Secretary of National Defense v.

Manalo
G.R. No. 180906
07 October 2008

PONENTE: Puno, C.J.

PARTIES:

PETITIONERS: SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE and CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED

FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES

RESPONDENTS: RAYMOND MANALO and REYNALDO MANALO

NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari

Supreme Court: Petition for Prohibition, Injunction, and Temporary Restraining Order

FACTS:

On 14 February 2006, at past noon, Raymond Manalo (hereafter referred to as Raymond) and
Reynaldo Manalo (hereafter referred to as Reynaldo) were abducted by military men
belonging to the Citizen Arm (NPA). After eighteen (18) months of detention and torture, the
brothers escaped on 13 August 2007.

On 23 August 2007, Raymond and Reynaldo filed a Petition for Prohibition, Injunction, and
Temporary Restraining Order before the Supreme Court to stop the military officers and agents
from depriving them of their right to liberty and other basic rights. In a Resolution dated 24
August 2007, the Supreme enjoined them from causing the arrest of Raymond and Reynaldo.
Forthwith, they filed a Manifestation and Omnibus Motion to Treat Existing Petition as Amparo
Petition, to Admit Supporting Affidavits, and to Grant Interim and Final Amparo Reliefs.

While the aforementioned case was pending, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo took effect on 24
October 2007. subsequently filed a manifestation and omnibus motion to treat their existing peti
tion as amparo petition.

On 25 October 2007, the Supreme Court resolved to treat the 23 August 2007 Petition as a
petition under the Amparo to conduct the summary hearing and decide the petition.

On 26 December 2007, the Court of Appeals granted the privilege of the writ of amparo. The
Court of Appeals ordered the Secretary of National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the AFP to
furnish the and produce all medical reports and records of Raymond and Reynaldo while under
military custody.

Aggrieved, the Secretary of National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the AFP filed an appeal
with the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:

Whether or not statements from the victims themselves is sufficient for amparo petitions.

RULING:

It depends on the credibility and candidness of the victims in their statements.

No.

SUPREME COURT RULINGS:

1. ON EVIDENCE REQUIRED ON AMPARO PETITIONS

Effect of the nature of enforced disappearance and torture to the quantum of evidence required
With the secret nature of an enforced disappearance and the torture perpetrated on the victim
during detention, it logically holds that much of the information and evidence of the ordeal will
come from the victims themselves, and the veracity of their account will depend on their the
places where they were detained. Where powerful military officers are implicated, the hesitation
of witnesses to surface and testify against them comes as no surprise.

2. ON RIGHT TO SECURITY AS A GROUND FOR AMPARO PETITION

Permutations of the Right to Security A closer look at the right to security of person would
yield various permutations of the exercise of this right. First, the right to security of person is
freedom from fear. In its whereas clauses, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights fear
and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people. Some scholars
postulate that freedom from fear is not only an aspirational principle, but essentially an
individual international human right. It is the right to security of person as the word

1. ON EVIDENCE REQUIRED ON AMPARO PETITIONS

Effect of the nature of enforced disappearance and torture to the quantum of evidence required
With the secret nature of an enforced disappearance and the torture perpetrated on the victim
during detention, it logically holds that much of the information and evidence of the ordeal will
come places where they were detained. Where powerful military officers are implicated, the
hesitation of witnesses to surface and testify against them comes as no surprise.

2. ON RIGHT TO SECURITY AS A GROUND FOR AMPARO PETITION

Permutations of the Right to Security A closer look at the right to security of person would
yield various permutations of the exercise of this right. First, the right to security of person is
and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people. Some scholars
postulate that freedom from fear is not only an aspirational principle, but essentially an
individual international human right. It is the right to security of person as the word security
itself means freedom from fear. Article 3 of the UDHR provides, viz: Everyone has the right to
life, liberty and security of person.

xxx

Second, the right to security of person is a guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity or
security. dismemberment, physical disabilities, and painful physical intrusion. As the degree of
physical injury increases, the danger to life itself escalates. Notably, in criminal law, physical
injuries constitute a crime against persons because they are an affront to the bodily integrity or
security of a person.

xxx

Third, the right to security of person is a guarantee of protection of ones rights by the
government. In the context of the writ of amparo, this right is built into the guarantees of the
right to life and liberty under Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution and the right to
security of person (as freedom from threat and guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity)
under Article III, Section 2. The right to security of person in this third sense is a corollary of the
policy that the State guarantees full respect for human rights under Article II, Section 11 of the
1987 investigations, organization of the government apparatus to extend protection to victims of
extralegal killings or enforced disappearances (or threats thereof) and/or their families, and
bringing offenders to the bar of justice.

Freedom from fear as a right In the context of Section 1 of the Amparo Rule, freedom from
fear is the right and any threat to the rights to life, liberty or security is the actionable wrong.
Fear is a state of mind, a reaction; threat is a stimulus, a cause of action. Fear caused by the same
stimulus can range from being baseless to well-founded as people react differently. The degree
of fear can vary from one person to another with the variation of the prolificacy of their Clause
in the latter part of Section 1 of the Amparo Rule is a form of violation of the right to security
mentioned in the earlier part of the provision.

Deprivation of liberty is not necessary before the right to security may be invoked While the
right to right to security of person can exist independently of the right to liberty. In other words,
there need not necessarily be a deprivation of liberty for the right to security of person to be
invoked.