REYES V GONZALES
Issue: Fr. Reyes was among of those who were arrested during the
Manila Peninsula Hotel siege, 30th of November, 2007 and they were
temporarily held at Camp Crame. A Hold Departure Order (HDO) for
the petitioner and to the other accused was issued by the DOJ upon
the request of the Department of Interior and Local Government.
Probable cause was found during investigation and petitioner was
charged with rebellion. The RTC however dismissed the charge
against him but the HDO was still in effect. Petitioner requested that
HDO should be lifted in view of the dismissal of the criminal case.
Petitioner argued that a writ of amparo should be issued against the
respondents, violating the whole breadth of rights enshrined in the
Constitution, specifically, his right to travel.
ISSUE: Whether the right to travel is covered by the Rule on the
Writ of Amparo.
RULING:
No. The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy
available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is
violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or of a private
individual or entity. The writ shall cover extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
The restriction on petitioners right to travel as a
consequence of the pendency of the criminal case filed against
him was not unlawful. Petitioner has failed to establish that his
right to travel was impaired in the manner and to the extent that
it amounted to a serious violation of his right to life, liberty and
security, for which there exists no readily available legal
recourse or remedy.
A persons right to travel is subject to the usual
constraints imposed by the very necessity of safeguarding the
system of justice. In such cases, whether the accused should be
permitted to leave the jurisdiction for humanitarian reasons is a
matter of the courts sound discretion.
FACTS:
Brothers Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo were abducted by military men
belonging to the CAFGU on the suspicion that they were members and
supporters of the NPA. After 18 months of detention and torture, the
brothers escaped on August 13, 2007.
Ten days after their escape, they filed a Petition for Prohibition, Injunction,
and Temporary Restraining Order to stop the military officers and agents
from depriving them of their right to liberty and other basic rights. While
the said case was pending, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo took effect on
October 24, 2007. The Manalos subsequently filed a manifestation and
omnibus motion to treat their existing petition as amparo petition.
On December 26, 2007, the Court of Appeals granted the privilege of the
writ of amparo. The CA ordered the Secretary of National Defense and the
Chief of Staff of the AFP to furnish the Manalos and the court with all
official and unofficial investigation reports as to the Manalos custody,
confirm the present places of official assignment of two military officials
involved, and produce all medical reports and records of the Manalo
brothers while under military custody. The Secretary of National Defense
and the Chief of Staff of the AFP appealed to the SC seeking to reverse and
set aside the decision promulgated by the CA.
HELD:
In upholding the CA decision, the Supreme Court ruled that there is a
continuing violation of the Manalos right to security. xxx The Writ of Amparo is
the most potent remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and
security has been violated or is threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
omission by public officials or employees and by private individuals or entities.
xxx Understandably, since their escape, the Manalos have been under
concealment and protection by private citizens because of the threat to their
life, liberty, and security. The circumstances of respondents abduction,
detention, torture and escape reasonably support a conclusion that there is an
apparent threat that they will again be abducted, tortured, and this time, even
executed. These constitute threats to their liberty, security, and life,
actionable through a petition for a writ of amparo, the Court explained. (GR
No. 180906, The Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo, October 7, 2008)
Distinguish the production order under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo from
a search warrant.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The production order under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo should not be
confused with a search warrant for law enforcement under Art. III, sec. 2 of the
1987 Constitution. It said that the production order should be likened to the
production of documents or things under sec. 1, Rule 27 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure which states that upon motion of any party showing good cause
therefor, the court in which an action is pending may (a) order any party to
produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing, by or on
behalf of the moving party, of any designated documents, papers, books of
accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, not privileged,
which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the
action and which are in his possession, custody or control. (GR No. 180906,
The Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo, October 7, 2008)