Amparo and habeas data in the Philippines

Last updated

In the Philippines, amparo and habeas data are prerogative writs to supplement the inefficacy of the writ of habeas corpus (Rule 102, Revised Rules of Court). Amparo means 'protection,' while habeas data is 'access to information.' [1] Both writs were conceived to solve the extensive Philippine extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances since 1999. [2]

Contents

On July 16, 2007, Philippine Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno and Justice Adolfo Azcuna officially declared the legal conception of the Philippine Writ of Amparo ("Recurso de Amparo"), at the historic Manila Hotel National Summit on Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances. [3] [4]

On August 25, 2007, Reynato Puno declared the legal conception of amparo's twin, the supplemental Philippine Habeas Data. Puno by judicial fiat proclaimed the legal birth of these twin peremptory writs on October, 2007, as his legacy to the Filipino nation. Puno admitted the inefficacy of Habeas Corpus, under Rule 102, Rules of Court, since government officers repeatedly failed to produce the body upon mere submission of the defense of alibi.

By invoking the truth, Habeas Data will not only compel military and government agents to release information about the desaparecidos but require access to military and police files. Reynato Puno's writ of amparo—Spanish for 'protection'—will bar military officers in judicial proceedings to issue denial answers regarding petitions on disappearances or extrajudicial executions, which were legally permitted in Habeas corpus proceedings. [5]

The Supreme Court of the Philippines announced that the draft guidelines (Committee on Revision of Rules) for the writ of amparo were approved on September 23, to be deliberated by the En Banc Court on September 25. [6]

Origin

Mexican amparo

Chief Justice Reynato Puno noted that the model for amparo was borrowed from Mexico: the right of amparo is a Mexican legal procedure to protect human rights. [7] Of Mexican origin, thus, “amparo” literally means “protection” in Spanish. [8] de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" had been available in Mexico, in 1837 and its description of judicial review practice in the U.S. appealed to many Mexican jurists. [9] Mexican justice Manuel Crescencio Rejón, drafted a constitutional provision for his native state, Yucatan, which empowered jurists to protect all persons in the enjoyment of their constitutional and legal rights. This was incorporated into the 1847 national constitution. [10] [11] The great right proliferated in the Western Hemisphere, slowly evolving into various fora. Amparo became, in the words of a Mexican Federal Supreme Court Justice, Mexico's “task of conveying to the world’s legal heritage that institution which, as a shield of human dignity, her own painful history conceived.” [12] [13]

Amparo's evolution and metamorphosis had been witnessed, for several purposes: "(1) amparo libertad for the protection of personal freedom, equivalent to the habeas corpus right; (2) amparo contra leyes for the judicial review of the constitutionality of statutes; (3) amparo casación for the judicial review of the constitutionality and legality of a judicial decisión; (4) amparo administrativo for the judicial review of administrative actions; and (5) amparo agrario for the protection of peasants’ rights derived from the agrarian reform process." [14]

Latin American countries, except Cuba, used the great right to protect against human rights abuses especially committed in countries under military juntas, adopting an all-encompassing amparo, even to protect socio-economic rights. But other countries like Colombia, Chile, Germany and Spain, opted to limit amparo shield only to some constitutional guarantees or fundamental rights. [15] In the Philippines, while the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines failed to expressly provide for amparo, several amparo protections are already guaranteed, thus: by paragraph 2, Article VIII, Section 1, the "Grave Abuse Clause" - which grants a similar general protection to human rights extended by the amparo contra leyes, amparo casacion, and amparo administrativo. Amparo libertad is similar to habeas corpus in the 1987 Constitution. The Clause is borrowed from the U.S. common law tradition of judicial review (1803 case of Marbury v. Madison). [16] [17]

Justice Adolfo Azcuna, a member of two Constitutional Commissions of 1971, and 1986 previously made a study on the Right amparo as published in the Ateneo Law Journal (see Adolfo S. Azcuna, The Right of Amparo: A Remedy to Enforce Fundamental Rights, 37 ATENEO L.J. 15 (1993).). [18]

The "recurso de amparo" is an exhaustive remedy which originated from Latin America's Mexican, Chile and Argentina legal systems, inter alia. Mexico's amparo is found in Articles 103 and 107 of the Mexican Constitution -- the judicial review of governmental action, to empower state courts to protect individuals against state abuses. Amparo was sub-divided into 5 legal departments:

(a) the Liberty Amparo (amparo de libertad);
(b) the Constitutionality Amparo (amparo contra leyes);
(c) the Judicial or “Cassation” Amparo, aimed at the constitutionality of a judicial interpretation;
(d) the Administrative Amparo (amparo como contencioso-administrativo); and
(e) the Agrarian Amparo (amparo en matera agraria, ejidal y comunal). [19]

Argentine amparo

Amparo was also legally enshrined in Latin America legal systems. It is now an extraordinary legal remedy in Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay Peru, Brazil and Argentina. Amparo in Argentina is a limited, summary, emergency procedure, and merely supplementary, requiring previous exhaustion of administrative remedies before rendition of judgment of mandamus or injunction. The decision bars monetary awards and penal provisions except contempt or declaration of unconstitutionality. [20]

Habeas corpus

Historically, Philippine Habeas Corpus (from 1901 until the present) failed to provide an efficacious legal remedy to victims of extra-judicial killings and desaparecidos . The amparo de libertad transcends the protection of habeas corpus . Once a lawsuit is filed under Habeas Corpus, Rule 102, Rules of Court, the defendants, government officers would merely submit the usual defense of alibi or non-custody of the body sought to be produced. [21] [22] The 1987 Philippine constitution, however, empowers the Supreme Court of the Philippines to promulgate amparo and habeas data , as part of the Rules of Court expressly: “Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights.” (Sec. 5, (5), Article VIII, 1987, Constitution) [23] [24]

The writ of habeas corpus is an "extraordinary", "common law", or "prerogative writ", which were historically issued by English courts in the name of the monarch to control inferior courts and public authorities within the kingdom. The most common of the other such prerogative writs are quo warranto , prohibito , mandamus , procedendo , and certiorari . The due process for such petitions is not simply civil or criminal, because they incorporate the presumption of non-authority, so that the official who is the respondent has the burden to prove his authority to do or not do something, failing which the court has no discretion but to decide for the petitioner, who may be any person, not just an interested party.

National Summit on Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances

On July 16, 2007, Justices, activists, militant leaders, police officials, politicians and prelates attended the Supreme Court of the Philippines's 2-day summit at the Manila Hotel, Metro Manila to solve extrajudicial killings. Chief Justice Reynato Puno stated that the "National Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killings and Forced Disappearances: Searching for Solutions" would help stop the murders. Based on CBCP - Bishop Deogracias Yniguez-church's count, the number of victims of extrajudicial killings was record at 778, while survivors of "political assassinations" was 370; 203 "massacre" victims; 186 desaparecido; 502 tortured, and those illegally arrested. [25]

Puno requested for truce and talks with insurgents: "Let us rather engage in the conspiracy of hope…and hope for peace." Puno forwarded the summit's recommendation to President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the Senate and the House of Representatives. [26] [27] [28]

“Extralegal killings” (UN instruments term) are those committed without due process of law, which include summary and arbitrary executions, “salvagings”, threats to take the life of journalists, inter alia. “Enforced disappearances” (defined by Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances), include: arrest, detention or abduction by a government official or organized groups under the government; the refusal of the State to disclose the fate or whereabouts of missing persons, inter alia. [29]

Writs of amparo and habeas data

On August 17, 2007, Puno said that the writ of amparo, would bar the military plea of denial (at a speech at the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption's 9th anniversary, Camp Crame). Under the writ, plaintiffs or victims will have the right of access to information on their lawsuits—a constitutional right called the "habeas data" derived from constitutions of Latin America. The final draft of these twin writs (retroactive) will be promulgated on October. Puno tersely summed the writs "In other words, if you have this right, it would be very, very difficult for State agents, State authorities to be able to escape from their culpability." [30] [31]

Puno stated that with the writ of Habeas corpus, the writs of Habeas Data and writ of amparo will further assist "those looking for missing loved ones". [5] On August 30, 2007, Puno (through his speech at Silliman University in Dumaguete) promised to institute the writ of habeas data (“you should have the idea” or “you should have the data”). Puno explained that amparo bars alibi, while Habeas Data "can find out what information is held by the officer, rectify or even the destroy erroneous data gathered". Brazil used the writ, followed by Colombia, Paraguay, Peru, Argentina, and Ecuador. [32]

