a", Bataan and found no unto!ard incidents in the area nor an" detainees b" the na e of Sherl"n Cadapan, Faren E peHo and Manuel Merino bein# held captive< ((2 $here !as neither an" reports of an" death of Manuel Merino in the 3& th IB in Ai a", Bataan< (32 +fter #oin# to the 3& th IB in Ai a", Bataan, !e ade further in*uiries !ith the Philippine National Police, Ai a", Bataan re#ardin# the alle#ed detentions or deaths and !ere infor ed that none !as reported to their #ood office< (42 I also directed Co pan" Co ander ( st At. Ro eo Publico to in*uire into the alle#ed beachhouse in Iba, Ia bales also alle#ed to be a detention place !here Sherl"n Cadapan, Faren E peHo and Manuel Merino !ere detained. +s per the in*uir", ho!ever, no such beachhouse !as used as a detention place found to have been used b" ar ed en to detain Cadapan, E peHo and Merino. '( It !as e=plained in the Return of the Writ that for lac% of sufficient ti e, the affidavits of Ma0. ,en @ovito S. Palparan 1Ret.2, M6S#t. Ri:al ?ilario a%a Rollie Castillo, and other persons i plicated b" therein petitioners could not be secured in ti e for the sub ission of the Return and !ould be subse*uentl" sub itted.'3 ?erein petitioners presented a lone !itness in the su ar" hearin#s, At. Col. Ruben ;. @i ene:, Provost Marshall, 5th Infantr" Division, Philippine +r ", based in /ort Ma#sa"sa", Pala"an Cit", Nueva Eci0a. $he territorial 0urisdiction of this Division covers Nueva Eci0a, +urora, Bataan, Bulacan, Pa pan#a, $arlac and a portion of Pan#asinan. '4 $he 3&th Infantr" Battalion is part of the 5th Infantr" Division.'& On Ma" 39, 3--9, At. Col. @i ene: !as directed b" the Co andin# ,eneral of the 5 th Infantr" Division, Ma0. ,en. @ovito Palaran,'' throu#h his +ssistant Chief of Staff,'9 to investi#ate the alle#ed abduction of the respondents b" C+/,; au=iliaries under his unit, na el"> C++ Michael de la Cru:< C++ Ro an de la Cru:, a%a Puti< C++ Ma=i o de la Cru:, a%a Pula< C++ Rand" Mendo:a< e=EC++ Marcelo de la Cru: a%a Madnin#< and a civilian na ed Rud" Mendo:a. ?e !as directed to deter ine> 1(2 the veracit" of the abduction of Ra" ond and Re"naldo Manalo b" the alle#ed ele ents of the C+/,; au=iliaries< and 132 the ad inistrative liabilit" of said au=iliaries, if an".'5@i ene: testified that this particular investi#ation !as initiated not b" a co plaint as !as the usual procedure, but because the Co andin# ,eneral sa!

1&2 to deter ine the cause, anner, location and ti e of death or disappearance as !ell as an" pattern or practice that a" have brou#ht about the death or disappearance< 1'2 to identif" and apprehend the person or persons involved in the death or disappearance< and 192 to brin# the suspected offenders before a co petent court. &) $herein respondent +/P Chief of Staff also sub itted his o!n affidavit, attached to the Return of the Writ, attestin# that he received the above directive of therein respondent Secretar" of National Defense and that actin# on this directive, he did the follo!in#> 4.(. +s currentl" desi#nated Chief of Staff, +r ed /orces of the Philippines 1+/P2, I have caused to be issued directive to the units of the +/P for the purpose of establishin# the circu stances of the alle#ed disappearance and the recent reappearance of the petitioners. 4.3. I have caused the i ediate investi#ation and sub ission of the result thereof to ?i#her head*uarters and6or direct the i ediate conduct of the investi#ation on the atter b" the concerned unit6s, dispatchin# Radio Messa#e on Nove ber -', 3--5, addressed to the Co andin# ,eneral, Philippine +r " 1Info> COMNOACOM, C,, 5(D P+ and CO 3& IB P+2. + Cop" of the Radio Messa#e is attached as +NNEJ .4. of this +ffidavit. 4.4. We underta%e to provide result of the investi#ations conducted or to be conducted b" the concerned unit relative to the circu stances of the alle#ed disappearance of the persons in !hose favor the Writ of Amparo has been sou#ht for as soon as the sa e has been furnished ?i#her head*uarters. 4.&. + parallel investi#ation has been directed to the sa e units relative to another Petition for the Writ ofAmparo 1,.R. No. (5)))&2 filed at the instance of relatives of a certain Cadapan and E peHo pendin# before the Supre e Court. 4.'. On the part of the +r ed /orces, this respondent !ill e=ert earnest efforts to establish the surroundin# circu stances of the disappearances of the petitioners and to brin# those responsible, includin# an" ilitar" personnel if sho!n to have participated or had co plicit" in the co ission of the co plained acts, to the bar of

ne!s about the abduction of the Manalo brothers on the television, and he !as concerned about !hat !as happenin# !ithin his territorial 0urisdiction. '8 @i ene: su oned all si= i plicated persons for the purpose of havin# the e=ecute s!orn state ents and conductin# an investi#ation on Ma" 3), 3--9. ') $he investi#ation started at 8>-in the ornin# and finished at (->-- in the evenin#. 9- $he investi#atin# officer, $echnical S#t. Eduardo Ain#ad, too% the individual s!orn state ents of all si= persons on that da". $here !ere no other s!orn state ents ta%en, not even of the Manalo fa il", nor !ere there other !itnesses su oned and investi#ated9( as accordin# to @i ene:, the directive to hi !as onl" to investi#ate the si= persons.93 @i ene: !as beside Ain#ad !hen the latter too% the state ents. 94 $he si= persons !ere not %no!n to @i ene: as it !as in fact his first ti e to eet the . 9& Durin# the entire ti e that he !as beside Ain#ad, a subordinate of his in the Office of the Provost Marshall, @i ene: did not propound a sin#le *uestion to the si= persons.9' @i ene: testified that all si= state ents !ere ta%en on Ma" 3), 3--9, but Marcelo Mendo:a and Rud" Mendo:a had to co e bac% the ne=t da" to si#n their state ents as the printin# of their state ents !as interrupted b" a po!er failure. @i ene: testified that the t!o si#ned on Ma" 4-, 3--9, but the 0urats of their state ents indicated that the" !ere si#ned on Ma" 3), 3--9. 99 When the S!orn State ents !ere turned over to @i ene:, he personall" !rote his investi#ation report. ?e be#an !ritin# it in the afternoon of Ma" 4-, 3--9 and finished it on @une (, 3--9. 95 ?e then #ave his report to the Office of the Chief of Personnel. 98 +s petitioners lar#el" rel" on @i ene:Ds Investi#ation Report dated @une (, 3--9 for their evidence, the report is herein substantiall" *uoted> III. B+CF,RO;ND O/ $?E C+SE &. $his pertains to the abduction of R+KMOND M+N+AO and REKN+ADO M+N+AO !ho !ere forcibl" ta%en fro their respective ho es in Br#". Buhol na Man##a, San Ildefonso, Bulacan on (& /ebruar" 3--9 b" unidentified ar ed en and thereafter !ere forcibl" disappeared. +fter the said incident, relatives of the victi s filed a case for +bduction in the civil court a#ainst the herein suspects> Michael dela Cru:, Madnin# dela Cru:, Puti Dela Cru:, Pula Dela Cru:, Rand" Mendo:a and Rud" Mendo:a as alle#ed e bers of the Citi:en +r ed /orces ,eo#raphical ;nit 1C+/,;2. a2 S!orn state ent of C++ Ma=i o /. dela Cru:, a%a Pula dated 3) Ma" 3--9 in 1E=hibit .B.2 states that he !as at Sitio Mo:on, Br#". Bohol na Man##a, San Ildefonso, Bulacan doin# the concrete buildin# of a church located nearb" his residence, to#ether !ith so e nei#hbor thereat. ?e clai s that on (' /ebruar" 3--9, he !as bein# infor ed b" Br#". Fa#a!ad Pablo ; a"an about the abduction of the brothers Ra" ond and Re"naldo Manalo. +s to the alle#ation that he !as one of the suspects, he clai s that the" onl" i plicated hi because he !as a C+/,; and that the"

