Amnesty International Report their own security forces.
their own security forces. The law must strictly control and limit the circumstances in
The drug-related killings represent a flagrant violation of international human rights
law that is legally binding on the Philippines. At their forefront is the non-derogable
human right to life, which extrajudicial executions violate. Other human rights,
including the right to due process, the right to health, prisoners’ right to humane
treatment and the rights of victims’ family members have also been violated.
As the government has largely ignored a public health approach in favour of a law
enforcement approach to drug use, many people who use drugs have become terrified
of accessing health services that might link them to drugs.
As the government has largely ignored a public health approach in favour of a law
enforcement approach to drug use, many people who use drugs have become terrified
of accessing health services that might link them to drugs.
The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the
Special Rapporteur on the right to health have stated that the President may be guilty
of “incitement to violence and killing, a crime under international law.
The Philippine authorities are bound by international and domestic obligations,
which among other things protect the right to life of all persons as well as their right
to fair trial and the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health.
The Philippines is a state party to several human rights treaties, among them the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits the
arbitrary deprivation of life and guarantees the right to a fair trial. It is also a party to
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which
protects the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health.
In accordance with international law, the Philippine authorities are obligated to: •
Respect and protect the right to life at all times; • End incitement to violence against
people suspected of using or selling drugs immediately; • Investigate all killings which
may be unlawful, including suspected extrajudicial executions, and provide adequate
protection from harassment and reprisals for witnesses and complainants; • Bring to
justice those responsible for unlawful killings; and • Provide remedy and redress to
victims.
Under the ICCPR, the right to life is non-derogable, that is, cannot be restricted even
“in time of public emergency which threatens the life of a nation.”40 The right to life
must be protected by law, and no one should be arbitrarily deprived of his or her
life.41 The UN Human Rights Committee speaks of the right to life as the “supreme
right” and has called on states parties to “take measures not only to prevent and
punish deprivation of life by criminal acts, but also to prevent arbitrary killing by
which a person may be deprived of his life.”
For anyone charged with a criminal offence, the ICCPR also enshrines the right “to a
fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal
established by law,” with the presumption of innocence.43 In addition, states parties
must “ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms … are violated shall have an
effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons
acting in official capacity.”
There is no explicit definition of extrajudicial executions under international law.
Amnesty International defines extrajudicial executions as unlawful and deliberate
killings carried out by order of a government or with its complicity or acquiescence,
which is along the lines of descriptions provided by international experts.
Extrajudicial executions would under this understanding include unlawful killings
both by state forces and by non-state groups and individuals that state authorities fail
to properly investigate and prosecute. In the context of the “war on drugs” in the
Philippines, extrajudicial executions therefore encompass both unlawful police
killings and killings by unknown armed persons that the authorities are complicit or
acquiescent in, including by failing to properly investigate and prosecute.
Whenever unlawful use of force is suspected, in particular by or with the involvement
of state officials and where such force has led to injury or death, prompt, impartial
and effective investigations must take place, through independent and impartial
bodies and that “failure by a State Party to investigate allegations of violations could
in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant .”
Victims and survivors must be offered reparation.61 All relevant officials must at all
times be held accountable for their actions through a transparent system of
investigatory and judicial proceedings, without the promise of protective immunity or
amnesties.
The anti-drug operations violate a number of other fundamental human rights
including: • The absolute prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment; • The right to liberty and security of person; •
The right to non-discrimination; • The right to recognition and equality before the
law; and • The best interests of the child principle.
The Philippine Constitution strongly entrenches the rights to life, human dignity and
due process.62 It further guarantees all persons equal protection of the law,63 as well
as the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the right to “a speedy,
impartial, and public trial.”
Related to the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health, the Constitution
provides that the government “shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive
approach to health development which shall endeavor to make essential goods, health
and other social services available at affordable cost.”
There is no law in the Philippines that specifically criminalises the act of
“extrajudicial” or “extra-legal” execution. However, any perpetrator of an extrajudicial
execution, including law enforcement officials, fall under the Revised Penal Code’s
provisions on murder and homicide.66 Murder includes any killing “in consideration
of a price, reward, or promise,”67 such as when police officers or paid killers are paid
for killing alleged drug offenders.