The Philippine 1987 Constitution was derived from the 1973 Ferdinand Marcos Constitution, its 1981 amendment, from the 1935 constitution, and from the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution was adopted in its original form on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and later ratified by conventions in each state in the name of "the People." The U.S. Constitution is the oldest written national constitution except possibly for San Marino 's Statutes of 1600, whose status as a true constitution is disputed by scholars. The Writ of Amparo is a remedy to enforce fundamental rights. “among the different procedures that have been established for the protection of human rights, the primary ones that provide direct and immediate protection are habeas corpus and amparo. The difference between these two writs is that habeas corpus is designed to enforce the right to freedom of the person, whereas amparo is designed to protect those other fundamental human rights enshrined in the Constitution but not covered by the writ of habeas corpus.” [33] [34]

The literal translation from Latin of Habeas Data is “you should have the data”. Habeas Data is a constitutional right to protect, per lawsuit filed in court, to protect the image, privacy, honour, information self-determination and freedom of information of a person. Habeas Data can used to discover what information is held about his or her person (via rectification or destruction of the personal data held. Habeas Data originated, inter alia, from the Council of Europe's 108th Convention on Data Protection of 1981 (aimed at protecting the privacy of the individual regarding the automated processing of personal data; with right to access their personal data held in an automated database. [35]

Historical promulgations of amparo and habeas data

A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo

On September 25, 2007, Chief Justice Reynato Puno officially announced the approval or promulgation of the Writ of Amparo: "Today, the Supreme Court promulgated the rule that will place the constitutional right to life, liberty and security above violation and threats of violation. This rule will provide the victims of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances the protection they need and the promise of vindication for their rights. This rule empowers our courts to issue reliefs that may be granted through judicial orders of protection, production, inspection and other relief to safeguard one's life and liberty The writ of amparo shall hold public authorities, those who took their oath to defend the constitution and enforce our laws, to a high standard of official conduct and hold them accountable to our people. The sovereign Filipino people should be assured that if their right to life and liberty is threatened or violated, they will find vindication in our courts of justice."[36]

AM No. 08-1-16-SC, the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data

On January 22, 2008, the Supreme En Banc approved the rules for the writ of Habeas Data ("to protect a person’s right to privacy and allow a person to control any information concerning them"), effective on February 2, the Philippines’ Constitution Day. [36] Reynato Puno traced the history of Habeas Data "to the Council of Europe’s 108th Convention on Data Protection of 1981; Brazil was the first Latin American country to adopt the Writ of Habeas Data in 1988 and was strengthened by its National Congress in 1997; in 1991, Colombia incorporated Habeas Data in its Constitution; Paraguay followed in 1992, Peru in 1993, Argentina in 1994, and Ecuador in 1996." In Argentina, Habeas Data allowed "access to police and military records otherwise closed to them." [37] [38]

The Resolution and the Rule on the Writ of Amparo gave legal birth to Puno's brainchild. [39] [40] [41] No filing or legal fee is required for amparo which takes effect on October 24 in time for the 62nd anniversary of the United Nations. Puno also stated that the court will soon issue rules on the writ of Habeas Data and the implementing guidelines for Habeas Corpus. The petition for the writ of amparo may be filed "on any day and at any time" with the Regional Trial Court, or with the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court. The interim reliefs under amparo are: temporary protection order (TPO), inspection order (IO), production order (PO), and witness protection order (WPO, RA 6981). [42] and as of now.

Events

First landmark amparo Supreme Court judgment

The Supreme Court of the Philippines, on October 7, 2008, rendered its first amparo decision, affirming the December 26, 2007, Philippine Court of Appeals judgment in favor of Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo brothers. Reynato Puno's 49-page unanimous ponencia granted amparo relief to the Manalo brothers who were abducted by the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU) in San Ildefonso, Bulacan, in February 2006. They escaped on August 13, 2007, after 18 months of detention and torture. [64] [65] [66]

Comment

On September 28, 2007, the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) said the new writ of amparo and habeas data in themselves are not enough to resolve the problems of extra-legal killings and enforced disappearances in the Philippines. It said that there must be a cooperative action on all parts of the government and civil society:

Though it responds to practical areas it is still necessary that further action must be taken in addition to this. The legislative bodies, House of Representatives and Senate, should also initiate its own actions promptly and without delay. They must enact laws which ensure protection of rights—laws against torture and enforced disappearance and laws to afford adequate legal remedies to victims.