clai ed that those !ho abducted the Manalo brothers are e bers of the Militar" and C+/,;. Sub0ect vehe entl" denied an" participation or involve ent on the abduction of said victi s. b2 S!orn state ent of C++ Ro an dela Cru: " /austino +%a Puti dtd 3) Ma" 3--9 in 1E=hibit .C.2 states that he is a resident of Sitio Mu:on, Br#". Buhol na Man##a, San Ildefonso, Bulacan and a C++ e ber based at Bia% na Bato Detach ent, San Mi#uel, Bulacan. ?e clai s that Ra" ond and Re"naldo Manalo bein# his nei#hbors are active e bers6s" pathi:ers of the CPP6NP+ and he also %no!s their elder Rolando Manalo L F+ BES$RE of bein# an NP+ Aeader operatin# in their province. $hat at the ti e of the alle#ed abduction of the t!o 132 brothers and for accusin# hi to be one of the suspects, he clai s that on /ebruar" (&, 3--9, he !as one of those !or%in# at the concrete chapel bein# constructed nearb" his residence. ?e clai s further that he 0ust ca e onl" to %no! about the incident on other da" 1(' /eb -92 !hen he !as bein# infor ed b" Fa#a!ad Pablo Funanan. $hat sub0ect C++ vehe entl" denied an" participation about the incident and clai ed that the" onl" i plicated hi because he is a e ber of the C+/,;. c2 S!orn State ent of C++ Rand" Mendo:a " Ain#as dated 3) Ma" 3--9 in 1E=hibit .O.2 states that he is a resident of Br#". Buhol na Man##a, San Ildefonso, Bulacan and a e ber of C+/,; based at Bia% na Bato Detach ent. $hat bein# a nei#hbor, he !as ver" uch a!are about the bac%#round of the t!o 132 brothers Ra" ond and Re"naldo as active supporters of the CPP NP+ in their Br#". and he also %ne! their elder brother .F;M+NDER BES$RE. $N> Rolando Manalo. Bein# one of the accused, he clai s that on (& /ebruar" 3--9, he !as at Br#". Ma# arate, San Mi#uel, Bulacan in the house of his aunt and he learned onl" about the incident !hen he arrived ho e in their place. ?e clai s further that the onl" reason !h" the" i plicated hi !as due to the fact that his other has filed a cri inal char#e a#ainst their brother Rolando Manalo L F+ BES$RE !ho is an NP+ Co ander !ho %illed his father and for that reason the" i plicated hi in support of their brother. Sub0ect C++ vehe entl" denied an" involve ent on the abduction of said Manalo brothers. d2 S!orn State ent of Rud" Mendo:a " Ain#asa dated Ma" 3), 3--9 in 1E=hibit .E.2 states that he is a resident of Br#". Marun#%o, +n#at, Bulacan. ?e clai s that Ra" ond and Re"naldo Manalo are fa iliar to hi bein# his barrio ate !hen he !as still un arried and he %ne! the since childhood. Bein# one of the accused, he clai s that on (& /ebruar" 3--9, he !as at his residence in Br#". Marun#%o, +n#at, Bulacan. ?e clai s that he !as bein# infor ed onl" about the incident latel" and he !as not a!are of an" reason !h" the t!o 132 brothers !ere bein# abducted b" alle#ed e bers of the ilitar" and C+/,;. $he onl" reason he %no!s !h" the" i plicated hi !as because there are those people !ho are an#r" !ith their fa il" particularl" victi s of su ar" e=ecution 1%illin#2 done b" their brother L F+ Bestre Rolando Manalo !ho is an NP+ leader. ?e clai s further that it !as their brother L F+

BES$RE !ho %illed his father and he !as livin# !itness to that incident. Sub0ect civilian vehe entl" denied an" involve ent on the abduction of the Manalo brothers. e2 S!orn state ent of E=EC++ Marcelo dala Cru: dated 3) Ma" 3--9 in 1E=hibit ./.2 states that he is a resident of Sitio Mu:on, Br#". Buhol na Man##a, San Ildefonso, Bulacan, a far er and a for er C++ based at Bia% na Bato, San Mi#uel, Bulacan. ?e clai s that Ra" ond and Re"naldo Manalo are fa iliar to hi bein# their barrio ate. ?e clai s further that the" are active supporters of CPP6NP+ and that their brother Rolando Manalo L F+ BES$RE is an NP+ leader. Bein# one of the accused, he clai s that on (& /ebruar" 3--9, he !as in his residence at Sitio Mu:on, Br#". Buhol na Man##a, San Ildefonso, Bulacan. $hat he vehe entl" denied an" participation of the alle#ed abduction of the t!o 132 brothers and learned onl" about the incident !hen ru ors reached hi b" his barrio ates. ?e clai s that his i plication is erel" fabricated because of his relationship to Ro an and Ma=i o !ho are his brothers. f2 S!orn state ent of Michael dela Cru: " /austino dated 3) Ma" 3--9 in 1E=hibit .,.2 states that he is a resident of Sitio Mu:on, Br#". Buhol na Man##a, San Ildefonso, Bulacan, the Chief of Br#". $anod and a C+/,; e ber based at Bia% na Bato Detach ent, San Mi#uel, Bulacan. ?e clai s that he %ne! ver" !ell the brothers Ra" ond and Re"naldo Manalo in their baran#a" for havin# been the $anod Chief for t!ent" 13-2 "ears. ?e alle#ed further that the" are active supporters or s" pathi:ers of the CPP6NP+ and !hose elder brother Rolando Manalo L F+ BES$RE is an NP+ leader operatin# !ithin the area. Bein# one of the accused, he clai s that on (& /eb 3--9 he !as helpin# in the construction of their concrete chapel in their place and he learned onl" about the incident !hich is the abduction of Ra" ond and Re"naldo Manalo !hen one of the Br#". Fa#a!ad in the person of Pablo Cunanan infor ed hi about the atter. ?e clai s further that he is trul" innocent of the alle#ation a#ainst hi as bein# one of the abductors and he considers ever"thin# fabricated in order to destro" his na e that re ains lo"al to his service to the #overn ent as a C++ e ber. I7. DISC;SSION '. Based on the fore#oin# state ents of respondents in this particular case, the proof of lin%in# the to the alle#ed abduction and disappearance of Ra" ond and Re"naldo Manalo that transpired on (& /ebruar" 3--9 at Sitio Mu:on, Br#". Buhol na Man##a, San Ildefonso, Bulacan, is unsubstantiated. $heir alle#ed involve ent theretofore to that incident is considered doubtful, hence, no basis to indict the as char#ed in this investi#ation. $hou#h there are previous #rud#es bet!een each fa ilies 1sic2 in the past to *uote> the %illin# of the father of Rand" and Rud" Mendo:a b" L F+ BES$RE $N> Rolando Manalo, this !ill not suffice to establish a fact that the" !ere the ones !ho did the abduction as a for of reven#e. +s it !as also stated in the testi on" of other accused clai in# that the Manalos are active s" pathi:ers6supporters of the CPP6NP+, this

!ould not also ean, ho!ever, that in the first place, the" !ere in connivance !ith the abductors. Bein# their nei#hbors and as e bers of C+/,;Ds, the" ou#ht to be vi#ilant in protectin# their villa#e fro an" intervention b" the leftist #roup, hence inside their villa#e, the" !ere full" a!are of the activities of Ra" ond and Re"naldo Manalo in so far as their connection !ith the CPP6NP+ is concerned. 7. CONCA;SION 9. Pre ises considered surroundin# this case sho!s that the alle#ed char#es of abduction co itted b" the above na ed respondents has not been established in this investi#ation. ?ence, it lac%s erit to indict the for an" ad inistrative punish ent and6or cri inal liabilit". It is therefore concluded that the" are innocent of the char#e. 7I. RECOMMEND+$IONS 5. $hat C++s Michael /. dela Cru:, Ma=i o /. Dela Cru:, Ro an dela Cru:, Rand" Mendo:a, and t!o 132 civilians Ma=i o /. Dela Cru: and Rud" A. Mendo:a be e=onerated fro the case. 8. ;pon approval, this case can be dropped and closed. 9) In this appeal under Rule &', petitioners *uestion the appellate courtDs assess ent of the fore#oin# evidence and assail the Dece ber 39, 3--5 Decision on the follo!in# #rounds, viz> I. $?E CO;R$ O/ +PPE+AS SERIO;SAK +ND ,RIE7O;SAK ERRED IN BEAIE7IN, +ND ,I7IN, /;AA /+I$? +ND CREDI$ $O $?E INCREDIBAE, ;NCORROBOR+$ED, CON$R+DIC$ED, +ND OB7IO;SAK SCRIP$ED, RE?E+RSED +ND SEA/ESER7IN, +//ID+7I$6$ES$IMONK O/ ?EREIN RESPONDEN$ R+KMOND M+N+AO. II. $?E CO;R$ O/ +PPE+AS SERIO;SAK +ND ,RIE7O;SAK ERRED IN REC;IRIN, RESPONDEN$S 1?EREIN PE$I$IONERS2 $O> 1+2 /;RNIS? $O $?E M+N+AO BRO$?ER1S2 +ND $O $?E CO;R$ O/ +PPE+AS +AA O//ICI+A +ND ;NO//ICI+A REPOR$S O/ $?E IN7ES$I,+$ION ;NDER$+FEN IN CONNEC$ION WI$? $?EIR C+SE, EJCEP$ $?OSE +ARE+DK IN /IAE WI$? $?E CO;R$< 1B2 CON/IRM IN WRI$IN, $?E PRESEN$ PA+CES O/ O//ICI+A +SSI,NMEN$ O/ M6S,$. ?IA+RIO a%a ROAAIE C+S$IAAO +ND DON+AD C+I,+S< +ND 1C2 C+;SE $O BE PROD;CED $O $?E CO;R$ O/ +PPE+AS +AA MEDIC+A REPOR$S, RECORDS +ND C?+R$S, +ND REPOR$S O/ +NK $RE+$MEN$ ,I7EN OR RECOMMENDED +ND MEDICINES PRESCRIBED, I/ +NK, $O $?E M+N+AO BRO$?ERS, $O INCA;DE + AIS$ O/ MEDIC+A PERSONNEA 1MIAI$+RK

