Dear Atty. Gab,

Musta Atty! My name is Ricardo Cruz, and I’m writing to you from Cebu City because my family is facing a very distressing situation, and we’re confused about the legal process. My cousin, Mateo, has been receiving serious threats from unidentified individuals after he witnessed a crime involving some local officials a few months ago. We genuinely fear for his life and safety.

Following some advice, we hired a local lawyer who helped us file a Petition for a Writ of Amparo with the Regional Trial Court here. We submitted Mateo’s detailed affidavit and other evidence showing the threats. We thought this would lead to immediate protection, as we read the Amparo remedy is supposed to be swift.

However, the process in court has been confusing. Instead of just issuing the Writ right away or dismissing it, the judge issued summons and ordered the officials Mateo implicated to file an “Answer” within 10 days, citing the Rule on Summary Procedure. The judge even held a hearing before these officials filed anything, asking our lawyer to just submit a “Memorandum” instead of waiting for their response. He then issued a “Decision” saying he was granting the writ and some temporary orders, but it didn’t feel like a final resolution with clear protective steps.

We are very worried. Is this how it’s supposed to work? Why ask for an Answer and apply Summary Procedure rules? Shouldn’t they file a “Return”? We thought the hearing comes after their response. Is this “Decision” the final one? We desperately need Mateo to be safe, but the court proceedings feel incorrect and are causing more anxiety. Any guidance on what the proper Amparo procedure should be would be greatly appreciated.

Salamat po,

Ricardo Cruz

Dear Ricardo,

Thank you for reaching out. I understand your anxiety regarding your cousin Mateo’s safety and the confusion surrounding the Writ of Amparo proceedings. It’s distressing when the legal process itself seems unclear, especially in urgent situations involving threats to life and security.

The Writ of Amparo is indeed designed as an extraordinary and swift remedy precisely for situations like Mateo’s, aiming to provide judicial protection against violations or threats to the rights to life, liberty, and security. The procedural steps laid out in the Rule on the Writ of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC) are specific and meant to ensure a speedy process. Based on your description, there seem to be significant deviations from the standard procedure, which could unfortunately delay the effective protection the writ intends to provide. Let’s clarify the proper steps.

Navigating the Writ of Amparo: Understanding the Proper Steps

The Writ of Amparo serves as a critical safeguard under our legal system, specifically designed to address extralegal killings, enforced disappearances, and other serious threats to fundamental rights. It’s rooted in the constitutional guarantees of life, liberty, and security. Because of its urgent nature, the Supreme Court established a unique set of rules to govern its implementation, ensuring a process that is quick yet effective.

When you file a petition for the Writ of Amparo, the first step involves the judge making an immediate assessment based only on the petition and its supporting affidavits. The judge must determine if, on its face, the petition shows grounds for issuing the writ.

Section 6. Issuance of the Writ. – Upon the filing of the petition, the court, justice or judge shall immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its face it ought to issue. The clerk of court shall issue the writ under the seal of the court; or in case of urgent necessity, the justice or the judge may issue the writ under his or her own hand, and may deputize any officer or person to serve it. The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the petition which shall not be later than seven (7) days from the date of its issuance.

If the judge finds sufficient grounds based on this initial review, they will issue the Writ of Amparo. This issuance is an order compelling the respondents (the persons implicated) to appear in court and, crucially, to file a Return, not an Answer. If the petition lacks merit on its face, the judge should dismiss it outright. The order issuing the writ is significant because it sets the protective mechanisms in motion, but it is not the final judgment in the case.

The Return is the specific responsive pleading required under the Amparo Rule. It serves a broader purpose than a typical Answer in a civil case. The respondents must not only state their defenses but also detail the actions they have taken or will take concerning the threats alleged in the petition. For public officials, this includes specific steps taken to investigate and protect the aggrieved party.

