WRITS OF MANDAMUS, HABEAS CORPUS, AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA

RULE 65, RULE 102, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC

ACOSTA, MANIGBAS, REYES, RUMOHR, SANDOVAL, YACAPIN

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 party who has direct legal interest in the right sought to be enforced

Where to file? Concurrent jurisdiction of

Supreme Court Court of Appeals Regional Trial Court

Within 60 days after receipt of notice of the judgment/order/resolution

When to file?

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)

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

Zagala v. Ilustre (48 Phil. 282)

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 Writ may be availed of where:

Feria v. CA (325 SCRA 525)

In Re Azucena L. Garcia (339 SCRA 292)

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.

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. 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.

Orla v. Court of Appeals (192 SCRA 768)

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)

In Velasco v. CA (245 SCRA 677)

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.

Other instances

Ilusorio v. Bildner (332 SCRA 169)

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.

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

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
1) 2)

3)

4)
a)

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:
The authority thereof

5)
a)

True and whole cause thereof

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

6)

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

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

7)
a) b) c) d)

If the prisoner is in his custody or under restraint and was transferred to another:
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 COMPARISON Definition

HABEAS CORPUS A writ commanding another to produce the body of a prisoner at a designated time and place

MANDAMUS 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 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 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

Purpose

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

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

POINTS OF COMPARISON Applicant

HABEAS CORPUS a) Party whose relief it is intended b) Person illegally detained c) Other person on his behalf 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 Supreme Court Court of Appeals Regional Trial Court

MANDAMUS Person aggrieved

To whom directed

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

Where filed

Supreme Court Court of Appeals Regional Trial Court * If it involves acts of quasi-judicial agencies, petition filed only in the Court of Appeals * May also be file in Sandiganbayan in aid of its appellate jurisdiction

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

returnable before the RTC or judge.

Court of Appeals or 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. may be returnable before such court or any justice thereof, or to any RTC of the place where the violation was committed. 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.

Supreme Court of any of its justices

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.
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.

EFFECT OF FILING A SEPARATE 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. 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. G.R. No. 182484 TAPUZ et. al. vs. DEL ROSARIO et. al. 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.

POINTS OF COMPARISON Definition

AMPARO 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

MANDAMUS 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

writ protects the right to life, liberty and security of persons It covers both actual and threatened violations of such rights committed by both public officials and private individuals or entities. The writ covers extralegal killings (ELKs) and enforced disappearances (EDs) Threatened or actual violation of the right to life, liberty and security by an unlawful act or omission

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) 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 COMPARISON Applicant

HABEAS CORPUS Aggrieved Party Authorized Party

MANDAMUS 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 Regional Trial Court Sandiganbayan Court of Appeals or any of its justices Supreme Court of any of its justices

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

Where filed

Supreme Court Court of Appeals Regional Trial Court * If it involves acts of quasi-judicial agencies, petition filed only in the Court of Appeals * May also be file in Sandiganbayan in aid of its appellate jurisdiction

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

Writ of Habeas Data

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.

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.