A.M. No.

07-9-12-SC
Rule on the Writ of Amparo

Origin of the remedy

The Writ of Amparo (“Amparo” literally means protection) was first
adopted in Mexico in 1957. Recurso de Amparo is a remedy against acts that
violate any of the individual guarantees recognized in the Mexican
constitution. It is available in most legal controversies and may be invoked in
criminal, civil and administrative trials. In its country of origin, the recurso de
amparo, is of much broader application than what the Philippine Supreme
Court has decided to adopt under the present Rule.

It is also much broader in scope and application than the writ of habeas
corpus, because the latter is limited to cases of illegal confinement or
detention. The decision of the Philippine Supreme Court to limit it to
extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearance and threats to life, liberty and
security may be because present Philippine laws and remedies already cover
much of what the Mexican amparo includes within its protection.

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.

Purpose of the Rule

The Rule on the Writ of Amparo was promulgated to arrest the rampant
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances in the country. Its purpose is
to provide an expeditious and effective relief 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.

Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo (2008)

Facts: Raymund and Reynaldo were taken by some members of

the CAFGU. They were interrogated and beaten up several times.
After detention of more than a year, Raymund and Reynaldo were
able to escape. Thereafter, they filed a petition for prohibition,
injunction, and temporary restraining order against the
petitioners. In the meantime, the rule on Writ of Amparo was
promulgated. The Court then resolved to treat the petition as a
petition for a Writ of Amparo. Respondents assert that their cause
of action consists in the threat to their right to life and liberty and
a violation of their security.

Issue: Whether or not the respondents are entitled to the

privilege of the Writ of Amparo.

Ruling: Yes. The Writ of Amparo serves both preventive and

curative roles in addressing the problem of extralegal killings and
 enforced disappearances. It is preventive in that it breaks the
expectation of impunity in the commission of these offenses; it is
curative in that it facilitates the subsequent punishment of
perpetrators as it will inevitably yield leads to subsequent
investigation and action. The circumstances of respondents’
abduction, detention, torture and escape reasonably support a
conclusion that there is an apparent threat to their liberty,
security, and life, actionable through a petition for a Writ of
Amparo.

In a broad sense, the right to security of person “emanates in a

person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs,
his body, his health, and his reputation. It includes the right to
exist, and the right to enjoyment of life while existing, and it is
invaded not only by a deprivation of life but also of those things
which are necessary to the enjoyment of life according to the
nature, temperament, and lawful desires of the individual.” In that
regard the Court has set guidelines, (1) the right to security of
person is “freedom from fear’; (2) the right to security of person is
a guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity or security; (3)
Third, the right to security of person is a guarantee of protection
of one’s rights by the government.

Extralegal killings defined

Extralegal killings are defined as “those committed without due process of
law”, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings.

Enforced disappearance and Enforced

or involuntary disappearance of persons defined
“Enforced disappearances” is defined as the arrest, detention, abduction
or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons
or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of
the State followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by
concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person which
place such a person outside the protection of the law.

“Enforced or involuntary disappearance of persons’’ on the other hand,

means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the
authorization, support and acquiescence of, a State or a political organization
followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give
information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons with the intention of
removing from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.

In the case of Navia v. Pardico, petitioners are mere security guards at

the Grand Royale subdivision in Malolos City and their principal, the Asian
Land, is a private entity. They do not work for the government and nothing has
been presented that would link or connect them to some covert police,
military or governmental operation.

Navia v. Pardico (2012)

Facts: Virginia Pardico filed a petition for issuance of a Writ of
Amparo against Edgardo, Ruben, and Andrew, security officers
and security guards assigned to a subdivision, where Lolita
Lapore, her son Bong, and Benhur also live. According to her,
Bong and Ben were fetched by the respondents from Lolita’s
house upon complaint of a homeowner that they stole electric
wires and lamps in the subdivision. Lolita accompanied them to
the security department of the subdivision. Thereat, they were
informed that the complainant is not interested in participating
in the investigation, so the three respondents informed them
that they will just release Bong and Ben. Bong signed a
statement to the effect that he was released unharmed. Lolita
also signed an entry where it was stated that she will never
again entertain or harbour Ben in her house. Ben was left
behind because Edgardo the supervisor was still talking to him.
Later, Ruben and Andrew went back to the house to make Lolita
sign another entry to attest that Ben was released unharmed,
which she signed. Ben was not seen thereafter. The Regional
Trial Court granted the Writ of Amparo.

Issue: Whether or not the issuance of a Writ of Amparo is

proper.

Ruling: No. A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC or The Rule on the Writ of

Amparo was promulgated to arrest the rampant extralegal
killings and enforced disappearances in the country. Its purpose
is to provide an expeditious and effective relief "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."

From the statutory definition of enforced disappearance, thus,

we can derive the following elements that constitute it:
(a) that there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any
form of deprivation of liberty;
(b) that it be carried out by, or with the authorization,
support or acquiescence of, the State or a political
organization;
(c) that it be followed by the State or political
organizations refusal to acknowledge or give information
on the fate or whereabouts of the person subject of the
amparo petition; and,
(d) that the intention for such refusal is to remove
subject person from the protection of the law for a
prolonged period of time.

As thus dissected, it is now clear that for the protective Writ of

Amparo to issue, allegation and proof that the persons subject
thereof are missing are not enough. It must also be shown and
proved by substantial evidence that the disappearance was
carried out by, or with the authorization, support or
acquiescence of, the State or a political organization, followed
 by a refusal to acknowledge the same or give information on the
fate or whereabouts of said missing persons, with the intention
of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged
period of time. Simply put, the petitioner in an amparo case has
the burden of proving by substantial evidence the indispensable
element of government participation.

In probing enforced disappearance cases, courts should now read AM

07-9-12-SC in relation to Republic Act 9851.

Under Section 1 of AM 07-9-12-SC, a Writ of Amparo may lie against a

private individual or entity. But even if the person sought to be held
accountable in an amparo petition is a private individual or entity, still,
government involvement in the disappearance remains an indispensable
element.

SEC. 2. Who May File. – The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party
or by any qualified person or entity in the following order:

a. Any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse, children

and parents of the aggrieved party;

b. Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved

party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in
default of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph; or

c. Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution, if

there is no known member of the immediate family or relative of
the aggrieved party.

The filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends the right of all
other authorized parties to file similar petitions. Likewise, the filing of
the petition by an authorized party on behalf of the aggrieved party
suspends the right of all others, observing the order established herein.

Persons who may file the petition

The petition may be filed by:
1. By the AGGRIEVED PARTY, or
2. By any QUALIFIED person or entity IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER AND
WHICH ORDER MUST BE OBSERVED:
a. Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party,
namely:
1. the spouse,
2. children and
3. parents

There seem to be no order of preference among the

immediate family of the aggrieved party and the petition can
therefore be filed by any of them and in any order;

b. Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the

aggrieved party within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity or
 affinity, in default of the members of the immediate family of the
aggrieved party as mentioned above;

c. If there is no known member of the immediate family or relative

of the aggrieved party, then ANY of the following:
1. concerned citizen
2. concerned organization or association
3. concerned institution
Notes:
a. If the AGGRIEVED PARTY files the petition, the said filing suspends
the right of all other authorized parties to file a similar petition;

b. The filing of a petition by an authorized party on behalf of the

aggrieved party suspends the right of all others.

SEC. 3. Where to File. – The petition may be filed on any day and at any
time with the Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, act or
omission was committed or any of its elements occurred, or with the
Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, or any justice
of such courts. The writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the
Philippines.

When issued by a Regional Trial Court or any judge thereof, the writ shall
be returnable before such court or judge.

When issued by the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of

their justices, it may be returnable before such court or any justice
thereof, or to any Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, act
or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred.

When issued by the Supreme Court or any of its justices, it may be

returnable before such Court or any justice thereof, or before the
Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of their justices, or to any
Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, act or omission was
committed or any of its elements occurred.

When and where to file the petition

a. A petition for the issuance of a Writ of Amparo, can be filed:
1. On ANY DAY and at ANY TIME;
2. With:
a. The REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC) of the place where
the threat, act or omission committed or any of its elements
occurred;
b. The SANDIGANBAYAN;
c. The COURT OF APPEALS;
d. The SUPREME COURT;
e. or with ANY OF THE JUSTICES of the Sandiganbayan,
Court of Appeals or Supreme Court

Where the writ shall be enforced and returned

The writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
 When issued by a Regional Trial Court or any judge thereof, the writ
shall be returnable before such court or judge.

When issued by the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of

their justices, the writ may be returnable:
a. Before such court or any justice thereof;
b. To any Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat,
act or omission was committed or any of its elements
occurred

When issued by the Supreme Court or any of its justices, it may be

returnable:
a. Before such court or any of its justices
b. Before the Sandiganbayan or any of its justices
c. Before the Court of Appeals or any of its justices, or
d. To any Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat,
act or omission was committed or any of its elements
occurred.

SEC. 4. No Docket Fees. – The petitioner shall be exempted from the

payment of the docket and other lawful fees when filing the petition. The
court, justice or judge shall docket the petition and act upon it
immediately.

Exemption from payment of docket fees and other lawful fees

When filing the petition, the petitioner shall be exempted from the
payment of the docket and other lawful fees. The court, justice or judge shall
docket the petition and act upon it immediately.

SEC. 5. Contents of Petition. – The petition shall be signed and verified

and shall allege the following:
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.
The petition must be:
a. signed, and
b. verified by the petitioner

Verification – A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant

has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and
correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records.
(Rule 7, Sec. 4, Rules of Court)

It shall allege the following:

a. The personal circumstances of the petitioner;
b. The name and personal circumstances of the person or entity
(called the respondent) responsible for the threat, act or
omission;
If the name of the respondent is unknown or uncertain, the
respondent may be described by an assumed appellation;
Ex. John Doe, Jane Doe, etc.
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
remedies.

As to the requirement in Section 5(c) of AM 07-9-12-SC that the

attendanct circumstances must be alleged in the petition, the Supreme Court
in the case of Razon v. Tagitis interpreted this requirement as follows: as in
any other initiatory pleading the pleader must state the ultimate facts
constituting the cause of action omitting evidentiary rules.

Razon v. Tagitis (2009)

Facts: Engineer Morced N. Tagitis, together with Arsimin

Kunnong, arrived in Jolo by boat in the early morning of October
31, 2007 from a seminar in Zamboanga City. They immediately
checked-in at ASY Pension House. Tagitis asked Kunnong to buy
him a boat ticket for his return trip the following day to
Zamboanga. When Kunnong returned from this errand, Tagitis
was no longer around.

Kunnong and Muhammad Matli, a UP professor of Muslim studies,

reported Tagitis’ disappearance to the Jolo Police Station. More
than a month later, the respondent, May Jean Tagitis filed a
Petition for the Writ of Amparo directed against petitioners before
the Court of Appeals. On the same day, the CA immediately issued
the Writ of Amparo. The CA ruled that when military intelligence
pinpointed the investigative arm of the PNP (CIDG) to be involved
in the abduction, the missing-person case qualified as an enforced
disappearance. Hence, the CA extended the privilege of the writ to
Tagitis and his family, and directed the petitioners to exert
extraordinary diligence and efforts to protect the life, liberty and
security of Tagitis, with the obligation to provide monthly reports
of their actions to the CA.

Issues: 1. Whether or not the requirement that the pleader must

state the facts, i.e. complete in every detail in stating the
threatened or actual violation of a victim’s rights, is indispensable
in an amparo petition.
2. Whether or not the presentation of substantial evidence by the
petitioner to prove her allegations is sufficient for the court to
grant the privilege of the writ.

