9/27/24, 8:33 PM G.R. No.

G.R. No. 269249 - In the matter of the issuance of the writ of amparo and habeas data for Jonila Castro and Jhed Reiyana Tamano …

Title
In the matter of the issuance of the writ of amparo and habeas data for Jonila
Castro and Jhed Reiyana Tamano vs. Ronnel Dela Cruz et al.

Case Decision Date

G.R. No. 269249 Oct 24, 2023

The Supreme Court granted the writs of amparo and habeas data to Jonila F.
Castro and Jhed Reiyana C. Tamano, who were forcibly abducted by military
personnel, affirming their rights to life, liberty, and security amid ongoing threats
following their release.

EN BANC

[ 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 (NTFA ELCAC), AND ALL OTHERS ACTING UNDER THEIR DIRECTION,
INSTRUCTIONS, AND ORDERS, RESPONDENTS.

DECISION

HERNANDO, J.:

Before this Court is the Extremely Urgent Petition for the Issuance of the Writs of Amparo and
Habeas Data (Petition) with Prayer for Temporary Protection Order (TPO), Permanent Protection
Order (PPO), and Production Order (PO) filed on September 28, 2023 by Jonila F. Castro (Jonila)
and Jhed Reiyana C. Tamano (Jhed).[1]

Antecedents

The following are culled from the pleadings, affidavits, and annexes attached to the Petition.
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/writ-amprao-habeasdata-castro-tamano-vs-dela-cruz-70th-infantry-pnp-ntfa-elcac?q=writ of amparo 1/17
9/27/24, 8:33 PM G.R. No. 269249 - In the matter of the issuance of the writ of amparo and habeas data for Jonila Castro and Jhed Reiyana Tamano …

Jonila and Jhed (collectively, petitioners) are volunteers for the Alyansa para sa Pagtatanggol sa
Kabuhayan, Paninirahan, at Kalikasan ng Manila Bay (AKAP KA Manila Bay), a network of
various environmental advocate groups that aim to advance the concerns of marginalized
stakeholders along the Manila Bay Area. In line with this objective, petitioners were dispatched
by AKAP KA Manila Bay to Orion, Bataan, to coordinate with communities affected by the Manila
Bay reclamation projects.[2]

On September 2, 2023, at around 7:00 p.m., petitioners were walking along Manrique Street,
Orion, Bataan, towards the area where they can ride a jeepney. Upon reaching Orion Water
District, a sports utility vehicle suddenly stopped beside them. Several unidentified men
alighted from the vehicle, all clad in ski-masks, shirts, and shorts, who grabbed and pulled
Jonila into the vehicle. Jonila screamed and struggled but failed to escape. Jhed initially shouted
for help and ran away for only a few meters until she stumbled, enabling the masked men to
catch up and drag her into the vehicle. In the commotion, Jonila left one of her sandals, and
Jhed both of her slippers, at the area where they were forcibly carried away.[3]

In the vehicle, the unidentified men confiscated and went through petitioners' bags and
belongings to check for guns, turned off their cellular phones, tied petitioners' hands behind
their backs, blindfolded them tightly, and wrapped their heads with duct tape to completely seal
their vision. Despite their heavily obscured sight, petitioners were able to observe that they
made several stops until they arrived some three to four hours later at their first destination.[4]

At their first destination, petitioners were brought out of the vehicle and made to sit on separate
chairs in one room. Still blindfolded, they were interrogated as to their name, age, address,
birthdate, organizations, affiliations, its organizational structures, its members, leaders, and
officers. Jonila was asked the password of her phone. Jhed was asked where her laptop was, and
what their plans are in Calumpit, Bulacan. Jhed denied knowledge on both questions.
Thereafter, Jhed was brought out of the room where she was interrogated more threateningly
with statements such as, "pagtatabihin namin kayo sa isang hukay," "puputulin namin ang dila
mo [Jhed] kapag hindi pa rin kayo nagsalita," "ikukulong namin kayo sa sa kasong rebellion,"
and "hindi ako takot mamatay dahil hindi rin ako takot pumatay." Petitioners did not respond,
and were again put together in a room, still blindfolded.[5]

On September 3, 2023, petitioners were again interrogated, but still did not answer the same
line of questions. They were given dried fish and eggs to eat. Jhed was permitted to take off her
blindfold and take a bath in a doorless bathroom. Jonila did not take a bath. Thereafter, Jhed was
again blindfolded and they left the place.[6]

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/writ-amprao-habeasdata-castro-tamano-vs-dela-cruz-70th-infantry-pnp-ntfa-elcac?q=writ of amparo 2/17

9/27/24, 8:33 PM G.R. No. 269249 - In the matter of the issuance of the writ of amparo and habeas data for Jonila Castro and Jhed Reiyana Tamano …

They arrived at their second destination, which they were told was a "motel." Petitioners were
placed on separate rooms on the second floor where their blindfolds were removed. Jonila were
told by the captors, "baka masayang buhay mo," "di kami takot pumatay," and ''pagsasamahin
namin kayo sa iisang hukay kung hindi kayo magsalita."[7] One man told petitioners that he was
"from ELCAC," and that they (the captors) received an order to kill them (petitioners), if the latter
should not "speak." The captors returned their belongings, but Jhed noticed that her
smartphone, flash drive, notebooks, wallet, and pamphlets were missing. There was no mention
if Jonila's bag containing three cellular phones and two notebooks were returned to her. Jonila
was allowed to take a bath in her separate room. Petitioners remembered seeing 5 to 6 men in
their respective rooms.[8]