+ND CI7IAI+N2 W?O +$$ENDED $O $?EM /ROM /EBR;+RK (&, 3--9 ;N$IA +;,;S$ (3, 3--5.5$he case at bar is the first decision on the application of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo 1Amparo Rule2. Aet us hear%en to its be#innin#. $he adoption of the Amparo Rule surfaced as a recurrin# proposition in the reco endations that resulted fro a t!oEda" National Consultative Su it on E=tra0udicial Fillin#s and Enforced Disappearances sponsored b" the Court on @ul" (9E(5, 3--5. $he Su it !as .envisioned to provide a broad and factEbased perspective on the issue of e=tra0udicial %illin#s and enforced disappearances,.5( hence .representatives fro all sides of the political and social spectru , as !ell as all the sta%eholders in the 0ustice s"ste . 53 participated in appin# out !a"s to resolve the crisis. On October 3&, 3--5, the Court pro ul#ated the Amparo Rule .in li#ht of the prevalence of e=trale#al %illin# and enforced disappearances.. 54 It !as an e=ercise for the first ti e of the CourtDs e=panded po!er to pro ul#ate rules to protect our peopleDs constitutional ri#hts, !hich ade its aiden appearance in the ()85 Constitution in response to the /ilipino e=perience of the artial la! re#i e.5& +s the Amparo Rule !as intended to address the intractable proble of .e=trale#al %illin#s. and .enforced disappearances,. its covera#e, in its present for , is confined to these t!o instances or to threats thereof. .E=trale#al %illin#s. are .%illin#s co itted !ithout due process of la!, i.e., !ithout le#al safe#uards or 0udicial proceedin#s.. 5' On the other hand, .enforced disappearances. are .attended b" the follo!in# characteristics> an arrest, detention or abduction of a person b" a #overn ent official or or#ani:ed #roups or private individuals actin# !ith the direct or indirect ac*uiescence of the #overn ent< the refusal of the State to disclose the fate or !hereabouts of the person concerned or a refusal to ac%no!led#e the deprivation of libert" !hich places such persons outside the protection of la!.. 59 $he !rit of Amparo ori#inated in Me=ico. .Amparo. literall" eans .protection. in Spanish.55 In (845, de $oc*uevilleDs Democracy in America beca e available in Me=ico and stirred #reat interest. Its description of the practice of 0udicial revie! in the ;.S. appealed to an" Me=ican 0urists.58 One of the , Manuel Crescencio Re0Mn, drafted a constitutional provision for his native state, Kucatan,5) !hich #ranted 0ud#es the po!er to protect all persons in the en0o" ent of their constitutional and le#al ri#hts. $his idea !as incorporated into the national constitution in (8&5, viz> $he federal courts shall protect an" inhabitant of the Republic in the e=ercise and preservation of those ri#hts #ranted to hi b" this Constitution and b" la!s enacted pursuant hereto, a#ainst attac%s b" the Ae#islative and E=ecutive po!ers of the federal or state #overn ents, li itin# the selves to #rantin# protection in the specific case in liti#ation, a%in# no #eneral declaration concernin# the statute or re#ulation that otivated the violation.8Since then, the protection has been an i portant part of Me=ican constitutionalis . 8( If, after hearin#, the 0ud#e deter ines that a constitutional ri#ht of the petitioner is bein# violated, he

orders the official, or the officialDs superiors, to cease the violation and to ta%e the necessar" easures to restore the petitioner to the full en0o" ent of the ri#ht in *uestion. Amparo thus co bines the principles of 0udicial revie! derived fro the ;.S. !ith the li itations on 0udicial po!er characteristic of the civil la! tradition !hich prevails in Me=ico. It enables courts to enforce the constitution b" protectin# individual ri#hts in particular cases, but prevents the fro usin# this po!er to a%e la! for the entire nation. 83 $he !rit of Amparo then spread throu#hout the Western ?e isphere, #raduall" evolvin# into various for s, in response to the particular needs of each countr". 84 It beca e, in the !ords of a 0ustice of the Me=ican /ederal Supre e Court, one piece of Me=icoDs selfEattributed .tas% of conve"in# to the !orldDs le#al herita#e that institution !hich, as a shield of hu an di#nit", her o!n painful histor" conceived.. 8& What be#an as a protection a#ainst acts or o issions of public authorities in violation of constitutional ri#hts later evolved for several purposes> 1(2 Amparo libertad for the protection of personal freedo , e*uivalent to the habeas corpus !rit< 132 Amparo contra leyes for the 0udicial revie! of the constitutionalit" of statutes< 142 Amparo casacion for the 0udicial revie! of the constitutionalit" and le#alit" of a 0udicial decision< 1&2 Amparo administrativo for the 0udicial revie! of ad inistrative actions< and 1'2 Amparo agrario for the protection of peasantsD ri#hts derived fro the a#rarian refor process. 8' In Aatin + erican countries, e=cept Cuba, the !rit of Amparo has been constitutionall" adopted to protect a#ainst hu an ri#hts abuses especiall" co itted in countries under ilitar" 0untas. In #eneral, these countries adopted an allEenco passin# !rit to protect the !hole #a ut of constitutional ri#hts, includin# socioEecono ic ri#hts. 89Other countries li%e Colo bia, Chile, ,er an" and Spain, ho!ever, have chosen to li it the protection of the !rit of Amparo onl" to so e constitutional #uarantees or funda ental ri#hts. 85 In the Philippines, !hile the ()85 Constitution does not e=plicitl" provide for the !rit of Amparo, several of the above Amparo protections are #uaranteed b" our charter. $he second para#raph of +rticle 7III, Section ( of the ()85 Constitution, the ,rave +buse Clause, provides for the 0udicial po!er .to deter ine !hether or not there has been a #rave abuse of discretion a ountin# to lac% or e=cess of 0urisdiction on the part of an" branch or instru entalit" of the ,overn ent.. $he Clause accords a si ilar #eneral protection to hu an ri#hts e=tended b" the + paro contra le"es, Amparo casacion, and Amparo administrativo. Amparo libertad is co parable to the re ed" of habeas corpus found in several provisions of the ()85 Constitution.88 $he Clause is an offsprin# of the ;.S. co on la! tradition of 0udicial revie!, !hich finds its roots in the (8-4 case of M$rb*r+ ,. M$&-.o%.8) While constitutional ri#hts can be protected under the ,rave +buse Clause throu#h re edies of in0unction or prohibition under Rule 9' of the Rules of Court and a petition for habeas corpus under Rule (-3,)- these re edies a" not be ade*uate to address the pesterin# proble of e=trale#al %illin#s and enforced disappearances. ?o!ever, !ith the s!iftness re*uired to resolve a petition for a !rit of Amparo throu#h su ar" proceedin#s and the availabilit" of appropriate interi and per anent reliefs under the Amparo Rule, this h"brid !rit of the co on la! and civil la! traditions E borne out of the Aatin + erican and Philippine

