SC grants protection to 3 ‘harassed’ groups

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted writs of amparo and habeas data sought by leaders and members of three civil society organizations claiming to have been harassed and subjected to surveillance by the military and the police.

Supreme Court spokesman Theodore Te said the high court directed the Court of Appeals to conduct summary hearings on the case filed by the leaders of the Confederation for the Unity, Recognition and Advancement of Government Employees, Salinlahi Alliance for Children’s Concerns and Children’s Rehabilitation Center.

“The Court directed the Court of Appeals to immediately set the petition for hearing and to decide the case within 30 days of its submission,” Te told a press briefing.

Amparo and habeas data are prerogative writs—meant to supplement the writ of habeas corpus—conceived by the Puno court in 2007 to solve the extensive extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances since 1999. Amparo means “protection,” while habeas data is “access to information.”

Habeas data not only compels military and government agents to release information about disappeared persons but requires access to military and police files. Amparo bars military officers in judicial proceedings to issue denial answers regarding petitions on disappearances or extrajudicial executions, which are legally permitted in habeas corpus proceedings.

“The court noted that the material allegations of the petition show that the petitioners are entitled to the protection of the writs of amparo and habeas data,” said Te.

The petition was filed by Rosalinda Nartates, Antonieta Setias-Dizon, Felicidad Sano, Roman Sanchez, Evelyn Garcia, Hilario Tan, Josefina Delloro, Santiago Dasmarinas Jr., Elvira Prudencio, Manuel Baclagon, Ma. Theresa Gonzales, Benny Angeles, Erwin Lanuza, Oliver Rosales, Juan Alexander Reyes, Generosa Manilag, Hector Juliano, Romeo Manilag II, Raquel Toquero, Madella Santiago and Eilekrenes Manano.

All are union officers of the National Housing Authority, National Food Authority, Department of Social Welfare and Development, Metropolitan Manila Development Authority; National Wages and Productivity Commission and Quezon City Hall; personnel of the Courage national secretariat/office; and of Salinlahi and CRC.

Named respondents in the suit were President Aquino, Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin, the Armed Forces chief; the director-general of the Philippine National Police; and 10 other military and police officials, including the heads of the AFP intelligence service, the Army, the National Capital Regional Police Office and Manila Police District, among others.

Te said the respondents were also asked to submit their verified returns to the writ within 15 days from notice and to comment on the petition within the same period.

In their petition, the Courage, Salinlahi and CRC leaders and members said they have been subjected to threats and harassment by people claiming to be a policemen or soldiers, who accused them of being communist rebels and urged them to cooperate with the police or the military.

“No other conclusion can be reached other than that their lives, security and liberty are under threat,” the petition read.

“The incidents establishe the participation of state forces, especially that of the military and police establishments,” it stated.

Since the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, the Court of Appeals will be the one to conduct hearings to determine whether the petitioners are entitled to the privileges of the writ.