Ruling: 1. No. The framers of the Amparo Rule never intended

Section 5(c) to be complete in every detail in stating the
threatened or actual violation of a victim’s rights. As in any other
initiatory pleading, the pleader must of course state the ultimate
facts constituting the cause of action, omitting the evidentiary
details. In an Amparo petition, however, this requirement must be
read in light of the nature and purpose of the proceeding, which
addresses a situation of uncertainty; the petitioner may not be
able to describe with certainty how the victim exactly
disappeared, or who actually acted to kidnap, abduct or arrest him
or her, or where the victim is detained, because these information
may purposely be hidden or covered up by those who caused the
disappearance. To read the Rules of Court requirement on
pleadings while addressing the unique Amparo situation, the test
in reading the petition should be to determine whether it contains
the details available to the petitioner under the circumstances,
while presenting a cause of action showing a violation of the
victim’s rights to life, liberty and security through State or private
party action.

2. Yes. The Amparo petitioner needs only to properly comply with

the substance and form requirements of a Writ of Amparo petition
and prove the allegations by substantial evidence. Once a
rebuttable case has been proven, the respondents must then
respond and prove their defenses based on the standard of
diligence required. The rebuttable case, of course, must show that
an enforced disappearance took place under circumstances
showing a violation of the victim’s constitutional rights to life,
liberty or security, and the failure on the part of the investigating
authorities to appropriately respond. Substantial evidence
required in amparo proceedings – The characteristics of amparo
 proceedings namely, of being summary and the use of substantial
evidence as the required level of proof (in contrast to the usual
preponderance of evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt in
court proceedings) – reveal the clear intent of the framers of the
Amparo Rule to have the equivalent of an administrative
proceeding, albeit judicially conducted, in addressing Amparo
situations.

SEC. 6. Issuance of the Writ. – Upon the filing of the petition, the court,
justice or judge shall immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its
face it ought to issue. The clerk of court shall issue the writ under the
seal of the court; or in case of urgent necessity, the justice or the judge
may issue the writ under his or her own hand, and may deputize any
officer or person to serve it.

The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the
petition which shall not be later than seven (7) days from the date of its
issuance.

Immediate issuance of the writ

Upon the filing of the petition, the court, justice or judge shall
immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its face it ought to issue. The
clerk of court shall issue the writ under the seal of the court; or in case of
urgent necessity, the justice or judge may issue the writ under his or her own
hand and may deputize any officer or person to serve it.

Setting the date and time for summary hearing of the petition
The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the
petition which shall not be later than seven (7) days from the date of its
issuance.

De Lima v. Gatdula (2013)

Facts: Magtanggol Gatdula filed a petition for the issuance of a

writ of amparo against petitioners Sec. Lde Lima, Director Rojas
and Deputy Director Esmeralda. Gatdula wanted the petitioners
“to cease and desist from framing up Gatdula for the fake ambush
incident by filing bogus charges of frustrated murder against
Gatdula.” Instead of deciding on whether to issue a writ, the judge
issued summons and ordered the filing of an answer. He also set
the case for hearing in order to determine whether a temporary
protection order is proper.

Issue: Was it proper to conduct a hearing on the main case before

the writ is issued and the return filed?

Ruling: No. The return in Amparo cases allows the respondents to

frame the issues subject to a hearing. Hence, it should be done
PRIOR to a hearing, not after.

The privilege of the Writ of Amparo should be distinguished from the

actual order called the Writ of Amparo. The privilege includes availment of the
entire procedure outlined in AM 07-9-12-SC. After the examining the petition
and its attached affidavits, the Return and the evidence presented in the
summary hearing, the judgment should detail the required acts from the
respondents that will mitigate, if not totally eradicate, the violation of or the
threat to the petitioner’s life, liberty or security.

SEC. 7. Penalty for Refusing to Issue or Serve the Writ. – A clerk of court
who refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or a deputized person
who refuses to serve the same, shall be punished by the court, justice or
judge for contempt without prejudice to other disciplinary actions.

Penalty for contempt for refusal to issue or serve the writ

A clerk of court or the person deputized shall be punished by the
amparo court, justice or judge:
a. For contempt, and
b. without prejudice to other disciplinary actions.