Writ of Amparo Prof. Jose M. I. Diokno 28 June 2008

Presentations

Group Work Questions for Discussion 1. How do we differentiate between substantial evidence and preponderance of evidence? 1. How do we differentiate between substantial evidence and preponderance of evidence? 2. Ordinary and extraordinary diligence? 2. Ordinary and extraordinary diligence? 3. “General denial” from a “specific denial?” 3. “General denial” from a “specific denial?” 4. When does the “presumption of regularity” apply and when does it not? 4. When does the “presumption of regularity” apply and when does it not?

Substantial evidence The parties shall establish their claims by substantial evidence. The parties shall establish their claims by substantial evidence. (Sec. 17, Amparo Rule) (Sec. 17, Amparo Rule) Substantial Evidence – that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Substantial Evidence – that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (Rule 133, Sec. 5, Rules of Court) (Rule 133, Sec. 5, Rules of Court)

Substantial Evidence The substantial evidence rule requires only such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The substantial evidence rule requires only such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The rule requires that determinations of fact should be upheld unless arbitrary or clearly wrong, and a ruling supported by substantial evidence should be sustained unless it rests on erroneous legal foundations. [Gonzales, N.A., Administrative Law, p. 173] The rule requires that determinations of fact should be upheld unless arbitrary or clearly wrong, and a ruling supported by substantial evidence should be sustained unless it rests on erroneous legal foundations. [Gonzales, N.A., Administrative Law, p. 173]

Extraordinary Diligence Ordinary diligence for private respondents Ordinary diligence for private respondents (Sec. 17, Amparo Rule) (Sec. 17, Amparo Rule) Extraordinary Diligence for public respondents Extraordinary Diligence for public respondents That extraordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in the performance of duty. [id.] That extraordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in the performance of duty. [id.]

Extraordinary Diligence “…. as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.” “…. as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.” (Art. 1755, Civil Code of the Philippines) (Art. 1755, Civil Code of the Philippines)

Writs Comparison Chart

CERTIORARI,PROHIBITIONMANDAMUS WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WRIT OF AMPARO WRIT OF HABEAS DATA PREPOND. OF EVIDENCE PREPOND. OF EVID. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BURDEN OF PROOF > P ONLY BURDEN OF PROOF > P ONLY BURDEN OF PROOF: P AND R PET – DISMISSED IF P FAILS TO MEET BURDEN OF PROOF PET – DISMISSED IF P FAILS TO MEET BURDEN OF PROOF PET – NOT DISMISSED BUT ARCHIVED IF… PET – DISMISSED IF P FAILS TO MEET BURDEN OF PROOF

CERTIORARIPROHIBITIONMANDAMUS WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WRIT OF AMPARO WRIT OF HABEAS DATA ORDINARYDILIGENCE ORDINARY DILIGENCE PUBLIC R’s > EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE ORDINARY DILIGENCE GENERAL DENIAL OK GENERAL DENIAL OK GEN. DENIAL PROHIBITED GENERAL DENIAL PROHIBITED PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY GENERALLY OK PRES. OF REGULARITY OK NO PRES. OF REGULARITY PRES. OF REGULARITY OK CONST’L AND STATUTORY RIGHTS PROTECTED RIGHT TO LIBERTY RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY & SECURITY RIGHT TO INFORMATION IN LIFE, LIBERTY & SECURITY

GROUP WORK

GUIDE QUESTIONS (2-3 questions per group) 1. Why are general denials prohibited in amparo and habeas data cases, but allowed in habeas corpus and Rule 65 cases? 1. Why are general denials prohibited in amparo and habeas data cases, but allowed in habeas corpus and Rule 65 cases? 2. Why are amparo cases only archived (not dismissed) even if P fails to meet his burden of proof, unlike habeas data, habeas corpus and Rule 65 remedies? 2. Why are amparo cases only archived (not dismissed) even if P fails to meet his burden of proof, unlike habeas data, habeas corpus and Rule 65 remedies? 3. Why is the presumption of regularity not allowed in amparo cases but allowed in habeas data, habeas corpus and Rule 65 remedies? 3. Why is the presumption of regularity not allowed in amparo cases but allowed in habeas data, habeas corpus and Rule 65 remedies?

