1.
Differentiate Writ of Amparo from Writ of
Habeas Data
As to the remedy of each writ:
A petition for Amparo is a remedy for 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 (Sec. 1). A
petition for Habeas Data is a remedy for any
person whose right to privacy in life, liberty, or
security is violated or threatened with violation of
by an unlawful act of a public official or employee
or of a private individual or entity engaged in the
gathering, collecting or storing of information as
regards the family, home and correspondence of
the aggrieved party (Sec. 1).
As to person who may petition:
A petition for Amparo may be filed by the
aggrieved party or by (a) Any member of the
immediate family, namely: the spouse, children
and parents of the aggrieved party; (b) Any
ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of
the aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree
of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those
mentioned in the preceding paragraph; or (c) Any
concerned citizen, organization, association or
institution, if there is no known member of the
immediate family or relative of the aggrieved
party(Sec. 2). A petition for Habeas Data may be
filed as a general rule by the aggrieved party and
in case of extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances by his immediate family,
ascendants, descendants, or collateral relative up
to 4th degree of consanguinity or affinity.
As to venue:
A petition for Amparo may be filed before
the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals,
1
Sandiganbayan, and Regional Trial Court of the
place where the threat, act or omission was
committed (Sec. 3). A petition for Habeas Data
may be filed before the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and Regional Trial
Court of the place where the petitioner or
defendant resides which has jurisdiction over the
data gathered (Sec. 3).
As to payment of docket fee:
A petition for Amparo is exempt from
payment of docket fee (Sec. 4). A petition for
Habeas Data exempts only indigent petitioner
from payment of docket fee. (Sec.5)
As to the requirements of verification:
Petition for Amparo requires the petition
to be signed and verified (Sec.5). Petition for
Habeas Data requires it to be verified (Sec. 6).
As to duration of the summary hearing:
Petition for Amparo requires that the
summary hearing be not later than 7 days from
the date of the issuance of the writ (Sec. 8).
Petition for Habeas Data requires that the
summary hearing be held not later than 10 days
from the date of its issuance (Sec. 9).
As to the return:
Period to file return in petition for Amparo
can only be extended on highly meritorious
grounds (Sec. 9) Period to file return in petition
for Habeas Data can only by reasonably
extended for justifiable grounds (Sec. 9)
As to whether defenses may be heard:
Defenses cannot be heard in chamber in
petition for Amparo. Defenses in petition for
Habeas Data may be heard in chambers (Sec.
12).
2. What are the elements constituting Enforced
Disappearance as defined under RA 9851?
The elements constituting enforced
disappearance under RA 9851 are the following:
a) there is an arrest, detention,
abduction, or other form of liberty;
b) such is carried out by or with
authorization, support of, or of
the State or political
organization;
c) it is followed by the State or
political organization’s refusal to
acknowledge or give information
on the fate of or whereabouts of
person subject of amparo
petition;
d) the intention of the refusal is
to remove person from
protection of the law for an
extended period.
3. Who may file the Writ of Amparo and Writ of
Habeas Data petitions?
A petition for a writ of amparo may be
filed by the aggrieved party or by (a) Any member
of the immediate family, namely: the spouse,
children and parents of the aggrieved party; (b)
Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative
of the aggrieved party within the fourth civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of
those mentioned in the preceding paragraph; or
(c) Any concerned citizen, organization,
association or institution, if there is no known
member of the immediate family or relative of the
aggrieved party(Sec. 2). A petition for habeas
data may be filed as a general rule by the
aggrieved party and in case of extralegal killings
and enforced disappearances by his immediate
family, ascendants, descendants, or collateral
2
relative up to 4th degree of consanguinity or
affinity.
4. What is the burden of proof and standard of
diligence required in the Writ of Amparo?
The burden of proof required of in a Writ
of Amparo substantial evidence is substantial
evidence or that amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion. The standard
of diligence required of in a Writ of Amparo
depends on whether the respondent is a private
or a public official or employee, the former
requires ordinary diligence while the latter
requires extraordinary diligence in the
performance of their duty.
5. What must a petition for writ of Habeas data
contain?
Section 6 of the Rule on Habeas Data
provides that a verified written petition for a writ
of habeas data must contain the following:
a) The personal circumstances
of the petitioner and the respondent;
b) The manner the right to
privacy is violated or threatened and how
it affects the right to life, liberty or
security of the aggrieved party;
c) The actions and recourses
taken by the petitioner to secure the data
or information;
d) The location of the files,
registers or databases, the
government office, and the
person in charge, in possession
or in control of the data or
information, if known;
e) The reliefs prayed for, which
may include the updating,
rectification, suppression or
destruction of the database or
 information or files kept by the
respondent. In case of threats,
the relief may include a prayer
for an order enjoining the act
complained of; and
f) Such other relevant reliefs as
are just and equitable.
