THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONERS, VS. RAYMOND MANALO AND REYNALDO MANALO, RESPONDENTS.

Secretary of National Defense versus Manalo

The Case

This is the first petition for a writ of amparo ever filed before the Supreme Court, and it is the case that gave the new remedy its first full hearing. The respondents, brothers Raymond Manalo and Reynaldo Manalo, alleged that they were abducted from their home in Bulacan by armed soldiers and members of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit, held in military camps for about eighteen months, tortured, and threatened with death. They asked the Court to stop the Secretary of National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, their officers and agents, from depriving them of life, liberty, and security. The case matters because it fixes the content of the extraordinary writ of amparo: what it protects, who may be compelled to answer for it, and what relief a court may grant when the threat to life and liberty comes from state agents.

Procedural History

The Manalo brothers first filed before the Supreme Court a petition for prohibition, injunction, and a temporary restraining order, to stop the military from further depriving them of liberty and other basic rights. In a resolution dated August 24, 2007, the Court ordered the Secretary of National Defense and the Chief of Staff to comment, and enjoined them and their agents, including the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit, from arresting the brothers or otherwise restricting, curtailing, abridging, or depriving them of their right to life, liberty, and other basic rights under the Bill of Rights.

While that petition was pending, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo took effect on October 24, 2007. The brothers promptly moved that their existing petition be treated as an amparo petition. On October 25, 2007, the Court granted the motion, issued the writ of amparo, required a verified written return within five working days, and remanded the petition to the Court of Appeals for a summary hearing and decision under the Rule.

On December 26, 2007, the Court of Appeals granted the privilege of the writ. It required the Secretary of National Defense and the Chief of Staff to furnish all official and unofficial investigation reports, to confirm in writing the present places of official assignment of two named soldiers, and to produce all medical reports, records, and charts, including a list of the medical personnel who attended to the brothers from February 14, 2006 until August 12, 2007, all within five days from notice, under the signature and oath of the Chief of Staff or his duly authorized deputy. The military officials then appealed to the Supreme Court by petition for review under Rule 45, in relation to Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, raising questions of fact and of law.

Facts

About one or two weeks before February 14, 2006, uniformed and armed soldiers and members of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit summoned the residents of the brothers' barangay in San Ildefonso, Bulacan to a meeting. On February 14, 2006, several armed men entered the family home, roused Raymond, slapped and kicked him, handcuffed him, and took him away while soldiers held back his mother. He recognized among his abductors members of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit and saw two barangay councilors outside with soldiers and armed men. He was forced into a white van and blindfolded. The van stopped, another person was brought in and beaten beside him, and Raymond recognized his brother Reynaldo's voice.

The brothers were brought to a house and beaten with the butts of guns while being interrogated about membership in the New People's Army. Over the following months they were moved from place to place, including Fort Magsaysay, a detention unit, a detachment in Pinaud, a compound in Sapang, Camp Tecson, a camp in Limay, Bataan, and a safehouse in Zambales. They were chained, kept in a small cell, fed leftover and rotten food, doused with urine and hot water, burned, and struck with weapons. Raymond escaped once but was recaptured and tortured further. He met other captives, including Sherlyn Cadapan, Karen Empeño, and Manuel Merino, and witnessed killings. A person he identified as General Palparan spoke to them and told them to relay warnings to their parents to stop joining rallies and hearings and to urge a relative to surrender.

In June 2007 the brothers were brought to Pangasinan, ostensibly to raise poultry and farm, no longer chained, and instructed to use assumed names. In the evening of August 13, 2007, while their guards were drinking, they slipped away, boarded a bus bound for Manila, and were freed from captivity after about eighteen months. Reynaldo executed an affidavit affirming Raymond's account of matters they witnessed together and adding his own experiences of torture.

Issues

• Whether or not the privilege of the writ of amparo was properly granted to the Manalo brothers.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in requiring the Secretary of National Defense and the Chief of Staff to furnish reports, confirm assignments, and produce medical records under the writ.
• Whether or not the military officials are liable to render a return and comply with the reliefs granted under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo for acts of their officers and agents.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

This is the substantive right that the writ of amparo is designed to protect, and the Court opens by declaring that the Constitution is an overarching sky that covers all in its protection.

Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides:

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.

This fixes the scope of the remedy and identifies enforced disappearance as one of the evils it reaches.

Section 26 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides:

The filing of a petition for the writ of amparo shall not preclude the filing of a separate criminal, civil or administrative action.

This allowed the brothers to convert their pending prohibition petition into an amparo petition without losing their other remedies.

Section 18 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides:

If the petition is found meritorious and there is no change in the situation, the court shall render judgment granting the privilege of the writ.

This is the judgment standard the Court of Appeals applied when it granted the privilege.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the privilege of the writ was properly granted. The brothers' account of abduction by armed men, detention in military camps, torture, and threats of death established a violation and a continuing threat to their right to life, liberty, and security. The Court stressed that victims of enforced disappearances, though separated from the rest of the world behind secret walls, are not separated from the constitutional protection of their basic rights.

On the second issue, the Court upheld the reliefs granted by the Court of Appeals. The writ of amparo carries with it the power to compel a verified return and the production of records, and the military officials were required to comply under oath. The Court treated the required reports, confirmation of assignments, and medical records as within the reliefs that the Rule authorizes a court to grant.

On the third issue, the Court held that the Secretary of National Defense and the Chief of Staff could not escape the writ by pointing to subordinate officers and agents. The writ runs against public officials whose officers and agents are alleged to have committed the unlawful acts, and the officials must answer for those acts through the return and the required disclosures.

Doctrine

First, the 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, and it covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. Second, enforced disappearance does not remove the victim from the protection of the Constitution; the Constitution is an overarching sky that covers all in its protection. Third, the filing of an amparo petition does not preclude a separate criminal, civil, or administrative action. Fourth, where the petition is meritorious and there is no change in the situation, the court shall render judgment granting the privilege of the writ. Fifth, the writ reaches the responsible public officials, who must render a verified return and comply with the reliefs granted, including the production of records, under oath.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals granting the privilege of the writ of amparo to Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo, with the required reports, confirmations, and medical records to be submitted under oath.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the Constitution is an overarching sky that covers all in its protection, for it captures why enforced disappearance never strips a victim of rights. Examiners use this case to test the scope of the writ of amparo, the meaning of enforced disappearance, and the liability of ranking public officials to render a return for the acts of their agents.