The issue of the existence of criminal, civil, or administrative liability which may be imputed to

the respondents is not the province of amparo proceedings -- rather, the writ serves both
preventive and curative roles in addressing the problem of EJKs and enforced disappearances. It
is preventive in that it breaks the expectation of impunity in the commission of these offences,
and it is curative in that it facilitates the subsequent punishment ofperpetrators by inevitably
leading to subsequent investigation and action.
Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo
Rodriguez v. Macapagal-Arroyo

The writ's curative role is an acknowledgment that the violation of the right to life, liberty, and
security may be caused not only by a public official's act, but also by his ommission.
Accountability may attach to respondents who are imputed with knowledge relating to the
enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure; or those who carry, but have
failed to discharge, the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced
disappearance. The duty to investigate must be undertaken in a serious manner and not as a
mere formality perordained to be ineffective.
Rodriguez v. Macapagal-Arroyo

The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty
and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.

The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
AM 07-9-12-SC

The liberality accorded to amparo and habeas data cases does not mean that a claimant is
dispensed with the onus of proving his case. "Indeed, even the liberal standard of substantial
evidence demands some adequate evidence."
In the Matter of the Petition...of Francisco Saez v. Macapagal-Arroyo