The AHRC also said that protection provided by the writ of amparo does not extend to non-witnesses whose lives may also be threatened. [67]

See also

Related Research Articles

Habeas corpus is a recourse in law by which a report can be made to a court in the events of unlawful detention or imprisonment, requesting that the court orders the person's custodian, to bring the prisoner to court, to determine whether their detention is lawful.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of the Philippines</span> Highest court in the Philippines

The Supreme Court (Filipino: Kataas-taasang Hukuman; colloquially referred to as the Korte Suprema is the highest court in the Philippines. The Supreme Court was established by the Second Philippine Commission on June 11, 1901 through the enactment of its Act No. 136, an Act which abolished the Real Audiencia de Manila, the predecessor of the Supreme Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Nepal</span> Highest court in Nepal

The Supreme Court of Nepal is the highest court in Nepal. It has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the seven High Courts and extraordinary original jurisdiction. The court consists of twenty Justices and one Chief Justice.

The Hultman–Chapman murder case was a murder case that gained wide publicity in the Philippines during the early 1990s because Claudio Teehankee Jr., the perpetrator of the crime, was the son of the late former Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee and the brother of former Justice Undersecretary Manuel Teehankee. The case helped sway the public view and lawmakers on crime and restore the death penalty in the Philippines.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reynato Puno</span> Filipino judge (born 1940)

Reynato Puno y Serrano, KGCR is a Filipino jurist. He served as the 22nd chief justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines from December 8, 2006, by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo until his mandatory retirement on May 17, 2010. Puno had initially been appointed to the Supreme Court as an associate justice on June 28, 1993.

Habeas data is a writ and constitutional remedy available in certain nations. The literal translation from Latin of habeas data is "[we command] you have the data," or "you [the data subject] have the data." The remedy varies from country to country, but in general, it is designed to protect, by means of an individual complaint presented to a constitutional court, the data, image, privacy, honour, information self-determination and freedom of information of a person.

In United States law, habeas corpus is a recourse challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's confinement under color of law. A petition for habeas corpus is filed with a court that has jurisdiction over the custodian, and if granted, a writ is issued directing the custodian to bring the confined person before the court for examination into those reasons or conditions. The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ratification Cases</span>

The Ratification Cases, officially titled as Javellana v. Executive Secretary, was a 1973 Supreme Court of the Philippines case that allowed the 1973 Philippine Constitution to come into full force, which led to President Ferdinand Marcos staying in office and ordered by decree until he was ousted by the People Power Revolution in 1986. The decision became the cornerstone of subsequent decisions whenever the validity of the 1973 Constitution was questioned.

Philippine habeas corpus cases are cases decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, which invoke the writ of habeas corpus.

Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), was a writ of habeas corpus petition made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held in military detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps in Cuba. Guantánamo Bay is not formally part of the United States, and under the terms of the 1903 lease between the United States and Cuba, Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, while the United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control. The case was consolidated with habeas petition Al Odah v. United States. It challenged the legality of Boumediene's detention at the United States Naval Station military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as well as the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Oral arguments on the combined cases were heard by the Supreme Court on December 5, 2007.

In United States law, habeas corpus is a recourse challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's detention under color of law. The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is a United States military prison located within Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. A persistent standard of indefinite detention without trial and incidents of torture led the operations of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp to be challenged internationally as an affront to international human rights, and challenged domestically as a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution, including the right of petition for habeas corpus. On 19 February 2002, Guantanamo detainees petitioned in federal court for a writ of habeas corpus to review the legality of their detention.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances in the Philippines</span>

Extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances in the Philippines are illegal executions – unlawful or felonious killings – and forced disappearances in the Philippines. These are forms of extrajudicial punishment, and include extrajudicial executions, summary executions, arbitrary arrest and detentions, and failed prosecutions due to political activities of leading political, trade union members, dissident or social figures, left-wing political parties, non-governmental organizations, political journalists, outspoken clergy, anti-mining activists, agricultural reform activists, members of organizations that are alleged as allied or legal fronts of the communist movement or claimed supporters of the NPA and its political wing, the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). Other frequent targets are ancestral land rights defenders, Indigenous rights activists, environmentalists, and human rights workers.

