Writ of Amparo

Question 1

Definition

Answer 1

This is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated of 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 an enforced disappearances or threats thereof. (Sec. 1, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, Rule on the Writ of Amparo)

Question 2

Define Extralegal Killings and Enforced Disappearances.

Answer 2

Extralegal killings are killings committed without due process of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings. On the other hand, enforced disappearance has been defined by the Court as the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law. (Mamba v. Bueno, G.R. No. 191416, Feb. 07 2017)

Question 3

What are the Elements Constituting Enforced Disappearances.

Answer 3

1. That there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty;
2. That it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or a political organization;
3. That it be followed by the State or political organization’s refusal to acknowledge or give information on the fate or whereabouts of the person subject of the amparo petition; and
4. That the intention for such refusal is to remove subject person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time. (Navia v. Pardico, G.R. No. 184467, 19 June 2012)

Question 4

Can the “Writ of Amparo” be used in all cases of missing persons?

Answer 4

A: NO. For the protective writ of amparo to issue in enforced disappearance cases, allegation and proof that the persons subject thereof are missing are not enough.

It must also be shown by the required quantum of proof that their disappearance was carried out by, “or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, [the government] or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the same or give information on the fate or whereabouts of said missing persons.”

Even if the person sought to be held accountable or responsible in an amparo petition is a private individual or entity, still, government involvement in the disappearance remains an indispensable element. (Navia v. Pardico,

Question 5

Engr. Peregrina disappeared one day and his wife filed a petition for the Writ of Amparo with the CA directed against the PNP, claiming that the “unexplained uncooperative behavior” of the respondents request for help and their failure and refusal to extend assistance in locating the whereabouts of Peregrina were indicative of their actual physical possession and custody of the missing engineer.” The PNP was held responsible for the “enforced disappearance” of Engr. Peregrina. Is this valid?

Answer 5

A: YES. The government in general, through the PNP and the PNP-CIDG, and in particular, the Chiefs of these organizations together with Col. Kasim, should be held fully accountable for the enforced disappearance of Peregrina. Given their mandates, the PNP and the PNP CIDG officials and members were the ones who were remiss in their duties when the government completely failed to exercise extraordinary diligence that the Amparo rule requires. (Razon v. Tagitis, G.R. No. 182498, 03, Dec. 2009)

Question 6

Q: Six (6) department heads of the provincial government of Ilocos Norte appeared before the House Blue Ribbon Committee as resource persons in the investigation being conducted by the said committee with regard to the alleged misuse of the excise taxes collected from Tobacco companies in the province.

These resource persons (Ilocos 6) were cited in contempt and ordered detained because they refused to provide answers to the questions of the lawmakers (since most of them said they could no longer remember the facts).

These resource persons (Ilocos 6) then applied for a Writ of Amparo to protect them from alleged actual and threatened violations of their rights to liberty and security of person. Should the Writ of Amparo be issued?

Answer 6

A: NO. The privilege of the writ of Amparo is a remedy available ONLY to victims of extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances or threats of a similar nature, regardless of whether the perpetrator of the unlawful act or omission is a public official or employee or a private individual.

The writ of Amparo is designed to protect and guarantee the
(1) right to life;
(2) right to liberty; and
(3) right to security of persons, free from fears and threats that vitiate the quality of life.

Petitioners thus failed to establish that their attendance at and participation in the legislative inquiry as resource persons have seriously violated their right to liberty and security, for which no other legal recourse or remedy is available. Perforce, the petition for the issuance of a writ of Amparo must be dismissed. (Agcaoli v. Hon. Farinas,)