RECENTLY, the Court of Appeals dismissed suits for protection filed by environmental activists against the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC), the Philippine Army, and the Philippine National Police (PNP) and its officials.
The Court finds that the petitioners failed to establish their claims by substantial evidence. This evidence is a degree of proof lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt and preponderance of evidence. Its standard is satisfied when there is a reasonable ground to believe, based on evidence submitted, that the respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of.
What are these suits for protection? The petitioners in this case filed petitions for the Writ of Amparo and Writ of Habeas Data.
The petition for a Writ of Amparo is 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. This shall cover extra-legal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
On the other hand, the petition for Habeas Data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty, or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home, and correspondence of the aggrieved party.
In both cases, the petition may be filed by the aggrieved party or any qualified person or entity. It may be filed by any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse, children, and parents of the aggrieved party. It may also be filed by any ascendant, descendant, or collateral relative to the aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity.
However, in petitions for Writ of Amparo, if there is no known member of the immediate family or relative of the aggrieved party, any concerned citizen, organization, association, or institution may file.
This order must be followed by those who can file for both writs. In this way, it can prevent groundless filing of petitions as well as protect the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.
These writs are not criminal in nature and do not determine the criminal guilt of the respondent. It is likewise not a civil or an administrative suit. Thus, the aggrieved party may still file criminal, civil, or administrative actions. It should be noted that when the aggrieved party filed a criminal action and commenced, the commencement of the writ is barred because two courts may issue conflicting orders.
Nevertheless, the law allows the consolidation of actions. In case a petition for the writs is filed to the institution of a criminal action, or prior to a criminal action and a separate civil action, the petition shall be consolidated with the criminal action.
They say that we are born free and equal. Our Constitution spelled out the rights every Filipino citizen could expect and demand simply because they are human beings. However, it does not explicitly provide for both writs. What it provides is stated in Section 1, Article VIII where it expands the definition of judicial power to include “the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.”
These writs are protections to individuals from unnecessary invasions of their privacy. For the past years, our country has experienced extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. Thus, it is necessary to promulgate rules to protect the people themselves and their constitutional rights.
We need to take a hard look at the feasible and effective solutions, if not to eliminate all, but to lessen these kinds of situations./PN