6. Can both petitions for Amparo and Habeas
Data be consolidated?
Petitions for Amparo and Habeas Corpus
can be consolidated. These are twin special
proceedings covering cases of extrajudicial
killings and enforced disappearances committed
or threatened to be committed by public officials
or employees or private persons.
7. What is the reason why the petition for Amparo
was denied in the case of Infant Julian Caram,
GR 193652, Aug. 5, 2014?
The Supreme Court denied the petition
for Amparo in the case of Infant Julian Caram
since it is clear that Amparo only covers
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.
The enforced separation of Baby Julian does not
fall within the context of enforced disappearance.
The elements constituting enforced
disappearance under RA 9851 are the following:
a) there is an arrest, detention,
abduction, or other form of liberty;
b) such is carried out by or with
authorization, support of, or of
the State or political
organization;
c) it is followed by the State or
political organization’s refusal to
acknowledge or give information
on the fate of or whereabouts of
person subject of amparo
petition;
d) the intention of the refusal is
to remove person from
3
protection of the law for an
extended period.
In this case, since the DSWD officers did
not conceal Baby Julian’s whereabouts, contrary
to the requirements 3 and 4, writ of Amparo is not
the proper remedy.
It was also clear from the pleadings filed
that what is involved is the issue of child custody
and the exercise of parental rights over a child,
who, for all intents and purposes, has been
legally considered a ward of the State, the
Amparo rule cannot be properly applied.
8. What about in the case of Canlas vs. Napico
Homeowners Assn?
In the case of Canlas v. Napico
Homeowners Association, the Supreme Court
denied the application of Amparo because the
writ only applies in cases of extralegal killings
and enforced disappearances as provided under
Section 1 of the Writ of Amparo. 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 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. There is, therefore, no legal basis for the
issuance of the writ of amparo.
9. In Rhonda Vivares vs. St. Theresa’s College,
GR 202667, Sept 29, 2014, give the material
facts, issue/s, ruling/s in not more than 10
sentences.
Facts:
 Nenita Julia V. Daluz (Julia) and Julienne
Vida Suzara (Julienne) together with other
students of St. Theresa’s College (STC) took
digital photos, clad in their undergarments, which
was posted in Angela Tan’s Facebook account,
in violation of STC’s student handbook. One of
their teachers, Mylene Rheza T. Escudero, upon
learning that some students posted such photos,
asked her students if they knew who were
involved so some student logged in their personal
Facebook account using STC’s computer to
show the photos. Julia and Julienne together with
other students involved were barred from joining
the commencement exercises. This forced
Angela’s mother to file a petition for injunction
with damages for STC to refrain from
implementing the sanction, however, STC still
barred the students from participating in the
commencement exercises. Petitioners thereafter
filed a petition for issuance of Habeas Data which
the Regional Trial Court dismissed after hearing
both sides.
Issues:
1. Whether STC is an entity
engaged in the gathering, collecting, or storing
data of information regarding the person family,
home and correspondence of the aggrieved
party.
2. Whether STC violated the right
to privacy of the petitioners’ children which
necessitates the issuance of a writ of habeas
data.
Ruling:
1. Yes, STC is an entity engaged in
the gathering, collecting, or storing data of
information regarding the person family, home
and correspondence of the aggrieved party since
to engage in an activity does not necessarily
mean that the activity must be done in pursuit of
a business or whether such undertaking carries
the element of regularity, as when one pursues a
business, and is in the nature of a personal
endeavour, for any other reason or even for no
reason at all, is immaterial and such will not
prevent the writ from getting to said person or
entity.
2. STC did not violate the right to
privacy of the petitioners’ children and therefore
does not necessitate the issuance of a writ of
habeas data. Assuming that the photos are
visible only to the sanctioned students’ Facebook
friends, respondent STC cannot be taken to task
for the privacy invasion since it was the minors’
Facebook friends who showed the pictures to
Tigol who was a mere recipient of what were
posted; as such, they did not resort to any
unlawful means of gathering the information as it
was voluntarily given to them by persons who
had legitimate access to the said posts.
10. In your opinion, must there be a revision
already on the rules of writ of Amparo? How
about Writ of Habeas Data?
There is no need to revise on the rules of
Writ of Amparo. The Rules of Writ of Habeas
Data however, needs to amend the portion where
only the indigent are exempted from payment of
docket fees, it must be the same with Amparo
where anyone is exempted from payment of
docket fee since it is the right of everyone, in the
light of the present information bloom where
violations on the life, liberty and security of a
person are rampant and imminent, to be
protected.