Section 9. Return; Contents. – Within seventy-two (72) hours after service of the writ, the respondent shall file a verified written return together with supporting affidavits… The return shall specifically contain the following: (a) The lawful defenses to show that the respondent did not violate or threaten with violation the right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party… (b) The steps or actions taken by the respondent to determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party… (c) All relevant information in the possession of the respondent pertaining to the threat, act or omission against the aggrieved party; (d) If the respondent is a public official or employee, the return shall further state the actions that have been or will still be taken… [including investigation, preservation of evidence, identification of witnesses, determination of cause/manner/location/time, and bringing suspected offenders to court].

Only after the Return has been filed should a summary hearing be conducted. This hearing is where the court examines the evidence presented by both sides to determine the merits of the petition and decide whether permanent protection and other reliefs are necessary.

Section 13. Summary Hearing. – The hearing on the petition shall be summary. However, the court, justice or judge may call for a preliminary conference to simplify the issues and determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations and admissions from the parties. The hearing shall be from day to day until completed and given the same priority as petitions for habeas corpus.

Requiring an Answer based on the Rule on Summary Procedure is incorrect. The Rule on Summary Procedure applies to specific civil and criminal cases in first-level courts (MTCs), not to special proceedings like Amparo petitions filed in Regional Trial Courts. Furthermore, requiring a Memorandum in lieu of a responsive pleading like the Return is also improper, especially since Memoranda are listed as prohibited pleadings under the Amparo Rule.

Section 11. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions. – The following pleadings and motions are prohibited: … (j) Memorandum; … (l) Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against any interlocutory order…

Finally, the court renders a Judgment after the summary hearing. This is the final decision based on the evidence presented. If the allegations are proven by substantial evidence, the court grants the privilege of the writ and orders specific, appropriate reliefs. This judgment must detail the concrete measures the respondents must undertake for the petitioner’s protection.

Section 18. Judgment. — The court shall render judgment within ten (10) days from the time the petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate; otherwise, the privilege shall be denied.

The initial “Decision” you mentioned, which merely ordered the issuance of the writ and granted interim reliefs, appears to be the interlocutory order under Section 6, not the final Judgment under Section 18. This final judgment is the one appealable to the Supreme Court via Rule 45.

Practical Advice for Your Situation

• Clarify the Pleading Requirement: The proper responsive pleading in an Amparo case is a Return, not an Answer. Applying the Rule on Summary Procedure is generally inappropriate for Amparo petitions in the RTC.
• Timing of Hearing: A summary hearing on the main petition should ideally be conducted after the respondents have filed their verified Return, allowing issues to be properly joined.
• Identify the Court Order: Determine if the judge’s “Decision” was the order issuing the writ (an initial step) or the final Judgment granting the privilege of the writ after a hearing on the merits (the concluding step). The description suggests it was likely the former.
• Prohibited Pleadings: Memoranda are prohibited under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. Requiring one instead of a Return is a procedural irregularity.
• Focus on the Return’s Content: The Return is crucial as it compels respondents (especially public officials) to state specific actions taken to investigate and protect, which is vital for ensuring Mateo’s safety.
• Interim Reliefs vs. Final Judgment: Temporary protection orders are interim reliefs that can be granted early on (Section 14), but they are distinct from the final, comprehensive protection measures detailed in the Judgment (Section 18).
• Consult Your Counsel: Discuss these procedural points with your lawyer. They may need to file the appropriate manifestation or motion with the court to clarify the procedural steps being taken and ensure adherence to the Rule on the Writ of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC) for Mateo’s effective protection.

Ricardo, the procedural deviations you’ve described are concerning because they can undermine the speed and effectiveness intended by the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. Ensuring the correct procedure is followed is key to securing the protection Mateo needs. Work closely with your lawyer to address these points with the court.

Hope this helps!

Sincerely,
Atty. Gabriel Ablola

For more specific legal assistance related to your situation, please contact me through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This correspondence is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please schedule a formal consultation.