Secretary of National Defense v.

Manalo and Manalo

G.R. NO. 180906 | (2008)
WRIT OF AMPARO
DOCTRINES: Put all the relevant doctrines here. Per topic, if it is more than one
FACTS: Brothers Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo were abducted by military men belonging to the CAFGU on the suspicion that
they were members and supporters of the NPA. After 18 months of detention and torture, the brothers escaped on August 13,
2007.

Ten days after their escape, they filed a Petition for Prohibition, Injunction, and Temporary Restraining Order to stop the
military officers and agents from depriving them of their right to liberty and other basic rights. While the said case was pending,
the Rule on the Writ of Amparo took effect on October 24, 2007. The Manalos subsequently filed a manifestation and omnibus
motion to treat their existing petition as amparo petition. Petitioners

On December 26, 2007, the Court of Appeals granted the privilege of the writ of amparo. The CA 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 Manalos’ custody, confirm the present places of official assignment of two military officials
involved, and produce all medical reports and records of the Manalo brothers while under military custody. The Secretary of
National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the AFP appealed to the SC seeking to reverse and set aside the decision promulgated
by the CA.
ISSUE #1: WON there was continuing violation of respondents’ right to security
RATIO: YES. In upholding the CA decision, the Supreme Court ruled that there is a continuing violation of the Manalos right to
security. xxx The Writ of Amparo is the most potent remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security
has been violated or is threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission by public officials or employees and by private
individuals or entities. xxx Understandably, since their escape, the Manalos have been under concealment and protection by
private citizens because of the threat to their life, liberty, and security. 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,”
ISSUE #2: WON the reliefs granted by the CA were proper
RATIO: YES. he production order under the Amparo Rule should not be confused with a search warrant for law enforcement
under Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. This Constitutional provision is a protection of the people from the
unreasonable intrusion of the government, not a protection of the government from the demand of the people such as
respondents. Instead, the amparo production order may be likened to the production of documents or things under Section 1,
Rule 27 of the Rules of Civil Procedure which provides in relevant part, viz:

Section 1. Motion for production or inspection order

Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor, the court in which an action is pending may (a) order any party to
produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing, by or on behalf of the moving party, of any designated
documents, papers, books of accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, not privileged, which constitute or
contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action and which are in his possession, custody or control.