SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE VS.

MANALO
G.R. No. 180906
October 7, 2008

Facts: The brothers Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo, farmers from Bulacan who were suspected
of being members of the New People’s Army, were forcibly taken from their home, detained in
various locations, and tortured by CAFGU and military units. After several days in captivity, the
brothers Raymond and Reynaldo recognized their abductors as members of the armed forces led
by General Jovito Palparan. They also learned that they were being held in place for their brother,
Bestre, a suspected leader of the communist insurgents. While in captivity, they met
other desaperacidos (including the still-missing University of the Philippines students Karen
Empeno and Sherlyn Cadapan) who were also suspected of being communist insurgents and
members of the NPA. After eighteen months of restrained liberty, torture and other dehumanizing
acts, the brothers were able to escape and filed a petition for the writ of amparo before the Court.
The writ was issued against the respondents which the CA affirmed. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not the application of the rule on the Writ of Amparo was correct.

Held: Yes. On October 24, 2007, the Court promulgated the Amparo Rule in light of the
prevalence of extralegal killing and enforced disappearances. It was an exercise for the first time
of the Court's expanded power to promulgate rules to protect our people's constitutional rights,
which made its maiden appearance in the 1987 Constitution in response to the Filipino experience
of the martial law regime. As the Amparo Rule 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." According to the rules, the parties shall
establish their claims by substantial evidence. After careful perusal of the evidence presented,
the Courte affirmed the findings of the Court of Appeals that respondents were abducted from
their houses in Sito Muzon, Brgy. Buhol na Mangga, San Ildefonso, Bulacan on February 14,
2006 and were continuously detained until they escaped on August 13, 2007. The abduction,
detention, torture, and escape of the respondents were narrated by respondent Raymond Manalo
in a clear and convincing manner. His account is dotted with countless candid details of
respondents' harrowing experience and tenacious will to escape, captured through his different
senses and etched in his memory. Hence, the petition was dismissed.