In most legal systems of the Spanish-speaking world, the writ of amparo is a remedy for the protection of constitutional rights, found in certain jurisdictions. The amparo remedy or action is an effective and inexpensive instrument for the protection of individual rights.

The Judicial Executive Legislative Advisory and Consultative Council (JELACC) of the Philippines is a body created by a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed on May 13, 2008, which serves as "the forum and venue for the representatives of the 3 branches of the government to undertake measures on matters affecting the primacy of the rule of law, specifically tastked to identify the problems and issues, formulate solutions, and to implement them." The historical move which was aimed "to strengthen the consultation and coordination among the three branches of government in upholding the rule of law." Jelacc was the brainchild of Kiko Pangilinan, first proposed on the July 16–17, 2007 Manila Hotel Summit on Extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances in the Philippines.

<i>Quinto v. COMELEC</i>

Quinto v. COMELEC is a controversial decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines which paved the way, albeit temporarily, for incumbent appointive executive officials to stay in office after filing their certificates of candidacy for election to an elective office. The decision was first decided by a slim majority of 8-6, but was eventually reversed 10-5 upon a motion for reconsideration after the retirement of one justice and the appointment of two new ones.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Neri Colmenares</span> Filipino human rights lawyer and activist

Neri Javier Colmenares is a Filipino legislator, human rights lawyer and activist. He was an associate of the Asian Law Centre at Melbourne Law School when he was completing his Ph.D. in law on "The Writ of Amparo and the International Criminal Court." He also lectured at the University of Melbourne on International Human Rights Law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

A Writ of Kalikasan is a legal remedy under Philippine law that provides protection of one's constitutional right to a healthy environment, as outlined in Section 16, Article II of the Philippine Constitution, which states that the "state shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature." Kalikasan is a Filipino word for "nature".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Free Legal Assistance Group</span> Philippine non-profit organization

The Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) is a nationwide organization of human rights lawyers in the Philippines. It was founded in 1974 by Sen. Jose W. Diokno, Lorenzo Tañada, J.B.L. Reyes, and Joker Arroyo during the martial law era under former President Ferdinand Marcos. It is the first and largest group of human rights lawyers established in the nation. They work on countering varied abuses against human rights and civil liberties. Its current chairman since 2003 is human rights attorney Chel Diokno, the founding dean of the De La Salle University Tañada-Diokno School of Law.

The judiciary of the Philippines consists of the Supreme Court, which is established in the Constitution, and three levels of lower courts, which are established through law by the Congress of the Philippines. The Supreme Court has expansive powers, able to overrule political and administrative decisions, and with the ability to craft rules and law without precedent. It further determines the rules of procedure for lower courts, and its members sit on electoral tribunals.

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause.

References

  1. ↑ Literally, 'may you have the data' in Latin.
  2. ↑ Supremecourt.gov.ph, National Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances Summary of Recommendations Archived 2007-12-05 at the Wayback Machine
  3. ↑ Supremecourt.gov.ph, Summit on Extrajudicial Killings Sows Hope Archived 2007-12-05 at the Wayback Machine
  4. ↑ Extrajudicial killings, ‘View from the mountaintop’ Archived 2009-06-05 at the Wayback Machine
  5. 1 2 Inquirer.net, SC drafting writ of habeas data invoking right to truth
  6. ↑ News.balita.ph, Draft Guidelines on Writ of Amparo approved on September 23 Archived 2007-10-07 at the Wayback Machine
  7. ↑ Mejorada, Carlos Sánchez (1 January 1946). "The Writ of Amparo. Mexican Procedure to Protect Human Rights". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 243: 107–111. doi:10.1177/000271624624300120. JSTOR   1025063. S2CID   144627408.
  8. ↑ [Barker, R., “Constitutionalism in the Americas: A Bicentennial Perspective,” 49 University of Pittsburgh Law Review (Spring, 1988) 891, 906.]
  9. ↑ [Id., citing Zamudio, F., “A Brief Introduction to the Mexican Right of Amparo,” 9 California Western International Law Journal (1979) 306, 309]
  10. ↑ [“At the time it adopted Rejón’s amparo, Yucatan had separated itself from Mexico. After a few months, the secession ended and the state resumed its place in the union.” (Barker, R., supra at 906.)]
  11. ↑ [Acta de Reformas, art. 25 (1847) (amending Constitution of 1824).]
  12. ↑ [Rule on the Right of Amparo: Annotation, p. 45. See Article 107 of the Constitution of Mexico; Article 28(15) of the Constitution of Ecuador; Article 77 of the Constitution of Paraguay; Article 43 of the Constitution of Argentina; Article 49 of the Constitution of Venezuela; Article 48 (3) of the Constitution of Costa Rica; and Article 19 of the Constitution of Bolivia.]
  13. ↑ [Provost, R., supra at 698, citing Ramirez, F., “The International Expansion of the Mexican Amparo,” 1 Inter-American Law Review (1959) 163, 166.]
  14. ↑ [Rule on the Right of Amparo: Annotation, p. 45; see also Zagaris, B., “The Amparo Process in Mexico,” 6 Mexico Law Journal (Spring 1998) 61, 66 and Provost, R., supra at 708-709.]
  15. ↑ [Brewer-Carias, A., “The Latin American Amparo Proceeding and the Right of Amparo in the Philippines,” Second Distinguished Lecture, Series of 2007, Supreme Court, Philippine Judicial Academy in coordination with the Philippine Association of Law Schools, March 7, 2008.]
  16. ↑ [See 1987 Phil. Const. Art. III, §§ 13 & 15; Art. VII, § 18; Art. VIII, § 5(1).]
  17. ↑ [ 5 U.S. 137 (1803). See Gormley, K. “Judicial Review in the Americas: Comments on the United States and Mexico,” 45 Duquesne Law Review (Spring, 2007) 393.]
  18. ↑ "supremecourt.gov, ANNOTATION TO THE right OF AMPARO" (PDF).[ permanent dead link ]
  19. ↑ Inquirer.net, Joaquin G. Bernas, The Mexican amparo Archived 2010-10-15 at the Wayback Machine
  20. ↑ Inquirer.net, Joaquin G. Bernas, The Argentine amparo Archived 2007-10-11 at the Wayback Machine
  21. ↑ "Supremecourt.gov.ph, Rules of Court". Archived from the original on 2007-10-11. Retrieved 2007-09-23.
  22. ↑ "Supremecourt.gov.ph, Rule 102, Rules of Court, Habeas Corpus". Archived from the original on 2007-11-26. Retrieved 2007-09-23.
  23. ↑ "SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (RULES OF COURT) - CHAN ROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY".
  24. ↑ "1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES - CHAN ROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY".
  25. ↑ GMA NEWS.TV, Justices, activists, prelates map out ways to end killings
  26. ↑ GMA NEWS.TV, CPP: SC summit can’t stop mastermind of killings
  27. ↑ Inquirer.net, Let's engage in a conspiracy of Hope
  28. ↑ ABS-CBN Interactive, More groups ask Supreme Court to junk anti-terror law
  29. ↑ Abs-Cbn Interactive, The writ of amparo: Judiciary’s sword unsheathed
  30. ↑ Inquiret.net, Military can’t shrug off killings--Chief Justice Archived October 17, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
  31. ↑ "SC ready with writ of amparo by Sept - Puno".
  32. ↑ Inquirer.net, Habeas data: SC’s new remedy vs killings, disappearances
