In recent years, we have witnessed the emergence of rampant unsolved killings of leftist leaders and

members of progressive mass-based organizations, reminiscent of the martial law regime. Human rights
violations have escalated to such an alarming scale that even the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights, as well as other foreign groups, took notice. Following a consultative summit and acting upon the
recommendations from various sectors and stakeholders in the justice system to tap the Philippine
judiciary's expanded rule-making power under the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court promulgated
the Rule on the Writ of Amparoon September 25, 2007 (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC). The writ specifically
covers extralegal killing and enforced disappearances.

This new remedy achieves its purpose through the four (4) interim reliefs provided therein,
namely: temporary protection order, inspection order, production orderand witness protection
order. With no docket fee required to be paid, a petition may be filed before the RTC, Sandiganbayan,
CA or SC, which shall be acted upon immediately; the respondents directed to file a return; and a
summary hearing conducted within seven (7) days from issuance of the writ. The parties shall establish
their claims by substantial evidence. While a respondent private individual or entity is required only to
prove ordinary diligence under applicable laws, rules and regulations, respondent public official or
employee must prove extraordinary diligence in the performance of duty. More important still, the
latter cannot invoke the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed to evade
responsibility or liability. The court is mandated to render judgment within ten (10) days from the time
the decision is submitted for decision, and appeal to the SC under Rule 45 may raise questions of fact or
law or both.

As can be gleaned from its provisions, speedy and inexpensive procedure is demanded by the urgent
and serious nature of violations intended to be addressed by the Rule on Amparo, that is, the right to
life, liberty and security. But being a prerogative writ, resort to amparo does not preclude the filing
of separate criminal, civil or administrative actions. Refusal to issue or serve the writ is punishable by
contempt without prejudice to other disciplinary actions. Such penalty and priority given to petitions
for amparo further underscore the extraordinary character of the remedy, the constitutional rights
involved being of the highest order.

"Amparo" which originated in the political experience of Latin American countries, is derived
from "amparar" which means "to protect." As envisioned by our own Supreme Court, the writ
of amparo can be availed of "as protective tool and remedy for the greater protection of the
constitutional rights of the victims". Human rights groups welcomed the advent of amparo which they
perceived as "additional deterrence" to abuses committed by the military and police. Official statistics of
this Court on amparo petitions filed since October 24, 2007 when the Rule became effective, tend to
confirm that complaints of this nature have considerably decreased.

Despite harsh criticisms hurled against this Court due to dismissals of certainamparo cases, it is more
prudent for the parties and the public to understand the gravity of allegations involved in these
petitions, as well as the fact that we have yet to hear the final word of the highest court of the land on
all related issues, including inherent limitations of the remedy. It is, however, heartening to note that
not only has the SC subsequently promulgated the writ of habeas data to complement the writ
of amparo, Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno has also announced the possibility of expanding the coverage
of the writ of amparo to violations of other "socio-economic and cultural rights of our people," such as
residents displaced by demolition operations.

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)

After careful perusal of the evidence presented, we affirm the findings of the Court of Appeals that
respondents were abducted from their houses in Sito Muzon, Brgy. Buhol na Mangga, San Ildefonso,
Bulacan on February 14, 2006 and were continuously detained until they escaped on August 13, 2007.
The abduction, detention, torture, and escape of the respondents were narrated by respondent
Raymond Manalo in a clear and convincing manner. His account is dotted with countless candid details
of respondents' harrowing experience and tenacious will to escape, captured through his different
senses and etched in his memory. A few examples are the following: "Sumilip ako sa isang haligi ng
kamalig at nakita kong sinisilaban si Manuel."96 "(N)ilakasan ng mga sundalo ang tunog na galing sa
istiryo ng sasakyan. Di nagtagal, narinig ko ang hiyaw o ungol ni Manuel."97 "May naiwang mga bakas ng
dugo habang hinihila nila ang mga bangkay. Naamoy ko iyon nang nililinis ang bakas."98 "Tumigil ako sa
may palaisdaan kung saan ginamit ko ang bato para tanggalin ang mga kadena."99 "Tinanong ko sa isang
kapit-bahay kung paano ako makakakuha ng cell phone; sabi ko gusto kong i-text ang isang babae na
nakatira sa malapit na lugar."100

With the secret nature of an enforced disappearance and the torture perpetrated on the victim during
detention, it logically holds that much of the information and evidence of the ordeal will come from the
victims themselves, and the veracity of their account will depend on their credibility and candidness in
their written and/or oral statements. Their statements can be corroborated by other evidence such as
physical evidence left by the torture they suffered or landmarks they can identify in the places where
they were detained. Where powerful military officers are implicated, the hesitation of witnesses to
surface and testify against them comes as no surprise.

We now come to the right of the respondents to the privilege of the writ of Amparo. There is no quarrel
that the enforced disappearance of both respondents Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo has now passed
as they have escaped from captivity and surfaced. But while respondents admit that they are no longer
in detention and are physically free, they assert that they are not "free in every sense of the word"109 as
their "movements continue to be restricted for fear that people they have named in their Judicial
Affidavits and testified against (in the case of Raymond) are still at large and have not been held
accountable in any way. These people are directly connected to the Armed Forces of the Philippines and
are, thus, in a position to threaten respondents' rights to life, liberty and security."110 (emphasis
supplied) Respondents claim that they are under threat of being once again abducted, kept captive or
even killed, which constitute a direct violation of their right to security of person.111

Elaborating on the "right to security, in general," respondents point out that this right is "often
associated with liberty;" it is also seen as an "expansion of rights based on the prohibition against
torture and cruel and unusual punishment." Conceding that there is no right to security expressly
mentioned in Article III of the 1987 Constitution, they submit that their rights "to be kept free from
torture and from incommunicado detention and solitary detention places112 fall under the general
coverage of the right to security of person under the writ of Amparo." They submit that the Court ought
to give an expansive recognition of the right to security of person in view of the State Policy under
Article II of the 1987 Constitution which enunciates that, "The State values the dignity of every human
person and guarantees full respect for human rights." Finally, to justify a liberal interpretation of the
right to security of person, respondents cite the teaching in Moncupa v. Enrile113 that "the right to
liberty may be made more meaningful only if there is no undue restraint by the State on the exercise of
that liberty"114 such as a requirement to "report under unreasonable restrictions that amounted to a
deprivation of liberty"115 or being put under "monitoring and surveillance."116

In sum, respondents assert that their cause of action consists in the threat to their right to life and
liberty, and a violation of their right to security.

In blatant violation of our hard-won guarantees to life, liberty and security, these rights are snuffed out
from victims of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. The writ of Amparo is a tool that gives
voice to preys of silent guns and prisoners behind secret walls.