Secretary of National Defense v.
Manalo Petitioner: Secretary of National Defense; Chief of staff, AFP Respondent: Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo G.R. No. 180906 / 7 October 2008 Ponente: CJ Puno Facts: CA Decision being appealed 1. The Manalo brothers filed, on 23 August 2007, a Petition for Prohibition, Injunction, and Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against petitioners and their officers from depriving them of their right to liberty and other basic rights. The Writ of Amparo was approved on Aug 24, 2007 and petitioners filed Motion to Treat Existing Petition as Amparo Petition. 2. The CA rendered a decision in favor of the Manalo brothers and ordered the current petitioners to: To furnish the Manalos n o ll o l n no l po o investigation undertaken in connection with their case, except those already on l To confirm in writing the present places of official assignment of M/Sgt Hilario aka Rollie Castillo and Donald Caigas To cause to be produced to this Court all medical reports, records and charts, reports of any treatment given or recommended and medicines prescribed, if any, to the petitioners, to include a list of medical and (sic) personnel (military and civilian o n o m om n l n om no o on Ito na talaga Feb. 14, 2006 - Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo, brothers and herein respondents, were abducted by elements of the military (AFP and Citizen Armed Force Geographical Unit or CAFGU) from their house in Buhol na Mangga, San Ildefonso, Bulacan.
o o o
T o look n o n “B ” M n lo o p of being members of the NPA The white L300 van was driven by M/Sgt. Rizal Hilario aka Rollie Castillo The brothers were repeatedly beaten and tortured and questioned about their knowledge of the NPA. Sometime in the third week of detention, Raymond attempted to escape. He discovered that they were in Fort Magsaysay (Palayan, Nueva Ecija). He was however recaptured and tortured. Detention in Fort Magsaysay lasted for 3 and a half months. One day, Rizal Hilario took the Manalo brothers to Pinaud, San Ildefonso, Bulacan and then beaten up. They remained there for one or two weeks.
o Cadapan. respondents witnessed how soldiers killed an old man suspected of harboring the NPA and also of an Aeta who was subsequently burned. o Met Sherlyn Cadapan. Merino would even be burned. Palparan told the Manalo brother to tell their parents to not go to rallies and hearings regarding their disappearance. but the real effect was drowsiness and a heavy feeling after waking up. All 6 persons (CAFGU members) implicated in the abduction denied the allegation. a UP student who was also abducted. Provost Marshall and witness for the petitioner. they were able to acquire a cellphone.
. Gen. After 3 months in Sapang. some were just at home) Discovered that “Ka Bestre” is actually Rolando Manalo. Jovito Palparan. Lt. from 8am to 10pm. o All the captives were chained every night. He followed the Istanbul Protocol in the medical exam. Ruben Jimenez. they o l lp n p o “B ” o R pon n n o o p n ’ o o l P lp n’ m T p n o o
Manalo brothers were given medicine nam “ l ” G n P lp n would make them feel better. The captives were then brought to Zambales. Other captives (Karen Empeño and Manuel Merino) also arrived. Empeño and Merino would later on be killed. conducted an investigation on May 29. They were brought back to Limay on June 2007 by Caigas. Commanding General. o Here. Col. They were told that their families would be killed if they escaped. in a safehouse near the sea. He specializes in forensic medicine. o Gen. 2007 – Respondents were brought to Pangasinan to farm the land of Caigas. elder brother of the respondents. Bataan. Instead. He conducted a medical exam on the respondents After their escape. August 13. 2006. Dr. Raymond was brought to Camp Tecson. Here. When they saved 1000 pesos. Petitioners also submitted affidavits Gen. Hilario filed their affidavits late. They had alibis (some were building a chapel. T pon n l o o o o o ’ vits. Benito Molino also corroborated the accounts of the Manalo brothers.
Then brought to Sapang. Reynaldo was brought to Camp Tecson a week later. 2007 – Reynaldo and Raymond Manalo were able to escape and board a bus bound for Manila. Bulacan to meet Maj. The scars and wounds of respondents were consistent with their account of physical injuries inflicted on them. 7th Infantry Division. San Miguel. o November 22. they started to save their earnings to aid in their escape. They were continually beaten and made to do chores. the commander of the 24th Infantry Battalion. tortured and raped by the military. He was ordered to clean outside the barracks of the Army Rangers. Palparan and M/Sgt. June 13. 2006 – the captives were transferred to a camp of the 24th Infantry Battalion in Limay.
