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 and CA of all official and unofficial reports of the
investigation undertaken in connection with their case, except those already
on file.
 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) who attended to them from February 14,
2006 until August 12, 2007 within five days from notice of this decision.

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 The abductors were looking for a certain “Bestre”. Manalo brothers were suspected
of being members of the NPA
o The white L300 van was driven by M/Sgt. Rizal Hilario aka Rollie Castillo
o 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.
  Then brought to Sapang, San Miguel, Bulacan to meet Maj. Gen. Jovito
Palparan, Commanding General, 7th Infantry Division.
o Gen. Palparan told the Manalo brother to tell their parents to not go
to rallies and hearings regarding their disappearance. Instead, they
should help in the capture of “Bestre”.
o Respondents were then brought to their parents’ house to deliver
Palparan’s message. Their parents agreed out of fear.

 Manalo brothers were given medicine named “Alive”. Gen. Palparan said that this
would make them feel better, but the real effect was drowsiness and a heavy feeling
after waking up.
 After 3 months in Sapang, Raymond was brought to Camp Tecson. He was ordered
to clean outside the barracks of the Army Rangers.
o Met Sherlyn Cadapan, a UP student who was also abducted, tortured and
raped by the military.

 Reynaldo was brought to Camp Tecson a week later. Other captives (Karen Empeño
and Manuel Merino) also arrived.
o All the captives were chained every night. They were told that their families
would be killed if they escaped.
o Cadapan, Empeño and Merino would later on be killed. Merino would even
be burned.
o November 22, 2006 – the captives were transferred to a camp of the 24th
Infantry Battalion in Limay, Bataan. They were continually beaten and made
to do chores.
o Here, respondents witnessed how soldiers killed an old man suspected of
harboring the NPA and also of an Aeta who was subsequently burned.
 The captives were then brought to Zambales, in a safehouse near the sea. They were
brought back to Limay on June 2007 by Caigas, the commander of the 24th Infantry
Battalion.
 June 13, 2007 – Respondents were brought to Pangasinan to farm the land of Caigas.
Here, they started to save their earnings to aid in their escape. When they saved
1000 pesos, they were able to acquire a cellphone.
 August 13, 2007 – Reynaldo and Raymond Manalo were able to escape and board a
bus bound for Manila.
 The respondents were able to corroborate each other’s affidavits.
 Dr. Benito Molino also corroborated the accounts of the Manalo brothers. He
specializes in forensic medicine. He conducted a medical exam on the respondents
 After their escape. The scars and wounds of respondents were consistent with their
account of physical injuries inflicted on them. He followed the Istanbul Protocol in
the medical exam.
 Petitioners also submitted affidavits
 Gen. Palparan and M/Sgt. Hilario filed their affidavits late.
 Lt. Col. Ruben Jimenez, Provost Marshall and witness for the petitioner, conducted
an investigation on May 29, 2006, from 8am to 10pm.
 All 6 persons (CAFGU members) implicated in the abduction denied the allegation.
They had alibis (some were building a chapel, some were just at home)
 Discovered that “Ka Bestre” is actually Rolando Manalo, elder brother of the
respondents.
  Recommendation was for the dismissal of the case.

Issue:

WON the privilege of the writ of amparo was properly given

Dispositive: Petition dismissed. CA decision reaffirmed.

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, 2007.
o It was an exercise for the first time of the Court’s expanded power to
promulgate rules to protect our people’s constitutional rights

 “Amparo” literally means “protection” in Spanish

o Amparo thus combines the principles of judicial review derived from the U.S.
with the limitations on judicial power characteristic of the civil law tradition
which prevails in Mexico.
o It enables courts to enforce the constitution by protecting individual rights
in particular cases, 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, equivalent to the habeas corpus writ; (2) amparo contra leyes for the
judicial review of the constitutionality of statutes; (3) amparo casacion for the
judicial review of the constitutionality and legality of a judicial decision; (4) amparo
administrativo for the judicial review of administrative actions; and (5) amparo
agrario for the protection of peasants’ rights derived from the agrarian reform
process
 In Latin American countries, except Cuba, the writ of amparo has been
constitutionally adopted to protect against human rights abuses especially
committed in countries under military juntas.
 In the Philippines, while the 1987 Constitution does not explicitly provide for the
writ of amparo, several of the above amparo protections are guaranteed by our
charter. The second paragraph of Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, the
Grave Abuse Clause, provides for the judicial power “to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.” The
Clause accords a similar general protection to human rights extended by the amparo
contra leyes, amparo casacion, and amparo administrativo. Amparo libertad is
comparable to the remedy of habeas corpus found in several provisions of the 1987
Constitution.

Was the grant proper? YES

 Promulgated in October 24, 2007. 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, detention or abduction by the
government; refusal of the State to disclose the fate or whereabouts places
him outside the protection of the law
 “Amparo” literally means protection in Spanish. Writ of Amparo originated in
Mexico (Yucatan State). Eventually incorporated into the Mexican Constitution in
1847. Spread across the Western hemisphere and eventually to the Philippines.
 Provides for swift relief because of the summary nature of its proceedings. Only
substantial evidence is required.
 There is still a threat to the life, liberty, and a violation of their right to security of
the Manalo brothers because their captors, whom they escaped from, still remain at
large.
o Right to security is in Art. III, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution.
o It is the right to enjoyment of life.

 Three ways of exercising right to security:

o Freedom from fear.
 Enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
Article 3
 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
 It is the “right to security of person” as the word “security”
itself means “freedom from fear.
 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Art. 9
(1)
 Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.
 “Freedom from fear” is the right and any threat to the rights to
life, liberty or security is the actionable wrong. Fear is a state
of mind, a reaction; threat is a stimulus, a cause of action. (PH is
a signatory to both conventions)
o Guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity or security.
 Article III, Section II of the 1987 Constitution guarantees against
search without warrant
 ELKs and EDs involve Physical torture, force, and violence are a
severe invasion of bodily integrity.
 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 Guarantee of protection of one’s right by the Government
 The writ of amparo, this right is built into the guarantees of the
right to life and liberty under Article III, Section 1 of the 1987
Constitution and the right to security of person under Article III,
Section 2.
 Protection includes conducting effective investigations, organization
of the government apparatus to extend protection to victims of ELKs
 and EDs as well as their families
 Right to security of persons can exist independently of the right to
liberty. (the court cited several cases here, Delgado Paez v. Colombia;
Bwaya v. Zambia; Bahamonde v. Equatorial Guinea)
 They have a positive duty to protect right to liberty and not just a
prohibition for arbitrary deprivation of such rights. (ECHR in Kurt v.
Turkey)

 The continuing threat on the life of the Manalo brothers is apparent. This threat
vitiates their free will because they are forced to limit their movements and
activities. Threats to liberty, security, and life are actionable through a petition
for a writ of amparo.
 The military failed to provide protection for the respondents. They were even the
ones who actually tortured them. The one-day investigation conducted by Jimenez
was limited, superficial and one-sided.
 “In sum, we conclude that respondents’ right to security as “freedom from threat” is
violated by the apparent threat to their life, liberty and security of person. Their
right to security as a guarantee of protection by the government is likewise violated
by the ineffective investigation and protection on the part of the military.”