Consti Submissions

A. Manalo v Sec of Defense

Facts

Brothers Raymund and Reynaldo Manalo were forcefully abducted from their Bulacan home by the
military and CAFGU. They were taken instead of their older brother, Rolando ‘Ka Bestre’ Manalo, a
supposed NPA leader. The brothers were maltreated, malnourished and required to do chores during
their detention at various campsites and other facilities. One time, Raymund tried to escape and was
caught; a supposed call from a ‘Madam’ prevented his killing.

Raymund recounted meeting with Gen. Palparan, who asked him to convince their parents not to go
to rallies and hearings regarding their disappearance to which their parents acceded out of fear. Also, it
was Gen. Palparan who left them ‘Alive’ medicine which was expensive at P35 each. In Camp Tecson, they
met other captives including activist UP students Sherlyn Capadan and Karen Empeno. The group were
transferred to Limay, Bataan and Zambales. In Bataan, Raymund witnessed an Ita being burned alive and
buried.

The brothers then subsequently brought to Pangasinan where they were instructed to use the alias
of Rommel and Rod who are cousins. The brothers, who then tended a small plot, worked, saved, and
planned for their future escape. At about 1AM of Aug 13, 2007, Raymond turned up the volume of the
radio. With no reaction from the drunk guards, the brothers left behind the sleeping guards and barking
dogs and boarded a bus bound for Manila and were thus freed from captivity.

Dr. Molino, specializing in forensic medicine, followed the Istanbul Protocol in conducting the medical
exam of the brothers.

Issue

The petitioners contend that the CA erred in requiring them to a) furnish the brothers and the CA all
official and unofficial reports on the investigation in connection with their case, b) confirm in writing the
present places of official assignment of Hilario and Caigas, and c) cause to be produced to CA all medical
reports, records and charts, and reports of any treatment given or recommended medicines prescribed
and to include a list of medical personnel who attended to them from 14 Feb to 12 Aug 2007.

Held

The Court promulgated the Amparo Rule "in light of the prevalence of extralegal killing and enforced
disappearances”. Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides that “The petition for a writ of
amparo Is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or
threatened with violation…..The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats
thereof. In the case at bar, it was held that veracity of the evidence satisfied the causes of action by
respondents. Raymund’s statements were corroborated from other independent and credible pieces of
evidence such as the testimony of Dr. Molino and his familiarity of facilities including DTU which was
confirmed as Division Training Unit.

Also, the brothers assert that their cause of action consists in the threat to their right to life and liberty,
and a violation of their right to security because their captors still remain at large. The SC It was held that
the right to security of person yield various permutations of the exercise of this right. This includes 1)
freedom from fear; 2) guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity or security and 3) guarantee of
protection of one's rights by the government.

Freedom from fear is enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDHR) as well as in
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR) in which the Philippines is both a signatory
thereon. Article III Sec II of the 1987 Constitution guarantees against search without warrant. As physical
injuries inflicted in the context of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances constitute more than a
search or invasion of the body, guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity or security is fully embodied
in our Constitution. Lastly, the guarantee of protection of one's rights by the government is built under
Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution in the context of the writ of amparo. 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 Constitution. As the government is the chief guarantor of
order and security, the Constitutional guarantee of the rights to life, liberty and security of person is
rendered ineffective if government does not afford protection to these rights especially when they are
under threat.

There is a continuing violation of the respondents right to security. , the violation of the right to
security as freedom from threat to respondents' life, liberty and security. the violation of the right to
security as protection by the government. Under these circumstances, there is substantial evidence to
warrant the conclusion that there is a violation of respondents' right to security as a guarantee of
protection by the government. In sum, we conclude that respondents' right to security as "freedom from
threat" is violated by the apparent threat to their life, liberty and security of person. Their right to security
as a guarantee of protection by the government is likewise violated by the ineffective investigation and
protection on the part of the military.

Disposition

Petition is denied. CA affirmed CA’s decision.