The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it. Recall Article VII section 18 The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion. During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released. WHAT IS HABEAS CORPUZ? - an order directed to the person detaining another, commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place, with the day and cause of his caption and detention, to do, to submit to, and receive whatever the court or judge awarding the writ shall consider Object: its essential object is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint and to relieve and to relieve the person there from if such restraint is illegal.

Relates to the condition of the court to order the continued detention of the convict a. When a penalty is changed while convict is serving sentence a. Gumaluan vs Diretor of prison 1965murder deemed absorbed in rebellion. b. Lamer vs director 1995- from life imprisonment to rec. correccional to life imprisonment; penalty for violation of RA 6325 now depends on grams involved.

b. Once a deprivation of a constitutional right is shown to exist , the court that rendered the judgemnet is deemed ousted of its jurisdiction. a. Olaguer case- violation of due process, military courts are without jurisdiction over civilians b. Andal vs people 1999- no counsel during police line up c. Inre Garcia 2000- failure to appreciate evidence during trial

d. Feria vs CA 2000- loss of conviction papers. FUNCTION of Writ of Habeas Corpuz 1. IT IS THE ONLY EFFECTIVE REMEDY TO QUESTION ANY FORM OF INVOLUNTARY RESTRAINTS 3. PRODUCTION ORDER a. Order any person in possession, custody or control of any designated document, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, object or tangible things, or object in digitized or electronic form, which constitute or contain evidence relevant to the petition or the return , to produce and permit their inspection, copying or photographing by or on behalf of the movant Secretary of National Defense vs Manalo- must the production order comply with the requisites for the issuance of a search warrant? 4. WITNESS PROTECTION ORDER a. Refer the witnesses to the department of justice for admission to the witness protection, security and benefit program pursuant to RA 6981


Vivencio vs Lukban (1919)- women were involuntary sent to a far flung island ( Davao City). Moncupa vs. Ponce-Enrile [GR L-63345, 30 January 1986]- release after the detention with a condition Ampatuan vs macaraig 2012- not proper: to question PNP’s “re\strictive custody” InRe: Aquino vs Esperon – not proper: to question conditions of confinement.





b. Refer the witnesses to other government agencies of keeping and securing their safety The remedy provides for a RAPID JUDICIAL RELIEF as it partakes of a summary proceeding that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner


It is a protective remedy aimed at providing judicial relief consisting of appropriate remedial measures and directives that may be crafted by the court, in order to address specific violations or threats of violation of the constitutional rights to life liberty and property. Was originally conceived as a response to the extraordinary rise in the number of killings and enforced disappearance, and to the perceived lack of available and effective remedies to address these ectraordinary concerns. An EXTRAORDINARY and INDEPENDENT remedy. COVERAGE


WHAT IS IT NOT? 1. It is not a writ to protect concerns that are purely property or commercial a. Calex vs Napico 2. It does not include protection of the right to travel a. Reyes vs Ca 2009 3. It does not fix liability for disappearances, killings or threats therefore, whether criminal, civil or administrative liability. -

1. Extrajudicial Killings or threats thereof c. Killings committed without due process of law. i.e. without legal safegruards or judicial proceedings

2. Enforced disappearances or threats thereof WRIT OF AMPARO The case of Manalo brothers ( 2008) The first SC decision applying the Rule of Amparo ( which too effect on October 24 2007) RELIEF GRANTED: It ordered petitioners to o Furnish respondents all official and unofficial reports of the investigation undertaken in connection with their case, except those already in file with the court; Confirm in writing the present places of official assignment of M/Sgt. Hilario aka Rollie Castillo and Donald Calgas; and Produce to the CA all medical reports, records and charts, and reports of any treatment given or recommended and medicines prescribed, if any, to the Manalo brothers, to include a list of medical personnel who attended to them. e. 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. CONTENTS OF THE RETURN OF THE WRIT SEC. 9. Return; Contents. – Within seventy-two (72) hours after service of the writ, the respondent shall file a verified written return together with supporting affidavits which shall, among other things, contain the following: a. The lawful defenses to show that the respondent did not violate or threaten with violation the right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party, through any act or omission; b. The steps or actions taken by the respondent to determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the person or persons responsible for the threat, act or omission; c. All relevant information in the possession of the respondent pertaining to the threat, act or omission against the aggrieved party; and




