WRITS OF MANDAMUS,

HABEAS CORPUS,
AMPARO AND
HABEAS DATA
ACOSTA, MANIGBAS, REYES, RUMOHR, SANDOVAL,

ACOSTA, MANIGBAS, REYES, RUMOHR, SANDOVAL,

WRIT OF MANDAMUS
RULE 65

Mandamus

A special civil action under Rule 65

a writ issued in the name of the State,
to an inferior tribunal, a corporation,
board or person, commanding the
performance of an act which the law
enjoins as a duty resulting from an
office, trust or station.
employed to compel the performance,
when refused, of a ministerial duty

Elements of Mandamus

Directed at any tribunal, corporation, board,

officer or person
Who unlawfully neglects the performance of
an act which the law specifically enjoins as a
duty resulting from an office, trust, or station;
or
OR unlawfully excludes another from the use
and enjoyment of a right or office to which
such other is entitled
When there is no other plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law

Elements of Mandamus

A person aggrieved may file a verified

petition

Alleging the facts with certainty

Praying
that
judgment
be
rendered
commanding the respondent to do the act
required to be done to protect the rights of the
petitioner, and
To pay the damages sustained by the petitioner

Petition shall contain a sworn certification

of non-forum shopping

Characteristics

mandamus may lie in the performance

of a duty involving discretion to the
extent that the body or officer
exercising
such
duty
may
be
compelled to act, but not to act in a
particular way.
Mandamus does not lie in the absence
of showing of a clear legal right which
must be well defined, clear, and
certain as reflected in the petition.

Characteristics

mandamus
will
not
issue
when
administrative
remedies
are
still
available

Except: when the rule of exhaustion cannot

be invoked because the party is estopped
or if only pure questions of law are raised.

Can be availed of only by the

has direct legal interest in
sought to be enforced

party who
the right

Where to file? Concurrent jurisdiction

of

Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
Regional Trial Court

When to file?

Within 60 days after receipt of notice of

the judgment/order/resolution

Writ of Habeas Corpus

Rule 102

Definition

It is a writ directed to a person

detaining another commanding him
to produce the body of the prisoner
at a designated time or place or by
which the rightful custody of a
person is withheld from the on
entitled thereto.

Objective

The objective of the writ is to

determine whether the confinement
or detention is valid or lawful. If it is,
the writ cannot be issued. Its great
object of the writ is the liberation of
those who may be imprisoned
without sufficient cause.

Objective

Jurisprudence

Villavicencio v. Lucban (39 Phil. 778)

Zagala v. Ilustre (48 Phil. 282)

to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint as

distinguished from voluntary, and to relieve a person
therefrom if such restraint is illegal
actual and effective restraint, not merely nominal or
moral, is required

Moncupa v. Enrile, et al. (G.R. No. 63345,

January 30, 1986)

actual physical restraint is not always required; any

restraint which prejudice freedom of action is
sufficient

Nature

Jurisprudence

Alimpos v. CA (106 SCRA 159)

proceeding in rem as it is an inquisition by the

government, at the suggestion and instance of
an individual but still in the name and capacity
of the sovereign.

Caballes v. CA (G.R. No. 163108, February

23, 2005)
summary remedy
a prerogative writ which does not issues as a
matter of right but in the sound discretion of
the court or judge

Section 1

To what habeas corpus extends.

Except as otherwise expressly
provided by law, the writ of habeas
corpus shall extend to all cases of
illegal confinement or detention by
which any person is deprived of his
liberty, or by which the rightful
custody of any person is withheld
from the person entitled thereto.

Section 1

Two instances when the writ of

habeas corpus may be availed of as
a remedy:

In all cases of illegal confinement or

detention by which a person is deprived
of his liberty.
When the rightful custody of any person
is withheld from the person entitled
thereto.

Section 1

Jurisprudence

Sombong v. CA (252 SCRA 663)

Gumabon v. Director of the Bureau of Prisons (37 SCRA 420)

Remedy to enable parents to regain the custody of minor child even if

the latter be in the custody of a third person of his/her own free will
upon the concurrence of certain requisites
Temporary release of a person which carries such restriction does not
render the petition for habeas corpus moot and academic

Feria v. CA (325 SCRA 525)

Writ may be availed of where:

There has been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint

of a person;
The court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or
An excessive penalty has been imposed, as such is void as to such excess.

In Re Azucena L. Garcia (339 SCRA 292)

Habeas corpus cannot function as a writ of error. Mere errors of fact or

law, which did not have the effect of depriving the trial court of its
jurisdiction over the cause and the person of the defendant, if corrected
at all, must be corrected on appeal in the form and manner prescribed
by law.

