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 hich used it to protect the liberties of indi!iduals ho at that time ere under
the bec" and call of military juntas. The rit of amparo# at least the ones used in these
countries ere designed to anser for peasant$s rights# personal freedom and different
types of judicial re!ies. The Rule on the Writ of Amparo in the %hilippine setting is
hoe!er# different from ho it is applied in other jurisdictions. The purpose of this
article is to touch into this matter and see ho it affects the Commission on Human
Rights.
The Writ of Amparo in the %hilippine Setting is limited in its scope in that it
co!ers only the right of the people to &ife# &iberty and Security only. The SC has opined
that the limitation of the Amparo doctrine to these three areas has something to do ith
the other remedies that are already accessible to the public. This means that the Amparo
doctrine is a response to the areas hich according to the Supreme Court has been left
untouched by other rits. On the flip side hoe!er# the Amparo doctrine has broadened
its co!erage to include not only !iolations of human rights hich are actual and real but
also those hich fall under the category of threatened !iolations thereof. Another# useful
aspect of the Amparo doctrine is the people ho are co!ered by it. In the Spanish
%age ' of (
Coutries here the same rit is in use# they usually co!er those indi!iduals ho are in
the public position and ho has poer to ield. In the %hilippine !ersion of the Amparo#
it also touches persons# entities including in the pri!ate sector. As you may ell see# the
effect is that e!en juridical persons are co!ered by the Amparo doctrine.
Section ) of the Rule of the Writ of Amparo tac"les the indi!iduals ho may file
the same. The first one is of course the aggrie!ed party folloed by the persons ho are
in a particular order to it*
+a,Any member of the immediate family# namely*
the spouse# children and parents of the aggrie!ed party-
+b,Any ascendant# descendant or collateral relati!e
of the aggrie!ed party ithin the fourth ci!il degree of consanguinity or affinity# in
default of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph-or
+c, Any concerned citi.en# organi.ation# association
or institution# if there is no "non member of the immediate family or relati!e
of the aggrie!ed party.
According to the Supreme Court the obser!ance of this hierarchy shall eed out the
groundless and indiscriminate filing of the rit before it. The rit of Amparo also
pro!ides interim reliefs for the applicants such as the inspection and production order.
This de!elopment in the /udicial setup has stirred some contro!ersy relati!e to the
role of the Commission on Human Rights +CHR,. 0any critics say that hat the CHR
%age ) of (
lac" in teeth for implementing the rights of the people has been !ested upon the Supreme
Court. This is hoe!er# just one ay of loo"ing at it or just a single perspecti!e if you
may call it at that. The CHR is actually a creature of the Constitution hich no has
become e!en more rele!ant ith the adoption of the Amparo 1octrine. The CHR no
can or" as a complement or partner of the Supreme Court in upholding the fight against
e2tra judicial "illings and disappearances. There are hoe!er# some groups hich still
critici.e the Amparo doctrine for merely patching up holes and not loo"ing at the
problem more specifically. Some groups say that the Amparo doctrine fails to co!er non3
itnesses ho may also be subjected to abuse and "illings. 4urthermore# the same
groups ho critici.e the rit also stated that the &egislati!e arm and 52ecuti!e arm of the
6o!ernment must also ha!e initiati!es to further impro!e the state of e2tra3judicial
"illings in the %hilippines.
%age ( of (