Under a rule issued by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, a specific remedy known
as a petition for writ of amparo, to which the court can respond by taking preventive
or protective measures, is available to “any person whose right to the 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.”68 The right to petition
for a writ of amparo explicitly applies to extrajudicial executions.69 In addition, the
writ of habeas data—a court order for authorities to provide, correct or destroy
information they hold on a person—provides a remedy “to any person whose right to
privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.”70 In
cases of extrajudicial execution, petitions for both writs may be filed by relatives of
the aggrieved party.71
The Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act, enacted and signed into law in 2002,
outlines the penalties for the use and sale of drugs in the Philippines,73 while the
Philippine National Police Operations Manual dictates the procedures under which
police officers are to carry out operations, use firearms, and investigate crimes.74
Crimes against humanity are prohibited acts committed as part of widespread or
systematic attack against a civilian population as part of a government or
organizational policy. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, to which
the Philippines is a state party, defines crimes against humanity in Article 7: “For the
purpose of this Statute, ‘crime against humanity’ means any of the following acts
when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any
civilian population, with knowledge of the attack ….”198 Article 7(1) lists 11 crimes,
or “acts,” including “[m]urder” and “[p]ersecution against any identifiable group” on
any “grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international
law,” as well as “[o]ther inhumane acts.”199 “Attack directed against any civilian
population” is defined in Article 7(2)(a) as “a course of conduct involving the multiple
commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population,
pursuant to or in furtherance of a state or organizational policy to commit such
attack.”200 The definition in the Rome Statute reflects to a large extent rules of
customary international law binding on all states, regardless of whether or not a state
is party to the Statute.
The contextual elements of crimes against humanity require that each individual act
be perpetrated in the context of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a
civilian population and with knowledge of the attack. Each element of these
requirements must be proved before any accused person can be convicted of crimes
against humanity. Amnesty International is of the view that these contextual elements
may be met in the Philippines and that further investigation by a competent authority
is required to determine whether crimes against humanity have been committed.
However, this requires a determination of whether the killings and extrajudicial
executions were deliberately directed against the civilian population in accordance
with a governmental policy, which are questions that should be determined as part of
any independent, impartial and effective investigation of the crimes documented in
this report.
Several local human rights activists said that children arrested for drug-related
offenses are often held in adult detention facilities, in violation of the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child, to which the Philippines is a state party.
Under Oplan Tokhang, the right to life is not only violated through arbitrary and
otherwise unlawful killings, but also by subsequent practices that create barriers to
justice, accountability and remedy. Amnesty International’s interviews with families,
experts and activists reveal a pattern of police inaction and impunity, often
insurmountable obstacles for complainants pursuing legal action and difficulties
facing human rights defenders working on these issues.
There are several state institutions that have an obligation to investigate killings by
police or unknown armed persons, including the National Bureau of Investigation, the
National Prosecution Service, the Ombudsman, and the Internal Affairs Service.296
However, as explained in a detailed Amnesty International investigation on torture in
the Philippines, “these bodies suffer from serious limitations that restrict or even
prevent them from undertaking effective investigations.”297 Moreover, there is no
clear-cut allocation of roles among these agencies, nor is there public awareness of
their roles in the first place.
The Internal Affairs Service (IAS) is meant to be an “institutional watchdog agency”
for the police, 301 and is mandated to automatically investigate anytime a police
officer fires a weapon; anytime “death, serious physical injury, or any violation of
human rights” occurs during a police operation; and anytime “evidence was
compromised [or] tampered with” by police officers.302 The head of the IAS, called
the Inspector General, is a presidential appointee. The current Inspector General was
appointed in early December; as with several other heads of government bodies, he
worked under President Duterte when Duterte was mayor of Davao City.
In many cases documented by Amnesty International, witnesses spoke of wilful
disregard of procedure by the police. Examples included the failure to wear police
uniforms during operations and the absence of barangay officials during and after
operations, including as inventory was examined. After killing a young man during a
raid on his home in Metro Cebu, police officers asked his live-in partner if she could
make them coffee as they dealt with the crime scene. She declined. They returned, as
she grieved her partner’s death, to ask if they could take drinks from the refrigerator.
The scarcity of resources likewise undermines the collection of forensic evidence—
particularly important when documenting cases with conflicting police and witness
accounts. The CHR’s entire forensic team is comprised of four people based in Manila.
Its services are limited to autopsies and do not include ballistics analysis or a
chemical lab; for that, the CHR has to rely on facilities of the national police or the NBI.
The human rights implications of placing a rehabilitation facility within a military
camp are alarming, particularly related to the rights to liberty and health. It suggests
treatment is a form of punishment rather than therapy and reinforces a stigmatized
view of people who use drugs as criminals.
Given the widespread drug-related killings and climate of fear created by police
actions and President Duterte’s rhetoric, many people who use drugs feel forced to
submit to drug treatment, rehabilitation and testing. Such coercive measures
constitute a violation to the rights to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health,
to privacy and to bodily integrity, as well as to freedom from torture and other ill-
treatment.
Reyes vs. CA
Issue: Whether the right to travel is covered by the Rule on the Writ of Amparo?
Ruling: No. The rights that fall within the protective mantle of the Writ of Amparo
under Section 1 of the Rules thereon are the following: (1) right to life; (2) right to
liberty; and (3) right to security.
