REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION REGIONAL TRIAL COURT CALAUAG, QUEZON BRANCH 63 ROSENDA PENIERO MAULAWIN,

, Petitioner, - versus CIVIL CASE NO.

For: Writ of Amparo

__________
THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; MAJOR GENERAL EDUARDO DEL ROSARIO, ND COMMANDER OF THE 2 INFANTRY DIVISION OF THE PHILIPPINE ARMY, CAMP MATEO CAPINPIN, TANAY, RIZAL; COL. OLIVER MAQUILING COMMANDING OFFICER, 85TH INFANTRY DIVISION, PHILIPPINE ARMY, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES BRGY. VILLA PRINCIPE, GUMACA, QUEZON, Respondents. x-------------------------------------------------------x

PETITION
PETITIONER, by counsel, most respectfully states, THAT: 1. Petitioner is of legal age, married, with residence and postal address at

Brgy. Sabang II, Calauag, Quezon; whereas respondent THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE holds office at Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon City, Metro Manila; respondent CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES likewise holds office at Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon city, Metro Manila; respondent Major General Eduardo Del Rosario, Commander of the 2nd Infantry Division of the Philippine Army, holds his command at Camp Mateo Capinpin, Tanay, Rizal; respondent Col. Oliver Maquiling holds his command at 85th Infantry Battalion, Philippine Army, Brgy. Villa Principe, Gumaca, Quezon, where in the said principal office addresses these respondents may all be served with summons, writs, and Page1

other processes of this Honorable Court; 2. Respondent Col. Oliver Maquiling is the commanding officer with

logistical command and supervision over the military personnel of 85th Infantry Battalion, Philippine Army that holds fort in Brgy. Villa Principe, Gumaca, Quezon;

3.

Sometime on February 5, 2012 at approximately 8:00 a.m., petitioner

received reliable information that her sister Miguela Peniero, of legal age, single, with residence and postal address at Gen. Luna, Bondoc Peninsula, Quezon was arrested with the connivance, knowledge and command of all the respondents by the elements of the Joint Forces of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and Philippine National Police based in Quezon Province as shall be described in detail below; 4. Petitioner aside from what she gathered from the previous information

read from a certain publication that according to respondent Major General Eduardo Del Rosario, Commander of the 2nd Infantry Division of the Philippine Army, they were able to apprehend and arrest the said Miguela Peniero and several others thru the 201st Brigade based in Guinayangan, Quezon; 5. With that information, petitioner and her immediate siblings and

relatives immediately asked the assistance of Karapatan-Quezon, a Non-Government Organization (NGO) based in Quezon Province to look for their sister, Miguela Peniero, of her possible whereabouts and inquire about her personal safety especially at/within the military camps within Quezon Province; 6. First, we went to the 201st Brigade in Brgy. San Roque, Calauag, Quezon

at around 10:00 a.m. on February 5, 2012. We were given a run around. Finally one regular soldier who identified himself as Abarrientos told us that their brigade does not have the custody of our sister Miguela Peniero and vehemently denied that the 21st Brigade has nothing to do with the apprehension of the said Miguela Peniero; 7. Thereafter at around 12:00 noon of February 5, 2012, we went to the

85th Infantry Battalion, Philippine Army in Brgy. San Isidro, Lopez, Quezon to look for our sister Miguela Peniero. Upon reaching the 85th Infantry Battalion, Philippine Army, Page1 Brgy. San Isidro, Lopez, Quezon we were not allowed to enter the said brigade command. We were made to stay at the gate and told us to wait for instructions. The

soldiers who received us did not want to be identified and while we were carrying photo-camera, we were prohibited from taking pictures. The said unidentified

soldiers of the 85th Infantry Battalion, Philippine Army based in Lopez, Quezon likewise denied that they have with them our sister Miguela Peniero. We consulted our legal counsel Atty. Frumencio E. Pulgar through the telephone so that he can talk to the soldiers who were present at the military camp and in the process assuage our growing apprehension, but the soldiers refused to entertain the queries of our said legal counsel causing herein petitioner and Miguela Peniero damage and prejudice. 8. We were already apprehensive, anxious, and fearful of the physical

safety of Miguela Peniero as it was getting late and no confirmation just as yet as to her whereabouts. The Karapatan-Quezon advised us to go to Brgy. Kalantipayan,

