Extraordinary remedies

Pursuant to its rule-making power granted by the Constitution, the Supreme Court has promulgated Rules on the Writ of Amparo and Writ of Habeas Data on Oct. 24, 2007 and Feb. 8, 2008 for the protection of the rights to life, liberty and security. This case of Nita and her sons Andy and Ding explains the nature and purpose of the said writs.

The case involved a 400 square meter parcel of land belonging to the Provincial Government of Bulacan leased by Nita and her spouse Mando who refused to vacate the same despite the final and executory decision of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) for their ejectment. The spouses refused to leave the premises on the alleged ground that subsequent events changed the situation of the parties that would justify the suspension of the execution of the MTC decision. Hence they filed an action for injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

On July 19, 2005, the RTC found merit in the spouses’ allegation and thus issued a permanent writ of injunction until the MTC determines the metes and bound of the leased premises. So the Province returned to the MTC and submitted a Geodetic Engineer’s report showing the boundaries of the property. By order of January 2, 2008, the MTC approved the Report and thus issued a second Alias Writ of Demolition.

The spouses tried to, and were able to get a Temporary Restraining Order from the RTC but by that time the demolition order had already been implemented. Thus the spouses along with their sons Andy and Ding, re-entered the property placed several container vans inside. Then they also filed petitions for contempt against the Province and the police officers for alleged violation of the RTC Injunction.

 On February 21, 2008, while the contempt petition was still pending, police officers led by Supt. Claro and some personnel from the engineering department, zoomed in and entered the property in compliance with the memorandum of the Governor to protect, secure and maintain possession of it. The spouses and their sons resisted and shoved the police officers insisting that the RTC injunction orders enjoined the latter from repossessing the property. Thus Supt. Claro and his group arrested the couple and their sons and cause their indictment for direct assault, trespassing and other light threats.

As soon Nita and her sons, Andy and Ding were released on bail, they filed before the RTC a “Respectful Motion for Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data”. They averred that despite the permanent Injunction, Claro and his policemen unlawfully entered the property and with the use of heavy equipment, tore down the barbed wire fences and tents, threatened them with bodily harm and arrested them when they resisted defending their property rights. In their joint affidavit, they declared that “wala kaming nagawa ipagtanggol ang aming karapatan sa lupa na 45 years naming in possession”.

On the basis of their allegations and supporting affidavits, the RTC issued the writs of amparo and habeas data finding that Claro and his men subjected the couple and their sons to “bodily harm, mental torture, degradation and debasement of a human being reminiscent of the martial law police brutality sending chill to any ordinary citizen”. Was the RTC correct?

No. Pursuant to the Rule on the Writ of Amparo (AM 07-9-12-SC) which is essentially reproduced in the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data (AM 08-1-16-SC), the coverage of the writs is limited to the protection of rights to life, liberty and security. These writs were intended mainly to address the intractable problems of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.

To be thus covered, Nita and her sons must meet this threshold requirement that their right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with an unlawful act or omission. It is not a writ to protect concerns that are purely property or commercial. Neither is it a writ that shall issue on amorphous and uncertain ground.

In this case Nita, Andy and Ding did not show any actual violation, imminent or continuing threat to their life, liberty and security aside from their bare allegations. As gathered from their affidavit, they are merely seeking protection of their property rights. Absent any connection between the acts complained of and its effects on their rights to life, liberty and security, the propriety of the policemen’s entry into the property cannot be delved into through the writs of amparo and habeas data.

Besides, petitions for writs of amparo and habeas data are extraordinary remedies which cannot be used as tools to stall the execution of a final and executory decision in a property dispute.

In any case, their filing of the petitions for writs of amparo and habeas data should have been barred for the criminal proceedings for direct assault etc. against them had commenced after they were caught in flagrante delicto. Validity of their arrest or the proceedings conducted thereafter is a defense that they may set up during the trial and not by means of a petition for writs of amparo and habeas data (Castillo et.al. vs. Cruz et. al., G.R. 182165, November 25, 2009).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]