MCLELAOAGCITY PRIMERONTHERULEON THEWRITOFAMPARO A.M.NO.

07912SC
By: DEAN ED VINCENT S. ALBANO College of Law University of Perpetual Help Laguna QWhatisapetitionforawritofamparo? Ans:Thepetitionforawritofamparoisaremedyavailabletoanypersonwhoserighttolife, libertyandsecurityisviolatedorthreatenedwithisolationbyanunlawfulactoromissionofa publicofficialoremployee,orofaprivateindividualorentity. Thewritshallcoverextralegalkillingsandenforceddisappearancesorthreatsthereof. (Sec.1). QWhatconstitutionalrightsareprotectedbythewritofamparo? Ans:Therightsofapersontolife,libertyandsecurityareprotectedbythewritofamparo. QAscomparedtootherjurisdictionswhichprotectallconstitutionalrights,whyis thewritapplicableonlytolife,libertyandsecurity? Ans:Thereasonisthatthereareotherremediestoprotecttherightsofaperson,likethewrit ofhabeascorpusandnowthewritofhabeasdata. QHowistherulecomparedtothesameruleinotherjurisdictions? Ans:Itisbroaderinitscoverage.Inothercountries,thewritcoversonlyactualviolations.In thePhilippines,itcoversnotonlyactualactsdonebuteventhreatenedviolationsofrights, libertyandsecurity.Itevencoversactsofprivateindividualsorentities. QThewritcoversextrajudicialkillings.Whatdoyouunderstandbytheconcept? Ans:Theyarekillingscommittedwithoutdueprocessoflaw.Theseincludesalvagingseven ofsuspectedcriminals.Thereasonforthisisthat,evenifapersonisacriminal,heisstill entitledtoenjoyrightsunderthelawandtheConstitution. QA,aradiocommentatororanewspapercolumnisthasalwaysbeencriticizingB,a 1

highgovernmentofficialforhiscorruptandillegalacts.BthreatenedtokillAandhis familyifhewouldpersistindoingso.CanAfileapetitionfortheissuanceofawritof amparo? Ans:Yes,becausetherulecoversthosethreatstotakethelifeofapersonwhoopenly criticizesagovernmentofficial.Thereisaviolationofhisliberty,orthefreedomofexpression whichheisdoingwithintheboundsofthelaw.ItmustberecalledthattheSConcesaidthat ifaprivateindividualisawareofthesinsofapublicofficialandkeepsquiet,then,thatis equallyhissin.(Manuelvs.Pano). QWhatconstituteenforceddisappearances? Ans: They may constitute arrest or detention or abduction of a person by a government official or organized groups or private individuals acting with the acquiescence of the government. It mayalso come in the form ofrefusal ofthe State to disclose the fate or whereaboutsofapersonorarefusaltoacknowledgethedeprivationoflibertyofaperson whichplaceshimoutsidetheprotectionofthelaw.(AnexampleisthecaseofJunLozada). QWhomayfilethepetitionforwritofamparo? Ans:Thepetitionmaybefiledbytheaggrievedpartyorbyanyqualifiedpersonorentityin thefollowingorder: (a) Anymemberoftheimmediatefamily,namely:thespouse,childrenandparentsofthe aggrievedparty; (b) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the fourth civil degreeofconsanguinityor affinity, in defaultofthosementioned in the precedingparagraph;or (c) Any concerned citizen, organization, association orinstitution, ifthere isno known memberoftheimmediatefamilyorrelativeoftheaggrievedparty. Thefilingofapetitionbytheaggrievedpartysuspendstherightofallotherauthorized partiestofilesimilarpetitions.Likewise,thefilingofthepetitionbyanauthorizedpartyon behalfoftheaggrievedpartysuspendstherightofallothers,observingtheorderestablished herein.(Sec.2). QWhydoestheruleprovideforanorderofpersonswhocanfilethepetition? Ans:Thisistopreventtheindiscriminateandgroundlessfilingofthepetitionthatmaycause prejudicetothelife,libertyorsecurityoftheaggrievedparty. QWheremaythepetitionbefiled? Ans: It may be filed with the RTC of the place where the threat, act or omission was committedoranyofitselementsoccurred,withtheSandiganbayan,orCAortheSC,orany 2

justiceofsuchcourts.(Sec.3). QIffiledwiththeSB,CAorSC,isitenforceableanywhereinthePhilippines? Ans:Yes,thewritshallbeenforceableanywhereinthePhilippines.(Sec.3). QTowhomisthewritreturnableiffiledwiththeSBorCA? Ans:Itisreturnabletobeforesuchcourtsoranyjusticethereof,ortotheRTCoftheplace wherethethreat,actoromissionwascommittedoranyofitselementsoccurred.(Sec.3). QTowhomisitreturnableiffiledwiththeRTC? Ans:ItisreturnabletotheRTCoranyjudgethereof.(Sec.3). QTowhomisitreturnableiffiledwiththeSC? Ans:ItisreturnabletotheSCoranyjusticethereof,ortotheCA,SBoranyofitsjustices,or theRTCwherethethreat,actoromissionwascommittedoranyitsofelementsoccurred. (Sec.3). QWhenthepetitionisfiled,isthereaneedtopaydocketfees? Ans:No.ThisisinaccordancewiththefreeaccesstothecourtclauseintheConstitution. QStatethecontentsofthepetition. Ans:Thepetitionshallbesignedandverifiedandshallallegethefollowing: (a) Thepersonalcircumstancesofthepetitioner; (b) Thenameandpersonalcircumstancesoftherespondentresponsibleforthethreat, act or omission, or, if the name is unknown or uncertain, the respondent may be describedbyanassumedappellation; (c) Therighttolife,libertyandsecurityoftheaggrievedpartyviolatedorthreatenedwith violationbyanunlawfulactoromissionoftherespondent,andhowsuchthreator violation is committed with the attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits; (d) Theinvestigationconducted,ifany,specifyingthenames,personalcircumstances, andaddressesoftheinvestigatingauthorityorindividuals,aswellasthemannerand conductoftheinvestigation,togetherwithanyreport; (e) Theactsandrecoursestakenbythepetitionertodeterminethefateorwhereaboutsof theaggrievedpartyandtheidentityofthepersonresponsibleforthethreat,actor omission;and (f) Thereliefprayedfor. 3

Thepetitionmayincludeageneralprayerforotherjustandequitablerelies.(Sec.5). QExplainthereasonfortherequirementthatthepetitionshouldbeverified. Ans:Thisistoenhancethetruthfulnessofitsallegationsandtopreventgroundlesssuits whichmayhampertheadministrationofjustice. QWhatarethepurposesoftheruleinrequiringthataffidavitsbeattachedtothe petition? Ans:Theaffidavitsserve:(1)tostandasthedirecttestimonyoftheaffiant;(2)tofacilitatethe resolutionofthepetitionconsideringthesummarynatureoftheproceedings. Q Why does the rule require that the petitioner should allege the actions and recoursestakenbyhimtodeterminethefateorwhereaboutsoftheaggrievedparty andtheidentityofthepersonresponsibleforthethreat,actoromission? Ans:Thisistopreventprematurerecoursetothewrit,ifnotmisuseofthesame.Itmight evenbeusedforpurposesoffishingexpedition. QWhatisthedutyofthecourtwhenapetitionforawritofamparoisfiled? Ans:Thecourtshallissuethewritimmediatelyifonthefaceofit,itoughttoissue.Hecan evenissueitinhishand.(Sec.6). QWhenthewritisissuedhowsoonshallitbeheard? Ans:Thewritshallsetthedateandtimeforsummaryhearingnotlaterthanseven(7)days fromthedateofitsissuance.(Sec.6). QWhatistheequivalentofthereturnmadebytherespondent? Ans:Thereturnisinitselfthecommentoranswertothepetition.Therespondentshallthen allegehisdefenseordefenseswhichifnotinterposed,willbedeemedwaived. QWillthewritissueuponthefilingofpetition? Ans:Yes,itwillissueasamatterofcoursewhenonthefaceofit,itoughttoissue. QWhathappensafterthereturnisfiled? Ans:Thecourtshallconductasummaryhearingandifpetitionerisabletoprovehiscauseof action,theprivilegeofthewritofamparoshallbegranted.Ingrantingit,thecourtwillgrant appropriatereliefstothepetitioner.