Section 1

Constitutional provisions related to the writ

of habeas corpus:

Sec. 15, Article III of the 1987 Constitution

provides that the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus shall not be suspended except in cases
of invasion or rebellion where the public safety
requires it.
Sec. 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution
provides that in case of invasion or rebellion,
the President may, for a period not exceeding
sixty days, suspend the privilege of habeas
corpus, which Congress may revoke or, upon
the initiative of the President, extend for a
period to be determined by it.

Section 2

Who may grant the writ. The writ of

habeas corpus may be granted by the
Supreme Court, or any member thereof,
on any day and at any time, or by the
Court of Appeals or any member thereof
in the instances authorized by law, and
if so granted it shall be enforceable
anywhere in the Philippines, and may be
made returnable before the court or any
member thereof, or before the Court of
First Instance, or any judge thereof for
the hearing and decision on the merits.
It may also be

Section 2

Courts that may issue the writ:

The Supreme Court

Court of Appeals
Regional Trial Court

The decisions of the Supreme Court and

the Court of Appeals are enforceable
anywhere in the Philippines while the
regional trial courts have jurisdiction to
issue writs of habeas corpus only when
such writ can be enforced within their
respective judicial districts.

Section 2

Jurisprudence

Martin v. Guerrero (317 SCRA 166)

Medina v. Yap (60 SCRA 73)

A writ issued by a Regional Trial Court and enforced

outside of his judicial district is void.
A petition filed with the Supreme Court may make the writ
returnable to itself.
Where factual issues are raised, the Supreme Court may
make the writ returnable to a regional trial court.

Orla v. Court of Appeals (192 SCRA 768)

In a petition filed with the Court of Appeals, the latter may

not make the writ returnable to the regional trial courts
The Court of Appeals should instead hear the case,
conduct a trial or hearing to receive evidence and decide
the petition for habeas corpus on the merits.

Section 3

Requisites of application therefor. Application for the

writ shall be by petition signed and verified either by the
party for whose relief it is intended, or by some person
on his behalf, and shall set forth:
(a) That the person in whose behalf the application is
made is imprisoned or restrained of his liberty;
(b) The officer or name of the person by whom he is so
imprisoned or restrained; or, if both are unknown or
uncertain, such officer or person may be described by an
assumed appellation, and the person who is served with
the writ shall be deemed the person intended;
(c) The place where he is so imprisoned or restrained, if
known;
(d) A copy of the commitment or cause of detention of
such person, if it can be procured without impairing the
efficiency of the remedy; or, if the imprisonment or
restraint is without any legal authority, such fact shall
appear.

Section 3

The petition for habeas corpus may

be filed, signed and verified by the
party for whose relief it is intended or
the person illegally detained, or by
some other person on his behalf.

Section 3

Jurisprudence

Velasco v. CA (245 SCRA 677)

People v. Labriaga (250 SCRA 163)

The term some other person means any person who has a
legally justified interest in the freedom of the person whose
liberty is restrained (parents, wife or the common-law spouse,
one who shows some authorization to make the application).
Strict compliance with the technical requirements of Section 3
may be dispensed with, where the application is sufficient in
substance, as the rules on habeas corpus are liberally
construed.

Bernarte v. CA (263 SCRA 323)

The court must inquire into every phase and aspect of

petitioners detention from the moment petitioner was taken
into custody up to the moment the court passes upon the
merits of the petition and only after such a scrutiny can the
court satisfy itself that the due process clause of the
Constitution has been satisfied.

Section 4

When writ not allowed or discharge authorized.

If it appears that the person alleged to be
restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an
officer under process issued by a court or judge
or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of
record, and that the court or judge had
jurisdiction to issue the process, render the
judgment, or make the order, the writ shall not
be allowed; or if the jurisdiction appears after
the writ is allowed, the person shall not be
discharged by reason of any informality or defect
in the process, judgment, or order. Nor shall
anything in this rule be held to authorize the
discharge of a person charged with or convicted
of an offense in the Philippines, or of a person
suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment.

Section 4

Jurisprudence

Rodriguez v. Bonifacio (344 SCRA 519)

Cannot question his detention via writ once duly charged in court.
Remedy: quash the information and/or the warrant of arrest duly
issued.
The term court includes quasi-judicial bodies.

In Velasco v. CA (245 SCRA 677)

Other instances

The subsequent issuance of a judicial process preventing the discharge of the

detained persons;
The filing of a complaint or information for the offense for which the accused is
detained and the issuance of a warrant of arrest; and
The filing of a motion for bail, as it is an admission that the person was under the
custody of the court and voluntarily submitted to his person to its jurisdiction, or
by appearing in court and giving a bond for his provisional release.

