This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-10-21 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In our jurisdiction, the contextual genesis, at least, for the present Amparo Rule has limited the remedy as a response to extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, or threats thereof. "Extrajudicial killings," according to case law, are generally characterized as "killings committed without due process of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings,"[27] while "enforced disappearances," according to Section 3 (g) of Republic Act No. 9851,[28] otherwise known as the "Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity," "means the arrest, detention, or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time." In Navia v. Pardico,[29] the Court held that it must be shown and proved by substantial evidence that the disappearance was carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the same or give information on the fate or whereabouts of said missing persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time. Simply put, the petitioner in an amparo case has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the indispensable element of government participation.[30] Notably, the same requirement of government participation should also apply to extralegal killings, considering that the writ of amparo was, according to then Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, who headed the Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court that drafted A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, intended to "hold public authorities, those who took their oath to defend the constitution and enforce our laws, to a high standard of official conduct and hold them accountable to our people. [In this light] [t]he sovereign Filipino people should be assured that if their right[s] to life and liberty are threatened or violated, they will find vindication in our courts of justice."[31] Stated differently, the writ of amparo is an extraordinary remedy that is meant to balance out the government's incredible power in order to curtail human rights abuses on its end. | |||||
|
2014-08-05 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| This pronouncement on the coverage of the writ was further cemented in the latter case of Lozada, Jr. v. Macapagal-Arroyo[32] where this 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[33] enumerated the elements constituting "enforced disappearances" as the term is statutorily defined in Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 9851[34] to wit: (a) that there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty; (b) that it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or a political organization; (c) 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, (d) that the intention for such refusal is to remove subject person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time. | |||||