4. Why is the standard “extraordinary diligence” for public R’s in amparo cases, but not in habeas data, habeas corpus and Rule 65 remedies? 4. Why is the standard “extraordinary diligence” for public R’s in amparo cases, but not in habeas data, habeas corpus and Rule 65 remedies? 5. Why is the quantum of evidence in amparo and habeas data “substantial evidence” instead of preponderance of evidence? 5. Why is the quantum of evidence in amparo and habeas data “substantial evidence” instead of preponderance of evidence? 6. What burden of proof is imposed on the respondents in amparo and habeas data cases that is not imposed on respondents in habeas corpus and Rule 65 cases? 6. What burden of proof is imposed on the respondents in amparo and habeas data cases that is not imposed on respondents in habeas corpus and Rule 65 cases?

Justice Azcuna’s annotation Contents of the Return. The section requires a detailed return. The detailed return is important, for it will help determine whether the respondent fulfilled the standard of conduct required by the Rule. Contents of the Return. The section requires a detailed return. The detailed return is important, for it will help determine whether the respondent fulfilled the standard of conduct required by the Rule. It will also avoid the ineffectiveness of the writ of habeas corpus, where often the respondent makes a simple denial in the return that he or she has custody over the missing person, and the petition is dismissed. It will also avoid the ineffectiveness of the writ of habeas corpus, where often the respondent makes a simple denial in the return that he or she has custody over the missing person, and the petition is dismissed. The requirements under paragraph (d) [duties where the respondent is a public official] are based on United Nations standards. The requirements under paragraph (d) [duties where the respondent is a public official] are based on United Nations standards.

“The Rationale for the Writ of Amparo” (Supreme Court) “In Velasquez and Godinez, the [Inter-American] Court [of Human Rights] held that such [enforced] disappearances constituted crimes against humanity under international law; and that, as a result, governments had an affirmative duty to investigate them and to prosecute and punish whoever may be responsible.” “In Velasquez and Godinez, the [Inter-American] Court [of Human Rights] held that such [enforced] disappearances constituted crimes against humanity under international law; and that, as a result, governments had an affirmative duty to investigate them and to prosecute and punish whoever may be responsible.”

“The Rationale for the Writ of Amparo” (Supreme Court) “The Court also found that, because the purpose of a disappearance was to eliminate traces of the government’s role in a serious crime, the standard of proof and burden of persuasion must, after an initial presentation by the Commission, shift to the government to demonstrate that it had done all in its power to redress the wrong. The Court based this reasoning on its dicum that states have an obligation to organize their whole apparatus so that human rights may be adequately protected. “ “The Court also found that, because the purpose of a disappearance was to eliminate traces of the government’s role in a serious crime, the standard of proof and burden of persuasion must, after an initial presentation by the Commission, shift to the government to demonstrate that it had done all in its power to redress the wrong. The Court based this reasoning on its dicum that states have an obligation to organize their whole apparatus so that human rights may be adequately protected. “

Justice Azcuna’s annotation No General Denial. No general denial is allowed. The policy is to require revelation of all evidence relevant to the resolution of the petition. No General Denial. No general denial is allowed. The policy is to require revelation of all evidence relevant to the resolution of the petition. A litigation is not a game of guile but a search for truth, which alone is the basis of justice. A litigation is not a game of guile but a search for truth, which alone is the basis of justice.

Justice Azcuna’s annotation Diligence Standard. The distinction is made between a private and a public respondent to highlight the difference in the diligence requirement for a public official or employee. Diligence Standard. The distinction is made between a private and a public respondent to highlight the difference in the diligence requirement for a public official or employee. Public officials or employees are charged with a higher standard of conduct because it is their legal duty to obey the Constitution, especially its provisions protecting the right to life, liberty and security. Public officials or employees are charged with a higher standard of conduct because it is their legal duty to obey the Constitution, especially its provisions protecting the right to life, liberty and security. [For public officers] The denial of the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed is in accord with current jurisprudence on custodial interrogation and search warrant cases. [For public officers] The denial of the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed is in accord with current jurisprudence on custodial interrogation and search warrant cases.

Assignments for Next Class 1. Go over the procedure in amparo cases. Make a flowchart and be prepared to explain it to the class. 1. Go over the procedure in amparo cases. Make a flowchart and be prepared to explain it to the class. 2. Compare and contrast the procedure under Rule 65 for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition cases with the procedure for amparo cases. Be ready to explain the similarities and differences. 2. Compare and contrast the procedure under Rule 65 for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition cases with the procedure for amparo cases. Be ready to explain the similarities and differences.