e=perience of hu an ri#hts abuses E offers a better re ed" to e=trale#al %illin#s and enforced disappearances and threats thereof. $he re ed" provides rapid 0udicial relief as it parta%es of a su ar" proceedin# that re*uires onl" substantial evidence to a%e the appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner< it is not an action to deter ine cri inal #uilt re*uirin# proof be"ond reasonable doubt, or liabilit" for da a#es re*uirin# preponderance of evidence, or ad inistrative responsibilit" re*uirin# substantial evidence that !ill re*uire full and e=haustive proceedin#s.)( $he !rit of Amparo serves both preventive and curative roles in addressin# the proble of e=trale#al %illin#s and enforced disappearances. It is preventive in that it brea%s the e=pectation of i punit" in the co ission of these offenses< it is curative in that it facilitates the subse*uent punish ent of perpetrators as it !ill inevitabl" "ield leads to subse*uent investi#ation and action. In the lon# run, the #oal of both the preventive and curative roles is to deter the further co ission of e=trale#al %illin#s and enforced disappearances. In the case at bar, respondents initiall" filed an action for .Prohibition, In0unction, and $e porar" Restrainin# Order.)3 to stop petitioners and6or their officers and a#ents fro deprivin# the respondents of their ri#ht to libert" and other basic ri#hts on +u#ust 34, 3--5, )4 prior to the pro ul#ation of the Amparo Rule. $he" also sou#ht ancillar" re edies includin# Protective Custod" Orders, +ppoint ent of Co issioner, Inspection and +ccess Orders and other le#al and e*uitable re edies under +rticle 7III, Section '1'2 of the ()85 Constitution and Rule (4', Section 9 of the Rules of Court. When the Amparo Rule ca e into effect on October 3&, 3--5, the" oved to have their petition treated as an Amparo petition as it !ould be ore effective and suitable to the circu stances of the Manalo brothersD enforced disappearance. $he Court #ranted their otion. With this bac%drop, !e no! co e to the ar#u ents of the petitioner. PetitionersD first ar#u ent in disputin# the Decision of the Court of +ppeals states, viz> $he Court of +ppeals seriousl" and #rievousl" erred in believin# and #ivin# full faith and credit to the incredible uncorroborated, contradicted, and obviousl" scripted, rehearsed and selfEservin# affidavit6testi on" of herein respondent Ra" ond Manalo.)& In delvin# into the veracit" of the evidence, !e need to ine and refine the ore of petitionersD cause of action, to deter ine !hether the evidence presented is etalEstron# to satisf" the de#ree of proof re*uired. Section ( of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides for the follo!in# causes of action, viz> Section (. Petition. E $he petition for a !rit of Amparo is a re ed" available to an" person !hose r-/0t to 1-2e, 1-bert+ $%& .ec*r-t+ -. ,-o1$te& or t0re$te%e& 3-t0 ,-o1$t-o% b" an unla!ful act or o ission of a public official or e plo"ee, or of a private individual or entit".

$he !rit shall cover e=trale#al %illin#s and e%2orce& &-.$44e$r$%ce. or t0re$t. t0ereo2. 1emphasis supplied2 Sections (5 and (8, on the other hand, provide for the de#ree of proof re*uired, viz> Sec. (5. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Re uired . E $he parties shall establish their clai s b".*b.t$%t-$1 e,-&e%ce. === === === Sec. (8. !udgment. E ... If the $11e/$t-o%. -% t0e 4et-t-o% $re 4ro,e% b+ .*b.t$%t-$1 e,-&e%ce, the court shall /r$%t the privile#e of the !rit and such reliefs as a" be proper and appropriate< ot0er3-.e, the privile#e shall be &e%-e&. 1emphases supplied2 Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable ind i#ht accept as ade*uate to support a conclusion.)' +fter careful perusal of the evidence presented, !e affir the findin#s of the Court of +ppeals that respondents !ere abducted fro their houses in Sito Mu:on, Br#". Buhol na Man##a, San Ildefonso, Bulacan on /ebruar" (&, 3--9 and !ere continuousl" detained until the" escaped on +u#ust (4, 3--5. $he abduction, detention, torture, and escape of the respondents !ere narrated b" respondent Ra" ond Manalo in a clear and convincin# anner. ?is account is dotted !ith countless candid details of respondentsD harro!in# e=perience and tenacious !ill to escape, captured throu#h his different senses and etched in his e or". + fe! e=a ples are the follo!in#> .Su ilip a%o sa isan# hali#i n# %a ali# at na%ita %on# sinisilaban si Manuel..)9 .1N2ila%asan n# #a sundalo an# tuno# na #alin# sa istir"o n# sasa%"an. Di na#ta#al, narini# %o an# hi"a! o un#ol ni Manuel.. )5 .Ma" nai!an# #a ba%as n# du#o haban# hinihila nila an# #a ban#%a". Naa o" %o i"on nan# nililinis an# ba%as.. )8 .$u i#il a%o sa a" palaisdaan %un# saan #ina it %o an# bato para tan##alin an# #a %adena.. )) .$inanon# %o sa isan# %apitEbaha" %un# paano a%o a%a%a%uha n# cell phone< sabi %o #usto %on# iEte=t an# isan# babae na na%atira sa alapit na lu#ar.. (-We affir the factual findin#s of the appellate court, lar#el" based on respondent Ra" ond ManaloDs affidavit and testi on", viz> ...the abduction !as perpetrated b" ar ed en !ho !ere sufficientl" identified b" the petitioners 1herein respondents2 to be ilitar" personnel and C+/,; au=iliaries. Ra" ond recalled that the si= ar ed en !ho bar#ed into his house throu#h the rear door !ere ilitar" en based on their attire of fati#ue pants and ar " boots, and the C+/,; au=iliaries, na el"> Michael de la Cru:, Madnin# de la Cru:, Puti de la Cru: and Pula de la Cru:, all e bers of the C+/,; and residents of Mu:on, San Ildefonso, Bulacan, and the brothers Rand" Mendo:a and Rud" Mendo:a, also C+/,; e bers, served as loo%outs durin# the abduction. Ra" ond !as sure that three of the si= ilitar" en !ere ,anata, !ho headed the abductin# tea , ?ilario, !ho drove the van, and ,eor#e. Subse*uent incidents of their lon# captivit", as

narrated b" the petitioners, validated their assertion of the participation of the ele ents of the 5th Infantr" Division, Philippine +r ", and their C+/,; au=iliaries. We are convinced, too, that the reason for the abduction !as the suspicion that the petitioners !ere either e bers or s" pathi:ers of the NP+, considerin# that the abductors !ere loo%in# for Fa Bestre, !ho turned out to be Rolando, the brother of petitioners. $he efforts e=erted b" the Militar" Co and to loo% into the abduction !ere, at best, erel" superficial. $he investi#ation of the Provost Marshall of the 5 th Infantr" Division focused on the oneEsided version of the C+/,; au=iliaries involved. $his oneE sidedness i#ht be due to the fact that the Provost Marshall could delve onl" into the participation of ilitar" personnel, but even then the Provost Marshall should have refrained fro outri#htl" e=culpatin# the C+/,; au=iliaries he perfunctoril" investi#ated... ,en. PalparanDs participation in the abduction !as also established. +t the ver" least, he !as a!are of the petitionersD captivit" at the hands of en in unifor assi#ned to his co and. In fact, he or an" other officer tendered no controversion to the fir clai of Ra" ond that he 1,en. Palparan2 et the in person in a safehouse in Bulacan and told the !hat he !anted the and their parents to do or not to be doin#. ,en. PalparanDs direct and personal role in the abduction i#ht not have been sho!n but his %no!led#e of the dire situation of the petitioners durin# their lon# captivit" at the hands of ilitar" personnel under his co and bespo%e of his indubitable co and polic" that unavoidabl" encoura#ed and not erel" tolerated the abduction of civilians !ithout due process of la! and !ithout probable cause. In the habeas proceedin#s, the Court, throu#h the /or er Special Si=th Division 1@ustices Bu:on, chair an< Santia#oEAa# an, Sr., e ber< and Ro illaEAonto%, @r., e ber6ponente.2 found no clear and convincin# evidence to establish that M6S#t. Ri:al ?ilario had an"thin# to do !ith the abduction or the detention. ?ilarioDs involve ent could not, indeed, be then established after Evan#eline /rancisco, !ho alle#edl" sa! ?ilario drive the van in !hich the petitioners !ere boarded and ferried follo!in# the abduction, did not testif". 1See the decision of the habeas proceedin#s at rollo, p. '32 ?o!ever, in this case, Ra" ond attested that ?ilario drove the !hite AE4-- van in !hich the petitioners !ere brou#ht a!a" fro their houses on /ebruar" (&, 3--9. Ra" ond also attested that ?ilario participated in subse*uent incidents durin# the captivit" of the petitioners, one of !hich !as !hen ?ilario fetched the fro /ort Ma#sa"sa" on board a Revo and conve"ed the to a detach ent in Pinaud, San Ildefonso, Bulacan !here the" !ere detained for at least a !ee% in a house of stron# aterials 1E=hibit D, rollo, p. 3-'2 and then ?ilario 1alon# !ith Efren2 brou#ht the to Sapan#, San Mi#uel, Bulacan on board the Revo, to an unfinished house inside the co pound of Fapitan !here the" !ere %ept for ore or less three onths. 1E=hibit D,