QHowshallthewritbeserved? Ans: It shall be served upon the respondent. If not, it can be served under the rules of substitutedservice.(Sec.8). QWhydoestheruleprovideforsubstitutedservice? Ans:Toavoidasituationwherethepersonconcernedmayevadeserviceofthewrit,thus, prejudicingtherightsoftheaggrievedparty.Therespondent,especiallyifheisagovernment officialmayeasilybesentabroadonamissiontothwarttheserviceofthewritandthiswould hampertheapplicationforthewrittoprotectthelife,libertyandsecurityoftheaggrieved party. QWhatarethecontentsofthereturnoftheserviceofthewrit? Ans:Withinseventytwo(72)hoursafterserviceofthewrit,therespondentshallfileaverified writtenreturntogetherwithsupportingaffidavitswhichshall,amongotherthings,containthe following: (a) The lawful defenses to show that the respondent did not violate or threaten with violationtherighttolife,libertyorsecurityoftheaggrievedparty,throughanyactor omission; (b) Thestepsoractionstakenbytherespondenttodeterminethefateorwhereaboutsof the aggrieved party and the person or persons responsible for the threat, act or omission. (c) Allrelevantinformationinthepossessionoftherespondentpertainingtothethreat, actoromissionagainsttheaggrievedparty;and (d) If the respondentisa publicofficial oremployee, the return shall further state the actionsthathavebeenorwillstillbetaken: i. toverifytheidentityoftheaggrievedparty; ii. torecoverandpreserveevidencerelatedtothedeathordisappearanceofthe personidentifiedinthepetitionwhichmayaidintheprosecutionoftheperson orpersonsresponsible; iii. toidentifywitnessesandobtainstatementsfromthemconcerningthedeathor disappearance; iv. todeterminethecause,manner,locationandtimeofdeathordisappearance aswellasanypatternorpracticethatmaybebroughtaboutbythedeathor disappearance. v. to identify and apprehend the person or persons involved in the death or disappearance;and vi. tobringthesuspectedoffendersbeforeacompetentcourt. Thereturnshallalsostateothermattersrelevanttotheinvestigation,itsresolutionand theprosecutionofthecase. 5

Ageneraldenialoftheallegationsinthepetitionshallnotbeallowed.(Sec.9).(See: Martinezvs.Mendoza). QExplaintherationalefortherequirementthatthereturnshouldbeadetailedone. Ans:Thisistohelpinthedeterminationofwhethertherespondentfulfilledwiththestandard conductrequiredbytherule.Itwillalsopreventtheineffectivenessofthewritof habeas corpuswheretherespondentwouldsimplydenyhavingcustodyoftheaggrievedparty.(See: Martinezvs.Mendoza). QWhydoestheruleproscribegeneraldenialinthereturn? Ans: So that all the pieces of evidence relevant to the resolution of the petition may be presentedespeciallyasthattheproceedingisasearchforthetruth. QWhatistheeffectiftherespondentdoesnotpleadalldefenses? Ans:Alldefensesshallberaisedinthereturn,otherwisetheyshallbedeemedwaived.(Sec. 10). QWhatisreasonfortheprohibitionofcertainmotionsandpleadings? Ans:Sothattheproceedingsmaybeexpeditedespeciallysothatthelife,libertyandsecurity of a person are at stake. Furthermore, it is like the rule on summary procedure, the proceedingsaresummaryinnature. QIfthereisagroundforamotiontodismissonthegroundoflackofjurisdiction overthesubjectmatter,maytherespondentfilesuchmotion? Ans:No,otherwise,itwillcausedelay.Instead,heshouldallegeitinthereturnsothecourt mayresolveit. QConsideringthatthepetitionissummaryinnature,whatmotionsareprohibited? Ans:Thefollowingpleadingsandmotionsareprohibited: (a) Motiontodismiss; (b) Motionforextensionoftimetofilereturn,opposition,affidavit,positionpaperandother pleadings; (c) Dilatorymotionforpostponement; (d) Motionforabillofparticulars; (e) Counterclaimorcrossclaim; (f) Thirdpartycomplaint; (g) Reply; (h) Motiontodeclarerespondentindefault; (i) Intervention; 6

(j) Memorandum; (k) Motionforreconsiderationofinterlocutoryordersorinterimrelieforders;and (l) Petitionfor certiorari,mandamus orprohibitionagainstanyinterlocutoryorder.(Sec. 11). QWhatistheeffectiftherespondentfailstomakeareturn? Ans:Thecourtorjudgeshallproceedtohearthepetitionexparte.(Sec.12). Q What is the reason for the ex parte hearing if the respondent fails to make a return? Ans:Topreventfrustrationtotherighttolife,libertyorsecurityofthepetitioner. QWhatisthenatureofthehearingonthepetition? Ans:Thehearingonthepetitionshallbesummary.However,thecourt,justiceorjudgemay call for a preliminary conference to simplify the issues and determine the possibility of obtainingstipulationsandadmissionsfromtheparties. Thehearingshallbefromthedaytodayuntilcompletedandgiventhesamepriority aspetitionsforhabeascorpus.(Sec.13). QWhyisthehearing/proceedingsummaryinnature? Ans:Thisissobecausethelife,libertyandsecurityofapersonareatstake.Ifdelayedand thepersoniskilled,then,thepurposeoftherulewouldbedefeated. QWhatreliefsmaythecourtissueuponthefilingofthepetition? Ans:Uponfilingofthepetitionoratanytimebeforefinaljudgment,thecourt,justiceorjudge maygrantanyofthefollowingreliefs: (a) Temporary Protection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon motion or motu proprio,mayorderthatthepetitionerortheaggrievedpartyandanymemberofthe immediate family may be protected in a government agency or by an accredited person or private institution capable of keeping and securing their safety. If the petitionerisanorganization,associationorinstitutionreferredtoinSection3(c)ofthis Rule,theprotectionmaybeextendedtotheofficersinvolved. TheSupremeCourtshallaccreditthepersonsandprivateinstitutionsthatshallextend temporary protection to the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any member of the immediatefamily,inaccordancewithguidelineswhichitshallissue.

The accredited persons and private institutions shall comply with the rules and conditionsthatmaybeimposedbythecourt,justiceorjudge. (b) InspectionOrder.Thecourt,justiceorjudge,uponverifiedmotionandafterdue hearing,mayorderanypersoninpossessionorcontrolofadesignatedlandorother property, to permit entry for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographingthepropertyoranyrelevantobjectoroperationthereon. The motion shall state in detail the place or places to be inspected. It shall be supported by affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge of the enforceddisappearanceorwhereaboutsoftheaggrievedparty. Ifthemotionisopposedonthegroundofnationalsecurityoroftheprivilegednatureof theinformation,thecourt,justiceorjudgemayconductahearinginchamberstodetermine themeritoftheopposition. Themovantmustshowthattheinspectionorderisnecessarytoestablishtherightof theaggrievedpartyallegedtobethreatenedorviolated. The inspection order shall specify the person or persons authorized to make the inspection and the date, time, place and manner of making the inspection and may prescribeotherconditionstoprotecttheconstitutionalrightsofallparties.Theorder shallexpirefive(5)daysafterthedateofitsissuance,unlessextendforjustifiablereasons. (c) ProductionOrder.Thecourt,justiceorjudge,uponverifiedmotionandafterdue hearing,mayorderanypersoninpossession,custodyorcontrolofanydesignated documents,papers,books,accounts,letters,photographs,objectsortangiblethings, orobjectsindigitizedorelectronicform,whichconstituteorcontainevidencerelevant to the petition or the return, to produce and permit their inspection, copying or photographingbyoronbehalfofthemovant. Themotionmaybeopposedonthegroundofnationalsecurityorofthe privileged natureoftheinformation,inwhichcasethecourt,justiceor judgemayconductahearingin chamberstodeterminethemeritofthe opposition. Thecourt,justiceorjudgeshallprescribeotherconditionstoprotectthe constitutional rightsofalltheparties. (d) WitnessProtectionOrder.Thecourt,justiceorjudge,uponmotionormotuproprio, mayreferthewitnessestotheDepartmentofJusticeforadmissiontotheWitness Protection,SecurityandBenefitProgram,pursuanttoRepublicActNo.6981. The court, justice or judge may also refer the witnesses to other government agencies, or to accredited persons or private institutions capable of keeping and securingtheirsafety.(Sec.14).Note:Thereasonforthisisthat,thepersonmaynot 8

wanttheDOJprotectionespeciallyifheisagainstthegovernmentlikeMr.JunLozadaor evenRoseBud.

QWhatisthereasonforthegrantingofatemporaryprotectionorder? Ans:Thisissobecauseitisessentialtothelife,libertyandsecurity,safetyoftheaggrieved partyandeventheimmediatemembersofhisfamilyoncethepetitionisfiled. QMaythecourtissuethetemporaryprotectionorderwithoutmotion? Ans:Yes,itcanbeissuedmotupropriosincethelife;libertyandsecurityofthepetitionerare atstake. Ifthereisamotion,itneednotbeverified. Q How do you distinguish a temporary protection order from an inspection and productionorder? Ans:Temporaryprotectionordermaybeissuedexparteorifbymotion,themotionneednot be verified. Production and inspection orders need hearings before they are issued. The motionsareverified. Q Why is there a need for a motion when the petitioner seeks for an inspection order? Ans:Thisisduetothesensitivenatureoftheorderthattheremustbeamotionandthe motionshouldbedulyheard. QWhatistheremedyiftheinspectionorderisissuedwithgraveabuseofdiscretion onthepartofthejudge? Ans:Ifthejudgeabuseshisdiscretioninissuingthewritaswhenitcompromisenational security,theaggrievedpartymayfileapetitionforcertiorariwiththeSupremeCourt. QIstheinspectionorderavailabletobothparties? Ans:Yes,itisavailabletothepetitionerandrespondent. QStatethereasonwhyaproductionordermayonlyissueuponmotion? Ans:Thisisduetoitssensitivenature. QMaytherespondentlikewiseaskforinterimreliefs? 9