An exercise for the 1st time of the courts expanded power to promulgate rules to protect our people’s constitutional rights

d. If the respondent is a public official or employee, the return shall further state the actions that have been or will still be taken: i. to verify the identity of the aggrieved party; to recover and preserve evidence related to the death or disappearance of the person identified in the petition which may aid in the prosecution of the person or persons responsible; to identify witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning the death or disappearance; to determine the cause, manner, location and time of death or disappearance as well as any pattern or practice that may have brought about the death or disappearance; to identify and apprehend the person or persons involved in the death or disappearance; and to bring the suspected offenders before a competent court.


Roxas vs macapagal arroyo 2012



Since the application of command responsibility presupposes an imputation of individual liability, it is more aptly invoked in a full-blown criminal or administrative case rather than in a summary amparo proceeding. The remedy provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a summary proceeding that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner; it is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, or liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence, or administrative responsibility requiring substantial evidence that will require full and exhaustive proceedings. ( SEC. vs Manalo)






WRIT OF HABEAS DATA SECTION 1. Habeas Data. - The writ of habeas data is a remedy available 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 engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party. The habeas data rule, in general, is designed to protect by means of judicial complaint the image, privacy , honor information and freedom of information of an individual. It is meant to provide a forum to enforce one’s right to the truth and to informational privacy, thus, safeguarding the constitutional guarantees of a person’s right to life, liberty and security against abuse in this age of information technology.

The return shall also state other matters relevant to the investigation, its resolution and the prosecution of the case. A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed. Roxas vs Macapagal Arroyo An inspection order is an interim relief designed to give support or strengthen the claim of a petitioner in an amparo petition, in order to aid the court before making a decision.[124] A basic requirement before an amparo court may grant an inspection order is that the place to be inspected is reasonably determinable from the allegations of the party seeking the order. While the Amparo Rule does not require that the place to be inspected be identified with clarity and precision, it is, nevertheless, a minimum for the issuance of an inspection order that the supporting allegations of a party be sufficient in itself, so as to make a prima facie case. In providing for the interim relief of inspection order the Amparo rule never intended sanctioning a “ fishinh expedition” for evidence.

Roxas vs Macapagal arroyo Petitioner seeks to suppress any existing government filed or order linking Melissa Roxas to the communist movement Respondent are enjoined to retain from distributing or causing the distributing to the public of any records in

whatever form, reports, documents or similar papers relative to Melissa Roxas alleged ties to the CPP-NPA.

Like the writ of Amparo,habeas data will NOT issue to protect purely property or commercial concerns nor when the ground invoked in support of the petitions therefor are vague. Tapez vs Del Rosario Meralco VS Lim 2010

Roxas vs Macapagal Arroyo Petitioner also prayed that the respondent be ordered to return to petitioner her journal, digital camera with memory card, laptop computer, external hard disk, IPOD, wristwatch, sphygmomanometer, stethoscope, medicines and her P15,000.00 cash. Held: an order directing the public respondents to return the personal belongings of the petitioner is already equivalent to a conclusive pronouncement of liability. The order itself is a substantial relief that can only be granted once the liability of the public respondents has been fixed in a full and exhaustive proceeding. More to the point, a person’s right to be restituted of his property is already subsumed under the general rubric of property rights—which are no longer protected by the writ of amparo.[119] Section 1 of the Amparo Rule, [120] which defines the scope and extent of the writ, clearly excludes the protection of property rights.

2 fold roles 1. Preventive – it breaks the expectation of impunity in the commission of these offenses. 2. Curative- it facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators as it will inevitably yield leads to subsequent investigation and action.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful