1.Balao et al vs Sec.Ermita et al.G.R. NO.

186059,June 21,2016

Facts:

The two cases arose when James M. Balao (James), founding member of the Cordillera
Peoples Alliance (CPA), a coalition of nongovernment organizations working for the
cause of indigenous peoples in the Cordillera Region, was abducted by five (5)
unidentified armed men on September 17, 2008, in front of Saymor's Store at Tomay,
La Trinidad, Benguet. After efforts to find him proved futile, James's siblings, namely:
Arthur Balao, Winston Balao, Nonette Balao, and Jonilyn Balao-Strugar, together with
CPA Chairperson Beverly Longid (CPA Chairperson Longid; collectively, Balao, et al.)
filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of amparo in James's favor before the RTC,
docketed as Special Proceedings No. 08-AMP-0001.In a Judgment dated January 19,
2009, the RTC granted the privilege of the writ of amparo.

The Court's Ruling

in the December 13, 2011 Decision

In the December 13, 2011 Decision, the Court reversed the grant of the privilege of the
writ of amparo, holding that the totality of evidence presented in these cases did not
fulfill the evidentiary standard provided for by Amparo rule so as to establish that James
was a victim of an enforced disappearance. Citing Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo, the
Court ruled that government involvement in the abduction of James could not be simply
inferred based on past incidents in which the victims also worked or were affiliated with
left-leaning groups. To add, the Court clarified that the doctrine of command
responsibility could not be applied in amparo proceedings, considering that pinpointing
criminal culpability is not the issue thereat, but rather, the same was conceived to
determine responsibility or at least accountability for enforced disappearances (and
extralegal killings), and to impose the appropriate remedies to address them. The case
was remanded to the RTC to conduct further hearings.

Proceedings after the December 13, 2011 Decision

Hearings were conducted and on January 15,2016, the RTC opined that the
investigation of James's abduction had reached an impasse, thereby recommending
that these cases be archived, considering that the investigation of the AFP had reached
a standstill with its conclusion that Maj. Tokong did not conduct surveillance operations
on James, and that the testimony of Gonzales presented a new angle in the abduction
that must be further verified.
Issue: Whether these cases should be archived?

Ruling: No.Jurisprudence states that archiving of cases is a procedural measure

designed to temporarily defer the hearing of cases in which no immediate action is
expected, but where no grounds exist for their outright dismissal. Under this scheme,
an inactive case is kept alive but held in abeyance until the situation obtains in which
action thereon can be taken. To be sure, the Amparo rule sanctions the archiving of
cases, provided that it is impelled by a valid cause, such as when the witnesses fail to
appear due to threats on their lives or to similar analogous causes that would prevent
the court from effectively hearing and conducting the amparo proceedings which,
however, do not obtain in these cases.

Here, while it may appear that the investigation conducted by the AFP reached an
impasse, it must be pointed out that there was still an active lead worth pursuing by the
PNP. Thus, the investigation had not reached a deadend - which would have warranted
the case's archiving - because the testimony of Gonzales set forth an immediate action
on the part of the PNP which could possibly solve, or uncover new leads, in the ongoing
investigation of James's abduction. Therefore, the RTC's recommendation that these
cases should be archived is clearly premature, and hence, must be rejected.

2. Spouses Santiago v. Tulfo

G.R. No. 205039, October 21, 2015

Facts:
Spouses Rozelle Raymond Martin (Raymart) and Claudine Margaret Santiago
were in the airport awaiting for the arrival of their baggage but were informed t h a t i t
was offloaded and transferred to a different flight. W hile they were
lodging a complaint before the complaint desk, Raymart saw a man taking
photos of his wife. He then approached him and found out that it was Ramon “Mon”
Tulfo. The confrontation then escalated to a brawl which came to a stop because
of the interference of the airport security personnel.
Days after the incident, the brother of Mon Tulfo aired on their on their
TV program comments and expletives together with a threat that they will retaliate
against the Santiagos. Terrified by the gravity of the threats hurled, petitioners filed a
motion for the issuance of a writ of amparo against respondents.

Issue:
Whether or not the motion for the issuance of a writ of amparo should be granted?

Held:
 NO.In our jurisdiction, the present Amparo Rule has limited the remedy as a
response to extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, or threats thereof.
"Extrajudicial killings," according to case law, are generally characterized as "killings
committed without due process of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial
proceedings,"27 while "enforced disappearances," according to Section 3 (g) of
Republic Act No. 9851,28 otherwise known as the "Philippine Act on Crimes Against
International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity," "means
the arrest, detention, or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or
acquiescence of, a State or a political organization followed by a refusal to acknowledge
that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those
persons, with the intention of removing from the protection of the law for a prolonged
period of time.

In this case, it is clear that petitioners' amparo petition before the RTC does not
allege any case of extrajudicial killing and/or enforced disappearance, or any threats
thereof. Their petition is merely anchored on a broad invocation of respondents' purported
violation of their right to life and security, carried out by private individuals without any
showing of direct or indirect government participation. Thus, it is apparent that
their amparo petition falls outside the purview of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC and, perforce, must
fail. Hence, the RTC, through Judge Singh, properly exercised its discretion to motu
proprio dismiss the same under this principal determination, regardless of the filing of the
May 23, 2012 Motion. The court, indeed, has the discretion to determine whether or not
it has the authority to grant the relief in the first place. And when it is already apparent
that the petition falls beyond the purview of the rule, it has the duty to dismiss the petition
so as not to prejudice any of the parties through prolonged but futile litigation.

3. CALLO V COMMISSIONER JAIME H. MORENTE

G.R. No. 230324, September 19, 2017

Facts:
Danielle Tan Parker is a holder of Philippine Passport issued by the
Department of Foreign Affairs on March 5, 2010 and valid until March 4, 2015.
On January 15, 2013, she was charged for deportation for being an undesirable
alien. It was alleged that Danielle Nopuente was a fugitive from USA with an
outstanding arrest warrant issued against her. Subsequently, on January 24,
2013, a Summary Deportation Order was issued against Nopuente, also known
as Isabelita Nopuente and Danielle Tan Parker, for overstaying. Parker was
not in the list of approved applications of the DFA for dual citizenship and her
American Passport had been revoked by the United States Department of
State.
Nopuente was arrested and was taken to the Immigration Detention
Facility in Bicutan, Taguig City. She is still currently detained as the
deportation was not carried out due to the fact that Parker is charged with
falsification and use of falsified documents before the MTC of Davao City. On
September 12, 2014, she filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus which was
dismissed by the RTC. On March 23, 2017, Callo filed this petition for writ of
amparo with prayer to issue Interim Reliefs of Immediate Release of Danielle
Tan Parker from Detention. Callo argues that Parker is a natural-born Filipino
Citizen and thus, there is no reason for her to be detained by the Bureau of
Immigration.

Issue:
Whether it is proper to grant the petition?

Held:
No.The protective writ of amparo is a judicial remedy to expeditiously provide
relief to violations of a person's constitutional right to life, liberty, and security, and more
specifically, to address the problem of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances
or threats thereof.
It is clear that the elements of enforced disappearance are not attendant in this
case. There is also no threat of such enforced disappearance. While there is indeed a
detention carried out by the State through the Bureau of Immigration, the third and
fourth elements are not present. There is no refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of
freedom or refusal to give information on the whereabouts of Parker because as Callo
admits, Parker is detained in the Immigration Detention Facility of the Bureau of
Immigration. The Bureau of Immigration also does not deny this. In fact, the Bureau of
Immigration had produced the body of Parker before the RTC in the proceedings for the
writ of habeas corpus previously initiated by Parker herself.[9] Similarly, there is no
intention to remove Parker from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
As the Bureau of Immigration explained, Parker has a pending criminal case against her
in Davao City, which prevents the Bureau of Immigration from deporting her from the
country.
4. IN MATTER OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF DATUKAN MALAN SALIBO
V. WARDEN, ET. AL.,
G.R. No. 197597, August 8, 2015

Facts:
Butukan S. Malang, one of the accused in the Maguindanao massacre, had a
pending warrant of arrest issued by the trial court in People vs Ampatuan Jr. et. al. When
Datukan Malang Salibo learned that the police officers of Datu Hofer Police Station
in Maguindanao suspected him to be Butukan S. Malang, he presented himself to clear
his name. Salibo presented to the police pertinent portions of his passport,boarding
passes and other documents tending to prove that a certain Datukan Malang Salibo was in
Saudi Arabia when the massacre happened. The authorities, however, apprehended and
detained him. He questioned the legality of his detention via Urgent Petition for Habeas
Corpus before the CA, maintaining that he is not the accused Batukan S. Malang. The
CA issued the writ, making it returnable to the judge of RTC Taguig. After hearing of the
Return, the trial court granted Salibo’s petition and ordered his immediate release from
detention.
On appeal by the Warden, the CA reversed the RTC ruling. The CA held that even
assuming Salibo was not the Batukan S. Malang named in the Alias Warrant of Arrest,
orderly course of trial must be pursued and the usual remedies exhausted before the
writ of habeas corpus may be involved. Salibo’s proper remedy, according to the CA,
should have been a motion to quash information and/or warrant of arrest.

Issue:
Whether or not Salibo properly availed the remedy of a petition for writ of habeas
corpus?

Held:
Yes. Habeas corpus is the remedy for a person deprived of liberty dueto mistaken identity.
In such cases, the person is not under any lawful process and is continuously being
illegally detained. First, it was Butukan S. Malang, not Salibo, who was charged and
accused in the Information and Alias Warrant of Arrest issued in the case of People vs
Ampatuan. Based on the evidences presented, Salibo sufficiently established that he
could not have been Butukan S.Malang. Therefore, Salibo was not arrested by virtue of any
warrant charging him of an offense, nor restrained under a lawful process or an order of a
court. Second, Salibo was not validly arrested without a warrant. When he was in the presence
of authorities, he was neither committing nor attempting to commit an offense, and the police
officers had no personal knowledge of any offense that he might have committed. Salibo
was also not an escape prisoner. The police officers have deprived him of his liberty without due
process of law. Therefore, Salibo correctly availed himself of a Petition for Habeas Corpus.