The Writ of Amparo in the Supreme Court and the Commission on Human Rights

One of the most dynamic tools for implementing justice and fair play adopted by our esteemed Supreme Court is the Writ of Amparo. It has its origins from the Spanish Countries which used it to protect the liberties of individuals who at that time were under the beck and call of military juntas. The writ of amparo, at least the ones used in these countries were designed to answer for peasant's rights, personal freedom and different types of judicial reviews. The Rule on the Writ of Amparo in the Philippine setting is however, different from how it is applied in other jurisdictions. The purpose of this article is to touch into this matter and see how it affects the Commission on Human Rights.

The Writ of Amparo in the Philippine Setting is limited in its scope in that it covers only the right of the people to Life, Liberty and Security only. The SC has opined that the limitation of the Amparo doctrine to these three areas has something to do with the other remedies that are already accessible to the public. This means that the Amparo doctrine is a response to the areas which according to the Supreme Court has been left untouched by other writs. On the flip side however, the Amparo doctrine has broadened its coverage to include not only violations of human rights which are actual and real but also those which fall under the category of threatened violations thereof. Another, useful aspect of the Amparo doctrine is the people who are covered by it. In the Spanish

Page 1 of 3

Coutries where the same writ is in use, they usually cover those individuals who are in the public position and who has power to wield. In the Philippine version of the Amparo, it also touches persons, entities including in the private sector. As you may well see, the effect is that even juridical persons are covered by the Amparo doctrine.

Section 2 of the Rule of the Writ of Amparo tackles the individuals who may file the same. The first one is of course the aggrieved party followed by the persons who are in a particular order to wit:

(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.

According to the Supreme Court the observance of this hierarchy shall weed out the groundless and indiscriminate filing of the writ before it. The writ of Amparo also provides interim reliefs for the applicants such as the inspection and production order.

This development in the Judicial setup has stirred some controversy relative to the role of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). Many critics say that what the CHR

Page 2 of 3

lack in teeth for implementing the rights of the people has been vested upon the Supreme Court. This is however, just one way of looking at it or just a single perspective if you may call it at that. The CHR is actually a creature of the Constitution which now has become even more relevant with the adoption of the Amparo Doctrine. The CHR now can work as a complement or partner of the Supreme Court in upholding the fight against extra judicial killings and disappearances. There are however, some groups which still criticize the Amparo doctrine for merely patching up holes and not looking at the problem more specifically. Some groups say that the Amparo doctrine fails to cover nonwitnesses who may also be subjected to abuse and killings. Furthermore, the same groups who criticize the writ also stated that the Legislative arm and Executive arm of the Government must also have initiatives to further improve the state of extra-judicial killings in the Philippines.

Page 3 of 3