The document discusses the writ of Amparo, a remedy available in the Philippines for violations of the right to life, liberty, and security. It was adopted in 2007 by the Philippine Supreme Court to address issues of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. The writ allows for temporary protection orders, inspections, production of documents, and witness protection. The first Supreme Court case involving the writ, Secretary of National Defense v. Raymund Manalo, upheld the writ and ruled that the state has a duty to protect security and liberty. The ruling was landmark in expanding the interpretation of right to security.

1. By: Adolfo S. Azcuna
Associate Justice
Supreme Court of the Philippines

2. Adolfo S. Azcuna
Associate Justice
Supreme Court of the Philippines

3.  The writ of Amparo is a remedy available to
any person whose right to life, liberty, and
security has been violated or is threatened
with violation by an unlawful act or omission
of a public official or employee, or of a private
individual or entity.
 The word "Amparo" is a Spanish term which
means "protection".

4. • On October 24, 2007, the Rule on the Writ of
Amparo
• took effect in the Philippines.
• It was adopted by the Philippine Supreme Court
pursuant to its power under the 1987
Constitution to promulgate rules concerning the
protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights.
• The new rule covers the right to life, liberty and
security in cases of extralegal killings, enforced
disappearances or threats thereof.

5. • The remedy prescribed is unique and
extraordinary and is given the same priority
as habeas corpus.
• Essentially, it provides the interim reliefs of
Temporary Protection Order, Inspection
Order, Production Order and Witness
Protection Order, any or all of which may be
made permanent in the judgment rendered
after a summary hearing.

6. • So far, the remedy has resulted in a
number of persons released from military
custody although many others are still
unaccounted for.
• The number of extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances, however, which
prompted the adoption of the remedy, has
since gone down considerably.

7. • The first decision of the Philippine
Supreme Court involving this new remedy
is Secretary of National Defense, et al. v.
Raymund Manalo and Reynaldo Manalo,4
penned by Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno.

8. • The case was an appeal from the decision of the
Court of Appeals which granted respondent brothers
the privilege of the writ of Amparo and ordered
petitioners Secretary of National Defense and Armed
Forces of the Philippines Chief of Staff to furnish
respondents all official and unofficial reports of the
investigation undertaken in connection with their
case; to confirm in writing the present places of
official assignment of two military personnel found
involved in the matter investigated and to produce to
the Court all medical reports, records, charts and
reports of any treatment given or recommended and
medicines prescribed to said respondents and the list
of the attending medical personnel.

9. • Respondents Manalo brothers were abducted
from their houses by armed men on February
14, 2006 and held in detention until they
escaped on August 13, 2007. The Court
sustained the findings on the adduction,
detention, torture and escape of the
respondents.

10. • In disposing of the appeal, the Supreme Court
examined the right to life, liberty and security as
recognized in the Philippine Constitution5 as well as
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the U.N.
Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from
Enforced Disappearance, and The International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It held that the
right to security of person is a guarantee of bodily and
psychological integrity and security and that the right
of security of person exists independently of the right
to liberty. The Supreme Court also cited the European
Court of Human Rights on its interpretation of the
“right to security” as not only prohibiting the State
from arbitrarily depriving liberty, but imposing a
positive duty on the State to afford protection of the
right to liberty.

11. • Applying these concepts, the Court then
ruled that there was violation of the right
to security as freedom from threat to
respondents’ life, liberty and security and
also a violation of the right to security as
protection by the government. It then
proceeded to rule that the reliefs granted
were appropriate and relevant and thereby
dismissed the petition.

12. • The Manalo ruling is truly a landmark in
Philippine jurisprudence and the fact that
it was a unanimous decision of the entire
15-member Court augurs well for the
future of the new remedy of Amparo in
the Philippines.

13. REPORTED BY:
• Pagaran, Francis
• Erick, Chaves