Purpose of amparo writ
Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo (Amparo Rule)
provides:
On 25 September 2007, the Supreme Court promulgated the Amparo Rule
“in light of the prevalence of extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances.” It was an exercise for the first time of the Court’s expanded
power to promulgate rules to protect our people’s constitutional rights, which
made its maiden appearance in the 1987 Constitution in response to the
Filipino experience of the martial law regime. 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. “Extralegal killings” are “killings
committed without due process of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or
judicial proceedings.” On the other hand, “enforced disappearances” are
“attended by the following characteristics: an arrest, detention or abduction
of a person by a government official or organized groups or private
individuals acting with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the government;
the refusal of the State to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person
concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which places
such persons outside the protection of law.”
This pronouncement on the coverage of the writ was further cemented in the latter case of Lozada, Jr. v. Macapagal-Arroyo where the High Court explicitly declared that as it stands, the writ of amparo is confined only to cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, or to threats thereof. As to what constitutes “enforced disappearance,” the Court in Navia v. Pardico enumerated the elements constituting “enforced disappearances” as the term is statutorily defined in Section 3(g) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9851,[43] to wit:
SECTION 1. Petition. – The 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.
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
On 25 September 2007, the Supreme Court promulgated the Amparo Rule
“in light of the prevalence of extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances.” It was an exercise for the first time of the Court’s expanded
power to promulgate rules to protect our people’s constitutional rights, which
made its maiden appearance in the 1987 Constitution in response to the
Filipino experience of the martial law regime. 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. “Extralegal killings” are “killings
committed without due process of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or
judicial proceedings.” On the other hand, “enforced disappearances” are
“attended by the following characteristics: an arrest, detention or abduction
of a person by a government official or organized groups or private
individuals acting with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the government;
the refusal of the State to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person
concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which places
such persons outside the protection of law.”This pronouncement on the coverage of the writ was further cemented in the latter case of Lozada, Jr. v. Macapagal-Arroyo where the High Court explicitly declared that as it stands, the writ of amparo is confined only to cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, or to threats thereof. As to what constitutes “enforced disappearance,” the Court in Navia v. Pardico enumerated the elements constituting “enforced disappearances” as the term is statutorily defined in Section 3(g) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9851,[43] to wit:
As clarified in Navia, with the enactment of R.A. No. 9851, the Amparo Rule is now a procedural law anchored, not only on the constitutional rights to life, liberty and security, but on a concrete statutory definition as well of what an ‘enforced or involuntary disappearance’ is. Therefore, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC’s reference to enforced disappearances should be construed to mean the enforced or involuntary disappearance of persons contemplated in Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 9851. Meaning, in probing enforced disappearance cases, courts should read A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC in relation to R.A. No. 9851.[45]