Ans:Yes.Uponverifiedmotionoftherespondentandafterduehearing,thecourt,justiceor judgemayissueaninspectionorderorproductionorderunderparagraphs(b)and(c)ofthe precedingsection. Amotionforinspectionorderunderthissectionshallbesupportedbyaffidavitsor testimoniesofwitnesseshavingpersonalknowledgeofthedefensesoftherespondent.(Sec. 15). QStatetherationalefortheissuanceofinterimreliefs. Ans:Thisistoensurefairnessintheproceedings. QWhathappensifthereisrefusaltomakeareturn? Ans:Thecourt,justiceorjudgemayordertherespondentwhorefusestomakeareturn,or whomakesafalsereturn,oranypersonwhootherwisedisobeysorresistsalawfulprocess ororderofthecourttobepunishedforcontempt.Thecontemnormaybeimprisonedor imposedafine.(Sec.16). QWhatisthedegreeofproofnecessarytoestablishtheclaimfortherighttothe writ? Ans:Thepartiesshallestablishtheirclaimsbysubstantialevidence. Therespondentwhoisaprivateindividualorentitymustprovethatordinarydiligence asrequiredbyapplicablelaws,rulesandregulationswasobservedintheperformanceof duty. The respondent who isa publicofficial oremployee must prove thatextraordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in the performanceofduty. Therespondentpublicofficialoremployeecannotinvokethepresumptionthatofficial dutyhasbeenregularlyperformedtoevaderesponsibilityorliability.(Sec.17). QWithinwhattimeshouldthecourtdecidethepetition? Ans: The court shall render judgment within ten (10) days from the time the petition is submittedfordecision.Iftheallegationsinthepetitionareprovenbysubstantialevidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate;otherwise,theprivilegeshallbedenied.(Sec.18). QAfterjudgmentisrendered,towhatcourtmayitbeappealed? 10

Ans:AnypartymayappealfromthefinaljudgmentorordertotheSupremeCourtunderRule 45.Theappealmayraisequestionsoffactorlaworboth.(Thisisanexceptiontotherule thattheSCdoesnotreviewfacts,becauseoftheverynatureofthepetitionthatthelife, libertyandsecurityofapersonareindangerofviolationorbeingviolated.). Theperiodofappealshallbefive(5)workingdaysfromthe date ofnotice ofthe adversejudgment. Theappealshallbegiventhesamepriorityasinhabeascorpuscases.(Sec.19). QWhatistheremedyfromajudgmentororderinapetitionforawritofamparo? Ans:TheremedyisappealunderRule45.Theruleallowsreviewoffactsandlawsincethe proceedingsinvolvedeterminationoffactslikeitssubjectsofenforceddisappearancesand extrajudicialkillings.Thereisaneedforareviewoffacts. QWhatdoesthecourtdoifthepetitionerorwitnessesdonotappearduringthe trial? Ans:Thecourtshallnotdismissthepetitionbutshallarchivethesame.(Sec.20). QDoesthefilingofthepetitionprecludethefilingofothercases? Ans:No,itshallnotprecludethefilingofseparatecriminal,civiloradministrativecases.(Sec. 21). QWhatisthenatureofawritofamparo? Ans:Itpartakesofthenatureofaprerogativewritasitisnotcriminal,civiloradministrativein nature.Itdoesnotsuspendthefilingofcriminal,civiloradministrativeactions. QAmparoproceedingsarenotcriminalinnature.Whatistheevidencethatwarrants thefilingofacriminalaction? Ans:Yes,theyarenotcriminalinnature,butifevidencewarrants,then,thecourtwillrefer thecasetotheDOJforcriminalprosecution. QIfacriminalcasehasalreadybeencommenced,maythecomplainantstillfilea separatepetitionforawritofamparo? Ans:No.Whenacriminalactionhasbeencommenced,noseparatepetitionforthewritshall befiled.Thereliefsunderthewritshallbeavailablebymotioninthecriminalcase. The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs available 11

underthewritofamparo.(Sec.22). Q What is the rationale behind the rule that if criminal proceedings have been commenced,nopetitionforawritofamparoshallbefiled? Ans:Thisistopreventthedifficultiesthatmaybeencounteredbythepetitionerwhenthe amparoactionisallowedtoproceedseparatelyfromthecriminalprosecution.Thetwocourts mayevenrenderconflictingorders. QWhatistheeffectifacriminalorciviloradministrativecaseisfiledafterthefiling ofthepetitionforawritofamparo? Ans:Whenacriminalactionisfiledsubsequenttothefilingofapetitionforthewrit,thelatter shallbeconsolidatedwiththecriminalaction. Whenacriminalactionandaseparatecivilactionarefiledsubsequenttoapetitionfor awritofamparo,thelattershallbeconsolidatedwiththecriminalaction. After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to apply to the dispositionofthereliefsinthepetition.(Sec.23).

NOTES QWiththepromulgationofthewritofamparo,hasthewritofhabeascorpusbeen renderedsuperfluous? Ans:No,becauseitisavailablenotonlywhenonehasbeendeprivedofhislibertybuteven whensuchdeprivationisthreatened.Infact,itisavailableinanallencompassingsituation asregardstherighttolife,libertyandsecurity.Inshort,itprovidesforabroaderandwider protectiontoanindividual,unlikethewritofhabeascorpuswhichaffordsprotectiononlyto therighttoliberty. Q Compared to the writ of amparo, what is the core of the power of the writ of habeascorpus? Ans:Thecoreofthepowerofthewritofhabeascorpusistocommandthepersontowhom thewritisdirectedtoproducethebodyofthepersonrestrainedoflibertybeforethecourtor judgedesignatedinthewritatthetimeandtheplacespecified.Suchpowerisnotprovided forinthewritofamparo.Inthewritofhabeascorpus,theprotectionislimitedtothelibertyof theperson. QIfthewritofamparoisissued,whatdoesitdo?

12

Ans:Whenissued,itdoestwothings,like: (1) itallowsthecourttogranttheaggrievedpartyorthepetitionerinterimreliefsprovided forunderSec.14whichisnotavailablewhenthewritofhabeascorpusisfiled. (2) itsetsthedateandtimeforsummaryhearingofthepetition. QWhatactionsmaythecourtdowhenapetitionforawritofamparoisfiled? Ans:Thecourtmayissuethewritwhenthepetitionisfiledandwhenitiswarranted;and renderajudgmentaftersummaryhearing. QCanthewritofamparoissueduponthefilingofthepetitionrequiretheproduction ofthepersondeprivedoflibertyandashowingofthelegalityofhisdetention? Ans:No,otherwise,heshouldfileapetitionforhabeascorpusbecausethatisthefunctionof thewritofhabeascorpus,notthewritofamparo. Q If a person files a petition for habeas corpus, may the court declare the law unconstitutional? Ans:Yes.Thewritofhabeascorpusnotonlydirectstheproductionofthebodyoftheperson detainedorheldincustody;italsoallowsthejudgetoinquireintothelegalityofthedetention and, when necessary to the resolution of the issue declare the law under which he is detainedunconstitutional.Thisissobecausethehearinginapetitionfor habeascorpus is notsummaryinnaturebutafullblownone,unlikeinapetitionforawritofamparo. QHowaboutisapetitionforawritofamparoisfiled,maythecourtdeclarethelaw unconstitutional? Ans: No. The court merely grants the individual denied of his constitutional rights by government action relief, but not to declare the law behind the state action void or unconstitutional. QWhycannotthecourtdeclarethelawunconstitutional? Ans:ThisissobecauseSection13providesforasummaryhearingandhasanumberof motionscommonlybarredinsummaryproceedings(Sec.17).Section17requiresmorethan substantialevidencetosupportthepetition.Hence,anamparoproceedingcannotpassupon theconstitutionalityofalawthathasbeenraisedasadefenseincaseswheretheaggrieved partyisdeprivedofliberty. QWhatisthenthebasicfunctionofthewritofamparo? Ans:Itsbasicfunctionistocausethedisclosureoftheplaceofdetentionorincarcerationof 13

theaggrievedparty,andtopassupontheissueofarbitraryorillegaldetention.Hence,it cannotbeanamparocontraleges. QUnderSec.18,iftheallegationsinthepetitionareprovenbysubstantialevidence, thecourtshallgranttheprivilegeofthewritandsuchreliefsasmaybeproperand appropriate,otherwise,itshallbedenied.Howdowereconcilethisprovisionwiththe provisionsofSec.6whichstatesthatuponthefilingofthepetition,thecourtshall immediatelyordertheissuanceofthewritifonitsfaceitoughttoissue? Ans:Thereconciliationmaybelikethis.Uponthefilingofthepetition,thecourtdetermines onthebasisoftheallegationsinthepetition,whetherornot,itwillissue.Ifuponitsface,it oughttoissue,then,thecourtshallissuethewrit.Inthemeantime,thecourtmaygrant interimreliefsunderSec.14.Then,itsetsthepetitionforasummaryhearingandrenders judgmentbywhichthecourtdecreesthemeasuresnecessaryfortheprotectionoflife,liberty orsecurity,orforthevindicationoftheserightswhenviolated,aswellasotherreliefsprayed for.Thejudgmentbringsanendtotheproceedings.Ineffect,theissuanceofthewritifonly preparatorytothejudgmentespeciallysothatitisdirectedtothepersonwhomayhave custodyofanotherorresponsibletothethreatonthelife,libertyandsecurityofapersonto makeareturnandallegehisdefenses. QIsthereaneedforahearingfortheissuanceofthewritofamparo? Ans:No,becauseitcanbeissued exparte.UnderSec.6,thecourtshallissuethewrit immediatelyuponthefilingofthepetitionifwarrantedonthebasisoftheallegations. QIfthereisathreatenedviolation ofarightandthepetitionisfiled,what isits effect? Ans:Ifthewritisissuedpriortothehearing,itimpedestheperpetrationofthethreatenedact. Furtherreconciliation. Thepersoncitedorthepersonagainstwhomthewritissuespriortothehearingis orderedtoprovideinformationonthatwhichistheobjectofthecomplaintoftheviolationof rights. The judgment is issued only after receipt by the court of information from the respondent. Theissuanceofthewritexparteisanoticetotherespondentthathisactsoromission isthesubjectofjudicialscrutinyandconstitutesapossibleviolationoftheprotectedrights.It isademandforhimtointerposeorprovidethecourtwithhisdefenses,iftherebeany. QWhatistheextentoftheavailabilityoftherule? Ans:Theruleasintendedislimitedviolationsoflife,libertyorsecurity. 14