Ilusorio v. Bildner (332 SCRA 169)

Wife may not secure a writ of habeas corpus to compel her husband to
live with her in conjugal basis. Marital rights including overture and
living in conjugal swelling may not be enforced by the extraordinary
writ of habeas corpus.

Section 5

When the writ must be granted and

issued. A court or judge authorized to
grant the writ must, when a petition
therefor is presented and it appears
that the writ ought to issue, grant the
same forthwith, and immediately
thereupon the clerk of the court shall
issue the writ under the seal of the
court; or in case of emergency, the
judge may issue the writ under his own
hand, and may depute any officer or
person to serve it.

Section 6

To whom writ directed, and what to require. In

case of imprisonment or restraint by an officer,
the writ shall be directed to him, and shall
command him to have the body of the person
restrained of his liberty before the court or
judge designated in the writ at the time and
place therein specified. In case of imprisonment
or restraint by a person not an officer, the writ
shall be directed to an officer, and shall
command him to take and have the body of the
person restrained of his liberty before the court
or judge designated in the writ at the time and
place therein specified, and to summon the
person by whom he is restrained then and there
to appear before said court or judge to show the
cause of the imprisonment or restraint.

Section 7

How prisoner designated and writ served.

The person to be produced should be
designated in the writ by his name, if known,
but if his name is not known he may be
otherwise described or identified. The writ
may be served in any province by the sheriff
or other proper officer, or by a person
deputed by the court or judge. Service of the
writ shall be made by leaving the original
with the person to whom it is directed and
preserving a copy on which to make return of
service. If that person cannot be found, or
has not the prisoner in his custody, then the
service shall be made on any other person
having or exercising such custody.

Section 8

How writ executed and returned. The

officer to whom the writ is directed shall
convey the person so imprisoned or
restrained, and named in the writ, before
the judge allowing the writ, or, in case of his
absence or disability, before some other
judge of the same court, on the day
specified in the writ, unless, from sickness
or infirmity of the person directed to be
produced, such person cannot, without
danger, be brought before the court or
judge; and the officer shall make due return
of the writ, together with the day and the
cause of the caption and restraint of such
person according to the command thereof.

Section 9

Defect of form. No writ of

habeas corpus can be disobeyed
for defect of form, if it
sufficiently appears therefrom in
whose custody or under whose
restraint the party imprisoned or
restrained is held and the court
or judge before whom he is to be
brought.

Section 10.

Contents of return. When the person to be produced is

imprisoned or restrained by an officer, the person who makes
the return shall state therein, and in other cases the person in
whose custody the prisoner is found shall state, in writing to
the court or judge before whom the writ is returnable, plainly
and unequivocably:
(a) Whether he has or has not the party in his custody or
power, or under restraint;
(b) If he has the party in his custody or power, or under
restraint, the authority and the true and whole cause thereof,
set forth at large, with a copy of the writ, order, execution, or
other process, if any, upon which the party is held;
(c) If the party is in his custody or power or is restrained by
him, and is not produced, particularly the nature and gravity of
the sickness or infirmity of such party by reason of which he
cannot, without danger, be brought before the court or judge;
(d) If he has had the party in his custody or power, or under
restraint, and has transferred such custody or restraint to
another, particularly to whom, at what time, for what cause,
and by what authority such transfer was made.

Return of the Writ

Form
In writing
Signed by the person making the Return
Sworn to by said person if:

Prisoner is not produced

In all other cases

UNLESS: Made and signed by a sworn public

officer in his official capacity.

Contents
Day when the Return is made
Cause of caption and restraint of prisoner
If the Return is made by the person alleged to have custody of the prisoner,
whether or not he has the prisoner in his custody or power or is under
restrain
If the prisoner is in his custody or is under restraint:

1)
2)
3)

4)
a)

The authority thereof

True and whole cause thereof

5)
a)

Including copy of the writ, order, execution or process embodying the authority, if
any

If the prisoner is in his custody or is under restraint and not produced before
the court:

6)

a)

The nature and gravity of the sickness or infirmity of the prisoner

If the prisoner is in his custody or under restraint and was transferred to

another:

7)

a)
b)
c)
d)

To whom transferred
Time transfer was made
Cause of transfer
Authority under which transfer was made

To Whom Made
The Return should be made before the judge of
the court where the application of the writ
was filed.

By Whom Made

Sheriff or other officer who served the writ

The person in whose custody the prisoner is
found

Effects After Return is Made

1) If the prisoner is produced:

The judge to whom the return was made hears and examines the
return and such other matters as are properly submitted for
consideration.

If the judge is satisfied that the prisoner is unlawfully imprisoned or

detained, the prisoner shall be ordered discharged from
confinement to be effective when a copy of the order has been
served on the officer or person detaining the prisoner. If such officer
or person does not appeal, the prisoner shall be released.

