WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS

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.(Section 15, Article III, 1987
Constitution).

 DEFINITION. – A writ of habeas corpusis an order issued by a

competent court, directed to any one having a person in his
custody or under his restraint, commanding him: (a)to
produce the body of such person at a certain time and
place;and (b)to state the reasons why such person is held in
custody, or under restraint.1

 The high prerogative writ of habeas corpuswas devised and

exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from
unlawful restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of
personal freedom. It secures to a prisoner the right to have
the cause of his detention examined and determined by a court of
justice, and to have the issue ascertained as to whether he is
held under lawful authority.2It is then essentially a writ of
inquiry and is granted to test the right under which a person is
detained.3

 NOTE:The most basic criterion for the issuance of the writis that
the individual seeking such relief be illegally deprived of his
freedom of movement or placed under some form of ILLEGAL
RESTRAINT. Thus, if an individuals liberty is restrained via
some legal process, the writ of habeas corpus is unavailing.4

In Manalo vs. Calderon, G.R. No. 178920, October 15,

2007,the Supreme Court held that restrictive custody and
1
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition. p. 848.
2
Feria vs. CA, G.R. No. 122954, February 15, 2000.
3
Velasco vs. CA, G.R. No. 118644, July 7, 1995.
4
Re: The Writ of Habeas Corpus for Reynaldo De Villa, G.R. No. 158802, November 17, 2004.
 monitoring of movements or whereabouts of police officers
under investigation by their superiors is NOT a form of illegal
detention or restraint of liberty.

 NOTE:UNDER THE RULES OF COURT, the writ of habeas

corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement or
detention(1)by which any person is deprived of his liberty;
OR (2)by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld
from the person entitled thereto.5

THUS, in Tijing vs. CA, G.R. No. 125901, March 8, 2001, the
Supreme Court held thathabeas corpus is the proper legal
remedy to enable parents to regain the CUSTODY of a MINOR
CHILD even if the latter be in the custody of a third person
of his own free will.

HOWEVER, in Ilusorio vs. Bildner, G.R. No. 139789, May 12,

2000,the issue is “whether a wife may secure a writ of habeas
corpus to compel her husband to live with her in conjugal bliss,”
it was held that MARITAL RIGHTSincluding coverture and
living in conjugal dwelling may not be enforced by the extra-
ordinary writ of habeas corpus.

 NOTE:It is not physical restraint alone which is inquired into

by the writ of habeas corpus.6Freedom may be lost due to
external moral compulsion, to founded or groundless fear, to
erroneous belief in the existence of the will.7

 NOTE:Habeas corpus is an exceptional remedy to release a

person whose liberty is illegally restrained such as when the
accused’s CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS are DISREGARDED.
Such defect results in the absence or loss of jurisdictionand
therefore invalidates the trial and the consequent conviction of
the accused whose fundamental right was violated. That void
judgment of conviction may be challenged by collateral
attack, which precisely is the function of habeas corpus.8
5
Section 1, Rule 102 of the Revised Rules of Court.
6
Moncupa vs. Enrile, G.R. No. L-63345, January 30, 1986.
7
Caunca vs. Salazar, 82 Phil. 851.
8
Chavez vs. CA, G.R. No. L-29169, August 19, 1968.
 HOWEVER,in order that the writ will lie, it is necessary that
the judgment of the court“which resulted in said illegal
deprivation of liberty”isNO LONGER APPEALABLE.9If the
judgment is still appealable, then the remedyof the person
detained is to duly appealtherefrom as habeas corpus is not a
substitute for appeal.10

 NOTE:All courts of competent jurisdiction may entertain

petitions for habeas corpus to consider the release of
prisoners convicted for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act
WHO HAVE SERVED THE MAXIMUM OF THE APPLICABLE
PENALTIES newly prescribed by Republic Act No. 7659.11