AmparoandHumanRights Cases decided by the InterAmerican Commission on HumanRights. These cases wouldshowthatthewritofamparohasbeenusedtoinrelationtotheprotectionofhuman rights. In EmeritaGonzalesvs.CostaRica, Case 11.553,RepostNo.48/96,October16, 1996, Montoya complained against rules for athlete competitions alleging that they were deliberatelydiscriminatoryagainstwomensincetheyprovidedforunequalprizesformen and women winners and for fewer categories for women competitors than women competitors.Indisputingherclaim,thegovernmentofCostaRicaarguedthatthewritof amparowasavailabledomesticallytohertoprotectherrightsasinfact;ithasbeeninvoked byitsnationalsaswellasforeigners.Infact,itwaspointedoutthatthewritofamparocanbe usedtonullifyadministrativenormsandactions.Therulesofprocedureoftheracecould havebeenquestionedbyherthroughawritofamparo.Sinceshedidnotfollowthisstep,she wasnotentitledtothewritofamparo. InAlbertoTeriervs.Chile,CaseNo.5713,RepostNo.56/8,October16,1981,there was a complaint against the Chile government that it was refusing him and his wife re admissionintothecountry.ThegovernmentassailedtheremedytotheCommissionarguing thatthedecisionoftheMinistryoftheInteriortodenyreentitycouldhavebeenreversedby applyingtothecourtsforawritofamparo. InthecaseofMarcosvs.Manglapus,therewasacomplaintoftheMarcosesthatthey wererefusedadmissionintothePhilippinesdespitetheirinvocationoftheirrighttoreturnto thePhilippines.TheSCruledthatthereisnosuchrightguaranteedbytheConstitutionto returntoone'scountrybutthatisarightguaranteedbytheUniversalDeclarationofHuman Rights.AtthetimetheSCdecisiondenyingthemtherighttoreturntothePhilippines,the ruleonAmparohasnotyetbeenpromulgated.Today,ifaFilipinoisrefusedadmissiontothe Philippines,hecanseekforawritofamparofortheprotectionofhislibertyorrighttoreturn tothePhilippines. Notes: In Argentina, the husband of a woman complained about the procedure to which visitorstothefederalpenitentiarywhereherhusbandwasincarcerated.Accordingtothe woman,wheneversheandherdaughtervisitedherhusband,theyweresubjectedtovaginal searcheswhichaccordingtothemweredegradinganddemeaning,hence,shefiledapetition forawritofamparodemandingthattheinspectionscease.TheCFIdenieditrulingthatthe searcheswereappropriateformaintainingprisonsecurity.Theappellatecourtreversedthe order/judgment. The SC of Argentina upheld the measures that were the object of the complaint/petitionrulingthattheywerenotflagrantlyarbitraryintermsofthelawofamparo sincetherewerenoothermethodsfordetectingobjectsinthebodyofvisitorscominginto physicalcontractwithinmates.(Xvs.ArgentinaCaseNo.10.506,October15,1996,Repost 15

No.38/96). InWalterHumbertoVasquezvs.Pern,CaseNo.11.66,October16,1977,RepostNo. 46/97,ajusticeoftheSupremeCourtofPeruwasoustedfromoffice,amongthe13justice removedbyPresidentAlbertoFujimoriseizedcontrolofkeybranchesofthegovernment.He evenoutlawedallclaimsforamparowhichimpugnedtheeffectoftheimplementationofhis Decrees.Theresultwasthatthedismissedjusticeswerenotabletoavailofamparotoassail theirdismissal. QDoestheConstitutionprovideforthewritofamparo? Ans:No,thereisnoexpressprovisiononthewritofamparo. QWheredidthewritofamparooriginate;giveitsconcept. Ans: It originated in Mexico. Amparo means to protect, hence, it is an effective and inexpensivemeansfortheprotectionofconstitutionalrights.(AdolfS.Azcuna,TheWritof Amparo:ARemedytoEnforceFundamentalRights,37Ateneo,L.J.15(1993)). QArethereprovisionsintheConstitutionprovidingfortheamparoprotection? Ans:Yes,likeSection1,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionwhichdefinestheexpandedconcept ofjudicialpower,toincludethedutyofthecourtsofjusticetosettleallcontroversiesinvolving rightswhicharelegallydemandableandenforceable,anddeterminewhetherornotthere hasbeengraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdictiononthepartof anybranchorinstrumentalityofthegovernment.ThesecondclauseofSec.1whichisthe graveabuseclause,accordsageneralprotectiontohumanrightsgivenbyamparocasacion, andamparoadministrativo. QWhatisamparocasacion?IsitrecognizedintheConstitution? Ans:Itisthepowerofjudicialreviewoftheconstitutionalityandlegalityofajudicialdecision. ItisrecognizedundertheprovisionsofSec.5(2)oftheConstitutionwhichprovidesthatthe SupremeCourtshallhavethepowertoreview,revise,reverse,modify,oraffirmonappealor certiorariasthelawortheRulesofCourtmayprovide,finaljudgmentsandotherordersof lowercourts.Thisisotherwiseknownasthepowerofjudicialreview. QHowistherulemakingpoweroftheSCdescribed? Ans:InEchegarayvs.SecretaryofJustice,G.R.No.132601,January19,1999,itwassaid: TherulemakingpowerofthisCourtwasexpanded.Thiscourtforthe firsttimewasgiventhepowertopromulgaterulesconcerningtheprotection andenforcementofconstitutionalrights.TheCourtwasalsograntedforthe 16

firsttimethepowertodisapproverulesofprocedureofspecialcourtsand quasijudicialbodies.Butmostimportant,the1987Constitutiontookaway the power of Congress to repeal, alter, or supplement rules concerning pleading,practiceandprocedure.Infine,thepowertopromulgaterulesof pleading, practice,and procedure isnolongershared bythisCourtwith Congress,moresowiththeExecutive.(Peoplevs.Lacson,G.R.No.14953, April1,2003). QIfthewritof amparo isnotexpresslyprovidedforintheConstitution,canitbe saidthatitisimpliedlyprovidedtherein? Ans:Yes.Itisdeemedprovided/includedintheprovisionempoweringtheSCtopromulgate rulesconcerningtheprotectionandenforcementofconstitutionalrights. Q Can the writ of amparo be both a human rights protector and a justice tool? Explain. Ans:Yes,forsomereasons. (1) Thefirstreasonisthatthepetitionforawritofamparoisaremedyavailabletoany personwhererighttolife,libertyandsecurityisviolatedorthreatened.Notethatthebasic rightstolife,libertyandsecurity,rightsthatmakemanandwomanhuman,arecovered.The righttolifereferstotherighttoexistenceandtherighttotheprotectionofphysicaland mentalattributeswhichapersonmusthave,inordertobeabletoenjoyagoodlife.Theright toliberty,writesJusticeMalcolminRubivs.ProvincialBoardofMindoro,G.R.No.L14078, March7,1914,cannotbedwarfedintomerefreedomfromphysicalrestraintofthepersonof thecitizen,butisdeemedtoembracetherightofmantoenjoythefacultiesendowedbyhis Creator.TherighttosecurityisnotmentionedintheBillofRightsofthe1987Constitution but is mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International CovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.Butreadingthetwointernationalinstruments,one gets the idea that the right to security refers to one's right not to be subjected to unreasonablesearchesandseizuresandnottobesubjectedtoarbitraryandillegalarrests whichisfoundinSection2,ArticleIIIof1987Constitution. (2) Thesecondreasonisthatthewritofamparocoversnotonlygovernmentofficialsbut alsoprivateindividualsorentities.Entitiesrefertoartificialorjuridicalpersonssincetheytoo arecapableofcommittinganactoromission.TheFilipinowritisbroaderthantheoriginal Mexicanamparobecausethelatterappliesonlytopublicofficials.ThebroaderFilipinowritis consistent with the 1987 Constitution because the Commission on Human Rights can investigateviolationscommittedbypublicofficialsandprivateindividuals. (3) Thethirdreasonisthatthepetitionmaybefilednotonlybytheaggrievedpartybut alsobyanyconcernedcitizen,organization,associationorinstitutionifthereisnoknown memberoftheimmediatefamilyorrelativeoftheaggrievedparty.Thisisarecognitionof civilsocietyorganizationsandtheimportantrolethattheyplayinthelegalandmetalegal 17

