G.R. No. 269249 , October 24, 2023
IN THE MATTER OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA FOR JONILA F. CASTRO AND JHED REIYANA C. TAMANO AND THEIR FAMILIES, JONILA F. CASTRO AND JHED REIYANA C. TAMANO, PETITIONERS, VS. LIEUTENANT COLONEL RONNEL B. DELA CRUZ AND MEMBERS OF THE 70TH INFANTRY BATTALION OF THE PHILIPPINE ARMY, POLICE CAPTAIN CARLITO BUCO AND MEMBERS OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, BATAAN, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL ASSISTANT DIRECTOR GENERAL JONATHAN MALAYA, NATIONAL TASK FORCE TO END LOCAL COMMUNIST ARMED CONFLICT (NTF-ELCAC), AND ALL OTHERS ACTING UNDER THEIR DIRECTION, INSTRUCTIONS, AND ORDERS, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners Jonila F. Castro and Jhed Reiyana C. Tamano, volunteers for an environmental network, alleged they were abducted on September 2, 2023, in Orion, Bataan, by unidentified masked men who forced them into a vehicle, blindfolded them, and confiscated their belongings. They were taken to multiple locations, interrogated, and subjected to threats of death and burial. They were forced to handwrite affidavits with a prepared narrative. They were brought to the 70th Infantry Battalion camp, where they were introduced to officials, including Lt. Col. Ronnel Dela Cruz, and a PAO lawyer who formalized their affidavits. After being convinced to participate in a press conference organized by the NTF-ELCAC to disprove their abduction, petitioners instead publicly revealed on September 19, 2023, that they had been abducted and forced to sign affidavits. They were subsequently turned over to the Commission on Human Rights. Petitioners filed a petition for writs of amparo and habeas data, alleging continued threats to their lives and security, citing subsequent press conferences and statements by the AFP and National Security Council Assistant Director General Jonathan Malaya, who threatened to expose information about them and charge them with perjury.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioners’ direct recourse to the Supreme Court is justified.
2. Whether petitioners are entitled to the issuance of the writs of amparo and habeas data.
3. Whether petitioners are entitled to the interim reliefs of Temporary Protection Order (TPO), Permanent Protection Order (PPO), and/or Production Order (PO).

RULING

1. Yes, direct recourse to the Supreme Court is justified. The Rule on the Writ of Amparo grants concurrent jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. While the principle of hierarchy of courts generally applies, exceptions exist for special and compelling reasons, such as the transcendental importance of the issues and the need for urgent resolution. Given the nature of the writs involved and the need for immediate protective measures, the Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction.
2. Yes, petitioners are entitled to the issuance of the writs of amparo and habeas data. The Court found more than sufficient factual and legal basis to grant the writs outright. For the writ of amparo, the allegations of abduction, detention, threats, and coercion, supported by substantial evidence including affidavits and reports, constituted a violation of the right to life, liberty, and security. The subsequent public threats by state officials reinforced the ongoing threat. For the writ of habeas data, the allegations that respondents gathered and possibly falsified information about petitioners during their captivity, and the threat by ADG Malaya to “expose all information,” indicated a violation of their right to privacy and truth, necessitating the writ to control and correct such data.
3. Yes, petitioners are entitled to interim reliefs. The Court granted a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) effective immediately, prohibiting respondents and persons acting under them from being within a one-kilometer radius of petitioners and their immediate families. The Court also issued the writs of amparo and habeas data. The case was referred to the Court of Appeals for summary hearing and resolution on the merits of the Petition and the other interim relief (Production Order) within specified deadlines.