WRIT OF AMPARO: THE JUDICIARY’S RESPONSE TO THE SENSELESS MURDERS

I remember several bar exams ago that a question was asked in Political Law about the writ of amparo. Although we may have heard or read about it in lectures and publications that mention it in passing, “amparo” is still somewhat novel for lawyers and law students alike. Nope, I am not about to discuss here the etymology or history of the term. Suffice it to say that in Latin American countries, the writ has already been widely used since the 19th century as an effective antidote against oppressive regimes. Little did we realize that the writ with a feminine sounding name is now, in the words of the Chief Justice himself, “the greatest legal weapon to protect the constitutional rights of our people”.

Promulgated pursuant to the recommendations of the National Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances held last July 16 to 17, 2007 at the Manila Hotel, this rule is seen as the Supreme Court’s response to the alarming spate of human rights violations that have taken place since 2001 which, observers say, comes as a close second to those committed during the Marcos era.

In a nutshell, the petition for the issuance of a writ of amparo is 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 (Sec. 1 of the Rule).

Among the significant portions of the rule are the following: 

1. The petitioner is exempted from the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, thereby giving him full and free access to courts authorized to issue the writ.

2. Technically, the petition can be filed on any day and at any time with the Regional Trial Court of the place where the violation was committed or with the Sandiganbayan, Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court. 

3. The writ is enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. 

4. The respondent named in the writ, after being served therewith, must not only show in his return that he did not violate or threaten with violation the human rights of the aggrieved party but he must likewise show the steps taken by him to determine the whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the person or persons responsible for the violation. This simply means that a general denial by the respondent of the allegations in a petition for a writ of amparo, unlike in habeas corpus, is no longer sufficient to absolve him from responsibility. 

5. The respondent must raise in his return all possible defenses available to him.  Otherwise, they will be deemed waived. 

6. The hearing of the writ, which is summary in nature, shall be scheduled not later than seven (7) days from the date of its issuance. 

7. The court, upon the filing of the petition, may grant temporary reliefs to the petitioner or the aggrieved party like temporary protection orders, inspection orders, production orders, witness protection orders and the like. 

8. If the respondent happens to be a public official or employee, he cannot evade liability or responsibility by invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty. 

9. The respondent who refuses to make a return or who makes a false return or otherwise disobeys the lawful process or order of the court shall be punished for contempt either by imprisonment or fine. 

In terms of degree of liability, the writ of amparo requires a higher standard of diligence on public officers and employees than on private individuals and entitites. This is but understandable, considering the kind of influence military and police authorities wield on government institutions that may only lead to cover-ups and whitewashed investigations. 

The promulgation of the writ of amparo comes at a crucial period in our history when the administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is hounded left and right with accusations of extrajudicial killings and abductions of activists and journalists. Now, this question comes to mind:  is this an indication that President Arroyo has not been doing enough to bring the perpetrators to the bar of justice considering that the initiative had to come not from the executive but from the so-called weakest branch of government which is the judiciary?

Extra-legal murders and abductions whether for personal or political reasons definitely have no place in a democratic country such as ours. It therefore behooves the government, particularly the Chief Executive, to be in the forefront in the campaign to preserve and protect human rights irrespective of political ideology.

While the new rule on the writ of amparo may be the first big step at minimizing violations of human rights, it is only as good as the people tasked to enforce its provisions. Without the sincere and active cooperation of all sectors of society, the efforts of the Chief Justice - no matter how noble - may only go for naught. 

Vigilance is the key.