strugglesofvictimsofinjustices.ClosetotheFilipinoamparoistheArgentineamparowhich provides that the petition may be filed by the damaged party, the Ombudsman and the associationswhichfostersuchends. (4) Thefourthreasonisthatthepetitionerisexemptedfromthepaymentofthedocketfee andotherfeeswhenfilingthepetition.Thisiswelcomenewstothepoorbecausemostofthe victimsofextralegal killingsand disappearancesarethedeprivedand marginalized.This provisionbreatheslifetoSection12,ArticleIII,1987ConstitutionthatprovidesFreeaccess tothecourts...shallnotbedeniedtoanypersonbyreasonofpoverty. (5) Thefifthreasonisthattheruleabandonstraditionallegaldoctrinesandprinciplesthat arenothelpfultotheobjectivesofthewrit.Theruledoesnotrequirethepetitionertoexhaust administrativeremedies,doesnotallowpublicofficialstoinvokepresumptionthatofficialduty hasbeenregularlyperformedtoevaderesponsibilityorliabilityanddoesnotallowdismissal ofpetitionbutonlyitsarchivingifuponitsdeterminationitcannotproceedforavalidcause likefailureofpetitionersorwitnessestoappearduetothreatsontheirlives;and,doesnot allowgeneraldenial. (6) The sixth reason is that while the rule abandons notsohelpful legal principles, it adoptsnewlegalparadigmsthatwillenhancetheprotectivecharacterofthewrit.Thesenew legalparadigmsaretheinterimreliefsthatareavailabletothepartiesandcanbegiven immediatelyafterthefilingofthepetitionoratanytimebeforefinaljudgment.Thesereliefs are the temporary security order, inspection order, the protection order and the witness protectionorder.Undertheruleontemporaryprotectionorder,notonlyagovernmentagency can provide protection to the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any member of the immediatefamilybutalsoanaccreditedpersonorprivateinstitutioncapableofkeepingand securingtheirsafety. (7) TheseventhandfinalreasonisthattheFilipinoamparodiscouragespublicofficialsto make blanket denials of custody of victims of enforced disappearances. These blanket denialswerecommonduringtheMarcosregimeandcontributedalotinaggravatingthe problem of extralegal killings and disappearances. Section 9 of A.M. No. 07912SC commandstherespondenttofileaverifiedreturntogetherwithsupportingaffidavitswhich shall,amongothers,contain(a)thestepsoractionstakenbytherespondenttodetermine thefateorwhereaboutsoftheaggrievedpartyandthepersonorpersonsresponsibleforthe threats,actsoromission;(b)allrelevantinformationinthepossessionoftherespondent pertainingtothethreat,actoromissionagainsttheparty;(c)actionsthathavebeenorwill stillbetakentorecoverandpreserveevidencerelatedtothedeathordisappearanceofthe personidentifiedinthepetitionwhichmayaidintheprosecutionofthepersonorpersons responsible and to determine the cause, manner, location and time of death or disappearance. QMaytherespondentmakeareturnallegingageneraldenial? Ans:No.In Dizonvs.Eduardo,158SCRA470(1988),anenforceddisappearancecase, 18

JoseW.Diokno,bewailedandbemoanedtheinadequacyofthewritof habeascorpus in addressingthisproblemandsuggestedwaysonhowtomaketheremedymoreeffective. This inadequacy of the remedy was reflected in the ponencia of Chief Justice Claudio Teehankeewhenhesaid: III. The Court regrets that it cannot grant the relief sought by petitioners.Itisnottherepositoryofallremediesforeverygrievance.But theCourtdoesnotstatethatunderthefactsandcircumstancesaboveset forth, it is far from satisfied and as already indicated shares the grave doubts about public respondents' allegation that they had released the desaparecidosonSeptember24,1981,ninedaysaftertheyweretakeninto custody. Petitioners' charges of falsification of the detainees' alleged signaturesonthecertificatesofrelease,compoundedbytheirregularities andfailureofrespondentstofollowtheprescribedprocedureineffectingthe release for purposes of authentication and to produce and furnish the parentsuponrequestcopiesofthereleasecertificates(takingonemonthin thecaseofIsabelRamosandthreemonthsinthecaseofEduardoDizon) need thorough investigation. If duly determined, they would involve, as indicatedbyDiokno,prosecutionforcriminalcontempt,falsificationofpublic document,perjuryandviolationofArticle125oftheRevisedPenalCode requiring delivery of detained persons to the judicial authority within the periodsthereinfixed,andworse.Thisconnotesthattherespondentswith theirsubordinateswhoexecutedthesupportingaffidavits,MajorCabauatan andLt.Maranon,wereinvolvedinagrandconspiracyforthispurpose.The Courtcannotmakethisdetermination.Itisnotatrieroffacts,nordoesit have the meansand facilitiesto conduct such investigation of the grave charges at bar as well as of the whereabouts and fate of the desaparecidos. SITUATIONSINWRITOFAMPARO 1. Rightsgrouponreceivingendofamparo(DailyInquirer,January28,2008).

ThehumanrightsgroupKarapatanwhichhashelpedabusedvictimsandtheirfamilies seekprotectionfromstateagentsunderthewritofamparo,hasfounditselfonthereceiving endofthewritafterbeingaccusedofillegallydetainingsomeone. ThewifeandrelativesofElizerOrlinafiledapetitionforawritofamparowiththeSC askingtheSCtoordertherespondentstodesistfromharminghim,hisfamilyandrelatives andfromviolatingtheirrights.TheyalsoaskedtheSCtoallowthemtoinspectthesafe housesofKarapatanSouthernTagalog. TheyallegedthatElizerhasbeeninthecustodyoftheKarapatangroupagainsthis will.Theyareafraidthatunlessheisimmediatelyreleasedorhiswhereaboutsknown,hislife 19

maybeindanger.TheyallegedthatpetitionerandElizerweretoldbyKarapatanmembers thattheirsonwasinthecustodyofthemilitary.PuyosoneofthepetitionersandElizerwent to Gumaca,Quezon and metwithRodel,theirson who voluntarilydecided to beplaced underthecustodyofthemilitary,PuyoswenthomeaheadofElizerwhowastakenbythree (3)KarapatanmemberswithouthisconsentfromLavidezwhohadcustodyofElizerbefore hewastaken. 2.IfalawgraduatewhoisreviewingfortheBarExamimpregnatesagirlandrefuses tomarrythegirlandtheparentswouldthreatentofileacaseagainsthimintheSupreme CourttopreventhimfromtakingtheBarExam,willthewritofamparoissue? Thewritwillnotissuebecausethereisavalidreasontothreatenhim.Thereisalegal rightthatisenforceableanddemandable. 3. After the rendition of a judgment, a judge received a series of text messages threateninghim.Heevenreceiveanenvelopcontainingablackribbon.Canhefileapetition fortheissuanceofawritofamparo? **** TherearereportswheretheNPAsgotocommunitiesanddemandformoney,food suppliesandthelike.Canthepeoplegotocourtandaskfortheissuanceofthewritof amparo? OtherSituationsinWritofAmparo 1.In ArturoLozadavs.Arroyo,etal., G.R.No.181356,filedonFebruary6,2008 beforetheSC,petitioneralleged: (1) Last January 31, 2008, by virtue of its contempt powers, the Senate of the RepublicofthePhilippinesissuedaWarrantofArrestforRodolfoNoelI.Lozada,Jr.,(Jun Lozada for brevity), subject of this petition, for leaving the country on the day he was subpoenaedtotestifyattheSenateBlueRibbonCommitteehearingsontheZTENational BroadbandDeal (2) The ZTE investigation pertains to the alleged corruption involving the First GentlemanandhusbandofRespondentPres.GloriaArroyoontheZTEBroadbandcontract; (3) OnFebruary6,2008,petitionerandthefamilyofJunLozada,wasinformedbythe latterthathewasreturninghomeonthesaiddate.HewasslatedtoarriveinthePhilippines at4:40intheafternoonfromHongKongviaCathayPacificFlightNo.919; (4) Ataroundthesaidtime,membersofJunLozada'sfamily,aswellastheOfficeof theSenateSergeantatArmsandmediapractitionerswereonhandattheNAIATerminalIto witnessthearrivalofJunLozada.However,attheappointedtime,anddespitethefactthat CathayPacificlandedatitsscheduledtime,JunLozadadidnotdisembarkandexitthrough 20

thenormalchannelssuchaspassingthroughtheImmigrationandCustomsauthorities; (5) Petitioner failed to meet and locate Jun Lozada. The family members were distraughtanddisconsolatethatJunLozadawasnowheretobefound.Thereafter,petitioner receivedreportsthatJunLozadawasmetbyairportsecurityattheplanewhowereunderthe direct supervision and control of Gen. Angel Atutubo, Chief Security of NAIA. Petitioner furtherconfirmedthattheOfficeoftheSenateSergeantatArmsfailedtoeffectthearreston JunLozada; (6) Accordingtoreports,respondentGeneralAngelAtutubosurrenderedJunLozada to respondent SPO4 Roger Valeroso. In addition, in today's morning radio reports, respondentPNPChiefAvelinoRazonadmittedontheairthattheyhavecustodyoverthe personofJunLozada.Thisannouncementnotwithstanding,petitionerhasnosurfaced; (7) InatextmessageinLigao,Bicoldialecttohisfamily,JunLozadasaidthat: get AS

(i)Ipaayattulossasimbahannailuwasakonguananggabiasap. Lagunanaako.ASAP.(TranslationAskthechurchimmediatelyto meouttonightassoonaspossible.IminLagunanow.AS SOON POSSIBLE).