Lopez, Quezon were Miguela Peniero was arrested, apprehended and caught in order for us to determine what exactly happened through the Barangay Officials thereof. 9. When we reached at the exact spot where Miguela Peniero was arrested

in Brgy. Kalantipayan, Lopez, Quezon, we were able to talk to some Philippine Army Soldiers who were still present and gathered there. We talked to them and inquired about the whereabouts of petitioners sister Miguela Peniero but they ignored us and even denied that they have in their custody the said Miguela Peniero. denied that they arrested Miguela Peniero; 10. We asked around from the residents of Brgy. Kalantipayan, Lopez, They also

Quezon but they appeared frightened, apprehensive and fearful of the implication of giving information so they refused to be asked as to the whereabouts and the arrest of petitioners sister Miguela Peniero; 11. After repairing to Brgy. Kalantipayan, Lopez, Quezon, we went to the

City of Lucena at around 5:00 p.m. We went to Camp Guillermo Nakar, Brgy. Gulanggulang, Lucena City while my other siblings and my spouse went to the Office of the Philippine National Police, Lopez, Quezon and the Battalion Headquarters in Brgy. Villa Principe, Gumaca, Quezon but the authorities therein failed and refused and continue to fail and refuse to personally allow us access to herein petitioners sister Miguela Page1 Peniero, causing us extreme prejudice; 12. When we reached Lucena City, Quezon, we were told to stay at the gate.

When the sentry thereat was informed about our intention to inquire about the whereabouts of Miguela Peniero, he clammed up and refused to give further information. The sentry and an unidentified officer of the Philippine Army said

nothing and they all said was that they do not have with them petitioners sister Miguela Peniero. If our intention is to talk or personally seek audience with the PNP Provincial Director, we were also advised that it was no opportune time because it was a Sunday, copy of petitioner Rosenda Peniero Maulawins Affidavit is hereto attached as ANNEX A and made part hereof. 13. To date or after assiduous inquiry thereafter and notwithstanding

persistent efforts on the part of the herein petitioner and relatives to look into the whereabouts and personal safety of of Miguela Peniero the same remain uncertain on account of enforced disappearance caused by respondents en conniventia and therefore petitioner seeks succour by the privilege of Writ of Amparo1, the respondents should be ordered to produce the body of Miguela Peniero and to release her to the custody of her sister Rosenda Peniero Maulawin among other available reliefs; 14. Miguela Peniero enjoys untrammelled right to life, liberty and

security guaranteed by the Constitution. Petitioner has shown preponderatingly that her sister Miguela Peniero is in the custody of respondents in violation of his Constitutional rights hence she is entitled to the privilege of the Writ of Amparo2
1

Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides for the following causes of action, viz: 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. The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. (emphasis supplied) Sections 17 and 18, on the other hand, provide for the degree of proof required, viz: Sec. 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. - The parties shall establish their claims by substantial evidence. xxx xxx xxx Sec. 18. Judgment. - ... 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. (emphases supplied) Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. RAYMOND MANALO AND REYNALDO MANALO [G.R. No. 180906, October 07, 2008]
2

On October 24, 2007, the Court promulgated the Amparo Rule "in light of the prevalence of extralegal killing and enforced disappearances." It was an exercise for the first time of the Court's expanded power to promulgate rules to protect our people's constitutional rights,

