MANILA — The Supreme Court (SC) has denied the motion filed by military and police officers seeking to overturn the writs of amparo and habeas data earlier issued in favor of environmental advocates Jonila F. Castro and Jhed Reiyana C. Tamano.

In a resolution penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC En Banc upheld the protective writs and the Temporary Protection Order (TPO) it previously granted against members of the Philippine Army’s 70th Infantry Battalion, the Philippine National Police, the National Security Council, and the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict.

The TPO bars the respondents from coming within one kilometer of the activists’ homes, schools, workplaces, or current locations.

Castro and Tamano alleged that the respondents abducted them and coerced them into signing false affidavits after wrongly suspecting them of involvement in anti-government activities.

The SC issued the writs earlier and directed the Court of Appeals (CA) to hold summary proceedings on the merits of the case, while ordering respondents to file a verified return before the appellate court.

Respondents’ due process argument rejected

Through the Office of the Solicitor General, the respondents argued that the SC violated their right to due process when it issued the writs and TPO without first requiring them to comment. They also questioned the Court’s initial finding of substantial evidence, insisting that such determination should have been made by the CA in the summary hearing.

The SC rejected these contentions.

It explained that under the Amparo Rule and Habeas Data Rule, the Court may issue the writs outright when the petition presents a credible threat to life, liberty, security, or privacy. Prima facie evidence is enough at the initial stage.

However, the Court noted that Castro and Tamano’s detailed and convincing account of abduction and coercion exceeded the prima facie threshold and amounted to substantial evidence—justifying the immediate issuance of the writs and TPO.

On the Temporary Protection Order

The SC also affirmed the TPO, noting that even if petitioners did not seek a TPO in technical terms, their request to bar respondents from approaching them was consistent with the protective purpose of amparo.

“The instruction for respondents in an amparo petition to steer clear of the petitioners’ whereabouts… is impliedly, automatically, and inevitably issued upon a grant of the writ,” the Court said. “Otherwise, amparo loses its meaning and purpose.”

Amparo and habeas data: State accountability, not liability

The SC emphasized that amparo and habeas data proceedings seek to determine the State’s responsibility and accountability in alleged violations or threats to constitutional rights—not criminal or civil liability.

Respondents are required to explain this responsibility upon the issuance of the writs, the Court said, while the privilege of the writ is granted only after a hearing and a finding supported by substantial evidence.

The Court noted that the CA had earlier denied the privileges of the writs to the petitioners, a ruling they have elevated to the SC. To fully resolve the matter, the SC directed the respondents to file their Comment.