(8) Undersigned counsel tried to get in touch with the authorities including Gen. Atutubobuttherewerenoanswers; (9) Thefamily,distraughtandworried,decidedtoseekredressfromthecourtthrough the Writ of Amparo to ensure that all possible remedies are availed of considering the controversialnatureoftheinvolvementofJunLozada. (10) The right to life, liberty and security of Jun Lozada is threatened when the respondentsabductedhimfromtheairport.Thatthetakingwasarbitraryandthathedidnot knowwherehewasbeingbroughtareprovenbyhistextmessageinforminghisfamilythat he was being taken to Laguna and is pleading that he be surfaced with the help of the church; (11) ThisisaviolationofhisconstitutionalrightunderSection1ofArticleIIIofthe Constitutionwhichstatesthatnooneshallbedeprivedoflife,libertyandpropertywithout dueprocessoflaw. (12) Furthermore,theabductionanddetentionofJunLozadaareviolationsofhisother constitutionalrightsundertheBillofRights; (13) TherespondentshavenolegalbasistoholdJunLozada,especiallysincethereis astandingwarrantofarrestissuedbytheSenateonJunLozada. Therewasaprayerfortheissuanceofawritofamparo. 21

2. InthecaseofCeciliaOreaDrilon,et.al.v.Hon.RonaldoPuno,et.al., G.R.No.181067,filedonJanuary21,2008byABSCBNNewscrew,theyprayedforthe issuanceofawritofamparoallegingthattherearecontinuousthreattotheirlifesecurityand libertyasmembersofthepresseveniftheyareexercisingtheirprofessionasjournalistsand newscastersandmembersofthenewscrewofABSCBN.Intheirpetition,theyallegedthat; (1) TheywerelawfullyreformingtheirjournalisticdutiesaspartoftheABS_CBN NewsandCurrentAffairsGrouponNovember29,2007; (2) TheywerecoveringtheTrialofSenatorTrillanesandothersattheRTC,Makati whenthelatterdecidedtowalkoutfromthecourtroomandwalkedtotheManilaPeninsula Hotel,Makati,inprotestofwhatwashappeningincourt; (3) TheyweredispatchedbyABSCBNtothehoteltofurthercovertheincident;

(4) Therewerenegotiationsbetweenthegovernmentauthoritiesandthegroupof SenatorTrillanesforthelattertosurrenderbutinitially,therewasnopositiveresult,untilthe governmentforcesdisplayedforceandfiredshotsandteargaswerereleasedintothearea; (5) ThejournalistswereforcedtotakerefugeintheRizalfunctionroomofthehotel togetherwithotherpeoplewhowereinthepremises; (6) WhenthegroupofSenatorTrillanesfinallydecidedtosurrender,thejournalists wereshockedanddismayedsincetheywerearrestedandbroughttoCampBagongDiwa. (7) Despite their arrest, they were never charged but Gen. Razon even aired threatstothemediathatifthemediawillfilechargesagainstthemtheywouldalsofiled chargesagainstthemediaandsaid; Ehkunggustonilangparatinginsaganongpunto,ehsabihinnalang po (8) Likewise,SecretaryPunoairedthesamethreatsthatifmembersofthemedia wouldnotheedtheadviceofthepolicetoleavetheplaceincaseofemergency,then,they wouldbeforcedtoarrestthem.SecretaryRaulGonzalesairedthesamething. Aretheseactscoveredbythewritofamparo? Itmustbenotedthattherewasablatantviolationoftheconstitutionalrights,liberty andsecurityofthemembersofthemediasincetheywereillegallyarrested.Thethreatsand arrestwereintendedtointimidated,scare,cow,andbullythemembersofmedia.Infact, thereisachillingeffectonthefreedomofexpressionandtherighttoinformation.Thisis similartothecaseofBabstv.MinisterofNationalDefense,132SCRA316whereitwas 22

ruledthataninvitationgiventoajournalistbythemilitarytodetermineherwayofthinking basedonpastwritingshasachillingeffect,evenonfuturewritingsandthus,amountstoprior restraint. Casereferences: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Kapunan,Jr.v.AFPChiefofStaff,et.al.,December6,1988; Gonzalesv.Katigbak,137SCRA717; InRe:EmilJurado,Jr.,Adm.MatterNo.9052373,July12,1990; Nonv.DamesII,May20,1990; MiriamCollegeFoundation,Inc.v.CA,et.al.,December5,2000; Zaldivarv.Gonzales,Feb.1,1989;andOctober7,1988; Adiongv.Comelec,207SCRA712 Reyesv.Bagatsing,125SCRA553; Navarrov.Villegas,31SCRA730 HongkongSpecialAdministrativeRegionv.Hon.FelixbertoOlalia,April19,2007 Peoplev.Mengote,210SCRA174 Peoplev.Posadas,188SCRA288;

3.Inanothercase,therewasapetitionforawritofamparofiledinbehalfMonchito Lusterio,adischargedmemberofthePhilippineMarineswhoisnowinhidingforhaving beenimplicatedintheManilaPeninsulastandofflastNovember.Theysoughtforthewritto compeltherespondentsfromcontinuingtodisseminateWantedpostersthatincludehis nameandphotographs.Hehasnotbeencharged.Theycontendedthathewasnotwiththe groupofSenatorTrillanesashewasthenworkingasasecurityguard. Doesthisincludetherightofanaccusedwhoisafugitivefromjusticewhosepictureis beingpublishedinnewspapersandpostedinpublicplaces? WRITOFHABEASDATA A:MNO.08116SC EFFECTIVEJANUARY2,2008 QWhatisawritofhabeasdata? Ans.HabeasDataThewritofhabeasdataisaremedyavailabletoanypersonwhoseright toprivacyinlife,libertyorsecurityisviolatedorthreatenedbyanunlawfulactoromissionof apublicofficialoremployee,orofaprivateindividualorentityengagedinthegathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondenceoftheaggrievedparty. QWhatcouldbethebasisofthewrit? Ans.Itcanbesaidthatitisbasedontheprinciplethattheprivacyofonesperson,familyand homeisasanctifiedrightinthehistoryofconstitutionallaw.(IreneCortes,TheConstitutional FoundationsofPrivacy,inEmergingTrends(UPPress,1983).Ithasbeensaidthatamans homeishiskingdom,whicheventhekinghastorespect.(samesource);Morfev.Mutuc, 130Phil.415;22SCRA424). 23

QWhomayfileapetitionforawritofhabeasdata? Ans.Anyaggrievedpartymayfileapetitionforthewritofhabeasdata.However,incasesof extralegalkillingsandenforceddisappearances,thepetitionmaybefiledby: (a) Anymemberoftheimmediatefamilyoftheaggrievedparty,namely:thespouse, childrenandparents;or (b) Anyascendant,descendantorcollateralrelativeoftheaggrievedpartywithinthe fourthcivildegreeofconsanguinityoraffinity,indefaultofthosementionedinthepreceding paragraph. QWhereshouldthepetitionbefiled? Ans. The petition may be filed with the Regional Trial Court where the petitioner or respondent resides, or that which has jurisdiction over the place where the data or informationisgathered,collectedorstored,attheopinionofthepetitioner. ThepetitionermayalsobefiledwiththeSupremeCourtortheCourtofAppealsorthe Sandiganbayanwhentheactionconcernspublicdatafilesofgovernmentoffices. QWhereisthewritreturnable? Ans.IfissuedbytheRTC,itisreturnabletothesaidCourt. IfissuedbytheCAortheSB,itisreturnabletosaidcourtoranyRTCwherethe petitioner or respondent or that which has jurisdiction over the place where the data or informationisgatheredorcollectedorstored. IfissuedbytheSC,itisreturnabletothesamecourtorCAorSBorRTCoftheplace wherethepetitionerorrespondentresidesorthatwhichhasjurisdictionovertheplacewhere the data or information is gathered, collected or stored. (Section 4). It is enforceable anywhereinthePhilippines.(Section4(2). QDoesanindigentpetitionerneedtopaythedocketfeeifhefilesthepetition? Ans.No,butsubjecttothesubmissionofproofofindigencynotlaterthan15daysfromfiling. (Sec.5)ThisisincompliancewiththefreeaccesstocourtclauseintheConstitution. QStatethecontentsofthepetition. Ans.Averifiedwrittenpetitionforawritofhabeasdatashouldcontain: (a) Thepersonalcircumstancesofthepetitionerandtherespondent; (b) Themannertherighttoprivacyisviolatedorthreatenedandhowitaffectsthe righttolife,libertyorsecurityoftheaggrievedparty; (c) The actions and resources taken by the petitioner to secure the data or information; (d) Thelocationofthefiles,registersordatabases,thegovernmentoffice,andthe personincharge,inpossessionorincontrolofthedataorinformation,ifknown; (e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating, rectification, suppressionordestructionofthedatabaseorinformationorfileskeptbytherespondent.In caseofthreats,thereliefmayincludeaprayerforanorderenjoiningtheactcomplainedof; and (f) Suchotherrelevantreliefsasarejustandequitable.(Sec.6) QMaythewritbeissuedimmediatelyuponthefilingofthepetition? Ans.Yes.Uponthefilingofthepetition,thecourt,justiceorjudgeshallimmediatelyorderthe issuanceofthewritifonitsfaceitoughttoissue.(Sec.7).Itwillsetthedateandtimeforthe summary hearing of the petition but not later than 10 working days from the date of its issuance.(Sec.7). QIsthereaneedforahearing? 24

