|
By Jomar Canlas Reporter
BESIDES the Jonas Joseph Burgos
case, the Philippine judiciary will have another test case for the
invocation of the writ of amparo, whose guidelines were drafted by
the Supreme Court just days ago and are expected to be approved by
October 24.
The Court of Appeals on Friday
ordered retired general Jovito Palparan of the Philippine Army to
explain why new evidence should not be presented against him in
relation to charges that he was involved in the disappearance of
three persons, including two students of the University of the
Philippines (UP).
In a two-page resolution, the
Special Former 11th Division of the appellate court gave Palparan 10
days to file his position on a motion filed to present new evidence
allegedly linking him to the disappearances.
“The respondents are hereby
ordered to comment on the petitioner’s motion to allow petitioners
to present newly discovered evidence, dated July 25, 2007, within 10
days from receipt of this resolution,” the ruling stated.
The writ of amparo is said to
have stronger teeth in asserting a person’s right to life, since
it denies culpable parties the defense of simple denial when they
are sued to produce before the courts the victims of involuntary
disappearances.
On June 26, 2006, UP students
Sherlyn Cadapan and Karen Empeno, along with Manuel Merino, a
farmer, were forcibly taken by elements of the Philippine Army 56th
Infantry Battalion in the house of Raquel Halili in Barangay San
Miguel, Hagonoy, Bulacan.
The victims’ families wanted to
reopen the case before the court after Palparan and the other
respondents denied their involvement in the disappearances.
In June, the appellate court
dismissed the petitioner’s motion for habeas corpus, but said
there is a need to further investigate the disappearances, since it
found inconsistencies in the testimonies of the respondents.
Besides Palparan, the other
respondents to the case are Maj. Gen. Romeo Tolentino, chief of the
Philippine Army; Lt. Col. Rogelio Boac; Arnel Enriquez; and Lt.
Francis Mirabelle Samson.
Tzhe writ of amparo, according to
Chief Justice Reynato Puno, “will hold public authorities to a
high standard of official conduct, failing which they will be held
accountable to our people.”
In invoking the writ of habeas
corpus, the normal remedy is to “produce the body” of the
victim. However, relatives of missing persons who petition the court
based on the writ normally encounter a general denial by the police
or military, leading to practically a termination of the case.
With the writ of amparo, a
general denial is not allowed, and authorities who have taken
custody of the victim will be ordered to produce documents and will
have the burden of proving that the victim is not under their
custody.
Invoking the writ of amparo means
that aside from the normal temporary restraining order allowed in
the Rules of Court, courts now have the power to issue a temporary
protection order to protect the victim against any harassment or
violence that can be done on his person.
It also works retroactively, so
it can be invoked even in cases that happened even before its
adoption by the court.
|
