Callo v Morente

LORIE MARIE TOMAS CALLO , petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER JAIME

H. MORENTE, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, OIC ASSOCIATES
COMMISSIONERS, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, and BRIAN ALAS,
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, respondents.

Remedies against Illegal Arrests

Nature: Motion for a Writ of Amparo

PARTIES:
- Callo, filer of writ of amparo for an alien named Parker
- Morente, the commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration

DISPUTED MATTER: Writ of Amparo

SYNOPSIS:

Parker was detained by the Bureau of Immigaration for being an undersirable, undocumented,
and overstaying alien in violation of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940. Callo filed for a writ
of amparo. This was denied by the court saying that the remedy is improper.

FACTS:

● Danielle Tan Parker was considered by the Bureau of Immigration to be an undesirable,

undocumented, and overstaying alien in violation of the Philippine Immigration Act of
1940. This is supported by the allegations that:
○ Danielle Nopuente was a fugitive from justice in the United States of America.
○ There is an outstanding arrest warrant issued against her.
○ Parker and Nopuente are the same person.
● Pursuant to this, a Summary Deportation Order was issued against Danielle Nopuente
and Danielle Parker.
● Thus, Parker was detained in the Bureau of Immigration. She was not deported
immediately and was kept detained because there was an outstanding criminal case
against her for falsification and use of falsified documents.
● Callo, the petitioner, filed a case for a writ of amparo against the Bureau of Immigration
alleging that there is no reason for Parker to be detained.

ISSUES/HELD:
 1. Whether or not the right to life, liberty, and security of Parker is threatened by the Bureau
of Immigration to warrant the issuance of a writ of amparo? NO.

What is a writ of amparo?

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.

It may only be issued against extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.

Furthermore, there is an order or priority to who may file a writ of amparo:

(a) Any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse, children and parents of the
aggrieved party;
(b) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the fourth civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph; or
(c) Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution, if there is no known member

The purpose of this is to prevent groundless filing of petitions for amparo. Thus, it must be
strictly followed.

What is extralegal killing?

According to Mamba v Bueno, “extralegal killings” are killings committed without due process of
law.

What is enforced disappearance?

According to RA 9851, "Enforced or involuntary disappearance of persons" 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.

The elements of enforced disappearances are:

(a) that there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty;
(b) that it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or a
political organization;
(c) that it be followed by the State or political organization's refusal to acknowledge or give
information on the fate or whereabouts of the person subject of the amparo petition; and,
(d) that the intention for such refusal is to remove subject person from the protection of the law
for a prolonged period of time.

In this case
The third and fourth elements of enforced disappearance are missing. There is no refusal by the
Bureau of immigration to acknowledge or give information on the fate and whereabouts of
Parker. In fact, the Bureau has produced the body of Parker in a separate case for habeas
corpus.

There is also no intent to remove Parker from the protection of law for a prolonged period of
time.
Furthermore, there is no evidence of the relation between Callo and Parker violating the rule on
who may file.

DISPOSITIVE:
PETITION IS DENIED FOR LACK OF MERIT