Writ of Amparo

Prof. Jose M. I. Diokno

28 June 2008
Presentations
 Group Work
Questions for Discussion

 1. How do we differentiate between

substantial evidence and preponderance of
evidence?
 2. Ordinary and extraordinary diligence?
 3. “General denial” from a “specific denial?”
 4. When does the “presumption of regularity”
apply and when does it not?
 Substantial evidence

 The parties shall establish their claims by substantial

evidence.
 (Sec. 17, Amparo Rule)

 Substantial Evidence – that amount of relevant

evidence which a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to justify a conclusion.
 (Rule 133, Sec. 5, Rules of Court)
 Substantial Evidence
 The substantial evidence rule requires only such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.
 The rule requires that determinations of fact should be
upheld unless arbitrary or clearly wrong, and a ruling
supported by substantial evidence should be sustained
unless it rests on erroneous legal foundations.
[Gonzales, N.A., Administrative Law, p. 173]
 Extraordinary Diligence

 Ordinary diligence for private respondents

 (Sec. 17, Amparo Rule)
 Extraordinary Diligence for public
respondents
 That extraordinary diligence as required by
applicable laws, rules and regulations was
observed in the performance of duty. [id.]
 Extraordinary Diligence
 “…. as human care and foresight can provide, using the
utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due
regard for all the circumstances.”
 (Art. 1755, Civil Code of the Philippines)
Writs Comparison Chart
CERTIORARI, WRIT OF HABEAS WRIT OF AMPARO WRIT OF HABEAS
PROHIBITION CORPUS DATA
MANDAMUS

PREPOND. OF PREPOND. OF SUBSTANTIAL SUBSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE EVID. EVIDENCE EVIDENCE

BURDEN OF BURDEN OF BURDEN OF BURDEN OF

PROOF > P ONLY PROOF > P ONLY PROOF: P AND R PROOF: P AND R

PET – DISMISSED PET – DISMISSED PET – NOT PET – DISMISSED

IF P FAILS TO IF P FAILS TO DISMISSED BUT IF P FAILS TO
MEET BURDEN OF MEET BURDEN ARCHIVED IF… MEET BURDEN OF
OF PROOF PROOF
PROOF
CERTIORARI WRIT OF HABEAS WRIT OF AMPARO WRIT OF
PROHIBITION CORPUS HABEAS DATA
MANDAMUS
ORDINARY ORDINARY PUBLIC R’s > ORDINARY
DILIGENCE DILIGENCE EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE
DILIGENCE
GENERAL GENERAL DENIAL GEN. DENIAL GENERAL
DENIAL OK OK PROHIBITED DENIAL
PROHIBITED
PRESUMPTION PRES. OF NO PRES. OF PRES. OF
OF REGULARITY REGULARITY OK REGULARITY REGULARITY OK
GENERALLY OK

CONST’L AND RIGHT TO LIBERTY RIGHT TO LIFE, RIGHT TO

STATUTORY LIBERTY & INFORMATION IN
RIGHTS SECURITY LIFE, LIBERTY &
PROTECTED SECURITY
GROUP WORK
 GUIDE QUESTIONS
(2-3 questions per group)

 1. Why are general denials prohibited in amparo and

habeas data cases, but allowed in habeas corpus and
Rule 65 cases?
 2. Why are amparo cases only archived (not dismissed)
even if P fails to meet his burden of proof, unlike habeas
data, habeas corpus and Rule 65 remedies?
 3. Why is the presumption of regularity not allowed in
amparo cases but allowed in habeas data, habeas
corpus and Rule 65 remedies?
 4. Why is the standard “extraordinary diligence” for public
R’s in amparo cases, but not in habeas data, habeas
corpus and Rule 65 remedies?
 5. Why is the quantum of evidence in amparo and habeas
data “substantial evidence” instead of preponderance of
evidence?
 6. What burden of proof is imposed on the respondents in
amparo and habeas data cases that is not imposed on
respondents in habeas corpus and Rule 65 cases?
 Justice Azcuna’s annotation
 Contents of the Return. The section requires a detailed
return. The detailed return is important, for it will help
determine whether the respondent fulfilled the standard of
conduct required by the Rule.
 It will also avoid the ineffectiveness of the writ of habeas
corpus, where often the respondent makes a simple denial
in the return that he or she has custody over the missing
person, and the petition is dismissed.
 The requirements under paragraph (d) [duties where the
respondent is a public official] are based on United
Nations standards.
 “The Rationale for the Writ of Amparo”
(Supreme Court)

 “In Velasquez and Godinez, the [Inter-American]

Court [of Human Rights] held that such [enforced]
disappearances constituted crimes against humanity
under international law; and that, as a result,
governments had an affirmative duty to investigate
them and to prosecute and punish whoever may be
responsible.”
 “The Rationale for the Writ of Amparo”
(Supreme Court)

 “The Court also found that, because the purpose of a

disappearance was to eliminate traces of the
government’s role in a serious crime, the standard
of proof and burden of persuasion must, after an
initial presentation by the Commission, shift to the
government to demonstrate that it had done all in
its power to redress the wrong. The Court based this
reasoning on its dicum that states have an obligation
to organize their whole apparatus so that human
rights may be adequately protected. “
 Justice Azcuna’s annotation
 No General Denial. No general denial is allowed.
The policy is to require revelation of all evidence
relevant to the resolution of the petition.
 A litigation is not a game of guile but a search for
truth, which alone is the basis of justice.
 Justice Azcuna’s annotation
 Diligence Standard. The distinction is made between a
private and a public respondent to highlight the difference
in the diligence requirement for a public official or
employee.
 Public officials or employees are charged with a higher
standard of conduct because it is their legal duty to obey
the Constitution, especially its provisions protecting the
right to life, liberty and security.
 [For public officers] The denial of the presumption that
official duty has been regularly performed is in accord with
current jurisprudence on custodial interrogation and search
warrant cases.
 Assignments for Next Class
 1. Go over the procedure in amparo cases. Make
a flowchart and be prepared to explain it to the
class.
 2. Compare and contrast the procedure under
Rule 65 for certiorari, mandamus and
prohibition cases with the procedure for amparo
cases. Be ready to explain the similarities and
differences.