Secretary of National Defense vs. Manalo G.R. No.

180906 October 7, 2008

Facts: On February 14, 2006, Raymond was sleeping in their house in Buhol na Mangga, San

Ildefonso, Bulacan. At past noon, he was abducted by CAFGU members. The van drove off,

then came to a stop. A person was brought inside the van and made to sit beside Raymond.

Both of them were beaten up. On the road, he recognized the voice of the person beside him as

his brother Reynaldo’s. They were suspected as members of the NPA. In the next days,

Raymond’s interrogators appeared to be high officials as the soldiers who beat him up would

salute them, call them “sir,” and treat them with respect. After 18 months of detention and

torture, the brothers escaped on August 13, 2007.

Respondents initially filed an action for “Prohibition, Injunction, and Temporary Restraining

Order”to stop petitioners and/or their officers and agents from depriving the respondents of their

right to liberty and other basic rights on August 23, 2007, prior to the promulgation of the

Amparo Rule. When the Amparo Rule came into effect on October 24, 2007, they moved to

have their petition treated as an amparo petition. The Court granted their motion.

On December 26, 2007, the Court of Appeals granted the privilege of the writ of amparo. The

CA ordered the Secretary of National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the AFP to furnish the

the two borthers and the court with all official and unofficial investigation reports as to their

custody, confirm the present places of official assignment of two military officials involved, and

produce all medical reports and records of the Manalo brothers while under military custody.

The Secretary of National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the AFP appealed to the SC seeking

to reverse and set aside the decision promulgated by the CA.

Issue: 1. Whether or Not filing for Writ of Amparo is proper.

Ruling:

Yes. Since their escape, respondents have been under concealment and protection by private

citizens because of the threat to their life, liberty and security. The threat vitiates their free will

as they are forced to limit their movements or activities. Precisely because respondents are being

shielded from the perpetrators of their abduction, they cannot be expected to show evidence of
overt acts of threat such as face-to-face intimidation or written threats to their life, liberty and

security. Nonetheless, the circumstances of respondents’ abduction, detention, torture and

escape reasonably support a conclusion that there is an apparent threat that they will again be

abducted, tortured, and this time, even executed. These constitute threats to their liberty,

security, and life, actionable through a petition for a writ of amparo.

Fr. Robert Reyes vs. Sec. Raul Gonzales G.R. No. 182161 December 3, 2009

Facts: Reyes was among those arrested in the Manila Peninsula Hotel siege on November 30,

2007. In the morning of November 30, 2007, petitioner together with fifty others, were brought

to Camp Crame to await inquest proceedings. In the evening of the same day, the Department of

Justice Panel of Prosecutors conducted inquest proceedings to ascertain whether or not there was

probable cause to hold petitioner and the others for trial on charges of Rebellion and/or Inciting

to Rebellion.

On December 1, 2007, upon the request of the DILG, respondent DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzales

issued Hold Departure Order No. 45 ordering respondent Commissioner of Immigration to

include in the Hold Departure List of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation the name of

petitioner and 49 others relative to the aforementioned case in the interest of national security

and public safety.

The RTC however dismissed the charge against him but the HDO was still in effect. Petitioner

requested that HDO should be lifted in view of the dismissal of the criminal case. Petitioner

argued that a writ of amparo should be issued against the respondents, violating the whole

breadth of rights enshrined in the Constitution, specifically, his right to travel.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner’s right to liberty has been violated or threatened with violation

by the issuance of the subject HDO, which would entitle him to the privilege of the Writ of

Amparo.

Ruling: No. The right to travel refers to the right to move from one place to another. the

restriction on petitioner’s right to travel as a consequence of the pendency of the criminal case

filed against him was not unlawful. Petitioner has also failed to establish that his right to travel

was impaired in the manner and to the extent that it amounted to a serious violation of his right

to life, liberty and security, for which there exists no readily available legal recourse or remedy.

Additionally, petitioner is seeking the extraordinary writ of amparo due to his apprehension that

the DOJ may deny his motion to lift the HDO. He has failed to show any clear threat to his right

to liberty actionable through a petition for a writ of amparo.

In the matter of the Petition for the Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data in favor of Noriel
Rodriguez vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo G.R. No. 191805 November 15, 2011

Facts: Rodriguez is petitioner in G.R. No. 191805 and respondent in G.R. No. 193160. He is a

member of Alyansa Dagiti Mannalon Iti Cagayan (Kagimungan), a peasant organization

affiliated with Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP). Rodriguez claims that the military

tagged KMP as an enemy of the State under the Oplan Bantay Laya, making its members targets

of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. On 6 September 2009, at 5:00 p.m.,

Rodriguez had just reached Barangay Tapel, Cagayan when four men forcibly took him and

tortured Rodriguez to confess to being a member of the New People’s Army (NPA), but he

remained silent. After his release, Rodriguez filed before this Court a Petition for the Writ of

Amparo and Petition for the Writ of Habeas Data with Prayers for Protection Orders, Inspection

of Place, and Production of Documents and Personal Properties dated 2 December 2009.The

petition was filed against former President Arroyo, et.al.. The writs were granted by the CA.

Issue: 1.Whether the interim reliefs prayed for by Rodriguez may be granted after the writs

of amparo and habeas data have already been issued in his favor.

2. Whether the doctrine of command responsibility can be used in amparo and habeas

data cases.

Ruling: 1. Being interim reliefs, they can only be granted before a final adjudication of the case

is made. In any case, it must be underscored that the privilege of the writ of amparo, once

granted, necessarily entails the protection of the aggrieved party. Thus, since we grant petitioner

the privilege of the writ of amparo, there is no need to issue a temporary protection order

independently of the former. The order restricting respondents from going near Rodriguez is

subsumed under the privilege of the writ.

2. Yes. The doctrine of command responsibility may be used to determine whether respondents

are accountable for and have the duty to address the abduction of Rodriguez in order to enable

the courts to devise remedial measures to protect his rights. Clearly, nothing precludes this Court

from applying the doctrine of command responsibility in amparo proceedings to ascertain

responsibility and accountability in extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.

A Compilation of Case Digests

For Constitutional Law II

Submitted to:

Atty. Jose Edmund Guillen, LL.B, LL.M.

College of Law

Central Philippine University

Submitted by:

Dianah Jane L. Huele

JD-I

December 13, 2014