Page1

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that by the privilege of the Writ

of Amparo, the respondents be ordered to: 1) produce the body of Miguela Peniero and to release her to the custody of her sister Rosenda Peniero Maulawin; 2) the Court issue the writ commanding therein respondents to

make a verified return within the period provided by law and containing the specific matters required by law; (3) petitioner be granted the interim reliefs

which made its maiden appearance in the 1987 Constitution in response to the Filipino experience of the martial law regime. As the Amparo Rule was intended to address the intractable problem of "extralegal killings" and "enforced disappearances," its coverage, in its present form, is confined to these two instances or to threats thereof. "Extralegal killings" are "killings committed without due process of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings." On the other hand, "enforced disappearances" are "attended by the following characteristics: an arrest, detention or abduction of a person by a government official or organized groups or private individuals acting with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the government; the refusal of the State to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which places such persons outside the protection of law." The writ of amparo originated in Mexico. "Amparo" literally means "protection" in Spanish. In 1837, de Tocqueville's Democracy in America became available in Mexico and stirred great interest. Its description of the practice of judicial review in the U.S. appealed to many Mexican jurists. One of them, Manuel Crescencio Rejn, drafted a constitutional provision for his native state, Yucatan, which granted judges the power to protect all persons in the enjoyment of their constitutional and legal rights. This idea was incorporated into the national constitution in 1847, viz: The federal courts shall protect any inhabitant of the Republic in the exercise and preservation of those rights granted to him by this Constitution and by laws enacted pursuant hereto, against attacks by the Legislative and Executive powers of the federal or state governments, limiting themselves to granting protection in the specific case in litigation, making no general declaration concerning the statute or regulation that motivated the violation. Since then, the protection has been an important part of Mexican constitutionalism. If, after hearing, the judge determines that a constitutional right of the petitioner is being violated, he orders the official, or the official's superiors, to cease the violation and to take the necessary measures to restore the petitioner to the full enjoyment of the right in question. Amparo thus combines the principles of judicial review derived from the U.S. with the limitations on judicial power characteristic of the civil law tradition which prevails in Mexico. It enables courts to enforce the constitution by protecting individual rights in particular cases, but prevents them from using this power to make law for the entire nation. The writ of amparo then spread throughout the Western Hemisphere, gradually evolving into various forms, in response to the particular needs of each country. It became, in the words of a justice of the Mexican Federal Supreme Court, one piece of Mexico's selfattributed "task of conveying to the world's legal heritage that institution which, as a shield of human dignity, her own painful history conceived." What began as a protection against acts or omissions of public authorities in violation of constitutional rights later evolved for several purposes: (1) amparo libertad for the protection of personal freedom, equivalent to the habeas corpus writ; (2) amparo contra leyes for the judicial review of the constitutionality of statutes; (3) amparo casacion for the judicial review of the constitutionality and legality of a judicial decision; (4) amparo administrativo for the judicial review of administrative actions; and (5) amparo agrario for the protection of peasants' rights derived from the agrarian reform

Page1

allowed by the Amparo Rule and all other reliefs prayed for in the petition but not covered by the Amparo Rule; (4) the Court, after hearing, render judgment as required in Sec. 18 of the Amparo Rule; and such other reliefs, just and equitable, are likewise prayed for. Makati City, Metro Manila for Gumaca, Quezon. March 30, 2012.

