Case No.

27
Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo (First Amparo Case)
G.R. No. 180906
October 7, 2008

Nature of action:
An appeal via Petition for Review

Facts:
Raymond Manalo recounted that several uniformed and armed soldiers and
members of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical summoned to a meeting all the
residents of their barangay in San Idelfonso, Bulacan. Respondents were not able to
attend as they were not informed of the gathering, but Raymond saw some of the soldiers
when he passed by the barangay hall. Then the military men belonging to CAFGU
abducted Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo, on the suspicion that they were members
NPA. After 18 months of detention and torture, the brothers escaped. The brothers filed a
Petition for Prohibition, Injunction, and Temporary Restraining Order before the
Supreme Court. While the petition was pending, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo took
effect.

The Court of Appeals granted the privilege of the writ, and ordered the Secretary
of National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the AFP to (1) furnish to the petitioners and
to the court all official and unofficial reports of the investigation, (2) confirm the present
places of official assignment of two military officials involved, and (3) to cause to be
produced to this Court all medical reports and records of petitioners while under military
custody. Aggrieved, the Secretary of National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the AFP
filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.

Issues:
1. Whether or not the rights to security of respondents’ are violated, so as to warrant a
Writ of Amparo.
2. Whether or not the production order under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo and
partakes the nature of a Search Warrant, and thus must comply with its requisites.

Ruling:
WHEREFORE the petition is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated December 26, 2007 is affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi:
The Court promulgated the Amparo Rule "in light of the prevalence of extralegal
killing and enforced disappearances. It was intended to address the intractable problem of
"extralegal killings" and "enforced disappearances," its coverage, in its present form, is
confined to these two instances or to threats thereof. "Extralegal killings" are "killings
committed without due process of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial
proceedings." On the other hand, "enforced disappearances" are "attended by the
following characteristics: 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."

There is a continuing violation of the Manalos right to security. Although the

respondents are no longer in detention and are physically free, but are not free in every
sense of the word as their movements continue to be restricted for fear that people they
have named in their Judicial Affidavits and testified against still at large and have not
been held accountable in any way. These people are directly connected to the Armed
Forces of the Philippines and are, thus, in a position to threaten respondents' rights to life,
liberty and security. These constitutes threat of being once again abducted, kept captive
or even killed, which constitute a direct violation of their right to security of person.

Moreover, the production order under the Amparo Rule should not be confused
with a search warrant for law enforcement under Article III, Section 2 of the 1987
Constitution. This Constitutional provision is a protection of the people from the
unreasonable intrusion of the government, not a protection of the government from the
demand of the people such as respondents. Instead, the Amparo production order may be
likened to the production of documents or things under Section 1, Rule 27 of the Rules of
Civil Procedure.