The person set at liberty shall not be imprisoned again for the same
offense UNLESS, by lawful order or process of a court having
jurisdiction over the cause or offense.

If a person knowingly recommits or imprisons, or causes to be

committed or imprisoned, for the same offense or pretended offense,
any person set at liberty, or knowingly aids or assists therein, such
person shall forfeit to the party aggrieved one thousand pesos to be
recovered in a proper action and may also be punished for contempt.

Effects After Return is Made

If it appears that the prisoner was lawfully committed, and is plainly

and specifically charged in the warrant of commitment with an
offense punishable by death, he hall not be released, discharged or
baled.

If the prisoner is lawfully imprisoned or restrained on a charge of

having committed an offense not punishable by death, he may be
recommitted or imprisoned or admitted to bail in the discretion of the
court or judge.
Upon application for bail:

The judge or court shall consider the circumstances of the

prisoner and the nature of the offense charged.
The prisoner files a bund in the sum determined by the
judge or court.
Thu judge or court grants bail conditioned on the
appearance of the prisoner before the court where the
offense is properly cognizable to abide its order or
judgment.

Effects After Return is Made

2) If the prisoner is not produced:

If the person imprisoned or restrained

is not produced because of his alleged
sickness or infirmity, the court or judge
must be satisfied that it is so grave that
the person cannot be produced without
danger before proceeding to hear and
dispose of the matter.

When the Return is Evidence and

When Only A Plea

The Return shall be considered prima facie evidence of the

cause of restraint if the prisoner is in custody under a
warrant of commitment in pursuance of law.

The Return shall be considered only as a plea of the facts

therein set forth and the party claiming the custody must
prove such facts if the prisoner is restrained of his liberty
by any private authority.

When the Custody of the Prisoner

may be Removed to Another:
A person committed to prison or in custody of an officer for any CRIMINAL
matter shall not be removed therefrom into the custody of another officer
UNLESS:

By legal process
The prisoner be delivered to an inferior officer to carry to jail
By order of the proper court or judge
By order of the proper court or judge, be removed from one place or
another within the Philippines for trial
In case of fire, epidemic, insurrection, or other necessity or public
calamity.

A person who makes, signs, or countersigns any order for such removal
contrary to Section 18, Rule 102 shall forfeit to the party aggrieved one
thousand pesos to be recovered in a proper action.

Penalties
Penalty for Refusing to Issue the Writ:

A clerk of court who refuses to issue the writ after the court or judge
allowed it and after a demand is made shall forfeit to the party
aggrieved one thousand pesos to be recovered in a proper action
and may also be punished for contempt.

Penalty for Disobeying the Writ:

A person to whom a writ is directed, who neglects or refuses to obey

or make return of the same or makes false return thereof or who,
upon demand by or on behalf of the prisoner, refuses to deliver to
the person so demanding within 6 hours after the demand therefore
a true copy of the warrant or order of commitment shall forfeit to
the party aggrieved one thousand pesos to be recovered in a proper
action and may also be punished for contempt.

Record of Writ
The proceedings upon a writ of habeas corpus shall be recorded by the clerk of
court.

Fees and Costs

Upon the final disposition of the proceedings, the court or judge shall make
such order as to costs as the case requires.
The fees of officers and witnesses shall be included in the costs taxed.
No officer or person shall have the right to demand payment in advance of
any fees to which he is entitled by virtue of the proceedings.
When a person confined under color of proceedings in a CRIMINAL case is
discharged, the costs shall be taxed against the Republic of the Philippines
and paid out of its Treasury.
When a person in custody by virtue or under color of proceedings in a CIVIL
case is discharged, the costs shall be taxed against him or against the person
who signed the application for the writ or both as the court shall direct.

POINTS OF
COMPARISO
N

HABEAS CORPUS

MANDAMUS

Definition

A writ commanding another

to produce the body of a
prisoner at a designated
time and place

A Writ commanding an inferior

court, tribunal, board,
corporation or person to perform
a particular duty resulting from
the official station of the party
commanded

Purpose

a) To determine whether or
not the detention is lawful
b) To liberate those
imprisoned without
sufficient cause

a) To compel the performance of

a ministerial duty
b) To compel the performance of
a duty requiring discretion only
to the extent of requiring to act
but not how to act

Grounds

a) Illegal confinement or
detention by which a
person is deprived of his
liberty
b) When rightful custody of
any person withheld from a
person entitled thereto

a) Unlawful neglect of
performing an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust or
station
b) Unlawful exclusion of another
from the use and enjoyment of a
right or office to which such
other is entitled