 WHO MAY GRANT THE WRIT. – The writ of habeas corpus

may be granted by the Supreme Court , or any member thereof,
on any day and at any time, or by the Court of Appeals or any
member thereof in the instances authorized by law, and if so
granted it shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines,
and may be made returnable before the court or any member
thereof, or before the Court of First Instance, or any judge thereof
for the hearing and decision on the merits. It may also be granted
by a Regional Trial Court , or a judge thereof, on any day and
at any time, and returnable before himself, enforceable only
within his judicial district.12

WRIT OF AMPARO

 NOTE: The writ of amparo originated in Mexico. Amparoliterally

means protection in Spanish.13

9
Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Volume II [Eleventh Edition], p. 174, citing Chavez vs.
CA, GR No. 29169, August 19, 1968.
10
Ibid. citing Paguntalan vs. Director of Prisons,G.R. No. L-37959, August 31, 1932.
11
Angeles vs. Director of New Bilibid Prison, G.R. No. 117568, January 4, 1995.
12
Section 2, Rule 102 of the Revised Rules of Court.
13
Secretary of National Defense vs. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, October 7, 2008, citing Barker,
R., Constitutionalism in the Americas: A Bicentennial Perspective, 49 University of Pittsburgh
Law Review (Spring, 1988) 891, 906.
 NOTE:The petition for a WRIT OF AMPARO is a remedy
available to any person whoseright to
life ,liberty andsecurity isVIOLATEDorTHREATENEDwith
violation by an unlawful act or omission of a PUBLIC
OFFICIAL or EMPLOYEE , orof aPRIVATE INDIVIDUAL or
ENTITY .14

In Reyes vs. CA, G.R. No. 182161, December 3, 2009,the

Supreme Court stressed thatthe rights that fall within the
protective mantle of the Writ of Amparounder Section 1 of the
Rules thereon are the following: (1)right to life; (2)right to
liberty; and (3)right to security.

Thus, inCanlas vs. Napico Homeowners Association, I XIII,

Inc.,G.R. No. 182795, June 5, 2008,it was held that the
threatened“DEMOLITION of a DWELLING ” by virtue of a
final judgment of the court is not included among the
enumeration of rights as stated in the above-quoted Section 1
for which the remedy of a writ of amparo is made available. Their
claim to their dwelling, assuming they still have any despite the
final and executory judgment adverse to them, does not
constitute right to life, liberty and security.

Similarly, in Tapuz vs. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 182484, June 17,
2008,it was held that the writ of amparois intended to address
violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or securityx x x
NOT to protect concerns that are PURELY PROPERTY OR
COMMERCIAL.

 COVERAGE.– The writ shall cover “extralegal killings”

and “enforced disappearances”or threats thereof.15

 NOTE: In the amparo context, it is more correct to say that the

right to security is actually the freedom from threat.16

14
Section 1 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, October 24, 2007.
15
Ibid.
16
Secretary of National Defense vs. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, October 7, 2008.
 NOTE:The writcovers not only actual but also threatsof
unlawful acts or omissions.17

 NOTE:The writ of amparo is NOT an action to determine

criminal guilt,liability for damages, or administrative
responsibilitythat will require full and exhaustive proceedings. 18

In Roxas vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 189155, September

7, 2010,the Supreme Court stressed that while the principal
objective of its proceedings is the initial determination of whether
an enforced disappearance, extralegal killing or threats thereof
had transpired, the writ does not, by so doing, fix liability for
such disappearance, killing or threats, whether that may be
criminal, civil or administrative under the applicable substantive
law.

InRodriguez vs.Macapagal-Arroyo,G.R. No. 191805, November

15, 2011, it was stressed that since there is no determination of
administrative, civil or criminal liability in amparo and habeas
data proceedings, courts can only go as far as ascertaining
responsibility or accountability for the enforced
disappearance or extrajudicial killing.

 ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES. –For the protective writ of

amparo to issuein“ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE
CASES ,”allegation and proof that the persons subject
thereof are missing are not enough. It must also be shown by
the required quantum of proof that their disappearance was
carried out by, or with the authorization, support or
acquiescence of, the GOVERNMENTor a political organization,
followed by a refusal to acknowledge the same orgive information
on the fate or whereabouts of said missingpersons.Simply put,
the petitioner in an amparo case has the burden of proving
by substantial evidence the indispensable element of
GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION.19

17
Castillo vs. Cruz, G.R. No. 182165, November 25, 2009.
18
Secretary of National Defense vs. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, October 7, 2008.
19
Navia vs. Pardico, G.R. No. 184467, June 19, 2012.
 WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

 TheWRIT OF HABEAS DATA is aremedy available to any

person whoseRIGHT 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.”20

From the above-quoted provision, the coverage of the writ is

limited to the protection ofright to life ,liberty and security .
And the writ covers not only actual but also threats of unlawful
acts or omissions.21

Thus, in Manila ElectricCompany vs. Lim, G.R. No. 184769,

October 5, 2010, it was held that the writ of habeas data will
not issue to protect purely property or commercial concerns
nor when the grounds invoked in support of the petitions
therefor are vague or doubtful.

 NOTE:There is no determination of administrative, civil or

criminal liability in amparo and habeas data proceedings.22

 InGamboa vs. Chan, G.R. No. 193636, July 24, 2012,

PresidentArroyo issued an “Administrative Order creating an
independent commission to investigate the existence of
PRIVATE ARMY GROUPS [PAGs]” in the country with the
ultimate objective of dismantling them permanently.

The Mayor of Dingras, Ilocos Norte [Mayor Gamboa] alleged that

PNP–Ilocos Norte conducted a series of surveillance operations
against her, and classified her as someone who keeps a
PAG.Contending that her right to privacy was violated,

20
Section 1 of A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC, February 2, 2008.
21
Castillo vs. Cruz, G.R. No. 182165, November 25, 2009.
22
Rodriguez vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 191805, November 15, 2011.
 Mayor Gamboa filed a Petition for the issuance of a writ of
habeas data.

HELD:The privilege of the writ of habeas data must be

DENIED.The state interest of dismantling PAGs far outweighs
the alleged intrusion on the private life of Gamboa,
“especially when the collection and forwarding by the PNP of
information against her was pursuant to a lawful mandate.”

WRIT OF KALIKASAN

 The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical

person, entity authorized by law, people’s organization, non-
governmental organization, or any public interest group
accredited by or registered with any government agency, on
behalf of persons whose constitutional“RIGHT TO A
BALANCED and HEALTHFUL ECOLOGY ” is violated, or
threatened with violationby an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or private individual or entity,
involving environmental damage of such magnitude“as to
prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or
more cities or provinces.”23

 REQUISITES. –The following requisites must be present to avail

of this remedy: (1)There is an “actual or threatened”VIOLATION
of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology; (2)The actual or threatened violation arises from an
UNLAWFUL ACT or OMISSIONof a “public official or employee,
or private individual or entity”; and (3)The actual or threatened
violation involves or will lead to an ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE
of SUCH MAGNITUDE“as to prejudice the life, health or property
of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.”24

 NOTE:A party claiming the privilege for the issuance of a

writ of kalikasan has to show that a law, rule or regulation
was violated or would be violated.25
23
Section 1, Rule 7 of A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, April 13, 2010.
24
LNL Archipelago Minerals, Inc. vs. Agham Party List, G.R. No. 209165, April 12, 2016.
25
Id. at p. 18.
 WRIT OF CONTINUING MANDAMUS. –The writ of continuing
mandamusmeans that “until the agency or instrumentality of the
government or officer thereof, has shown full compliance with the
Court’s orders,”the Court exercises continuing
jurisdictionuntil full execution of the judgment. 26

 PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE. – “When there is a lack of full

scientific certainty in establishing a causal link between human
activity and environmental effect,” x x x the constitutional right
of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology shall be
given the benefit of the doubt.27

Thus, in West Tower Condominium Corporation vs. First

Philippine Industrial Corporation, G.R. No. 194239, June 16,
2015,it was held that THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE only
applies when the link between the cause, that is the human
activity sought to be inhibited, and the effect, that is the
damage to the environment, cannot be established with full
scientific certainty.

26
MMDA vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, G.R. Nos. 171947-48, February 15, 2011.
27
Section 1, Rule 20 of A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, April 13, 2010.