“[An amparo proceeding] does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the disappearance [threats thereof or extrajudicial killings]”
“THE writ of amparo is a protective remedy aimed at providing judicial relief consisting of the appropriate remedial measures and directives… to address specific violations or threats of violation of the Constitutional rights to life, liberty or security… [T]he courts must consider the ‘totality of the obtaining situation’ in determining whether a[n] [applicant] is entitled to a writ of amparo.” (Tabian, et al. v. Gonzales, G.R. 247211, Aug. 1, 2022)
The rule on the writ of amparo describes the writ as “a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.
‘The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.” (Section 1).
“Extralegal killings are killings committed without due process of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings.” (op. cit., G.R. 247211, Aug.1, 2022 citing Mayor Mamba v. Bueno).
“In an amparo action, the parties must establish their respective claims by substantial evidence or that amount of evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion” (op. cit.).
An amparo petition must allege, among others, “[t]he right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party [that was] violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of the respondent, and how such threat or violation is committed with the attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits” (op. cit.).
The petition must also allege “[t]he investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authority or individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of the investigation, together with any report.”
“The actions… taken by the petitioner to determine the… whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of the person responsible…” (op. cit.).
In the case of Tabian v. Gonzales, Spouses Joselito and Christina Gonzales were hired to sell “shabu” (an illegal drug) by certain law enforcement officers. The same officers were later believed to have caused the killing or liquidation of Joselito which prompted Christina to file a Petition for Writ of Amparo in the Court of Appeals ((op cit.)
“An amparo proceeding is not criminal in nature nor does it ascertain the criminal liability of individuals or entities involved. Neither does it partake of a civil or administrative suit.
“Rather, it is a remedial measure designed to direct specified courses of action to government agencies to safeguard the constitutional right to life, liberty and security of aggrieved individuals.” (Boac et al. v. Cadapan et al., G.R. 184461-62, May 31, 2011)
“[C]ommand responsibility may be loosely applied in amparo cases in order to identify those accountable individuals that have the power to effectively implement whatever processes an amparo court would issue. In such application, the amparo court does not impute criminal responsibility but merely pinpoint the superiors it considers to be in the best position to protect the rights of the aggrieved party (op cit.).
In the Tabian case, Christina filed the Petition for Writ of Amparo to help her identify the responsible and accountable officers who participated or knew the circumstances leading to the extrajudicial killing of Joselito.
“Such identification… may well be a preliminary determination of criminal liability which, of course, is still subject to further investigation by the appropriate government agency.”
“Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have been established by substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way, by action or omission, in an enforced disappearance [or extrajudicial killing], as a measure of remedies [the Supreme] Court shall craft, among them, the directive to file the appropriate criminal and civil cases against the responsible parties in the proper courts” (op. cit. citing Razon v. Tagitis).
“Accountability, on the other hand refers to the measure of remedies that should be addressed to those who exhibited involvement… without bringing the level of their complicity to the level of responsibility defined above; or who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance [or extrajudicial killing]…; or those who carry… the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance” (op. cit.).
In brief, “[an amparo proceeding] does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the disappearance [threats thereof or extrajudicial killings]; it determines responsibility, or at least accountability, for the enforced disappearance [extrajudicial killings]…” (op. cit, citing Razon v. Tagitis).