POINTS OF
COMPARISO
N

HABEAS CORPUS

MANDAMUS

Applicant

a) Party whose relief it is

intended
b) Person illegally detained
c) Other person on his
behalf

Person aggrieved

To whom
directed

a) If imprisoned or
restrained by an officer,
directed to such officer
b) If imprisoned or
restrained by a person not
an officer, directed to an
officer

Directed
at
any
tribunal,
corporation, board, officer or
person

Where filed

Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
Regional Trial Court

Supreme Court

WRIT OF AMPARO
A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC

DEFINITION

A petition for a writ of amparo is a

remedy available to 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 or
entity.
Amparo literally means to protect

SCOPE

- The writ shall cover extralegal

killings and enforced disappearances
or threats thereof.
- Limited only to the right to life,
liberty and security of persons.
- covers both actual and threatened
violations of such rights committed
by both public officials and private
individuals or entities.

WHO MAY FILE

- Aggrieved Party
Any member of the immediate family, namely: the
spouse, children and parents of the aggrieved party;
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
-Authorized Party
Any concerned citizen, organization, association or
institution, if there is no known member of the
immediate family or relative of the aggrieved party.

FILING
may be filed on any day, including Saturdays, Sundays and holidays; and
at any time, from morning until evening.
The amparo petition may be filed with:

Regional Trial Court having territorial jurisdiction on the place where

the act or omission was committed, or where any of its elements
occurred.

Sandiganbayan

may be returnable before such court or any justice thereof, or to any

RTC of the place where the violation was committed.

Supreme Court of any of its justices

may be returnable before such court or any justice thereof, or to any

RTC of the place where the violation was committed.

Court of Appeals or any of its justices

returnable before the RTC or judge.

returnable before the SC or any justice thereof, or before the

Sandiganbayan or the CA or any of their justices, or to any RTC of the
place where the violation took place.

No docket and other lawful fees required.

CONTENTS

The petition shall be signed and verified and shall allege the
following:
a.
The personal circumstances of the petitioner;
b.
The name and personal circumstances of the respondent
responsible for the threat, act or omission, or, if the name is
unknown or uncertain, the respondent may be described by an
assumed appellation;
c.
The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party
violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission
of the respondent, and how such threat or violation is committed
with the attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits;
d.
The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names,
personal circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authority
or individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of the
investigation, together with any report;
e.
The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine
the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of
the person responsible for the threat, act or omission; and
f.
The relief prayed for.

ISSUANCE

Upon filing, the court, justice or judge

shall IMMEDIATELY order the issuance
of the writ, when on the face of the
petition, it ought to issue.
A hearing of the petition, which shall
not be later than 7 days from the
date of issuance, shall be held.
Shall be GRANTED if petitioner is able
to prove his cause of action

SERVICE

Personal Service made by judicial

officer or by a person deputized by
the court, justice or judge against the
respondent.
If personal service cannot be made:
Rules on substituted service will
apply

RETURN
CONTENTS

The lawful defenses to show that the respondent did not violate or threaten with
violation the right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party, through any act
or omission;
The steps or actions taken by the respondent to determine the fate or whereabouts of
the aggrieved party and the person or persons responsible for the threat, act or
omission;
All relevant information in the possession of the respondent pertaining to the threat,
act or omission against the aggrieved party; and
If the respondent is a public official or employee, the return shall further state the
actions that have been or will still be taken:

to verify the identity of the aggrieved party;

to recover and preserve evidence related to the death or disappearance of the person identified
in the petition which may aid in the prosecution of the person or persons responsible;
to identify witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning the death or disappearance;
to determine the cause, manner, location and time of death or disappearance as well as any
pattern or practice that may have brought about the death or disappearance;
to identify and apprehend the person or persons involved in the death or disappearance; and to
bring the suspected offenders before a competent court

When to File Return: Within SEVENTY-TWO (72) HOURS after the service of the writ
Must be a detailed verified return
No general denial is allowed
Defenses not pleaded is deemed waived
Failure to file the return will give rise to an Ex Parte Hearing
Refusal to make a return is punishable by CONTEMPT, the respondent may be
imprisoned or be fined.

PROHIBITED PLEADINGS AND

MOTIONS
The following pleadings and motions are prohibited:

a. Motion to dismiss;
b. Motion for extension of time to file return, opposition, affidavit,
position paper and other pleadings;
c. Dilatory motion for postponement;
d. Motion for a bill of particulars;
e. Counterclaim or cross-claim;
f. Third-party complaint;
g. Reply;
h. Motion to declare respondent in default;
i. Intervention;
j. Memorandum;
k. Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory orders or interim
relief orders; and
l. Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against any
interlocutory order.

