Zarate vs Aquino

FACTS:
Petitioners in this case are representatives of certain religious organizations and progressive
party-lists such as Bayan Muna, Gabriela, and Anak Pawis. However, the military and the police
wrongfully tagged these organizations as “communist front organizations.”
Sometime in 2014, a number of Manobos evacuated to Davao City to escape military operations
in their place but they later returned to their communities. In 2015, some of the Manobos went back to
Davao because they sought refuge still because of military operations and they were forcibly recruited
to join a paramilitary group.
These Manobos however claimed that they were tricked to go to Davao because as soon as they
reached the place, they alleged that they were deprived of freedom to move and that they were forced
to attend lectures and join rallies. They insisted that they be released but they later found one of their
tribe members dead (hanging on a tree).
Certain people (Datus and others) later filed a Complaint for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention and for Anti-trafficking. And in order to determine the persons who will be charged, the
complainants identified persons from a certain list. Included in such list are petitioners in this case, the
party list representatives.
They then claimed that the inclusion of their names in the list shows that they have been
subjected to State surveillance. Together with fabricated criminal charges against them and allegations
that they are linked with the NPA, they alleged that these are threats to their life, liberty, and security
hence, they shall be granted the writ of Amparo.

ISSUE:
Whether or not a petition for writ of amparo is proper in this case.

RULING:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It stated that the writ of amparo is a remedy
available to persons whose right to life, liberty, and security are threatened with an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or private entity. Furthermore, Secs. 17 and 18 of the Amparo Rule requires
substantial evidence as proof. The Supreme Court also cited its ruling in a previous case that only actual
threats as established from the case’s facts and circumstances can be the basis of an amparo petition.
So, in dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court individually assessed the circumstances of the
petitioners.
For Zarate, his inclusion in the list does not grant him the privilege of a writ of amparo. Zarate
also alleged that the fabricated cases previously filed against him were threats to his life, liberty, and
security. However, the Supreme Court found that these were not fabricated, and they were not a threat
to his life, liberty, and security.
As for petitioner Palabay, a member of a human rights organization, she alleged that this
organization was previously labeled as involved with the NPA and that one of their members who was
allegedly part of the military’s target list was found dead. The Supreme Court ruled that mere
membership in an organization is not a threat to one’s life, liberty, and security. Also, without showing
that the death of was because of his membership in the organization, the requirement of substantial
evidence cannot be satisfied.
 For petitioner Balaba, she reported that three men who she believed were State agents looked
for her and tailed her in four different occasions and a vehicle with a man standing beside it was seen
parked near her place. So, among all the petitioners, it is only Balaba who was able to present personal
circumstances. However, the Supreme Court still ruled that the circumstances presented still do not
comply with the substantial evidence needed to prove that there was a threat to her life, liberty, and
security.