[89] Sps Santiago v.

Tulfo  Terrified by the gravity of the threats hurled, petitioners filed a motion for the
G.R. No. 205039 | October 21, 2015 | PERLAS-BERNABE, J. issuance of a writ of amparo against respondents.
 RTC
SUMMARY o Granted temporary protection order in favor of petitioners.
`After brawl the brawl of Raymart and Mon Tulfo, the brother of Mon Tulfo aired on o `Ben Tulfo claimed that the statements he uttered did not involve any
their TV program a threat that they will retaliate against the Santiagos. Because of actual threat and that he merely expressed his strong sentiments to
this, petitioners filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of amparo against defend his brother.
respondents. RTC did not grant it since the petition is not a proper subject of a writ of o Judge Vargas retied and Judge Singh ordered the dissolution of the
amparo since the rules were intended to apply solely to cases of extralegal killings TPO.
and enforced disappearances. SC concurred. It is undisputed that petitioners'  `Petition is not a proper subject of a writ of amparo since the
amparo petition does not allege any case of extrajudicial killing and/or enforced rules were intended to apply solely to cases of extralegal
disappearance, or any threats thereof. Thus, it is apparent that their amparo petition killings and enforced disappearances, noting that the purpose
falls outside the purview of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC and must fail. The court, has the of the law is to, among others, ascertain the whereabouts of
discretion to determine whether or not it has the authority to grant the relief in the an aggrieved party, recover evidence related to the death or
first place. And when it is already apparent that the petition falls beyond the purview disappearance of the person identified in the petition, and
of the rule, it has the duty to dismiss the petition so as not to prejudice any of the determine the facts surrounding the death or disappearance
parties through prolonged but futile litigation. of a missing person.
 `Did not have the authority to issue said writ in favor of
DOCTRINE: petitioners.
` 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 ISSUES w/ HOLDING & RATIO
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private 1. W/N Whether or not the motion for the issuance of a writ of amparo should be
individual or entity. granted
DISCUSSION ABOUT WRIT OF AMPARO
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats
 Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo
thereof.
o The Rule on the Writ of Amparo was intended to address and,
thus, is presently confined to cases involving extralegal killings
The court, indeed, has the discretion to determine whether or not it has the authority
and/or enforced disappearances, or threats thereof
to grant the relief in the first place. And when it is already apparent that the petition
o The writ of amparo originated in Mexico. "Amparo" literally means
falls beyond the purview of the rule, it has the duty to dismiss the petition so as not to
"protection" in Spanish.
prejudice any of the parties through prolonged but futile litigation.
o If, after hearing, the judge determines that a constitutional right of the
petitioner is being violated, he orders the official, or the official's
PROVISIONS APPLICABLE:
superiors, to cease the violation and to take the necessary measures to
 ` A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO
restore the petitioner to the full enjoyment of the right in question.
o Amparo thus combines the principles of judicial review derived from the
FACTS:
U.S. with the limitations on judicial power characteristic of the civil law
 `While Spouses Santiago were before an airport complaint desk, Raymart saw a
tradition which prevails in Mexico. It enables courts to enforce the
man taking photos of his wife. He approached him and found out that it was
constitution by protecting individual rights in particular cases, but
Ramon Tulfo. A confrontation happened then it escalated to a brawl, which
prevents them from using this power to make law for the entire nation.
came to a stop because of the interference of the airport security personnel.
 In our jurisdiction
 Days after the incident, the brother of Mon Tulfo aired on their TV program
o the present Amparo Rule has limited the remedy as a response to
comments and expletives together with a threat that they will retaliate against
extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, or threats
the Santiagos.
thereof.
  Extrajudicial killings - killings committed without due process  Thus, it is apparent that their amparo petition falls outside the purview of
of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC and must fail.
 enforced disappearances - arrest, detention, or abduction of  Hence, the RTC, through Judge Singh, properly exercised its discretion to motu
persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence proprio dismiss the same under this principal determination, regardless of the
of, a State or a political organization followed by a refusal to filing of the May 23, 2012 Motion.
acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give  The court, indeed, has the discretion to determine whether or not it has the
information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with authority to grant the relief in the first place. And when it is already apparent that
the intention of removing from the protection of the law for a the petition falls beyond the purview of the rule, it has the duty to dismiss the
prolonged period of time. petition so as not to prejudice any of the parties through prolonged but futile
 Navia v. Pardico litigation.
o the petitioner in an amparo case has the
burden of proving by substantial
evidence the indispensable element of RULING:
government participation. `WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The petition for writ of amparo filed by
o same requirement of government petitioners-spouses Rozelle Raymond Martin and Claudine Margaret Santiago
participation should also apply to before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, docketed as SP No. Q-12-71275, is
extralegal killings hereby DISMISSED.
o Hold public authorities, those who took their oath to defend the
constitution and enforce our laws, to a high standard of official conduct
and hold them accountable to our people.
 Consistent therewith, the delimitation of our current writ of amparo to extralegal
killings and/or enforced disappearances, or threats thereof, is explicit from
Section 1 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, which reads:
o Section 1. Petition. - 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.
o The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or
threats thereof.
 While the foregoing rule, as per Section 1 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC's first
paragraph, does state that the writ is a remedy to protect the right to life, liberty,
and security of the person desiring to avail of it, the same section's second
paragraph qualifies that the protection of such rights specifically pertain to
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof, which are
more concrete cases that involve protection to the rights to life, liberty and
security. The two paragraphs should indeed be read together in order to
construe the meaning of the provision
 In this case, it is undisputed that petitioners' amparo petition does not
allege any case of extrajudicial killing and/or enforced disappearance, or
any threats thereof. Their petition is anchored on a broad invocation of
respondents' purported violation of their right to life and security, carried out by
private individuals without any showing of direct or indirect government
participation.