The residents of Mt. Ahohoy, headed by Masigasig, formed a nongovernmental organization – Alyansa Laban sa Minahan sa Ahohoy (ALMA) to protest the mining operations of Oro Negro Mining in the mountain. ALMA members picketed daily at the entrance of the mining site blocking the ingress and egress of trucks and equipment of Oro Negro, hampering its operations. Masigasig had an altercation with Mapusok arising from the complaint of the mining engineer of Oro Negro that one of their trucks was destroyed by ALMA members. Mapusok is the leader of the Association of Peace Keepers of Ahohoy (APKA), a civilian volunteer organization serving as auxiliary force of the local police to maintain peace and order in the area. Subsequently, Masigasig disappeared. Mayumi, the wife of Masigasig, and the members of ALMA searched for Masigasig, but all their efforts proved futile. Mapagmatyag, a member of ALMA, learned from Maingay, a member of APKA, during their binge drinking that Masigasig was abducted by other members of APKA, on order of Mapusok. Mayumi and ALMA sought the assistance of the local police to search for Masigasig, but they refused to extend their cooperation.
Immediately, Mayumi filed with the RTC, a petition for the issuance of the writ of amparo against Mapusok and APKA. ALMA also filed a petition for the issuance of the writ of amparo with the Court of Appeals against Mapusok and APKA. Respondents Mapusok and APKA, in their Return filed with the RTC, raised among their defenses that they are not agents of the State; hence, cannot be impleaded as respondents in an amparo petition.
a.) Is their defense tenable? (3%)
Respondents Mapusok and APKA, in their Return filed with the Court of Appeals, raised as their defense that the petition should be dismissed on the ground that ALMA cannot file the petition because of the earlier petition filed by Mayumi with the RTC.
b.) Are respondents correct in raising their defense? (3%)
c.) Mayumi later filed separate criminal and civil actions against Mapusok. How will the cases affect the amparo petition she earlier filed? (1%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
[a] No, their defense is untenable; [b] yes, respondents are correct; and [c] the amparo petition will be consolidated with the criminal action. Under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, the writ applies to violations committed by public
Unlock the full Remedial Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Does the Writ of Amparo apply to threats or violations committed by private individuals and non-state entities?
Under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo the remedy explicitly covers violations committed by both public officers and private entities
What is the order of preference in filing a petition for a Writ of Amparo if the victim disappeared?
Section 2 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides an exclusive order of preference prioritizing the spouse, children, and parents
What happens to a pending petition for the Writ of Amparo when a criminal action is subsequently filed against the respondent?
Section 21 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo mandates the consolidation of the amparo petition with the criminal action
Why is ALMA's separate petition for a Writ of Amparo before the Court of Appeals subject to dismissal?
Choices available with full access.
Which court has territorial jurisdiction over a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Amparo?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Amparo Scope
Under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC), the remedy covers violations or threats to the right to life, liberty, and security committed by public officers or private individuals and entities. Private individuals acting as civilian volunteer organizations or private security auxiliary forces cannot claim exemption from amparo petitions on the ground of being non-state agents. Where the petition alleges enforced disappearance or threat committed by private individuals, the writ lies against them, rendering their defense of non-agency untenable.
2. Order of Preference
Under Section 2 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, the right to file the petition belongs primarily to the aggrieved party. If the aggrieved party disappears, the rule establishes an exclusive order of preference: first, the spouse, children, and parents; second, other relatives within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity; and third, any concerned citizen or organization. The filing of a petition by a person higher in the order of preference precludes lower-ranked entities, such as an NGO, from subsequently or simultaneously filing a separate petition.
3. Case Consolidation
Under Section 21 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, when a criminal action is subsequently filed after an amparo petition, the amparo petition shall be consolidated with the criminal action. Moreover, under Section 22, if a criminal action was filed first, no separate amparo petition may be filed, but the relief may be sought in the criminal case. Consolidation ensures that evidence and interim reliefs regarding the threat or disappearance are evaluated together within the criminal prosecution, avoiding conflicting judicial rulings.