HEARING

Summary in nature, but the court

may conduct a preliminary
conference

INTERIM RELIEFS
1. Temporary Protection Order (TPO)

The court, justice or judge, upon motion or motu proprio, may

order that the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any member
of his immediate family be protected in a government agency or
by an accredited person or private institution capable of keeping
and securing their safety.
2. Inspection Order (IO)

The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion and after due
hearing, may order any person in possession or control of a
designated land or other property, to permit entry for the purpose
of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the
property or any relevant object or operation thereon.

Must stated in sufficient detail the place/s to be inspected

Must be under oath and should have supporting affidavits
Specify the persons authorized to make the inspection, as well as the
date, time and manner of making such inspection
If opposed: The amparo court may conduct a hearing in chambers to
determine the merit of the opposition
LIFETIME: 5 Days, unless extended under justifiable circumstances

INTERIM RELIEFS
3. Production Order (PO)

The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion and after due hearing,
may order any person in possession, custody or control of any designated
documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or
tangible things, or objects in digitized or electronic form, which constitute
or contain evidence relevant to the petition or the return, to produce and
permit their inspection, copying or photographing by or on behalf of the
movant.

If opposed: The amparo court may conduct a hearing in chambers to determine

the merit of the opposition

4. Witness Protection Order (WPO)

The court, justice or judge, upon motion or motu proprio, may refer the
witnesses to the Department of Justice for admission to the Witness
Protection, Security and Benefit Program, pursuant to Republic Act No.
6981.
Interim Reliefs Available to both Petitioner and Respondent
1.
Inspection Order - Shall be supported by affidavits or testimonies of
witnesses having personal knowledge of the defenses of the respondent/s.
2.
Protection Order

BURDEN OF PROOF AND

STANDARD OF DILIGENCE

Substantial Evidence
Standard of Diligence

Private Individual or Entity as Respondent:

Prove that ORDINARY DILIGENCE as required by
applicable laws, rules and regulations was
observed in the performance of duty.
Public Official or Employee as Respondent
Prove that EXTRA-ORDINARY DILIGENCE as
required by applicable laws, rules and
regulations was observed in the performance
of duty

JUDGMENT

Court shall render judgment within 10 days from

the time petition is submitted for decision
GRANTED if allegations are proven by substantial
evidence, OTHERWISE, it shall be DENIED.
FAILURE TO PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
Case will be archived, not dismissed

Revival of Archived Petition - A periodic review shall be

made by the court and shall motu proprio or upon motion
of any party order its revival when ready for further
proceedings.
Dismissal of Petition after it has been archived DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE upon failure to prosecute the
case after the lapse of two (2) years from notice to the
petitioner of the order archiving the case.

APPEAL

Any party may appeal from the final

judgment or order TO THE SUPREME
COURT under Rule 45.
May raise questions of fact or law or
both.
Period of Appeal: Five (5) working days
from the date of notice of the adverse
judgment.
Order to archive petition NOT
APPEALABLE. Interlocutory order

INSTITUTION OF SEPARATE
ACTIONS

Prerogative Writ: thus, it does not suspend the filing of

criminal, civil or administrative actions
Not a criminal proceeding Will NOT determine the
criminal guilt of respondent, BUT the amparo court
may refer the case to the DOJ for criminal prosecution.

EFFECT OF FILING A SEPARATE CRIMINAL ACTION:

If instituted BEFORE the filing of a petition for writ of amparo,

NO SEPARATE PETITION for the writ of amparo shall be filed.
The reliefs under the writ shall be available BY MOTION in the
criminal case.
If instituted AFTER the filing of a petition for writ of amparo,
the petition for the writ shall be CONSOLIDATED with the
criminal action.
Criminal and a separate civil action are instituted AFTER a
petition for the writ of amparo has already been filed, the
petition shall be CONSOLIDATED WITH THE CRIMINAL ACTION.

OTHER RULES/DOCTRINES

Does not diminish, increase or modify

substantive rights recognized and
protected by the Constitution. (Sec. 24,
A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC)
Rules of Court apply in a SUPPLETORY
manner (Sec. 25, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC)
Shall govern cases involving ELKs and EDs
pending in trial courts and appellate
courts. (Sec. 26, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC)

CASE DOCTRINES
G.R. No. 182795
ARMANDO
Q. CANLAS et. al. vs. NAPICO
HOMEOWNERS ASSN., I XIII,
INC., ET AL.

G.R. No. 182484

TAPUZ et. al. vs.
DEL ROSARIO et. al.

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 Section 1 for
which the remedy of a writ of
amparo is made available.

