Secretary of National Defense vs Manalo

FACTS: DANIEL MASANGKAY TAPUZ V HON. JUDGE

1. The private respondents spouses Sanson filed with the Aklan MCTC a
Ten days after their escape, they filed a Petition for Prohibition, Injunction, and complaint for forcible entry and damages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ
Temporary Restraining Order to stop the military officers and agents from of preliminary mandatory injunction against the petitioners and other John Does
depriving them of their right to liberty and other basic rights. While the said numbering about 120.
case was pending, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo took effect on October 24,
2. The private respondents alleged in their complaint that: (1) they are the
2007. The Manalos subsequently filed a manifestation and omnibus motion to registered owners of the disputed land; (2) they were the disputed land’s prior
treat their existing petition as amparo petition. possessors when the petitioners – armed with bolos and carrying suspected
firearms and together with unidentified persons – entered the disputed land by
On December 26, 2007, the Court of Appeals granted the privilege of the writ of force and intimidation, without the private respondents’ permission and against
amparo. The CA ordered the Secretary of National Defense and the Chief of Staff the objections of the private respondents’ security men, and built thereon a nipa
and bamboo structure.
of the AFP to furnish the Manalos and the court with all official and unofficial
investigation reports as to the Manalos’ custody, confirm the present places of 3. In their Answer, the petitioners denied the material allegations and essentially
official assignment of two military officials involved, and produce all medical claimed that: (1) they are the actual and prior possessors of the disputed land; (2)
reports and records of the Manalo brothers while under military custody. The on the contrary, the private respondents are the intruders; and (3) the private
respondents’ certificate of title to the disputed property is spurious. They asked
Secretary of National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the AFP appealed to the for the dismissal of the complaint and interposed a counterclaim for damages.
SC seeking to reverse and set aside the decision promulgated by the CA.
4. The MCTC, after due proceedings, rendered a decision in the private
HELD: respondents’ favor, finding prior possession through the construction of
perimeter fence in 1993.
In upholding the CA decision, the Supreme Court ruled that there is a continuing
5. The petitioners appealed the MCTC decision to RTC.
violation of the Manalos right to security. xxx The Writ of Amparo is the most
potent remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security 6. On appeal, Judge Marin granted the private respondents’ motion for the
has been violated or is threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction upon posting of a bond.
by public officials or employees and by private individuals or entities. xxx The writ – authorizing the immediate implementation of the MCTC decision –
was actually issued by respondent Judge del Rosario after the private
Understandably, since their escape, the Manalos have been under concealment respondents had complied with the imposed condition. The petitioners moved to
and protection by private citizens because of the threat to their life, liberty, and reconsider the issuance of the writ; the private respondents, on the other hand,
security. The circumstances of respondents’ abduction, detention, torture and filed a motion for demolition.
escape reasonably support a conclusion that there is an apparent threat that
7. The respondent Judge subsequently denied the petitioners’ MR and to Defer
they will again be abducted, tortured, and this time, even executed. These Enforcement of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction.
constitute threats to their liberty, security, and life, actionable through a
petition for a writ of amparo,” the Court explained. (GR No. 180906, The 8. Meanwhile, the petitioners opposed the motion for demolition. The
Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo, October 7, 2008) respondent Judge nevertheless issued via a Special Order a writ of demolition to
be implemented fifteen (15) days after the Sheriff’s written notice to the
petitioners to voluntarily demolish their house/s to allow the private respondents These allegations obviously lack what the Rule on Writ of Habeas Data requires
to effectively take actual possession of the land. as a minimum, thus rendering the petition fatally deficient. Specifically, we see
no concrete allegations of unjustified or unlawful violation of the right to privacy
9. The petitioners thereafter filed a Petition for Review of the Permanent related to the right to life, liberty or security. The petition likewise has not
Mandatory Injunction and Order of Demolition in CA. alleged, much less demonstrated, any need for information under the control of
police authorities other than those it has already set forth as integral annexes.
10. Meanwhile, respondent Sheriff issued the Notice to Vacate and for The necessity or justification for the issuance of the writ, based on the
Demolition. Hence, the present petition for certiorari with writs of amparo and insufficiency of previous efforts made to secure information, has not also been
habeas data. shown. In sum, the prayer for the issuance of a writ of habeas data is nothing
more than the “fishing expedition” that this Court – in the course of drafting the
ISSUE: W/N petition for certiorari with writ of amparo and habeas data is Rule on habeas data – had in mind in defining what the purpose of a writ of
proper habeas data is not. In these lights, the outright denial of the petition for the
issuance of the writ of habeas data is fully in order. PETITION DENIED.
HELD:
No. We find the petitions for certiorari and issuance of a writ of habeas data
fatally defective, both in substance and in form. The petition for the issuance of
the writ of amparo, on the other hand, is fatally defective with respect to content
and substance.

Based on the outlined material antecedents that led to the petition, that the
petition for certiorari to nullify the assailed RTC orders has been filed out of time.
Based on the same material antecedents, we find too that the petitioners have
been guilty of willful and deliberate misrepresentation before this Court and, at
the very least, of forum shopping. In sum, the petition for certiorari should be
dismissed for the cited formal deficiencies, for violation of the non-forum
shopping rule, for having been filed out of time, and for substantive deficiencies.

To start off with the basics, the writ of amparo was originally conceived as a
response to the extraordinary rise in the number of killings and enforced
disappearances, and to the perceived lack of available and effective remedies to
address these extraordinary concerns. It is intended to address violations of or
threats to the rights to life, liberty or security, as an extraordinary and
independent remedy beyond those available under the prevailing Rules, or as a
remedy supplemental to these Rules. What it is not, is a writ to protect concerns
that are purely property or commercial. Neither is it a writ that we shall issue on
amorphous and uncertain grounds. Consequently, the Rule on the Writ of
Amparo – in line with the extraordinary character of the writ and the reasonable
certainty that its issuance demands – requires that every petition for the issuance
of the Writ must be supported by justifying allegations of fact.

On the whole, what is clear from these statements – both sworn and unsworn – is
the overriding involvement of property issues as the petition traces its roots to
questions of physical possession of the property disputed by the private parties. If
at all, issues relating to the right to life or to liberty can hardly be discerned
except to the extent that the occurrence of past violence has been alleged. The
right to security, on the other hand, is alleged only to the extent of the threats and
harassments implied from the presence of “armed men bare to the waist” and the
alleged pointing and firing of weapons. Notably, none of the supporting affidavits
compellingly show that the threat to the rights to life, liberty and security of the
petitioners is imminent or is continuing.