process. In Latin American countries, except Cuba, the writ of amparo has been constitutionally adopted to protect against human rights abuses especially committed in countries under military juntas. In general, these countries adopted an all-encompassing writ to protect the whole gamut of constitutional rights, including socio-economic rights. Other countries like Colombia, Chile, Germany and Spain, however, have chosen to limit the protection of the writ of amparo only to some constitutional guarantees or fundamental rights. In the Philippines, while the 1987 Constitution does not explicitly provide for the writ of amparo, several of the above amparo protections are guaranteed by our charter. The second paragraph of Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, the Grave Abuse Clause, provides for the judicial power "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." The Clause accords a similar general protection to human rights extended by the amparo contra leyes, amparo casacion, and amparo administrativo. Amparo libertad is comparable to the remedy of habeas corpus found in several provisions of the 1987 Constitution. The Clause is an offspring of the U.S. common law tradition of judicial review, which finds its roots in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison. While constitutional rights can be protected under the Grave Abuse Clause through remedies of injunction or prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and a petition for habeas corpus under Rule 102, these remedies may not be adequate to address the pestering problem of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. However, with the swiftness required to resolve a petition for a writ of amparo through summary proceedings and the availability of appropriate interim and permanent reliefs under the Amparo Rule, this hybrid writ of the common law and civil law traditions - borne out of the Latin American and Philippine experience of human rights abuses - offers a better remedy to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances and threats thereof. The remedy provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a summary proceeding that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner; it is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, or liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence, or administrative responsibility requiring substantial evidence that will require full and exhaustive proceedings. The writ of amparo serves both preventive and curative roles in addressing the problem of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. It is preventive in that it breaks the expectation of impunity in the commission of these offenses; it is curative in that it facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators as it will inevitably yield leads to subsequent investigation and action. In the long run, the goal of both the preventive and curative roles is to deter the further commission of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. In the case at bar, respondents initially filed an action for "Prohibition, Injunction, and Temporary Restraining Order" to stop petitioners and/or their officers and agents from depriving the respondents of their right to liberty and other basic rights on August 23, 2007, prior to the promulgation of the Amparo Rule. They also sought ancillary remedies including Protective Custody Orders, Appointment of Commissioner, Inspection and Access Orders and

Page1

ROSENDA PENIERO MAULAWIN Petitioner Assisted by: SENTRO ng GABAY LEGAL sa QUEZON Sitio Paang Bundok, Brgy. Sta. Maria, Calauag, Quezon Telefax No.: (042) 301-7096 - and -

2nd Floor, Africa Bldg., #2041 Edison cor. Aragon Sts., Brgy. San Isidro, Makati City, MM Telefax Nos.: 887-3120 / 887-3121 Website : sonnypulgar.com katataspulong.blogspot.com E- mail: feplaw@yahoo.com by: Roll of Attorneys No. 31068 IBP No.: 879818 / 01-06-12/ Quezon Province PTR No.: 3181233 / 01-09-12 / Makati City MCLE Compliance No. III - 0020443 / April 14, 2011
Republic of the Philippines ) Makati City, Metro Manila ) s.s. x-------------------------------x

ESCOBIDO AND PULGAR LAW OFFICES

FRUMENCIO E. PULGAR

VERIFICATION

CERTIFICATION

I, ROSENDA PENIERO MAULAWIN, of legal age, married to Felix Balaston, with residence and postal address at Brgy. Sabang II, Calauag, Quezon, declare under oath, THAT: 1. I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled case;

2. I have read and understood the said Petition and all the allegations therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge or based on authentic records; 3. I have not commenced any other petition or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof or any other tribunal or agency; 4. To the best of my knowledge, no similar Petition is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof, or any other tribunal agency; 5. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before said courts or tribunal, I hereby undertake to promptly inform this Honorable Court of that fact within five (5) days therefrom.
other legal and equitable remedies under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution and Rule 135, Section 6 of the Rules of Court. When the Amparo Rule came into effect on October 24, 2007, they moved to have their petition treated as an amparo petition as it would be more effective and suitable to the circumstances of the Manalo brothers' enforced disappearance. The Court granted their motion (Ibid.)

Page1

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my signature this ___th day of March, 2012 in Makati City, Metro Manila. ROSENDA PENIERO MAULAWIN Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ___th day of March, 2012 at the City of Makati, Metro Manila, affiant:
is personally known to the notary public; was identified by notary public through Competent Evidence of Identity as defined by Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004, thru the presentation/production of the ff: Drivers License No. TIN ID No. _________________ Passport No. _______________ Company ________________ I.D. Com. Tax Cert. No. on at

________________ SSS ID No. _________________ GSIS ID No. _________________

______________ issued ___________ issued _________________.

Doc. No. _______; Page No. _______; Book No._______; Series of 2012.

FRUMENCIO E. PULGAR
Notary Public Until December 31, 2012 PTR No. 3181233 issued on January 09, 2012 at Makati City Metro Manila TIN No. 106201485 MCLE Compliance No. III - 0020443

Page1