G.R. No.
180906             October 7, 2008 respondents partakes of the characteristics of a search
THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE
CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE
PHILIPPINES,petitioners,  the application must be under oath or affirmation; (2)
vs.
RAYMOND MANALO and REYNALDO
MANALO, respondents.
FACTS:
In Feb 2006, members of the CAFGU summoned to a
meeting all the residents of their barangay in San
Idelfonso, Bulacan but the MANALOs (Raymond and
Reynaldo) were not able to attend coz they weren’t
informed. When RAYMOND was sleeping in their
house, several armed soldiers entered the house
looking for a certain Bestre. Even though mother of
Raymond said he was not Bestre, RAYMOND was
slapped, handcuffed, kicked and forced him to enter a
van (Raymond recognized the people as CAFGU
members). Raymond was blindfolded and beaten up
inside the van. RAYMOND was brought to a house and
there was continuously interrogated if he was a NPA
member and asked where his comrades are. Each time
he answered that he is not, they hit him. Raymond was
detained for 18 months where he was transferred to
different camps.
[Note: The rest of the facts stated of how Raymond
lived while being detained, how his brother Reynaldo
was brought in as well as other detainees, how they
were first tortured, nursed back to health then tortured
again, how they were allowed to go out and work
within the camps, how they saw the CAFGU soldiers kill
NPA, how they planned their escape]
Basically MANALOs were abducted and detained for 18
months!
Eventually, MANALOs and other detainees were able to
escape (when the guards were sleeping after a drinking
session) and subsequently filed a petition for
prohibition, injunction and TRO against SECRETARY OF
NATIONAL DEFENSE, AFP, and CHIEF OF STAFF
(MILITARY) to stop them and/or their agents from
depriving MANALOs of their right to liberty and other
basic rights and other ancillary remedies. While the
case was pending, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo took
effect on October 24, 2007. MANALOs sought to have
their petition be considered Petition for the Writ of
Amparo, which the SC granted and remanded the case
to the CA. The CA granted the privilege of the writ of
amparo and ordered MILITARY to furnish the MANALOs
and the court with:
1. all official and unofficial investigations reports as to
the MANALO’s custody, except those already in file
with the court,
2. confirm the present places of official assignment of
two military officials involved, and
3. produce all medical reports and records of the
MANALOs while under military custody.
With respect to the first and second reliefs,
petitioners argue that the production order sought by
warrant. Thus, they claim that the requisites for the
issuance of a search warrant must be complied with
prior to the grant of the production order, namely: (1)
the search warrant must particularly describe the place
to be searched and the things to be seized; (3) there
exists probable cause with one specific offense; and (4)
the probable cause must be personally determined by
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation
of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.
ISSUE: W/N the argument of petitioners is tenable.
HELD: NO. Petitioners' arguments do not hold water.
The 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...
In Material Distributors (Phil.) Inc. v. Judge
Natividad,153 the respondent judge, under authority of
Rule 27, issued a subpoena duces tecum for the
production and inspection of among others, the books
and papers of Material Distributors (Phil.) Inc. The
company questioned the issuance of the subpoena on
the ground that it violated the search and seizure
clause. The Court struck down the argument and held
that the subpoena pertained to a civil procedure that
"cannot be identified or confused with unreasonable
searches prohibited by the Constitution..."
With respect to the second and third reliefs, MILITARY
assert that the disclosure of the present places of
assignment of the military officers and submission of
medical list is unnecessary in the resolution of the
petition for a writ of amparo. But SC held that since the
officers are both directly implicated in the abduction
and detention, it is relevant in ensuring the safety of
MANALOs that these military officers can be served
with notices and court processes in relation to any
investigation and action for violation of the MANALO’s
rights. The list of medical personnel is also relevant in
securing information to create the medical history of
MANALOs and make appropriate medical interventions,
when applicable and necessary.

FOR REFERENCE: Production Order Provisions in

Amparo

SEC. 14. Interim Reliefs. Upon filing of the petition or at

anytime before final judgment, the court, justice or
judge may grant any of the following reliefs:

(a) Temporary Protection Order. – The court, justice

or judge, upon motion or motu proprio, may order that
the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any member
of the immediate family be protected in a government
agency or by an accredited person or private institution
capable of keeping and securing their safety. If the
petitioner is an organization, association or institution
referred to in Section 3(c) of this Rule, the protection
may be extended to the officers involved.The Supreme
Court shall accredit the persons and private institutions
that shall extend temporary protection to the petitioner
or the aggrieved party and any member of the
immediate family, in accordance with guidelines which
it shall issue.

The accredited persons and private institutions shall

comply with the rules and conditions that may be
imposed by the court, justice or judge.

(c) Production Order. The court, justice or judge, upon

verified motion and after due hearing, may order any
person in possession, custody or control of any
designated documents, papers, books, accounts,
letters, photographs, objects or tangible things, or
objects in digitized or electronic form, which constitute
or contain evidence relevant to the petition or the
return, to produce and permit their inspection, copying
or photographing by or on behalf of the movant.

The motion may be opposed on the ground of national

security or of the privileged nature of the information,
in which case the court, justice or judge may conduct a
hearing in chambers to determine the merit of the
opposition.

The court, justice or judge shall prescribe other

conditions to protect the constitutional rights of all the
parties.