Section 1. Petition. - 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 Court, in Secretary of National Defense et al. v. Manalo et al.,[11] made a
categorical pronouncement that the Amparo Rule in its present form is confined to
these two instances of "extralegal killings" and "enforced disappearances," or to
threats thereof, thus: x x x As the Amparo Rule was intended to address the
intractable problem of "extralegal killings" and "enforced disappearances," its
coverage, in its present form, is confined to these two instances or to threats thereof.
"Extralegal killings" are "killings committed without due process of law, i.e., without
legal safeguards or judicial proceedings." On the other hand, "enforced
disappearances" are "attended by the following characteristics: an arrest, detention
or abduction of a person by a government official or organized groups or private
individuals acting with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the government; the
refusal of the State to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned or a
refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which places such persons outside
the protection of law."
In Tapuz v. Del Rosario,[13] the Court laid down the basic principle regarding the rule
on the writ of amparo as follows:
To start off with the basics, the writ of amparo was originally conceived as a response
to the extraordinary rise in the number of killings and enforced disappearances, and
to the perceived lack of available and effective remedies to address these
extraordinary concerns. It is intended to address violations of or threats to the rights
to life, liberty or security, as an extraordinary and independent remedy beyond those
available under the prevailing Rules, or as a remedy supplemental to these Rules.
What it is not, is a writ to protect concerns that are purely property or commercial.
Neither is it a writ that we shall issue on amorphous and uncertain grounds.
Consequently, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo - in line with the extraordinary
character of the writ and the reasonable certainty that its issuance demands -
requires that every petition for the issuance of the writ must be supported by
justifying allegations of fact, to wit:
"(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner; (b) The name and personal
circumstances of the respondent responsible for the threat, act or omission, or, if the
name is unknown or uncertain, the respondent may be described by an assumed
appellation; (c) The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or
threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of the respondent, and how
such threat or violation is committed with the attendant circumstances detailed in
supporting affidavits; (d) The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names,
personal circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authority or individuals,
as well as the manner and conduct of the investigation, together with any report; (e)
The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the fate or
whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of the person responsible for the
threat, act or omission; and (f) The relief prayed for. The petition may include a
general prayer for other just and equitable reliefs."[14] The writ shall issue if the
Court is preliminarily satisfied with the prima facie existence of the ultimate facts
determinable from the supporting affidavits that detail the circumstances of how and
to what extent a threat to or violation of the rights to life, liberty and security of the
aggrieved party was or is being committed. (Emphasis supplied)
A closer look at the right to security of person would yield various permutations of
the exercise of this right.
First, the right to security of person is "freedom from fear." In its "whereas" clauses,
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) enunciates that "a world in which
human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and
want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people."
(emphasis supplied) Some scholars postulate that "freedom from fear" is not only an
aspirational principle, but essentially an individual international human right. It is the
"right to security of person" as the word "security" itself means "freedom from fear."
Article 3 of the UDHR provides, viz:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
x x x The Philippines is a signatory to both the UDHR and the ICCPR. In the context of
Section 1 of the Amparo Rule, "freedom from fear" is the right and any threat to the
rights to life, liberty or security is the actionable wrong. Fear is a state of mind, a
reaction; threat is a stimulus, a cause of action. Fear caused by the same stimulus can
range from being baseless to well-founded as people react differently. The degree of
fear can vary from one person to another with the variation of the prolificacy of their
imagination, strength of character or past experience with the stimulus. Thus, in the
amparo context, it is more correct to say that the "right to security" is actually the
"freedom from threat." Viewed in this light, the "threatened with violation" Clause in
the latter part of Section 1 of the Amparo Rule is a form of violation of the right to
security mentioned in the earlier part of the provision. Second, the right to security of
person is a guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity or security. Article III,
Section II of the 1987 Constitution guarantees that, as a general rule, one's body
cannot be searched or invaded without a search warrant. Physical injuries inflicted in
the context of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances constitute more than a
search or invasion of the body. It may constitute dismemberment, physical
disabilities, and painful physical intrusion. As the degree of physical injury increases,
the danger to life itself escalates. Notably, in criminal law, physical injuries constitute
a crime against persons because they are an affront to the bodily integrity or security
of a person. x x x
Third, the right to security of person is a guarantee of protection of one's rights by the
government. In the context of the writ of amparo, this right is built into the
guarantees of the right to life and liberty under Article III, Section 1 of the 1987
Constitution and the right to security of person (as freedom from threat and
guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity) under Article III, Section 2. The right
to security of person in this third sense is a corollary of the policy that the State
"guarantees full respect for human rights" under Article II, Section 11 of the 1987
Constitution. As the government is the chief guarantor of order and security, the
Constitutional guarantee of the rights to life, liberty and security of person is
rendered ineffective if government does not afford protection to these rights
especially when they are under threat. Protection includes conducting effective
investigations, organization of the government apparatus to extend protection to
victims of extralegal killings or enforced disappearances (or threats thereof) and/or
their families, and bringing offenders to the bar of justice. x x x (emphasis supplied)
[19] The right to travel refers to the right to move from one place to another.[20] As
we have stated in Marcos v. Sandiganbayan,[21] "xxx a person's 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 court's sound discretion."