A writ of amparo is not a writ to

protect concerns that are purely
property or commercial. Neither is
it a writ that we shall issue on
amorphous and uncertain grounds.
When recourses in the ordinary
course of law fail because of
deficient legal representation or
the use of improper remedial
measures, neither the writ of
certiorari nor that of amparo extraordinary though they may be
- will suffice to serve as a curative
substitute

CASE DOCTRINES
G.R. No. 180906
SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE vs. MANALO
As the Amparo Rule was intended to address the intractable
problem of "extralegal killings" and "enforced
disappearances," its coverage, in its present form, is
confined to these two instances or to threats thereof.
The remedy of the writ of amparo provides rapid judicial relief
as it partakes of a summary proceeding that requires only
substantial evidence to make the appropriate reliefs
available to the petitioner; it is not an action to determine
criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, or
liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence,
or administrative responsibility requiring substantial
evidence that will require full and exhaustive proceedings.

CASE DOCTRINES
G.R. No. 182165
CASTILLO et. al. vs. CRUZ et. al.
The coverage of the writs of amparo and habeas data is limited
to the protection of rights to life, liberty and security. And the
writs cover not only actual but also threats of unlawful acts
or omissions.
To thus be covered by the privilege of the writs, respondents
must meet the threshold requirement that their right to life,
liberty and security is violated or threatened with an unlawful
act or omission.
Petitions for writs of amparo and habeas data are extraordinary
remedies which cannot be used as tools to stall the execution
of a final and executory decision in a property dispute.

CASE DOCTRINES
G.R. No. 182498
RAZON, JR et. al. vs. TAGITIS
. The issuance of writ of amparo does not determine guilt nor
pinpoint criminal culpability for the disappearance; rather, it
determines responsibility, or at least accountability, for the
enforced disappearance for purposes of imposing the
appropriate remedies to address the disappearance.
The burden for the public authorities to discharge in these
situations, under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, is twofold.
The first is to ensure that all efforts at disclosure and
investigation are undertaken under pain of indirect contempt
from this Court when governmental efforts are less than what
the individual situations require. The second is to address the
disappearance, so that the life of the victim is preserved and
his or her liberty and security restored.

CASE DOCTRINES
To read the Rules of Court requirement on pleadings while
addressing the unique Amparo situation, the test in reading
the petition should be to determine whether it contains the
details available to the petitioner under the circumstances,
while presenting a cause of action showing a violation of
the victims rights to life, liberty and security through State
or private party action. The petition should likewise be read
in its totality, rather than in terms of its isolated component
parts, to determine if the required elements namely, of
the disappearance, the State or private action, and the
actual or threatened violations of the rights to life, liberty or
security are present.
The requirement for supporting affidavits, with the annotation
that these can be used as the affiants direct testimony
should not be read as an absolute one that necessarily
leads to the dismissal of the petition if not strictly followed.

CASE DOCTRINES
Thus, in these proceedings, the Amparo petitioner
needs only to properly comply with the substance
and form requirements of a Writ of Amparo
petition, and prove the allegations by substantial
evidence. Once a rebuttable case has been
proven, the respondents must then respond and
prove their defenses based on the standard of
diligence required. The rebuttable case, of course,
must show that an enforced disappearance took
place under circumstances showing a violation of
the victims constitutional rights to life, liberty or
security, and the failure on the part of the
investigating authorities to appropriately respond.

WRIT OF HABEAS
DATA
A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC

WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

The basic attribute of an effective right to

informational privacy is the right of individuals to
control the flow information concerning or describing
them. It is however a right that must be balanced by
legitimate concerns.

There is therefore a pressing need to provide for

judicial remedies (such as the writ of habeas data)
that would allow the summary hearing of the
unlawful use of data or information and the remedy
possible violations of the right to privacy.

In general, the Writ of Habeas Data is designed to

protect, by means of an individual complaint
presented to a constitutional court, the image,
privacy, honor, information, self-determination and
freedom of information of a person.

WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

Several studies have shown remarkable uses of the habeas data

writ- uses that were not really intended by its developers. An
unforeseen effect of this juridical remedy is that it has become
an excellent Human Rights tool mostly in the countries that are
recovering from military dictatorships. The Supreme Court in
Argentina held that the habeas data rule applied implicitly to the
families of the deceased in a case involving extrajudicial killing
and enforced disappearance. This was a recognition of the right of
families of the disappeared, usually victims of the military regime,
to request access to police and military records otherwise closed
to them- and, in essence, establishing a right to truth.

This right to truth entitles the families of disappeared persons to

know the totality of circumstances surrounding the fates of their
relatives and imposes an obligation of investigation on the part of
governments.

The right to truth is a component of the right to life, liberty and

security. The writ of habeas data will provide people with
additional remedy that would hopefully terminate the extrajudicial
killings and enforced disappearances plaguing the country.

WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

All persons have the right to access information about themselves,

especially if it is in the possession of the government. The right to
access and control personal information is essential to protect
ones privacy, honor and personal identity.

The writ of habeas data is a remedy to protect the right to life,

liberty or security of a person from violation or threatened violation
by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee or of
a private individual or entity. It complements the remedies of the
writ of amparo and writ of habeas corpus.

The writ of habeas data can be availed of as an independent

remedy to enforce ones right to privacy, more specifically, the
right to informational privacy. The remedies against the violation of
such right can include updating, rectification, suppression or
destruction of the database or information or files in possession or
in control of respondents.

The right to privacy is a personal right. Hence, generally, it is the

aggrieved party who can seek the remedy of the writ for its
enforcement.

Tapuz et. al v. del Rosario

(G.R. No. 182484)
Section 6 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data requires the following material allegations of ultimate
facts in a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data:
"(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."
Support for the habeas data aspect of the present petition only alleges that:
"1. [ ... ] Similarly, a petition for a WRIT OF HABEAS DATA is prayed for so that the PNP may release
the report on the burning of the homes of the petitioners and the acts of violence employed against
them by the private respondents, furnishing the Court and the petitioners with copy of the same;
66. Petitioners apply for a WRIT OF HABEAS DATA commanding the Philippine National Police [PNP]
to produce the police report pertaining to the burning of the houses of the petitioners in the land in
dispute and likewise the investigation report if an investigation was conducted by the PNP."

Tapuz et. al v. del Rosario

(G.R. No. 182484)
These allegations obviously lack what the Rule on Writ of
Habeas Data requires as a minimum, thus rendering the
petition fatally deficient. Specifically, we see no concrete
allegations of unjustified or unlawful violation of the right to
privacy related to the right to life, liberty or security. The
petition likewise has not alleged, much less demonstrated,
any need for information under the control of police
authorities other than those it has already set forth as
integral annexes. The necessity or justification for the
issuance of the writ, based on the insufficiency of previous
efforts made to secure information, has not also been
shown. In sum, the prayer for the issuance of a writ of
habeas data is nothing more than the "fishing expedition"
that this Court - in the course of drafting the Rule on habeas
data - had in mind in defining what the purpose of a writ of
habeas data is not. In these lights, the outright denial of the
petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas data is fully in
order.

Castillo et. al v Cruz et. al

G.R. No. 182165

Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data provides:

Section 1. Habeas Data. The writ of habeas data is a
remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in
life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee or of
a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering,
collecting or storing of data or information regarding the
person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved
party. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
From the above-quoted provisions, the coverage of the writs
is limited to the protection of rights to life, liberty and
security. And the writs cover not only actual but also threats
of unlawful acts or omissions.

3.
G.R. No. 184769
October 5, 2010
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, ALEXANDER S. DEYTO
and RUBEN A. SAPITULA, Petitioners, vs. ROSARIO
GOPEZ LIM, Respondent.
4. G.R. No. 189155
September 7, 2010
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF
AMPARO AND THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF
MELISSA C. ROXAS, MELISSA C. ROXAS, Petitioner, vs.
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GILBERT TEODORO,
GEN. VICTOR S. IBRADO, P/DIR. GEN. JESUS AME
VERZOSA, LT. GEN. DELFIN N. BANGIT, PC/SUPT. LEON
NILO A. DELA CRUZ, MAJ. GEN. RALPH VILLANUEVA,
PS/SUPT. RUDY GAMIDO LACADIN, AND CERTAIN
PERSONS WHO GO BY THE NAME[S] DEX, RC AND
ROSE, Respondents.

Writ of Mandamus

It is a writ developed to protect the

rights of the individual against the
State.
It is used to command a governmental
agency to perform a ministerial
function, so that a person may enjoy
the benefits of a common government.

Writ of Habeas Data

In general, the Writ of Habeas Data is

designed to protect, by means of an
individual complaint presented to a
constitutional court, the image, privacy,
honor, information, self-determination
and freedom of information of a person.
The habeas data rule applied implicitly
to the families of the deceased in a
case involving extrajudicial killing and
enforced disappearance. This was a
recognition of the right of families of
the disappeared, usually victims of the
military regime, to request access to
police and military records otherwise
closed to them- and, in essence,
establishing a right to truth.
This right to truth entitles the families
of disappeared persons to know the
totality of circumstances surrounding
the fates of their relatives and imposes
an obligation of investigation on the
part of governments.
Family members of disappeared
persons have used actions for habeas
data to obtain information concerning
government conduct, to learn the fate
of disappeared persons, ant to exact
accountability.
This action constitute important means
to guarantee the right to privacy and,
as a complementary right, the right to
truth.