XVIII. The residents of Mt.

Ahohoy, headed by Masigasig, formed a nongovernmental

organization - Alyansa Laban sa Minahan sa Ahohoy (ALMA) to protest the mining
operations of Oro Negro Mining in the mountain. ALMA members picketed daily at the
entrance of the mining site blocking the ingress and egress of trucks and equipment of Oro
Negro, hampering its operations. Masigasig had an altercation with Mapusok arising from
the complaint of the mining engineer of Oro Negro that one of their trucks was destroyed
by ALMA members. Mapusok is the leader of the Association of Peace Keepers of Ahohoy
(APKA), a civilian volunteer organization serving as auxiliary force of the local police to
maintain peace and order in the area. Subsequently, Masigasig disappeared. Mayumi, the
wife of Masigasig, and the members of ALMA searched for Masigasig, but all their efforts
proved futile. Mapagmatyag, a member of ALMA, learned from Maingay, a member of
APKA, during their binge drinking that Masigasig was abducted by other members of APKA,
on order of Mapusok. Mayumi and ALMA sought the assistance of the local police to
search for Masigasig, but they refused to extend their cooperation. Immediately, Mayumi
filed with the RTC, a petition for the issuance of the writ of amparo against Mapusok and
APKA. ALMA also filed a petition for the issuance of the writ of amparo with the Court of
Appeals against Mapusok and APKA. Respondents Mapusok and APKA, in their Return filed
with the RTC, raised among their defenses that they are not agents of the State; hence,
cannot be impleaded as respondents in an amparo petition. a.) Is their defense tenable?
(3%) Respondents Mapusok and APKA, in their Return filed with the Court of Appeals,
raised as their defense that the petition should be dismissed on the ground that ALMA
cannot file the petition because of the earlier petition filed by Mayumi with the RTC. b.)
Are respondents correct in raising their defense? (3%) c.) Mayumi later filed separate
criminal and civil actions against Mapusok. How will the cases affect the amparo petition
she earlier filed? (1 %) ANSWERS: a) No, the defense of Mapusok and APKA that they are
not agents of the State and hence cannot be impleaded as respondents in an amparo
petition is not tenable. The writ of amparo is available in cases where the enforced or
involuntary disappearance of a persons is with the authorization, support or acquiescence
of the State. (See Sec. 3[g] of R.A. No. 9851 and Navia v. Pardico, 19 June 2012, e.b.). Here
Mapusok and APKA may be considered as acting with the support or at least the
acquiescence of the State since APKA serves as an auxiliary force of the police and the
police refused to assist in the search for Masigasig. b) Yes respondents are correct in
raising their defense. Under Section 2(c) of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, the filing of a
petition by an authorized party on behalf of the aggrieved party suspends the right of all
others, observing the order in Section 2 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. Here the
petition for writ of amparo had earlier been filed by the spouse of the aggrieved party
Masigasig. Thus it suspends the right of all others, including ALMA, to file the petition. c)
The amparo petition shall be consolidated with the criminal action. (Section 23, Rule on the
Writ of Amparo).