rollo, p. 3-'2 It !as there !here the petitioners ca e face to face !ith ,en. Palparan. ?ilario and Efren also brou#ht the petitioners one earl" ornin# to the house of the petitionersD parents, !here onl" Ra" ond !as presented to the parents to rela" the essa#e fro ,en. Palparan not to 0oin an" ore rallies. On that occasion, ?ilario !arned the parents that the" !ould not a#ain see their sons should the" 0oin an" rallies to denounce hu an ri#hts violations. 1E=hibit D, rollo, pp. 3-'E3-92 ?ilario !as also a on# four Master Ser#eants 1the others bein# +r an, ,anata and Cabalse2 !ith !ho ,en. Palparan conversed on the occasion !hen ,en. Palparan re*uired Ra" ond to ta%e the edicines for his health. 1E=hibit D, rollo, p. 3-92 $here !ere other occasions !hen the petitioners sa! that ?ilario had a direct hand in their torture. It is clear, therefore, that the participation of ?ilario in the abduction and forced disappearance of the petitioners !as established. $he participation of other ilitar" personnel li%e +r an, ,anata, Cabalse and Cai#as, a on# others, !as si ilarl" established. === === === +s to the C+/,; au=iliaries, the habeas Court found the personall" involved in the abduction. We also do, for, indeed, the evidence of their participation is over!hel in#.(-( We re0ect the clai of petitioners that respondent Ra" ond ManaloDs state ents !ere not corroborated b" other independent and credible pieces of evidence. (-3 Ra" ondDs affidavit and testi on" !ere corroborated b" the affidavit of respondent Re"naldo Manalo. $he testi on" and edical reports prepared b" forensic specialist Dr. Molino, and the pictures of the scars left b" the ph"sical in0uries inflicted on respondents,(-4 also corroborate respondentsD accounts of the torture the" endured !hile in detention. Respondent Ra" ond ManaloDs fa iliarit" !ith the facilities in /ort Ma#sa"sa" such as the .D$;,. as sho!n in his testi on" and confir ed b" At. Col. @i ene: to be the .Division $rainin# ;nit,. (-& fir s up respondentsD stor" that the" !ere detained for so e ti e in said ilitar" facilit". In Ort-5 ,. G*$te6$1$,(-' a case decided b" the InterE+ erican Co ission on ?u an Ri#hts, the Co ission considered si ilar evidence, a on# others, in findin# that co plainant Sister Diana Orti: !as abducted and tortured b" a#ents of the ,uate alan #overn ent. In this case, Sister Orti: !as %idnapped and tortured in earl" Nove ber ()8). $he Co issionDs findin#s of fact !ere ostl" based on the consistent and credible state ents, !ritten and oral, ade b" Sister Orti: re#ardin# her ordeal. (-9 $hese state ents !ere supported b" her reco#nition of portions of the route the" too% !hen she !as bein# driven out of the ilitar" installation !here she !as detained.(-5 She !as also e=a ined b" a edical doctor !hose findin#s sho!ed that the ((( circular second de#ree burns on her bac% and abrasions on her chee% coincided !ith her account of ci#arette burnin# and torture she suffered !hile in detention. (-8 With the secret nature of an enforced disappearance and the torture perpetrated on the victi durin# detention, it lo#icall" holds that uch of the infor ation and evidence of the ordeal !ill

co e fro the victi s the selves, and the veracit" of their account !ill depend on their credibilit" and candidness in their !ritten and6or oral state ents. $heir state ents can be corroborated b" other evidence such as ph"sical evidence left b" the torture the" suffered or land ar%s the" can identif" in the places !here the" !ere detained. Where po!erful ilitar" officers are i plicated, the hesitation of !itnesses to surface and testif" a#ainst the co es as no surprise. We no! co e to the ri#ht of the respondents to the privile#e of the !rit of Amparo. $here is no *uarrel that the enforced disappearance of both respondents Ra" ond and Re"naldo Manalo has no! passed as the" have escaped fro captivit" and surfaced. But !hile respondents ad it that the" are no lon#er in detention and are ph"sicall" free, the" assert that the" are not .free in ever" sense of the !ord. (-) as their . ove ents continue to be restricted for fear that people the" have na ed in their @udicial +ffidavits and testified a#ainst 1in the case of Ra" ond2 are still at lar#e and have not been held accountable in an" !a". $hese people are directl" connected to the +r ed /orces of the Philippines and are, thus, in a position to t0re$te% re.4o%&e%t.7 r-/0t. to 1-2e, 1-bert+ $%& .ec*r-t+ ..((- 1emphasis supplied2 Respondents clai that the" are under t0re$t o2 be-%/ o%ce $/$-% $b&*cte&, 8e4t c$4t-,e or e,e% 8-11e& , !hich constitute a direct violation of their r-/0t to .ec*r-t+ o2 4er.o%.((( Elaboratin# on the .r-/0t to .ec*r-t+, -% /e%er$1,. respondents point out that this ri#ht is .often associated !ith libert"<. it is also seen as an .e=pansion of ri#hts based on the prohibition a#ainst torture and cruel and unusual punish ent.. Concedin# that there is no ri#ht to securit" e=pressl" entioned in +rticle III of the ()85 Constitution, the" sub it that their ri#hts .to be %ept free fro torture and fro incommunicado detention and solitar" detention places ((3 fall under the #eneral covera#e of the ri#ht to securit" of person under the !rit of Amparo.. $he" sub it that the Court ou#ht to #ive an e=pansive reco#nition of the ri#ht to securit" of person in vie! of the State Polic" under +rticle II of the ()85 Constitution !hich enunciates that, .$he State values the di#nit" of ever" hu an person and #uarantees full respect for hu an ri#hts.. /inall", to 0ustif" a liberal interpretation of the ri#ht to securit" of person, respondents cite the teachin# in Mo%c*4$ ,. E%r-1e((4 that .the ri#ht to libert" a" be ade ore eanin#ful onl" if there is no undue restraint b" the State on the e=ercise of that libert". ((& such as a re*uire ent to .report under unreasonable restrictions that a ounted to a deprivation of libert". ((' or bein# put under . onitorin# and surveillance.. ((9 In su , respondents assert that their cause of action consists in the t0re$t to t0e-r r-/0t to 1-2e $%& 1-bert+, and a ,-o1$t-o% o2 t0e-r r-/0t to .ec*r-t+. "et *. 4*t t0-. r-/0t to .ec*r-t+ *%&er t0e 1e%. to &eter6-%e -2 -t 0$. -%&ee& bee% ,-o1$te& $. re.4o%&e%t. $..ert. $he r-/0t to .ec*r-t+ or the r-/0t to .ec*r-t+ o2 4er.o% finds a te=tual hoo% in +rticle III, Section 3 of the ()85 Constitution !hich provides, viz> Sec. 3. $he r-/0t o2 t0e 4eo41e to be .ec*re -% t0e-r 4er.o%. , houses, papers and effects a#ainst unreasonable searches and sei:ures of !hatever nature and for an" purpose shall be -%,-o1$b1e, and no search !arrant or !arrant of arrest shall issue e=cept upon probable cause to be deter ined personall" b" the 0ud#e...

+t the core of this #uarantee is the i unit" of oneDs person, includin# the e=tensions of his6her person E houses, papers, and effects E a#ainst #overn ent intrusion. Section 3 not onl" li its the stateDs po!er over a personDs ho e and possessions, but ore i portantl", protects the privac" and sanctit" of the person hi self. ((5 $he purpose of this provision !as enunciated b" the Court in Peo41e ,. C ! o2 R-5$1, Br$%c0 !9, :*e5o% C-t+, viz>((8 $he purpose of the constitutional #uarantee a#ainst unreasonable searches and sei:ures is to prevent violations of private securit" in person and propert" and unla!ful invasion of the securit" of the ho e b" officers of the la! actin# under le#islative or 0udicial sanction and to #ive re ed" a#ainst such usurpation !hen atte pted. 1+da s v. Ne! Kor%, ()3 ;.S. 8'8< +lvero v. Di:on, 59 Phil. 945 N()&9O2. $he ri#ht to privac" is an e..e%t-$1 co%&-t-o% to t0e &-/%-t+ $%& 0$44-%e.. $%& to t0e 4e$ce $%& .ec*r-t+ o2 e,er+ -%&-,-&*$1, 30et0er -t be o2 0o6e or o2 4er.o%. $%& corre.4o%&e%ce. 1$aHada and Carreon, Political Aa! of the Philippines, 7ol. 3, (4) N()93O2. $he constitutional inviolabilit" of this #reat funda ental ri#ht a#ainst unreasonable searches and sei:ures ust be dee ed absolute as %ot0-%/ -. c1o.er to $ 6$%7. .o*1 t0$% t0e .ere%-t+ o2 0-. 4r-,$c+ $%& t0e $..*r$%ce o2 0-. 4er.o%$1 .ec*r-t+. +n" interference allo!able can onl" be for the best causes and reasons.(() 1emphases supplied2 While the ri#ht to life under +rticle III, Section ( (3- #uarantees essentiall" the ri#ht to be alive (3( E upon !hich the en0o" ent of all other ri#hts is preconditioned E the ri#ht to securit" of person is a #uarantee of the secure *ualit" of this life, viz> .$he life to !hich each person has a ri#ht is not a life lived in fear that his person and propert" a" be unreasonabl" violated b" a po!erful ruler. Rather, it is a life lived !ith the assurance that the #overn ent he established and consented to, !ill protect the securit" of his person and propert". $he ideal of securit" in life and propert"... pervades the !hole histor" of an. It touches ever" aspect of anDs e=istence.. (33 In a broad sense, the ri#ht to securit" of person .e anates in a personDs le#al and uninterrupted en0o" ent of his life, his li bs, his bod", his health, and his reputation. It includes the ri#ht to e=ist, and the ri#ht to en0o" ent of life !hile e=istin#, and it is invaded not onl" b" a deprivation of life but also of those thin#s !hich are necessar" to the en0o" ent of life accordin# to the nature, te pera ent, and la!ful desires of the individual.. (34 + closer loo% at the ri#ht to securit" of person !ould "ield various per utations of the e=ercise of this ri#ht. -r.t, t0e r-/0t to .ec*r-t+ o2 4er.o% -. ;2ree&o6 2ro6 2e$r.; In its .!hereas. clauses, the U%-,er.$1 #ec1$r$t-o% o2 H*6$% R-/0t. 1;D?R2 enunciates that .a !orld in !hich hu an bein#s shall en0o" freedo of speech and belief and 2ree&o6 2ro6 2e$r and !ant has been proclai ed as the hi#hest aspiration of the co on people.. 1 emphasis supplied2 So e scholars postulate that .freedo fro fear. is not onl" an aspirational principle, but essentiall" an individual international hu an ri#ht. (3& It is the .ri#ht to securit" of person. as the !ord .securit". itself eans .freedo fro fear..(3' +rticle 4 of the ;D?R provides, viz> Ever"one has the ri#ht to life, libert" and .ec*r-t+ o2 4er.o%.(39 1emphasis supplied2