Ans.None,becauseoftheurgencyofthematterasitaffectsthelife,securityandlibertyof thepetitioner. QHowshallthewritbeserved. Ans.Thewritshallbeservedupontherespondentbytheofficerorpersondeputizedbythe court,justiceorjudgewhoshallretainacopyonwhichtomakeareturnofservice.Incase thewritcannotbeservedpersonallyontherespondent,therulesonsubstitutedserviceshall apply. Q The respondent or respondents are required to make a return of the writ. State the contentsofthereturn. Ans. The respondent shall file a verified written return together with supporting affidavits withinfive(5)workdaysfromserviceofthewrit,whichperiodmaybereasonablyextended by the Court for justifiable reasons. The return shall, among other things, contain the following: (a) The lawful defenses such as national security, state secrets, privileged communication,confidentialityofthesourceofinformationofmediaandothers; (b) Incaseofrespondentincharge,inpossessionorincontrolofthedataor informationsubjectofthepetition: (i) adisclosure ofthe data orinformation aboutthe petitioner,the natureofsuchdataorinformation,andthepurposeforitscollection; (ii) the steps or actions taken by the respondent to ensure the securityandconfidentialityofthedataorinformation;and (iii) thecurrencyandaccuracyofthedataorinformationheld;and (c)Otherallegationsrelevanttotheresolutionoftheproceeding. QMayarespondentwhorefusestomakeareturnormakeafalsereturnbepunished? Ans.Yes.Thecourt,justiceorjudgemaypunishwithimprisonmentorfinearespondentwho commitscontemptbymakingafalsereturn,orrefusingtomakeareturn;oranypersonwho otherwisedisobeysorresistsalawfulprocessororderofthecourt.(Sec.10) QWhenmaythedefensesbeheardinthechambers? Ans.Ahearinginchambersmaybeconductedwheretherespondentinvokesthedefense thatthereleaseofthedataorinformationinquestionshallcompromisenationalsecurityor statesecrets,orwhenthedataorinformationcannotbedivulgedtothepublicduetoits natureorprivilegedcharacter.(Sec.12) QThepetitionissummaryinnature.Statetheprohibitedpleadingsandmotions. Ans.Thefollowingpleadingsandmotionsareprohibited: (a) Motiontodismiss; (b) Motionforextensionoftimetofileopposition,affidavit,positionpaper andotherpleadings; (c) Dilatorymotionforpostponement; (d) Motionforabillofparticulars; (e) Counterclaimorcrossclaim; (f) Thirdpartycomplaint; (g) Reply;(Sec.13) QWhatmaythecourtdoiftherespondentfailstomakeareturn? 25

Ans.Incasetherespondentfailstofileareturn,thecourt,justiceorjudgeshallproceedto hear the petition ex parte, granting the petitioner such relief as the petition may warrant unlessthecourtinitsdiscretionrequiresthepetitionertosubmitevidence.(Sec.14) QWhatisthenatureofthehearingofthepetition? Ans.Thehearingonthepetitionshallbesummary.However,thecourt,justiceorjudgemay call for a preliminary conference to simplify the issues and determine the possibility of obtainingstipulationsandadmissionsfromtheparties.(Sec.15) Q Within what period should the court render a judgment on the petition and state the contentsofthesame. Ans. The Court shall render judgment within ten (10) days from the time the petition is submittedfordecision.Iftheallegationsinthepetitionareprovenbysubstantialevidence, thecourtshallenjointheactcomplainedof,ororderthedeletion,destruction,orrectification oftheerroneousdata orinformation and grantotherrelevantreliefsasmaybejustand equitable;otherwise,theprivilegeofthewritshallbedenied.(Sec.16) Uponitsfinality,thejudgmentshallbeenforcedbythesherifforanylawfulofficeras maybedesignatedbythecourt,justiceorjudgewithinfive(5)workingdays. QWhatshallthesheriffdoafterenforcementofthewrit? Ans. The officer who executed the final judgment shall, within three (3) days from its enforcement,makeaverifiedreturntothecourt.Thereturnshallcontainafullstatementof theproceedingsunderthewritandacompleteinventoryofthedatabaseorinformation,or documentsandarticlesinspected,updated,rectified,ordeleted,withcopiesservedonthe petitionerandtherespondent. Theofficershallstateinreturnhowthejudgmentwasenforcedandcompliedwithby therespondent,aswellsallobjectionsofthepartiesregardingthemannerandregularityof theserviceofthewrit.(Sec.17) QWhatistheremedyofanaggrievedpartyafterjudgmentisrendered? Ans.AnypartymayappealfromthejudgmentorfinalordertotheSupremeCourtunderRule 45.Theappealmayraisequestionsoffactorlaworboth.(Sec.19) QStatetheeffectofthefilingofthepetitioninrelationtotherighttofileotheractions? Ans.Thefilingofapetitionforthewritofhabeasdatashallnotprecludethefilingofseparate criminal,civiloradministrativeactions. Thereasonfortheruleisthat,thewritpartakesofthenatureofaprerogativewrit.Itis notacriminal,civiloradministrativesuit.Itdoesnotsuspendthefilingofacriminal,civilor administrativeaction. QStatetheeffectofthefilingofacriminalactionafterthefilingofthepetition. Ans.Whenacriminalactionisfiledsubsequenttothefilingofapetitionforthewrit,thelatter shallbeconsolidatedwiththecriminalaction. Whenacriminalactionandaseparatecivilactionarefiledsubsequenttoapetitionfor awritofhabeasdata,thepetitionshallbeconsolidatedwiththecriminalaction. After consolidation, the procedure under this rule shall continue to govern the dispositionofthereliefsinthepetition.(Sec.21) QWhatistheeffectifacriminalactionisfiledbeforethepetitionforawritofhabeasdatais filed? 26

Ans.Whenacriminalactionhasbeencommenced,noseparatepetitionforthewritshallbe filed.Thereliefsunderthewritshallbeavailabletotheaggrievedpartybymotioninthe criminalcase. Theprocedureunderthisruleshallgovernthedispositionofthereliefsavailableunder thewritofhabeasdata.(Sec.22) QWhatisthebasisoftheSupremeinissuingtherule? Ans.ItisbasedontheconstitutionalpoweroftheSupremeCourttopromulgaterulesforthe protectionandenforcementofconstitutionalrights.(Art.VIII,Sec.5(5)Constitution). QGivethehistoryofthewritofhabeasdata. Ans.TheliteraltranslationfromLatinofHabeasDataisyoushouldhavethedata.Habeas DataisaconstitutionalrightgrantedinseveralcountriesinLatinAmerica.Itshowsvariations fromcountrytocountry,butingeneral,itisdesignedtoprotect,bymeansofanindividual complaintpresentedtoaconstitutionalcourt,theimage,privacy,honour,informationself determinationandfreedomofinformationofaperson. Habeas Data can be brought up by any citizen against any manual or automated data registertofindoutwhatinformationisheldabouthisorherperson.Thatpersoncanrequest therectification,actualizationoreventhedestructionofthepersonaldataheld.Thelegal natureoftheindividualcomplaintofHabeasDataisthatofvoluntaryjurisdiction,thismeans thatthepersonwhoseprivacyisbeingcompromisedcanbetheonlyonetopresentit.The Courtsdonothaveanypowertoinitiatetheprocessbythemselves.

HabeasDataisanindividualcomplaintbeforeaConstitutionalCourt.Thefirstsuchcomplaint isthe HabeasCorpus (whichisroughlytranslatedasyoushouldhavethebody).Other individualcomplaintsincludethewritofmandamus(USA),amparo(SpainandMexico),and respondeatsuperior(Taiwan). TheHabeasDatawrititselfhasaveryshorthistory,butitsoriginscanbetracedtocertain European legal mechanisms that protected individual privacy. This cannot come as a surprise,asEuropeisthe birthplaceofthe modernDataProtection.In particular,certain GermanconstitutionalrightscanbeidentifiedasthedirectprogenitorsoftheHabeasData right. In particular, theright to information selfdetermination wascreatedbythe German Constitutional Tribunal by interpretation of the existing rights of human dignity and personality.Thisisarighttoknowwhattypeofdataarestoredonmanualandautomatic databases about an individual, and it implies that there must be transparency on the gatheringandprocessingofsuchdata.TheotherdirectpredecessoroftheHabeasData rightistheCouncilofEuropes108thConventiononDataProtectionof1981.Thepurposeof theconventionistosecuretheprivacyoftheindividualregardingtheautomatedprocessing ofpersonaldata.Toachievethis,severalrightsaregiventotheindividual,includingarightto accesstheirpersonaldataheldinanautomateddatabase.

27

ThefirstcountrytoimplementHabeasDatawastheFederalRepublicofBrazil.In1988,the BrazilianlegislaturevotedanewConstitution,whichincludedanovelrightneverseenbefore: theHabeasDataindividualcomplaint.Itisexpressedasafullconstitutionalrightunderarticle 5,LXXI,TitleII,oftheConstitution. FollowingtheBrazilianexample,ColombiaincorporatedtheHabeasDatarightto itsnew Constitutionin1991.Afterthat,manycountriesfollowedsuitandadoptedthenewlegaltool intheirrespectiveconstitutions:Paraguayin1992,Peruin1993,Argentinain1994,and Ecuadorin1996.