o I n x o m o o ’ xp n po o promulgate rules to prote o p opl ’ on on l “Amparo” l ll m n “p o on” n Sp n o Amparo thus combines the principles of judicial review derived from the U. In the Philippines. the G l p o o j l po “o mn o no there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of j on on p o n n o n m n l o Go nm n ” The Clause accords a similar general protection to human rights extended by the amparo contra leyes. Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution. (3) amparo casacion for the judicial review of the constitutionality and legality of a judicial decision. The second paragraph of Article VIII. (2) amparo contra leyes for the judicial review of the constitutionality of statutes. the writ of amparo has been constitutionally adopted to protect against human rights abuses especially committed in countries under military juntas. equivalent to the habeas corpus writ. o It enables courts to enforce the constitution by protecting individual rights in particular cases. CA decision reaffirmed.
Was the grant proper? YES
Recommendation was for the dismissal of the case. and amparo administrativo. with the limitations on judicial power characteristic of the civil law tradition which prevails in Mexico. except Cuba. Amparo libertad is comparable to the remedy of habeas corpus found in several provisions of the 1987 Constitution. amparo casacion. 2007.S. and (5) amparo agrario o p o on o p n ’ om n o m process In Latin American countries. Held: History of the Amparo Rule The adoption of the Amparo Rule is a result of the two-day National Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances sponsored by the Court on July 16-17. but prevents them from using this power to make law for the entire nation This concept evolved into the (1) amparo libertad for the protection of personal freedom. while the 1987 Constitution does not explicitly provide for the writ of amparo. several of the above amparo protections are guaranteed by our charter.
WON the privilege of the writ of amparo was properly given Dispositive: Petition dismissed. (4) amparo administrativo for the judicial review of administrative actions.
“ om om ” n n threat to the rights to life. 9 (1) Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. First time that the Supreme Court exercised its expanded power in the 1987 Constitution to promulgate rules to protect the Coverage of which is confined to: o Extralegal killings – killings committed without due process of the law o Enforced disappearances – an arrest. Enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) Article 3 Everyone has the right to life. detention or abduction by the government. Provides for swift relief because of the summary nature of its proceedings. I “ o o p on” o “ ” l m n “ om om International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Promulgated in October 24. 2 of the 1987 Constitution. Writ of Amparo originated in Mexico (Yucatan State). and a violation of their right to security of the Manalo brothers because their captors. a reaction. this right is built into the guarantees of the right to life and liberty under Article III. organization of the government apparatus to extend protection to victims of ELKs
. 2007. force. Art. III. Article III. o It is the right to enjoyment of life. and violence are a severe invasion of bodily integrity. Sec. Section II of the 1987 Constitution guarantees against search without warrant ELKs and EDs involve Physical torture. liberty or security is the actionable wrong. Eventually incorporated into the Mexican Constitution in 1847. still remain at large. Spread across the Western hemisphere and eventually to the Philippines. Fear is a state of mind. It constitutes an invasion of both bodily and psychological integrity as the dignity of the human person includes the exercise of free will Note: The consti also guarantees against torture o G n o p o on o on ’ Go nm n The writ of amparo. Protection includes conducting effective investigations. refusal of the State to disclose the fate or whereabouts places him outside the protection of the law “Amparo” literally means protection in Spanish. Section 2. (PH is a signatory to both conventions) o Guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity or security. Three ways of exercising right to security: o Freedom from fear. Only substantial evidence is required. liberty and security of person. o Right to security is in Art. There is still a threat to the life. Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution and the right to security of person under Article III. a cause of action. liberty. threat is a stimulus. whom they escaped from.
liberty and security of person. Turkey)
The continuing threat on the life of the Manalo brothers is apparent. superficial and one-sided. The one-day investigation conducted by Jimenez was limited. Zambia. (ECHR in Kurt v. They were even the ones who actually tortured them. security.
and EDs as well as their families Right to security of persons can exist independently of the right to liberty. Equatorial Guinea) They have a positive duty to protect right to liberty and not just a prohibition for arbitrary deprivation of such rights. Threats to liberty. and life are actionable through a petition for a writ of amparo. Bwaya v. (the court cited several cases here. Bahamonde v. This threat vitiates their free will because they are forced to limit their movements and activities. Their right to security as a guarantee of protection by the government is likewise violated by the ineffective investigation and protection on th p o ml ”
. Colombia. “In m on l pon n ’ o “ om om ” violated by the apparent threat to their life. The military failed to provide protection for the respondents. Delgado Paez v.