In furtherance of this ri#ht declared in the ;D?R, +rticle )1(2 of the !%ter%$t-o%$1 Co,e%$%t o% C-,-1 $%& Po1-t-c$1 R-/0t. 1ICCPR2 also provides for the ri#ht to securit" of person, viz> (. Ever"one has the ri#ht to libert" and .ec*r-t+ o2 4er.o%. No one shall be sub0ected to arbitrar" arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his libert" e=cept on such #rounds and in accordance !ith such procedure as are established b" la!. 1 emphasis supplied2 $he Philippines is a si#nator" to both the ;D?R and the ICCPR. In the conte=t of Section ( of the Amparo Rule, .freedo fro fear. is the ri#ht and $%+ t0re$t to t0e r-/0t. to 1-2e, 1-bert+ or .ec*r-t+ is the $ct-o%$b1e 3ro%/. /ear is a state of ind, a reaction< t0re$t is a sti ulus, ac$*.e o2 $ct-o%. /ear caused b" the sa e sti ulus can ran#e fro bein# baseless to !ellEfounded as people react differentl". $he de#ree of fear can var" fro one person to another !ith the variation of the prolificac" of their i a#ination, stren#th of character or past e=perience !ith the sti ulus. $hus, in the Amparo conte=t, it is ore correct to sa" that the .ri#ht to securit". is actuall" the ;2ree&o6 2ro6 t0re$t.; 7ie!ed in this li#ht, the .threatened !ith violation. Clause in the latter part of Section ( of the Amparo Rule is a for of violation of the ri#ht to securit" entioned in the earlier part of the provision. (35 Seco%&, t0e r-/0t to .ec*r-t+ o2 4er.o% -. $ /*$r$%tee o2 bo&-1+ $%& 4.+c0o1o/-c$1 -%te/r-t+ or .ec*r-t+. +rticle III, Section II of the ()85 Constitution #uarantees that, as a #eneral rule, oneDs bod" cannot be searched or invaded !ithout a search !arrant. (38 Ph"sical in0uries inflicted in the conte=t of e=trale#al %illin#s and enforced disappearances constitute ore than a search or invasion of the bod". It a" constitute dis e ber ent, ph"sical disabilities, and painful ph"sical intrusion. +s the de#ree of ph"sical in0ur" increases, the dan#er to life itself escalates. Notabl", in cri inal la!, ph"sical in0uries constitute a cri e a#ainst persons because the" are an affront to the bodil" inte#rit" or securit" of a person. (3) Ph"sical torture, force, and violence are a severe invasion of bodil" inte#rit". When e plo"ed to vitiate the free !ill such as to force the victi to ad it, reveal or fabricate incri inatin# infor ation, it constitutes an invasion of both bodil" and ps"cholo#ical inte#rit" as the di#nit" of the hu an person includes the e=ercise of free !ill. +rticle III, Section (3 of the ()85 Constitution ore specificall" proscribes bodil" and ps"cholo#ical invasion, viz> 132 No torture, force, violence, threat or inti idation, or an" other eans !hich vitiate the free !ill shall be used a#ainst hi 1an" person under investi#ation for the co ission of an offense2. Secret detention places, solitar", incommunicado or other si ilar for s of detention are prohibited. Parentheticall", under this provision, threat and inti idation that vitiate the free !ill E althou#h not involvin# invasion of bodil" inte#rit" E nevertheless constitute a violation of the ri#ht to securit" in the sense of .freedo fro threat. as aforeEdiscussed.

+rticle III, Section (3 #uarantees freedo fro dehu ani:in# abuses of persons under investi#ation for the co ission of an offense. 7icti s of enforced disappearances !ho are not even under such investi#ation should all the ore be protected fro these de#radations. +n overture to an interpretation of the ri#ht to securit" of person as a ri#ht a#ainst torture !as ade b" the European Court of ?u an Ri#hts 1EC?R2 in the recent case of Po4o, ,. R*..-$.(4- In this case, the clai ant, !ho !as la!full" detained, alle#ed that the state authorities had ph"sicall" abused hi in prison, thereb" violatin# his ri#ht to securit" of person. +rticle '1(2 of the European Convention on ?u an Ri#hts provides, viz> .Ever"one has the ri#ht to libert" and securit" of person. No one shall be deprived of his libert" save in the follo!in# cases and in accordance !ith a procedure prescribed b" la! .... 1e phases supplied2 +rticle 4, on the other hand, provides that .1n2o one shall be sub0ected to torture or to inhu an or de#radin# treat ent or punish ent.. +lthou#h the application failed on the facts as the alle#ed illEtreat ent !as found baseless, the EC?R relied heavil" on the concept of securit" in holdin#, viz> ...the applicant did not brin# his alle#ations to the attention of do estic authorities at the ti e !hen the" could reasonabl" have been e=pected to ta%e easures in order to ensure his .ec*r-t+ and to investi#ate the circu stances in *uestion. === === === ... the authorities failed to ensure his .ec*r-t+ in custod" or to co pl" !ith the procedural obli#ation under +rt.4 to conduct an effective investi#ation into his alle#ations.(4( 1e phasis supplied2 $he ;.N. Co ittee on the Eli ination of Discri ination a#ainst Wo en has also ade a state ent that the protection of the bodil" inte#rit" of !o en a" also be related to the ri#ht to securit" and libert", viz> ...#enderEbased violence !hich i pairs or nullifies the en0o" ent b" !o en of hu an ri#hts and funda ental freedo s under #eneral international la! or under specific hu an ri#hts conventions is discri ination !ithin the eanin# of article ( of the Convention 1on the Eli ination of +ll /or s of Discri ination +#ainst Wo en2. $hese ri#hts and freedo s include . . . the ri#ht to libert" and .ec*r-t+ o2 4er.o%.(43 T0-r&, t0e r-/0t to .ec*r-t+ o2 4er.o% -. $ /*$r$%tee o2 4rotect-o% o2 o%e7. r-/0t. b+ t0e /o,er%6e%t. In the conte=t of the !rit of Amparo, this ri#ht is b*-1t -%to t0e /*$r$%tee. o2 t0e r-/0t to 1-2e $%& 1-bert+ under +rticle III, Section ( of the ()85 Constitution $%& t0e r-/0t to .ec*r-t+ o2 4er.o% 1as freedo fro threat and #uarantee of bodil" and ps"cholo#ical inte#rit"2 under +rticle III, Section 3. $he ri#ht to securit" of person in this third sense is a corollar" of the polic" that the State .#uarantees full respect for hu an ri#hts. under +rticle II, Section (( of the ()85 Constitution.(44 +s the #overn ent is the chief #uarantor of order and securit", the Constitutional #uarantee of the ri#hts to life, libert" and securit" of person is rendered ineffective if #overn ent does not afford protection to these ri#hts especiall" !hen the" are under threat. Protection includes conductin# effective investi#ations, or#ani:ation of the #overn ent

apparatus to e=tend protection to victi s of e=trale#al %illin#s or enforced disappearances 1or threats thereof2 and6or their fa ilies, and brin#in# offenders to the bar of 0ustice. $he InterE + erican Court of ?u an Ri#hts stressed the i portance of investi#ation in the (e1$.<*e5 Ro&r-/*e5 C$.e,(4& viz> 1$he dut" to investi#ate2 6*.t be *%&ert$8e% -% $ .er-o*. 6$%%er $%& %ot $. $ 6ere 2or6$1-t+ 4reor&$-%e& to be -%e22ect-,e . +n investi#ation ust have an ob0ective and be $..*6e& b+ t0e St$te $. -t. o3% 1e/$1 &*t+, %ot $. $ .te4 t$8e% b+ 4r-,$te -%tere.t. t0$t &e4e%&. *4o% t0e -%-t-$t-,e o2 t0e ,-ct-6 or 0-. 2$6-1+ or upon their offer of proof, !ithout an effective search for the truth b" the #overn ent. (4' $his third sense of the ri#ht to securit" of person as a #uarantee of #overn ent protection has been interpreted b" the ;nited NationsD ?u an Ri#hts Co ittee (49 in not a fe! cases involvin# +rticle )(45 of the ICCPR. While the ri#ht to securit" of person appears in con0unction !ith the ri#ht to libert" under +rticle ), the Co ittee has ruled that the r-/0t to .ec*r-t+ o2 4er.o% c$% e=-.t -%&e4e%&e%t1+ o2 t0e r-/0t to 1-bert+ . In other !ords, there need not necessaril" be a deprivation of libert" for the ri#ht to securit" of person to be invo%ed. In #e1/$&o P$e5 ,. Co1o6b-$,(48 a case involvin# death threats to a reli#ion teacher at a secondar" school in Aeticia, Colo bia, !hose social vie!s differed fro those of the +postolic Prefect of Aeticia, the Co ittee held, viz> $he first sentence of article ) does not stand as a separate para#raph. Its location as a part of para#raph one could lead to the vie! that the ri#ht to securit" arises onl" in the conte=t of arrest and detention. $he travau= prPparatoires indicate that the discussions of the first sentence did indeed focus on atters dealt !ith in the other provisions of article ). T0e U%-,er.$1 #ec1$r$t-o% o2 H*6$% R-/0t., -% $rt-c1e >, re2er. to t0e r-/0t to 1-2e, t0e r-/0t to 1-bert+ $%& t0e r-/0t to .ec*r-t+ o2 t0e 4er.o%. T0e.e e1e6e%t. 0$,e bee% &e$1t 3-t0 -% .e4$r$te c1$*.e. -% t0e Co,e%$%t. A1t0o*/0 -% t0e Co,e%$%t t0e o%1+ re2ere%ce to t0e r-/0t o2 .ec*r-t+ o2 4er.o% -. to be 2o*%& -% $rt-c1e 9, t0ere -. %o e,-&e%ce t0$t -t 3$. -%te%&e& to %$rro3 t0e co%ce4t o2 t0e r-/0t to .ec*r-t+ o%1+ to .-t*$t-o%. o2 2or6$1 &e4r-,$t-o% o2 1-bert+. At t0e .$6e t-6e, St$te. 4$rt-e. 0$,e *%&ert$8e% to /*$r$%tee t0e r-/0t. e%.0r-%e& -% t0e Co,e%$%t. !t c$%%ot be t0e c$.e t0$t, $. $ 6$tter o2 1$3, St$te. c$% -/%ore 8%o3% t0re$t. to t0e 1-2e o2 4er.o%. *%&er t0e-r ?*r-.&-ct-o%, ?*.t bec$*.e t0$t 0e or .0e -. %ot $rre.te& or ot0er3-.e &et$-%e&. St$te. 4$rt-e. $re *%&er $% ob1-/$t-o% to t$8e re$.o%$b1e $%& $44ro4r-$te 6e$.*re. to 4rotect t0e6. A% -%ter4ret$t-o% o2 $rt-c1e 9 30-c0 3o*1& $11o3 $ St$te 4$rt+ to -/%ore t0re$t. to t0e 4er.o%$1 .ec*r-t+ o2 %o%@&et$-%e& 4er.o%. 3-t0-% -t. ?*r-.&-ct-o% 3o*1& re%&er tot$11+ -%e22ect-,e t0e /*$r$%tee. o2 t0e Co,e%$%t .(4) 1e phasis supplied2 $he P$e5 rulin# !as reiterated in B3$1+$ ,. A$6b-$,(&- !hich involved a political activist and prisoner of conscience !ho continued to be inti idated, harassed, and restricted in his ove ents follo!in# his release fro detention. In a catena of cases, the rulin# of the Co ittee !as of a si ilar i port> B$0$6o%&e ,. E<*$tor-$1 G*-%e$,(&( involvin#

discri ination, inti idation and persecution of opponents of the rulin# part" in that state<T.0-.0-6b- ,. A$-re,(&3 involvin# the abduction of the co plainantDs husband !ho !as a supporter of de ocratic refor in Iaire< #-$. ,. A%/o1$,(&4 -%,o1,-%/ t0e 6*r&er o2 t0e co641$-%$%t7. 4$rt%er $%& t0e 0$r$..6e%t 0e Bco641$-%$%tC .*22ere& bec$*.e o2 0-. -%,e.t-/$t-o% o2 t0e 6*r&erD $%& C0o%/3e ,. A$6b-$,(&&involvin# an assassination atte pt on the chair an of an opposition alliance. Si ilarl", the European Court of ?u an Ri#hts 1EC?R2 has interpreted the .ri#ht to securit". not onl" as prohibitin# the State fro arbitraril" deprivin# libert", but i posin# a positive dut" on the State to afford protection of the ri#ht to libert". (&' $he EC?R interpreted the .ri#ht to securit" of person. under +rticle '1(2 of the European Convention of ?u an Ri#hts in the leadin# case on disappearance of persons, E*rt ,. T*r8e+.(&9 In this case, the clai antDs son had been arrested b" state authorities and had not been seen since. $he fa il"Ds re*uests for infor ation and investi#ation re#ardin# his !hereabouts proved futile. $he clai ant su##ested that this !as a violation of her sonDs ri#ht to securit" of person. $he EC?R ruled, viz> ... an" deprivation of libert" ust not onl" have been effected in confor it" !ith the substantive and procedural rules of national la! but ust e*uall" be in %eepin# !ith the ver" purpose of +rticle ', na el" to protect the individual fro arbitrariness... ?avin# assu ed control over that individual it is incu bent on the authorities to account for his or her !hereabouts. /or this reason, Art-c1e F 6*.t be .ee% $. re<*-r-%/ t0e $*t0or-t-e. to t$8e e22ect-,e 6e$.*re. to .$2e/*$r& $/$-%.t t0e r-.8 o2 &-.$44e$r$%ce $%& to co%&*ct $ 4ro64t e22ect-,e -%,e.t-/$t-o% -%to $% $r/*$b1e c1$-6 t0$t $ 4er.o% 0$. bee% t$8e% -%to c*.to&+ $%& 0$. %ot bee% .ee% .-%ce.(&5 1e phasis supplied2 +ppl"in# the fore#oin# concept of the ri#ht to securit" of person to the case at bar, !e no! deter ine !hether there is a continuin# violation of respondentsD ri#ht to securit". -r.t, t0e ,-o1$t-o% o2 t0e r-/0t to .ec*r-t+ $. 2ree&o6 2ro6 t0re$t to re.4o%&e%t.7 1-2e, 1-bert+ $%& .ec*r-t+. While respondents !ere detained, the" !ere threatened that if the" escaped, their fa ilies, includin# the , !ould be %illed. In Ra" ondDs narration, he !as tortured and poured !ith #asoline after he !as cau#ht the first ti e he atte pted to escape fro /ort Ma#sa"sa". + call fro a certain .Ma ,. !ho !anted to see hi before he !as %illed, spared hi . $his ti e, respondents have finall" escaped. $he condition of the threat to be %illed has co e to pass. It should be stressed that the" are no! free fro captivit" not because the" !ere released b" virtue of a la!ful order or voluntaril" freed b" their abductors. It ou#ht to be recalled that to!ards the end of their ordeal, so eti e in @une 3--5 !hen respondents !ere detained in a ca p in Ai a", Bataan, respondentsD captors even told the that the" !ere still decidin# !hether the" should be e=ecuted. Respondent Ra" ond Manalo attested in his affidavit, viz>

Finau a#ahan, na%aE%adena pa %a i. $inan##al an# #a %adena #a 4 o & na ara! pa#%alipas. Sinabi sa a in na %a"a %a i na%a%adena a" dahil pina#dedesis"unan pa n# #a sundalo %un# papata"in %a i o hindi.(&8 $he possibilit" of respondents bein# e=ecuted stared the in the e"e !hile the" !ere in detention. With their escape, this continuin# threat to their life is apparent, oreso no! that the" have surfaced and i plicated specific officers in the ilitar" not onl" in their o!n abduction and torture, but also in those of other persons %no!n to have disappeared such as Sherl"n Cadapan, Faren E peHo, and Manuel Merino, a on# others. ;nderstandabl", since their escape, respondents have been under conceal ent and protection b" private citi:ens because of the threat to their life, libert" and securit". $he threat vitiates their free !ill as the" are forced to li it their ove ents or activities. (&) Precisel" because respondents are bein# shielded fro the perpetrators of their abduction, the" cannot be e=pected to sho! evidence of overt acts of threat such as faceEtoEface inti idation or !ritten threats to their life, libert" and securit". Nonetheless, the circu stances of respondentsD abduction, detention, torture and escape reasonabl" support a conclusion that there is an apparent threat that the" !ill a#ain be abducted, tortured, and this ti e, even e=ecuted. $hese constitute threats to their libert", securit", and life, actionable throu#h a petition for a !rit of Amparo. Ne=t, t0e ,-o1$t-o% o2 t0e r-/0t to .ec*r-t+ $. 4rotect-o% b+ t0e /o,er%6e%t . +part fro the failure of ilitar" ele ents to provide protection to respondents b" the selves perpetratin# the abduction, detention, and torture, the" also iserabl" failed in conductin# an effective investi#ation of respondentsD abduction as revealed b" the testi on" and investi#ation report of petitionersD o!n !itness, At. Col. Ruben @i ene:, Provost Marshall of the 5 th Infantr" Division. $he oneEda" investi#ation conducted b" @i ene: !as ver" li ited, superficial, and oneEsided. ?e erel" relied on the S!orn State ents of the si= i plicated e bers of the C+/,; and civilians !ho he et in the investi#ation for the first ti e. ?e !as present at the investi#ation !hen his subordinate Ain#ad !as ta%in# the s!orn state ents, but he did not propound a sin#le *uestion to ascertain the veracit" of their state ents or their credibilit". ?e did not call for other !itnesses to test the alibis #iven b" the si= i plicated persons nor for the fa il" or nei#hbors of the respondents. In his affidavit, petitioner Secretar" of National Defense attested that in a Me orandu Directive dated October 4(, 3--5, he issued a polic" directive addressed to the +/P Chief of Staff, that the +/P should adopt rules of action in the event the !rit of Amparo is issued b" a co petent court a#ainst an" e bers of the +/P, !hich should essentiall" include verification of the identit" of the a##rieved part"< recover" and preservation of relevant evidence< identification of !itnesses and securin# state ents fro the < deter ination of the cause, anner, location and ti e of death or disappearance< identification and apprehension of the person or persons involved in the death or disappearance< and brin#in# of the suspected offenders before a co petent court. ('- Petitioner +/P Chief of Staff also sub itted his o!n affidavit attestin# that he received the above directive of respondent Secretar" of National

Defense and that actin# on this directive, he i ediatel" caused to be issued a directive to the units of the +/P for the purpose of establishin# the circu stances of the alle#ed disappearance and the recent reappearance of the respondents, and undertoo% to provide results of the investi#ations to respondents.('( $o this da", ho!ever, al ost a "ear after the polic" directive !as issued b" petitioner Secretar" of National Defense on October 4(, 3--5, respondents have not been furnished the results of the investi#ation !hich the" no! see% throu#h the instant petition for a !rit of Amparo. ;nder these circu stances, there is substantial evidence to !arrant the conclusion that there is a violation of respondentsD ri#ht to securit" as a #uarantee of protection b" the #overn ent. In su , !e conclude that respondentsD ri#ht to securit" as .freedo fro threat. is violated b" the apparent threat to their life, libert" and securit" of person. $heir ri#ht to securit" as a #uarantee of protection b" the #overn ent is li%e!ise violated b" the ineffective investi#ation and protection on the part of the ilitar". /inall", !e co e to the re1-e2. #ranted b" the Court of +ppeals, !hich petitioners *uestion. -r.t, that petitioners furnish respondents $11 o22-c-$1 $%& *%o22-c-$1 re4ort. o2 t0e -%,e.t-/$t-o% underta%en in connection !ith their case, e=cept those alread" in file !ith the court. Seco%&, that petitioners co%2-r6 -% 3r-t-%/ t0e 4re.e%t 41$ce. o2 o22-c-$1 $..-/%6e%t o2 MGS/t. H-1$r-o $8$ Ro11-e C$.t-11o $%& #o%$1& C$-/$. . T0-r&, that petitioners cause to be produced to the Court of +ppeals all 6e&-c$1 re4ort., recor&. $%& c0$rt., $%& re4ort. o2 $%+ tre$t6e%t /-,e% or reco66e%&e& $%& 6e&-c-%e. 4re.cr-be&, -2 $%+, to t0e M$%$1o brot0er. , to include a 1-.t o2 6e&-c$1 4er.o%%e1 B6-1-t$r+ $%& c-,-1-$%C 30o $tte%&e& to t0e6 fro /ebruar" (&, 3--9 until +u#ust (3, 3--5. With respect to the 2-r.t $%& .eco%& re1-e2., petitioners ar#ue that the production order sou#ht b" respondents parta%es of the characteristics of a search !arrant. $hus, the" clai that the re*uisites for the issuance of a search !arrant ust be co plied !ith prior to the #rant of the production order, na el"> 1(2 the application ust be under oath or affir ation< 132 the search !arrant ust particularl" describe the place to be searched and the thin#s to be sei:ed< 142 there e=ists probable cause !ith one specific offense< and 1&2 the probable cause ust be personall" deter ined b" the 0ud#e after e=a ination under oath or affir ation of the co plainant and the !itnesses he a" produce. ('3 In the case at bar, ho!ever, petitioners point out that other than the bare, selfEservin# and va#ue alle#ations ade b" respondent Ra" ond Manalo in his unverified declaration and affidavit, the docu ents respondents see% to be produced are onl" entioned #enerall" b" na e, !ith no other supportin# details. $he" also ar#ue that the relevanc" of the docu ents to be produced ust be apparent, but this is not true in the present case as the involve ent of petitioners in the abduction has not been sho!n. PetitionersD ar#u ents do not hold !ater. $he production order under the Amparo Rule should not be confused !ith a search !arrant for la! enforce ent under +rticle III, Section 3 of the

()85 Constitution. $his Constitutional provision is a protection of the people fro the unreasonable intrusion of the #overn ent, not a protection of the #overn ent fro the de and of the people such as respondents. Instead, the Amparo production order a" be li%ened to the production of docu ents or thin#s under Section (, Rule 35 of the Rules of Civil Procedure !hich provides in relevant part, viz> Section (. Motion for production or inspection order. ;pon otion of an" part" sho!in# #ood cause therefor, the court in !hich an action is pendin# a" 1a2 order an" part" to produce and per it the inspection and cop"in# or photo#raphin#, b" or on behalf of the ovin# part", of an" desi#nated docu ents, papers, boo%s of accounts, letters, photo#raphs, ob0ects or tan#ible thin#s, not privile#ed, !hich constitute or contain evidence aterial to an" atter involved in the action and !hich are in his possession, custod" or control... In M$ter-$1 #-.tr-b*tor. BP0-1.C !%c. ,. H*&/e N$t-,-&$& ,('4 the respondent 0ud#e, under authorit" of Rule 35, issued a subpoena duces tecum for the production and inspection of a on# others, the boo%s and papers of Material Distributors 1Phil.2 Inc. $he co pan" *uestioned the issuance of the subpoena on the #round that it violated the search and sei:ure clause. $he Court struc% do!n the ar#u ent and held that the subpoenapertained to a civil procedure that .cannot be identified or confused !ith unreasonable searches prohibited b" the Constitution.... Moreover, in his affidavit, petitioner +/P Chief of Staff hi self undertoo% .to provide results of the investi#ations conducted or to be conducted b" the concerned unit relative to the circu stances of the alle#ed disappearance of the persons in !hose favor the Writ of Amparo has been sou#ht for as soon as the sa e has been furnished ?i#her head*uarters.. )-t0 re.4ect to t0e .eco%& $%& t0-r& re1-e2. , petitioners assert that the disclosure of the present places of assi#n ent of M6S#t. ?ilario a%a Rollie Castillo and Donald Cai#as, as !ell as the sub ission of a list of edical personnel, is irrelevant, i proper, i aterial, and unnecessar" in the resolution of the petition for a !rit of Amparo. $he" add that it !ill unnecessaril" co pro ise and 0eopardi:e the e=ercise of official functions and duties of ilitar" officers and even un!ittin#l" and unnecessaril" e=pose the to threat of personal in0ur" or even death. On the contrar", the disclosure of the present places of assi#n ent of M6S#t. ?ilario aka Rollie Castillo and Donald Cai#as, !ho respondents both directl" i plicated as perpetrators behind their abduction and detention, is relevant in ensurin# the safet" of respondents b" avoidin# their areas of territorial 0urisdiction. Such disclosure !ould also help ensure that these ilitar" officers can be served !ith notices and court processes in relation to an" investi#ation and action for violation of the respondentsD ri#hts. $he list of edical personnel is also relevant in securin#

infor ation to create the edical histor" of respondents and interventions, !hen applicable and necessar".

a%e appropriate

edical

In blatant violation of our hardE!on #uarantees to life, libert" and securit", these ri#hts are snuffed out fro victi s of e=trale#al %illin#s and enforced disappearances. $he !rit of Amparo is a tool that #ives voice to pre"s of silent #uns and prisoners behind secret !alls. )HERE ORE, pre ises considered, the petition is #!SM!SSE#. $he Decision of the Court of +ppeals dated Dece ber 39, 3--5 is affir ed. SO OR#ERE#. REYNATO S. PUNO Chief @ustice