|
Beginning October 24, Filipinos will enjoy the
protection of the writ of amparo (Spanish for “to protect”), an
unprecedented legal remedy approved by the Supreme Court on Sept.
25. The rules governing the writ establish a milestone in the
history of human rights in the country and in the effort to protect
the life, liberty and security of every Filipino.
The ruling is a capstone to the
National Summit on Extrajudicial Killings and Forced Disappearances
that the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Reynato Puno, convened
in Manila in July.
The summit took a worried look at
a long history of summary killings and political kidnappings that
have victimized labor organizers, political activists, militant
students, peasant leaders and Filipinos identified with
left-of-center politics.
Filipinos are familiar with the
writ of habeas corpus, used to challenge the legality of a
person’s detention. It is part of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence that
the Filipino legal system has adopted.
Latin American countries, with
the exception of Cuba, have adopted the writ of amparo to protect
human rights and civil liberties. It is used to protect personal
freedom and to review the constitutionality of laws, judicial
decisions and administrative actions.
The writ of amparo will deny to
the authorities the defense of simple denial when they are sued to
produce, before the courts, the bodies of victims of involuntary
disappearances, Chief Justice Puno said in a statement.
The writ will hold public
authorities to a high standard of official conduct, failing which
they will be held accountable to the people.
The writ gives muscle to the
right to truth of the people. The exercise of that right will expose
the falsehoods and fabrications that public and private persons
usually create to evade responsibility for extralegal killings and
involuntary disappearances.
The rules, as explained in the
Chief Justice’s statement and in the published SC resolution, make
for required reading.
A petition for amparo may be
filed on any day and anytime with the regional trial court, the
Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.
The writ shall set the date and
time for summary hearing of the petition which shall not be later
than seven days from the date of its issuance.
Respondents, whether public or
private persons, must respond to a writ for amparo in 72 hours, and
show proof they did not violate or threaten the security and right
to life of the aggrieved party.
The court shall render judgment
within ten days from the time the petition is submitted for
decision.
Looming large in the background
is the inability of the military to explain the disappearance or
produce the body of agrarian educator Jonas Burgos, missing for more
than three months.
The Supreme Court will begin work
soon on the writ of habeas data, a remedy that allows a citizen to
find out what information a government office holds about him and to
request the correction or destruction of false information.
The three writs—habeas corpus,
amparo and habeas data—will help solve summary killings and
political kidnappings.
October 24 marks the 62nd
anniversary of the United Nations. The coming into law on that day
of the writ of amparo is an announcement that the Philippines has
kept step with the UN Declaration on Human Rights and that the human
rights of individuals in this part of the world are fully protected
by a vigilant and assertive judiciary.
Required reading
The Bill of Rights
Sec. 1. No person shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Sec. 2. The right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of
arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation
of the complaint and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
seized.
Sec. 3 (1) The privacy of
communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon
lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires
otherwise as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding
section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
Sec. 4. No law shall be passed
abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances.
Sec. 5. No law shall be made
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting their free
exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall
forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the
exercise of civil or political rights.
Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and
of changing the same within the limit prescribed by law shall not be
impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the
right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national
security, public safety, or public health, as may provided by law.
Sec. 7. The right of the people
to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized.
Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining
to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
government research data used as basis for policy development, shall
be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may provided
by law. 
|