  33. ↑ Law.ateneo.edu, Ateneo De Manila Law School
  34. ↑ "Irb-cisr.gc.ca, RESPONSES TO INFORMATION REQUESTS". Archived from the original on 2007-12-05. Retrieved 2007-09-23.
  35. ↑ Warwick.ac.uk Andres Guadamuz, "Habeas Data: The Latin American response to data protection", Journal of Information, Law & Technology 2000(2).
  36. ↑ newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews, Supreme Court okays rules of ‘habeas data’
  37. ↑ mb.com.ph, Supreme Court adopts Writ of Habeas Data
  38. ↑ "supremecourt.gov.ph, SC Promulgates Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data". Archived from the original on 2008-01-27. Retrieved 2008-01-29.
  39. ↑ Supremecourt.gov.ph, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO [ permanent dead link ]
  40. ↑ "S.C. Resolution, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-02-28.
  41. ↑ "Supremecourt.gov.ph, SC Approves Rule on Writ of Amparo". Archived from the original on 2007-12-23.
  42. ↑ "SC approves rule on writ of amparo vs extralegal killings".
  43. ↑ Abs-Cbn Interactive, Journalists can cite writ of amparo vs censorship
  44. ↑ "Writ of amparo takes effect; lawyers' group issues primer".
  45. ↑ "Missing activists' mothers test Manila court rule". 24 October 2007 – via Reuters.
  46. ↑ "supremecourt.gov.ph, Period to File Return in Amparo Cases Amended". Archived from the original on 2007-11-10. Retrieved 2007-11-12.
  47. ↑ "'Amparo' frees 3 detainees - SC chief".
  48. ↑ Abs-Cbn Interactive, Journalists file P10M lawsuit over Peninsula arrests
  49. ↑ Inquirer.net, (UPDATE) SC issues writ of amparo vs gov’t on Lozada case: Orders PNP to explain ‘abduction’
  50. ↑ "Supreme Court issues first writ of amparo for journalist". Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility. March 12, 2008. Retrieved June 8, 2021.
  51. ↑ "Journalist seeks court protection against killers". Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility. February 5, 2008. Retrieved June 8, 2021.
  52. 1 2 Adel, Rosette (October 11, 2017). "Petitioners ask Supreme Court to halt war on drugs". Philstar. Retrieved 2018-04-24.
  53. ↑ Cheng, Willard (October 11, 2017). "Petition for prohibition, writ of amparo filed vs gov't war on drugs". ABS-CBN News. Retrieved 2018-04-24.
  54. 1 2 Buan, Lian (October 11, 2017). "Lawyers file petition to declare drug war circulars unconstitutional". Rappler. Retrieved 2018-04-24.
  55. ↑ Ballaran, Jhoanna (October 18, 2017). "Manila residents ask SC for writ of amparo vs police". Inquirer. Retrieved 2018-04-24.
  56. ↑ Torres-Tupas, Tetch (February 28, 2019). "Calida blocking release of drug war docs despite SC order — lawyers group". Inquirer. Retrieved 2019-03-25.
  57. ↑ Punay, Edu (April 4, 2018). "SC orders PNP: Submit report on drug war". Philstar. Retrieved 2018-04-24.
  58. ↑ "Supreme Court orders SolGen Calida to submit drug war records". CNN. April 4, 2018. Archived from the original on 2018-04-24. Retrieved 2018-04-24.
  59. ↑ San Juan, Joel (April 3, 2018). "SC affirms order to PNP to submit documentation on government's drug war". Business Mirror. Retrieved 2018-04-24.
  60. ↑ "Supreme Court upholds CA ruling to give protection to human rights lawyer". Rappler. May 22, 2018. Retrieved 2019-03-25.
  61. ↑ Torres-Tupas, Tetch (March 25, 2015). "AFP ordered to file charges vs personnel who allegedly harassed lawyer". Inquirer. Retrieved 2019-03-25.
  62. 1 2 Casilao, Joahna Lei (2022-08-09). "SC upholds amparo as remedy vs. extralegal killings, threats". GMA News Online. Retrieved 2022-08-14.
  63. ↑ Ramirez, Robertzon (2022-08-10). "Supreme Court upholds amparo as legal remedy vs EJK, threats". Philistar. Retrieved 2022-08-14.
  64. ↑ "supremecourt.gov, SC Decides Its 1st Amparo Case; Upholds Right to Security".[ permanent dead link ]
  65. ↑ inquirer.net, SC upholds amparo for Manalo brothers
  66. ↑ "G.R. No. 180906, Secretary of National Defense vs. RAYMOND MANALO and REYNALDO MANALO, October 7, 2008". Archived from the original on 2008-10-10. Retrieved 2008-10-09.
  67. ↑ GMA NEWS.TV, Writ of amparo not enough – Hong Kong rights group
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.