ImplementationoftheRuleinForeignCountries Brazil:The1988BrazilianConstitutionstipulatesthat:HabeasDatashallbegranted:a)to ensure the knowledge of information related to the person of the petitioner, contained in recordsordatabanksofgovernmentagenciesorofagenciesofapubliccharacter;b)forthe correction of data, when the petitioner does not prefer to do so through a confidential process,eitherjudicialoradministrative. Paraguay:The1992ParaguayconstitutionfollowstheexamplesetbyBrazil,butenhances the protection in several ways. The Article 135 of the Paraguayan Constitution states: Everyonemayhaveaccesstoinformationanddataavailableonhimselforassetsinofficial orprivateregistriesofapublicnature.Heisalsoentitledtoknowhowtheinformationisbeing used and for what purpose. He may request a competent judge to order the updating, rectification, or destruction of these entries if they are wrong or if they are illegitimately affectinghisrights. Argentina:theArgentinianversionofHabeasDataisthemostcompletetodate.Thearticle 43oftheConstitution,amendedonthe1994reform,statesthat:Anypersonshallfilethis actiontoobtaininformationonthedataabouthimselfandtheirpurpose,registeredinpublic recordsordatabases,orinprivateonesintendedtosupplyinformation;andincaseoffalse data or discrimination, this action may be filed to request the suppression, rectification, confidentiality or updating of said data. The secret nature of the sources of journalistic informationshallnotbeimpaired. Philippines:OnAugust25,2007,ChiefJusticeReynatoPuno(attheCollegeofLawalumni of Silliman University in Dumaguete City) announced that the Supreme Court of the PhilippineswasdraftingthewritofHabeasData.Byinvokingthetruth,thenewremedywill not only compel military and government agents to release information about the desaparecidos butrequireaccesstomilitaryand police files.Heannouncedearlieronthe draftofthewritofamparotheSpanishforprotectionwhichwillpreventmilitaryofficialsin judicial proceedings to simply issue denials on cases of disappearances or extrajudicial executions.Withthewritofhabeascorpus,thewritofHabeasDataandthewritofamparo willfurtherhelpthoselookingformissinglovedones.

28

QWhyisthereaneedforthewrit? Ans.Thewritisusedfortheprotectionofhumanrightstolife,liberty,securityespeciallyin thisdayandageofinformationtechnologywhenprivacyofapersoncaneasilybepiercedby thepushofabutton.Anunforeseeneffectofthiswritisthatithasbecomeanexcellent humanrightstoolmostlyinthecountriesrecoveringfromthemilitarydictatorships.

Examples: 1.) InParaguay,anactionforhabeasdatawassuccessfullyfiledtoasserttherightto viewtherecordsofapolicestationbringingtolightseveralatrocitiesthathavebeen committed. 2.) InArgentina,therighttotruthwasupheldbytheSupremeCourtofArgentina.Whenit grantedthewritofhabeasdataappliedforbythefamiliesofthedeceasedincases involvingextrajudicialkillingsandenforceddisappearances.Thiswasarecognitionof thedisappeared,usuallyvictimsofmilitaryregime,torequestaccesstopoliceand militaryrecordswhichwereclosedtothem.

QStatethenatureoftherighttotruth. Ans.Therighttotruthisacomponentoftherighttolife,libertyandsecurity.Itisthebedrock oftheruleoflaw,whichtheStateisobligatedtoprotectwithallobstinacyundernationaland internationallaw.(Art.8,UniversalDeclarationofHumanRights).Nofamilymembercan sleepwellwithoutknowingthetruewhereaboutsofhisorherfather,mother,brother,sister, sonordaughter.Indeedtruthhasandwillalwayssetusfree. QHowisthewritofhabeasdatainterrelatedwiththewritofamparo?Explain. Ans. It is not only complimentary to the writ of amparo. It is an independent remedy to enforcetherighttoinformationalprivacy.Allpersonshavetherighttoaccessinformation aboutthemselves,especiallyifitisinthehandsofthegovernment.Anyviolationofthisright oughttogivetheaggrievedpersontheremedytogotocourttomodify,removeorcorrect such misinformation. The right to access and control personal information is essential to protectonesprivacy,honorandpersonalidentity,evenasitunderscoresaccountabilityin informationgathering.

QCanwesaythatthewritisaguaranteetotherighttoprivacyandtherighttotruth? Exemplify.

Ans.Yes.Recoursetotheactionforhabeasdatahasbecomeafundamentalinstrumentfor investigationsintohumanrightsviolationscommittedduringpastmilitarydictatorshipsinthe 29

Western Hemisphere. Family members of disappeared persons have used actions for habeas data to obtain information concerning government conduct, to learn the fate of disappearedpersons,andtoexactaccountability. QStatethebasiccomponentsoftherighttoprivacy. Ans.Therighttoprivacyinvolvesthemostbasicrightsofindividualconductandchoice.It includes the right of a person to prevent intrusion upon certain thoughts and activities, includingfreedomofspeechandfreedomtoformorjoinassociations.Therightincludesthe constitutionalfreedomfromunreasonablesearchesandsiegesandfromselfincrimination.

ZONESOFPRIVACYINPHILIPPINELAW 1.) Art.III,Sec.3(1)theprivacyofcommunicationandcorrespondenceclause; 2.) Art.III,Sec.1thedueprocessclause 3.) Art.III,Sec.2therightagainstunreasonablesearchesandseizuresclause. 4.) Art.III,Sec.6Thelibertyofabodeclause 5.) Art.III,Sec.8Therighttoformandjoinassociationsclause; 6.) ArticleIII,Sec.17Therightagainstselfincriminationclause. 7.) Article26,NCCrespecttothedignity,personality,privacyandpeaceofmind 8.) Article32,NCCwhereapublicofficerorprivateindividualmaybeheldliableifhe violatestherightsandlibertiesofanother; 9.) Article229,RPCwhichmakesitacrimetheviolationofthesecretsbyanofficer; 10.) Article 290292, RPC which penalize the revelation of trade and industrial secrets; 11.) 12.) Article280,RPContrespasstodwelling. R.A.1405,theSecrecyofBankDepositsAct

13.) TheRulesofCourtonprivilegedcommunicationsrecognizeprivacy.(Rule130 (c)Sec.24).

PhilippineJurisprudenceontheWritofHabeasData

1. Arnaultv.Nazareno,87Phil.29(1950)wherethepetitionerinvokedtherightto privacybeforeaninvestigationoftheBlueRibbonCommitteeoftheSenate,in 30

dealingwithotherpersons.TheSCruledthattherewasnoviolationoftheright. Thereafter,therewasashifttoamodernjurisprudentialtheoryrespectingand upholdingtherighttoprivacy. 2. Morfe v. Mutuc, 92 SCRA 424 where there was a petition for declaratory judgmentchallengingthevalidityoftheAntigraftandCorruptPracticesAct(RA 3019). Under the law, government employees are required to submit their statementofassetsandliabilitiesinJanuaryofeachyear.Itwaschallengedas unlawfulinvasionoftheconstitutionalrighttoprivacywhichisimplicitinthe prohibitionagainstunreasonablesearchesandseizuresandoftherightagainst selfincrimination.TheSupremeCourtupheldthevalidityofthelawbecause thelawdidnotcallforthedisclosureofinformation,anactthatwouldviolate therighttoprivacyofapersontoprivacyofaperson. 3. Ramirezv.CA,G.R.No.93833,September28,1995,248SCRA590,where the SC recognized the right to privacy of a person. It upheld the persons privacy to a communication and held that a person who recorded a private conversationwithanotherwithouttheknowledgeoftheotherisaviolatorofthe provisionsofSec.1,RA4200. 4. Oplev.Torres,354Phil.948(1998),whereheSCruledthattherighttoprivacy doesnotbarallintrusionsintoindividualprivacy.Therightisnotintendedto stiflescientificandtechnologicaladvancementsthatenhancepublicserviceand thecommongood.Itmerelyrequiresthatthelawbenarrowlyfocusedanda compelling interest justifies such intrusion. Intrusions into the right must be accompaniedbypropersafeguardsandwelldefined standardstoprevent unconstitutionalinvasions.Anylawororderthatinvadesindividualprivacywill besubjectedbythisCourttostrictsecurity. 5. Tambasanv.People,G.R.No.89130,July14,1995wheretheSupremeCourt said that the basis of the power to search is public policy. Although public welfareisthefoundationofthepowertosearchandseize,suchpowermustbe exercisedandthelawenforcedwithouttransgressingtheconstitutionalrightsof thecitizens.InBagalihogv.Fernandez,198SCRA614,itwasheldthatzealin thepursuitofcriminalscannotennobletheuseofarbitrarymethodsthatthe constitutionitselfabhors. Cases: a.) Republicv.SBandMaj.Gen.JosephinaRamos,teal.,G.R.No.104768, July31,2003; b.) Veroyv.Layague,210SCRA97 c.) Aniagv.Comelec,G.R.No.104961October7,1994.

31

6. Villaflorv.Summers,41Phil.62whereawomanchargedwiththecrimeof adultery can be compelled to undergo physical examination to determine whethershewaspregnantornot.Therewasnoviolationofherrighttoself incrimination. Cases: a.) Peoplev.Olvis,September30,1987; 7.Zuluetav.CA,et.al.,G.R.No.107383,February20,2996wheretheSCdidnot allow the use of documents illegally obtained by the wife of a doctor from his drawer.Theintimaciesbetweenthehusbandandwifedonotjustifyanyoneof thembreakingthecabinetsanddrawersoftheotherandinransackingthemfor anytelltaleevidenceofmaritalinfidelity.Aperson,bycontractingmarriage,does notshedhisorherintegrityorrighttoprivacyasanindividualandconstitutional protectionandtheconstitutionalprotectioniseveravailabletohimortoher.

32