Secretary of National Defense vs.

Manalo

G.R. No. 180906

October 7, 2008

Facts: On February 14, 2006, Raymond was sleeping in their house in Buhol na Mangga, San
Ildefonso, Bulacan. At past noon, he was abducted by CAFGU members. The van drove off,
then came to a stop. A person was brought inside the van and made to sit beside Raymond. Both
of them were beaten up. On the road, he recognized the voice of the person beside him as his
brother Reynaldos. They were suspected as members of the NPA. In the next days, Raymonds
interrogators appeared to be high officials as the soldiers who beat him up would salute them,
call them sir, and treat them with respect. After 18 months of detention and torture, the
brothers escaped on August 13, 2007.
Respondents initially filed an action for Prohibition, Injunction, and Temporary Restraining
Orderto stop petitioners and/or their officers and agents from depriving the respondents of their
right to liberty and other basic rights on August 23, 2007, prior to the promulgation of the
Amparo Rule. When the Amparo Rule came into effect on October 24, 2007, they moved to
have their petition treated as an amparo petition. The Court granted their motion.
On December 26, 2007, the Court of Appeals granted the privilege of the writ of amparo. The
CA ordered the Secretary of National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the AFP to furnish the the
two borthers and the court with all official and unofficial investigation reports as to their custody,
confirm the present places of official assignment of two military officials involved, and produce
all medical reports and records of the Manalo brothers while under military custody. The
Secretary of National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the AFP appealed to the SC seeking to
reverse and set aside the decision promulgated by the CA.
Issue: 1. Whether or Not filing for Writ of Amparo is proper.
Ruling:
Yes. Since their escape, respondents have been under concealment and protection by private
citizens because of the threat to their life, liberty and security. The threat vitiates their free will
as they are forced to limit their movements or activities. Precisely because respondents are being
shielded from the perpetrators of their abduction, they cannot be expected to show evidence of

overt acts of threat such as face-to-face intimidation or written threats to their life, liberty and
security. Nonetheless, the circumstances of respondents abduction, detention, torture and escape
reasonably support a conclusion that there is an apparent threat that they will again be abducted,
tortured, and this time, even executed. These constitute threats to their liberty, security, and life,
actionable through a petition for a writ of amparo.

Fr. Robert Reyes vs. Sec. Raul Gonzales

G.R. No. 182161

December 3, 2009

Facts: Reyes was among those arrested in the Manila Peninsula Hotel siege on November 30,
2007. In the morning of November 30, 2007, petitioner together with fifty others, were brought
to Camp Crame to await inquest proceedings. In the evening of the same day, the Department of
Justice Panel of Prosecutors conducted inquest proceedings to ascertain whether or not there was
probable cause to hold petitioner and the others for trial on charges of Rebellion and/or Inciting
to Rebellion.
On December 1, 2007, upon the request of the DILG, respondent DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzales
issued Hold Departure Order No. 45 ordering respondent Commissioner of Immigration to
include in the Hold Departure List of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation the name of
petitioner and 49 others relative to the aforementioned case in the interest of national security
and public safety.
The RTC however dismissed the charge against him but the HDO was still in effect. Petitioner
requested that HDO should be lifted in view of the dismissal of the criminal case. Petitioner
argued that a writ of amparo should be issued against the respondents, violating the whole
breadth of rights enshrined in the Constitution, specifically, his right to travel.
Issue: Whether or not petitioners right to liberty has been violated or threatened with violation
by the issuance of the subject HDO, which would entitle him to the privilege of the Writ of
Amparo.
Ruling: No. The right to travel refers to the right to move from one place to another. the
restriction on petitioners right to travel as a consequence of the pendency of the criminal case
filed against him was not unlawful. Petitioner has also failed to establish that his right to travel
was impaired in the manner and to the extent that it amounted to a serious violation of his right
to life, liberty and security, for which there exists no readily available legal recourse or remedy.
Additionally, petitioner is seeking the extraordinary writ of amparo due to his apprehension that
the DOJ may deny his motion to lift the HDO. He has failed to show any clear threat to his right
to liberty actionable through a petition for a writ of amparo.

In the matter of the Petition for the Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data in favor of Noriel
Rodriguez vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
G.R. No. 191805
November 15, 2011
Facts: Rodriguez is petitioner in G.R. No. 191805 and respondent in G.R. No. 193160. He is a
member of Alyansa Dagiti Mannalon Iti Cagayan (Kagimungan), a peasant organization
affiliated with Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP). Rodriguez claims that the military
tagged KMP as an enemy of the State under the Oplan Bantay Laya, making its members targets
of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. On 6 September 2009, at 5:00 p.m.,
Rodriguez had just reached Barangay Tapel, Cagayan when four men forcibly took him and
tortured Rodriguez to confess to being a member of the New Peoples Army (NPA), but he
remained silent. After his release, Rodriguez filed before this Court a Petition for the Writ of
Amparo and Petition for the Writ of Habeas Data with Prayers for Protection Orders, Inspection
of Place, and Production of Documents and Personal Properties dated 2 December 2009.The
petition was filed against former President Arroyo, et.al.. The writs were granted by the CA.
Issue: 1.Whether the interim reliefs prayed for by Rodriguez may be granted after the writs
of amparo and habeas data have already been issued in his favor.
2. Whether the doctrine of command responsibility can be used in amparo and habeas
data cases.
Ruling: 1. Being interim reliefs, they can only be granted before a final adjudication of the case
is made. In any case, it must be underscored that the privilege of the writ of amparo, once
granted, necessarily entails the protection of the aggrieved party. Thus, since we grant petitioner
the privilege of the writ of amparo, there is no need to issue a temporary protection order
independently of the former. The order restricting respondents from going near Rodriguez is
subsumed under the privilege of the writ.
2. Yes. The doctrine of command responsibility may be used to determine whether respondents
are accountable for and have the duty to address the abduction of Rodriguez in order to enable
the courts to devise remedial measures to protect his rights. Clearly, nothing precludes this Court
from applying the doctrine of command responsibility in amparo proceedings to ascertain
responsibility and accountability in extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.

A Compilation of Case Digests

For Constitutional Law II

Submitted to:
Atty. Jose Edmund Guillen, LL.B, LL.M.
College of Law
Central Philippine University

Submitted by:
Dianah Jane L. Huele
JD-I

December 13, 2014