art 2 sec 11

Article 2 Sec 11 CONSTI 1

Secretary of National Defense vs. Manalo G.R. No. 180906, October 7, 2008

Facts: The brothers Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo, farmers from Bulacan who were suspected of being members of the New People’s Army, were forcibly taken from their home, detained in various locations, and tortured by CAFGU and military units. After several days in captivity, the brothers Raymond and Reynaldo recognized their abductors as members of the armed forces led by General Jovito Palparan. They also learned that they were being held in place for their brother, Bestre, a suspected leader of the communist insurgents. While in captivity, they met other desaperacidos (including the still-missing University of the Philippines students Karen Empeno and Sherlyn Cadapan) who were also suspected of being communist insurgents and members of the NPA. After eighteen months of restrained liberty, torture and other dehumanizing acts, the brothers were able to escape and file a petition for the writ of amparo.

Issue: Whether or not the right to freedom from fear is or can be protected by existing laws.

Held: Yes. The right to the security of person is not merely a textual hook in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. At its core is the immunity of one’s person against government intrusion. The right to security of person is “freedom from fear,” a guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity and security.

To whom may the oppressed, the little ones, the desaperacidos, run to, if the Orwellian sword of the State, wielded recklessly by the military or under the guise of police power, is directed against them? The law thus gives the remedy of the writ of amparo, in addition to the rights and liberties already protected by the Bill of Rights. Amparo, literally meaning “to protect,” is borne out of the long history of Latin American and Philippine human rights abuses—often perpetrated by the armed forces against farmers thought to be communist insurgents, anarchists or brigands. The writ serves to both prevent and cure extralegal killings, enforced disappearances, and threats thereof, giving the powerless a powerful remedy to ensure their rights, liberties, and dignity. Amparo, a triumph of natural law that has been embodied in positive law, gives voice to the preys of silent guns and prisoners behind secret walls.

Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo


G.R. No. 180906

07 October 2008

PONENTE: Puno, C.J.

PARTIES:

PETITIONERS: SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE and CHIEF OF STAFF,

ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES

RESPONDENTS: RAYMOND MANALO and REYNALDO MANALO

NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:

Supreme Court: Petition for Prohibition, Injunction, and Temporary Restraining Order

Supreme Court: Manifestation and Omnibus Motion to treat their Existing Petition as

Amparo Petition

Court of Appeals: Upon order of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals summarily

heard the Petition of Amparo. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals issued a judgment

which is the subject of the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.

FACTS:

On 14 February 2006, at past noon, Raymond Manalo (hereafter referred to as

“Raymond”) and Reynaldo Manalo (hereafter referred to as “Reynaldo”) were abducted

by military men belonging to the Citizen Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU) on

the suspicion that they were members and supporters of the New People’s Army

(NPA). After eighteen (18) months of detention and torture, the brothers escaped on 13

August 2007.

On 23 August 2007, Raymond and Reynaldo filed a Petition for Prohibition, Injunction,

and Temporary Restraining Order before the Supreme Court to stop the military officers

and agents from depriving them of their right to liberty and other basic rights. In a

Resolution dated 24 August 2007, the Supreme Court ordered the Secretary of the

Department of National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the


Philippines (AFP), their agents, representatives, or persons acting in their stead, and

further enjoined them from causing the arrest of Raymond and Reynaldo. Forthwith,

they filed a Manifestation and Omnibus Motion to Treat Existing Petition as Amparo

Petition, to Admit Supporting Affidavits, and to Grant Interim and Final Amparo Reliefs.

While the aforementioned case was pending, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo took

effect on 24 October 2007. Raymond and Reynaldo subsequently filed a manifestation

and omnibus motion to treat their existing peti tion as amparo petition.

On 25 October 2007, the Supreme Court resolved to treat the 23 August 2007 Petition

as a petition under the Amparo Rule. The Supreme Court likewise granted the Writ of

Amparo and remanded the petition to the Court of Appeals to conduct the summary

hearing and decide the petition.

On 26 December 2007, the Court of Appeals granted the privilege of the writ of

amparo. The Court of Appeals ordered the Secretary of National Defense and the Chief

of Staff of the AFP to furnish the Manalos and the court with all official and unofficial

investigation reports as to the custody of Raymond and Reynaldo, confirm the present

places of official assignment of two military officials involved, and produce all medical

reports and records of Raymond and Reynaldo while under military custody.

Aggrieved, the Secretary of National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the AFP filed an

appeal with the Supreme Court.

PERTINENT ISSUES:

Whether or not statements from the victims themselves is sufficient for amparo

petitions.

Whether or not actual deprivation of liberty is necessary for the right to security of a

person may be invoked.

ANSWER:

It depends on the credibility and candidness of the victims in their statements.


No.

SUPREME COURT RULINGS:

1. ON EVIDENCE REQUIRED ON AMPARO PETITIONS

Effect of the nature of enforced disappearance and torture to the quantum of evidence

required – With the secret nature of an enforced disappearance and the torture

perpetrated on the victim during detention, it logically holds that much of the information

and evidence of the ordeal will come from the victims themselves, and the veracity of

their account will depend on their credibility and candidness in their written and/or oral

statements. Their statements can be corroborated by other evidence such as physical

evidence left by the torture they suffered or landmarks they can identify in the places

where they were detained. Where powerful military officers are implicated, the

hesitation of witnesses to surface and testify against them comes as no surprise.

2. ON RIGHT TO SECURITY AS A GROUND FOR AMPARO PETITION

Permutations of the Right to Security – A closer look at the right to security of person

would yield various permutations of the exercise of this right. First, the right to security

of person is “freedom from fear.” In its “whereas” clauses, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) enunciates that “a world in which human beings shall enjoy

freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as

the highest aspiration of the common people.” Some scholars postulate that “freedom

from fear” is not only an aspirational principle, but essentially an individual international

human right. It is the “right to security of person” as the word “security” itself means

“freedom from fear.” Article 3 of the UDHR provides, viz: Everyone has the right to life,

liberty and security of person.

xxx

Second, the right to security of person is a guarantee of bodily and psychological

integrity or security. Article III, Section II of the 1987 Constitution guarantees that, as a

general rule, one’s body cannot be searched or invaded without a search warrant.


Physical injuries inflicted in the context of extralegal killings and enforced

disappearances constitute more than a search or invasion of the body. It may constitute

dismemberment, physical disabilities, and painful physical intrusion. As the degree of

physical injury increases, the danger to life itself escalates. Notably, in criminal law,

physical injuries constitute a crime against persons because they are an affront to the

bodily integrity or security of a person.

xxx

Third, the right to security of person is a guarantee of protection of one’s rights by the

government. In the context of the writ of amparo, this right is built into the guarantees of

the right to life and liberty under Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution and the

right to security of person (as freedom from threat and guarantee of bodily and

psychological integrity) under Article III, Section 2. The right to security of person in this

third sense is a corollary of the policy that the State “guarantees full respect for human

rights” under Article II, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution. As the government is the

chief guarantor of order and security, the Constitutional guarantee of the rights to life,

liberty and security of person is rendered ineffective if government does not afford

protection to these rights especially when they are under threat. Protection includes

conducting effective investigations, organization of the government apparatus to extend

protection to victims of extralegal killings or enforced disappearances (or threats

thereof) and/or their families, and bringing offenders to the bar of justice.

Freedom from fear as a right – In the context of Section 1 of the Amparo Rule,

“freedom from fear” is the right and any threat to the rights to life, liberty or security is

the actionable wrong. Fear is a state of mind, a reaction; threat is a stimulus, a cause of

action. Fear caused by the same stimulus can range from being baseless to well-

founded as people react differently. The degree of fear can vary from one person to

another with the variation of the prolificacy of their imagination, strength of character or

past experience with the stimulus. Thus, in the amparo context, it is more correct to say


that the “right to security” is actually the “freedom from threat.” Viewed in this light, the

“threatened with violation” Clause in the latter part of Section 1 of the Amparo Rule is a

form of violation of the right to security mentioned in the earlier part of the provision.

Deprivation of liberty is not necessary before the right to security may be invoked –

While the right to security of person appears in conjunction with the right to liberty

under Article 9, the Committee has ruled that the right to security of person can exist

independently of the right to liberty. In other words, there need not necessarily be a

deprivation of liberty for the right to security of person to be invoked

art 2 sec 11

Documents