Here, the restriction on petitioner's right to travel as a consequence of the
pendency of the criminal case filed against him was not unlawful. Petitioner has
also 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.
Section 22. Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action. - When a criminal action has been
commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be filed. The reliefs under the writ
shall be available by motion in the criminal case.
The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs available
under the writ of amparo.
Pursuant to the aforementioned Section 22, petitioner should have filed with the RTC-
Makati a motion to lift HDO No. 45 in Criminal Case No. 07-3126. Petitioner, however,
did not file in the RTC-Makati a motion to lift the DOJ's HDO, as his co-accused did in
the same criminal case. Petitioner argues that it was not the RTC-Makati but the DOJ
that issued the said HDO, and that it is his intention not to limit his remedy to the
lifting of the HDO but also to question before this Court the constitutionality of the
power of the DOJ Secretary to issue an HDO.[24] We quote with approval the CA's
ruling on this matter: The said provision [Section 22] is an affirmation by the
Supreme Court of its pronouncement in Crespo v. Mogul[25] that once a complaint or
information is filed in court, any disposition of the case such as its dismissal or its
continuation rests on the sound discretion of the court. Despite the denial of
respondent's MR of the dismissal of the case against petitioner, the trial court has not
lost control over Criminal Case No. 07-3126 which is still pending before it. By virtue
of its residual power, the court a quo retains the authority to entertain incidents in
the instant case to the exclusion of even this Court. The relief petitioner seeks which is
the lifting of the HDO was and is available by motion in the criminal case. (Sec. 22,
Rule on the Writ of amparo, supra).
Tapuz et al. vs. Del Rosario et al.
Ruling:
The Writ of Amparo
To start off with the basics, the writ of amparo was originally conceived as a response
to the extraordinary rise in the number of killings and enforced disappearances, and
to the perceived lack of available and effective remedies to address these
extraordinary concerns. It is intended to address violations of or threats to the rights
to life, liberty or security, as an extraordinary and independent remedy beyond those
available under the prevailing Rules, or as a remedy supplemental to these Rules.
What it is not, is a writ to protect concerns that are purely property or commercial.
Neither is it a writ that we shall issue on amorphous and uncertain grounds.
Consequently, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo - in line with the extraordinary
character of the writ and the reasonable certainty that its issuance demands -
requires that every petition for the issuance of the Pwrit must be supported by
justifying allegations of fact, to wit:
"(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner; (b) The name and personal
circumstances of the respondent responsible for the threat, act or omission, or, if the
name is unknown or uncertain, the respondent may be described by an assumed
appellation; (c) The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or
threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of the respondent, and how
such threat or violation is committed with the attendant circumstances detailed in
supporting affidavits; (d) The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names,
personal circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authority or individuals,
as well as the manner and conduct of the investigation, together with any report; (e)
The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the fate or
whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of the person responsible for the
threat, act or omission; and (f) The relief prayed for. The petition may include a
general prayer for other just and equitable reliefs."
Under these legal and factual situations, we are far from satisfied with the prima facie
existence of the ultimate facts that would justify the issuance of a writ of amparo.
Rather than acts of terrorism that pose a continuing threat to the persons of the
petitioners, the violent incidents alleged appear to us to be purely property-related
and focused on the disputed land. Thus, if the petitioners wish to seek redress and
hold the alleged perpetrators criminally accountable, the remedy may lie more in the
realm of ordinary criminal prosecution rather than on the use of the extraordinary
remedy of the writ of amparo.
The writ of amparo, particularly, should not issue when applied for as a substitute for
the appeal or certiorari process, or when it will inordinately interfere with these
processes - the situation obtaining in the present case.
The Writ of Habeas Data
Section 6 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data requires the following material
allegations of ultimate facts in a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data:
"(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the respondent; (b) The
manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it affects the right to
life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party; (c) The actions and recourses taken by
the petitioner to secure the data or information; (d) The location of the files, registers
or databases, the government office, and the person in charge, in possession or in
control of the data or information, if known; (e) The reliefs prayed for, which may
include the updating, rectification, suppression or destruction of the database or
information or files kept by the respondent. In case of threats, the relief may include a
prayer for an order enjoining the act complained of; and (f) Such other relevant reliefs
as are just and equitable."
Sec. of National Defense vs. Manalo
Ruling: 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.

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.”