Cases Amparo and Habeas Data
SPS. Santiago v. Tulfo brothers
Altercation between Spouses Santiago and Mon Tulfo. Tulfo brothers aired on TV comments and
expletives and threatened to retaliate. Sps. Santiago asked for TPO, TPO denied by RTC.
Issue: Whether dismissal of Amparo petition is correct.
Held: Yes. Amparo petition is only for enforced disappearance and extrajudicial killings, or any threats
thereof. Instant petition is only a broad invocation of alleged violation of the right to life and security
carried out by private individuals without government participation.
Callo v. Commissioner Morante
Nopuente charged for deportation. Alleged that she was fugitive of justice rom US with existing arrest
warrant. Summary Deportation Order named Daniel Nopuente and Daniel Tan Parker. She was arrested
in Tagaytay and was detained in Taguig Immigration Detention Facility. Callo filed petition for writ of
amparo for immediate release of Parker.
Issue: 1. Whether there is a threat to the right to life, liberty and security of Parker as to warrant
issuance of writ of amparo?
2. Whether Callo has legal standing to file a petition for writ of amparo.
Held:
No. Elements of enforced disappearance:
Arrest, detention, abduction, or other form of liberty
Carried out by or w/ authorization, support or of the state of political organization.
Followed by state’s refusal to acknowledge or give information on the fate of
whereabouts of person subject of amparo proceedings
Intention of refusal is to remove person from protection of the law.
Here, there is no threat of such disappearance. Although there is detention by state, there is
norefusal to acknowledge the deprivation of freedom or refusal to give information on the whereabouts
of Parker since Callo I aware that she is detained in Immigration Detention Facility. Parker was produced
in the habeas corpus. No intention to remove her from protection of the law.
2. No. Must still follow strict order of priority of those who can file. Immediate family
(spouse, children and parents), ascendant, dscendant or collateral relative or collateral relative upt to 4 th
degree of consanguinity or affinity, concerned citizen, organization
Noriel Rodriguez v. Arroyo
In the instant case, this Court rules that respondents are responsible for the violation of Rodriguez’s
right to life, liberty and security on account of their abject failure to conduct a fail and effective official
investigation of his ordeal in the hands of the military.
Rubrico v. Arroyo
Issue:
Whether principle of command responsibility applies to Gen. Espiron and P/Dir. Gen. Razon in
the Amparo proceedings.
Held:
No.
If command responsibility were to b invoked and applied to these proceedings, it should be only
to determine the author who, at the first instance, is accountable for, and has the duty to address the
disappearance and harassments complained of, so as to enable the Court to devise measures that may
be appropriate under the premises to protect rights covered by the Writ of Amparo.
However, the determination should not be pursued to criminal liability on respondents preparatory to
criminal prosecution, or as a prelude to administrative disciplinary proceedings.
Fr. Robert Reyes v. CA, Sec. Gonzales
Facts: Petitioner was arrested in the manila hotel siege. He was charged with crime of rebellion and a
hold departure order was issued including his name. Later, the case was dismissed. He filed petition for
writ of amparo.
Issue: Whether is a violation of right to liberty in the issuance of the HDO which would entitle him to
the privilege of writ of amparo.
Held: No. Here, the restriction on petitioner’s right to travel a a consequence of the pendency of the
criminal case filed against him was not unlawful. Petitioner also failed to establish that his right to travel
was impaired in the manner and to the extent that it amounted to a serious violation of his right to life,
liberty and security, for which there exists no readily available legal recourse or remedy.
Daniel Tapuz v. Judge Elmo Del Rosario
Facts: Sps. Sanson filed with MCTC an action for forcible entry against Masangkay et al regarding a
parcel of land in Boracay, Aklan. MCTC ruled favor of Sps. Sanson. This was affirmed by the RTC and CA.
Sheriff issued a notice to vacate and a writ of demolition. Tapus et al filed a petition for certiorari, habea
data and writ of amparo alleging that armed men torched the two houses.
Issue: Whether issuance of writ of amparo is proper
Held: No.
Allegations did not show that there was threat to life, liberty and security of the petitioners.
There is no point in separately and directly intervening through a writ of amparo in absence of clear
prima facie case showing that the right to life, liberty or security- personal concern that the writ is
intended to protect- is immediately in danger or threatened or that the danger or threat is continuing.
Sec. of National Defense v. Manalo
Facts: Brothers Raymond and Reynaldo were abducted by military men CAFGU on suspicion of being
members and supporters of NPA. They escaped after 18 months. They filed a petition for prohibition,
injunction and TRO. Later they filed a motion to treat the petition as writ of amparo. This was granted
by the CA.
Issue: Whether the issuance of writ of amparo is proper.
Held: Yes. Nonetheless, the circumstances of respondents' abduction, detention, torture and escape
reasonably support a conclusion that there is an apparent threat that they will again be abducted,
tortured, and this time, even executed. These constitute threats to their liberty, security, and life,
actionable through a petition for a writ of Amparo.
Canlas v. Napico Homeownwers
Facts: Petitioners are settlers of Barangay Manggahan, Pasig. Their dwelling were demolished or about
to be demolished. They come to court for the issuance of writ of amparo on ground that the titles
presented were fraudulent and spurious.
Issue: Whether the issuance of writ of amparo is proper.
Held: No. The threatened demolition of a dwelling by virtue of a final judgment of the court, which in
this case was affirmed with finality by this Court in G.R. NOS. 177448, 180768, 177701, 177038, is not
included among the enumeration of rights as stated in the above-quoted Section 1 for which the remedy
of a writ of amparo is made available. Their claim to their dwelling, assuming they still have any despite
the final and executory judgment adverse to them, does not constitute right to life, liberty and security.
There is, therefore, no legal basis for the issuance of the writ of amparo.
Infant Julian Caram v. Atty. Marijoy Segui
Facts: A writ of amparo was filed by Christina Yusay Caram for the adoption of her child Julian. She
accused Segui ot blackmailing her into surrendering custody of her child to the DSWD utilizing invalid
certificate of availability
Held: No.
Since it is extant from the pleadings filed that what is involved is the issue of child custody and the
exercise of parental rights over a child, who, for all intents and purposes, has been legally considered a
ward of the State, the Amparo rule cannot be properly applied.
Sps. Pador v. Brgy. Capt. Argayan
Eliseo Aguilar v. DOJ
Lozada v. Arroyo
Ge. Emmanuel Bautista v. Atty. Maria Catherine Dannug-Salucon
Rhonda Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College
Dr. Joy Margarte Lee v. Neri Ilagan
Petition for Writ of Habeas Data for Francis Saez v. Arroyo
Roxas v. Macapagal Arroyo