On September 4, 2023, the interrogations continued with more psychological torment and
threats. Petitioners were led to believe that the other had already "spoken" and cooperated,
apparently to make them submit to their captors' orders. The captors further told Jonila that
Jhed's life depends on Jonila's actions. Jonila requested to see Jhed, to which their captors
obliged. Jonila was thereafter given a form, which she remembered bore a stamp of the 70th
Infantry Battalion and the words Matatag at Matapat.[9]

From September 5 to 11, 2023, the captors continued with petitioners' interrogations and forced
them to "surrender as rebels." Eventually, petitioners were made to handwrite their affidavits
with a narrative prepared for them. Several times were they asked to rewrite their affidavits to
streamline their written declarations.[10]

On September 12, 2023, petitioners were brought to the 70th Infantry Battalion camp in Bulacan,
where their personal details were taken and they were given a medical check-up. They were
introduced to the Mayor of Angat, Bulacan and to Lieutenant Colonel (Lt. Col.) Ronnel Dela Cruz
(Dela Cruz), who were to serve as witnesses to their affidavits. They were also introduced to a
member of the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency and some more persons. Jhed's
parents also arrived at the camp.[11]

On September 13, 2023, petitioners were introduced to Atty. Joefer Baggay (Baggay) from the
Public Attorney's Office, to whom petitioners' handwritten affidavits were handed to be arranged
and printed on his computer. Petitioners, with Jhed's parents, were made to swear to the printed
affidavits before Atty. Baggay. Lt. Col. Dela Cruz asked petitioners if they can show up at a press
conference but they refused.[12]

Petitioners were also introduced to one Emjay Chico (Chico) of the National Task Force to End

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/writ-amprao-habeasdata-castro-tamano-vs-dela-cruz-70th-infantry-pnp-ntfa-elcac?q=writ of amparo 3/17

9/27/24, 8:33 PM G.R. No. 269249 - In the matter of the issuance of the writ of amparo and habeas data for Jonila Castro and Jhed Reiyana Tamano …

Local Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) to convince them to agree to the press conference to disprove their
abduction.[13]

On September 14, 2023, petitioners met with three representatives from the Commission on
Human Rights (CHR). The latter sought to confirm petitioners' "voluntary surrender" and the
veracity of their sworn affidavits. Petitioners could not give the CHR representatives specific
conclusive answers as they were unsure if they can be trusted. Later on, petitioners decided to
do the press conference to reveal the truth.[14]

On September 15, 2023, petitioners told Lt. Col. Dela Cruz that they will do the press conference.
In preparation, Chico briefed them on the planned flow of the press conference, and a 70th
Infantry Battalion member gave them possible questions that they may be asked and the
answers thereto.[15]

On September 19, 2023, petitioners proceeded with the press conference organized by the NTF-
ELCAC, abandoned the plans made for them, and revealed in public that they were abducted.
They belied the version of respondents that they "surrendered" and stated categorically that they
were forcibly taken by the military and made to sign their affidavits.[16]

Petitioners were then turned over to the CHR's custody before they were released to their
families and colleagues.[17]

Thereafter, this Petition for the issuance of the writs of amparo and habeas data with prayer for
TPO, PPO, and PO.[18]

Petitioners allege that, to date, threats to their lives, freedom, and security are existing
considering the circumstances preceding their release and the various press conferences
subsequently organized by the NTF-ELCAC on the matter.[19]

The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), in a press briefing conducted by the NTF-ELCAC on
September 20, 2023, described petitioners' acts as "brazen with a plot that is new, quite deep
(with the interplay of red and white area forces) and dangerous."[20]

Also, in an ABS-CBN interview, National Security Council Assistant Director General (ADG)
Jonathan Malaya (Malaya) said that their Office would "expose all information they have on
Jonila and Jhed" and that "they may be charged [of perjury] in relation to their alleged execution
of an affidavit while in custody of the 70th [Infantry Battalion]."[21]

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/writ-amprao-habeasdata-castro-tamano-vs-dela-cruz-70th-infantry-pnp-ntfa-elcac?q=writ of amparo 4/17

9/27/24, 8:33 PM G.R. No. 269249 - In the matter of the issuance of the writ of amparo and habeas data for Jonila Castro and Jhed Reiyana Tamano …

The pertinent supporting documents appended to the Petition are:

(1) Affidavit of Pia C. Montalban (Montalban),[22] a member of the factA finding team and mission launched
by KARAPATAN Gitnang Luzon from September 4 to 5, 2023, which collected information as regards
petitioners' abduction. The fact-finding mission was commissioned upon viral Facebook posts by
concerned citizens as to two girls who were abducted in front of Orion Water District by allegedly
armed men;

(2) A Report of the fact-finding commission,[23] participants of which were members of the following
organizations: AKAP KA Manila Bay, Kalikasan People's Network for the Environment, Promotion of
Church People's Response, National Council of Churches in the Philippines, and KARAPATAN;

(3) The Facebook posts mentioned in (1);[24]

(4) Affidavit of Rosielie Castro (Rosielie), Jonila's mother;[25] and

(5) Online screenshots of news articles reporting public statements of the AFP and ADG Malaya against
petitioners.[26]

Issues

For resolution of the Court are the following issues:

(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; and

(3) Whether petitioners are entitled to the interim reliefs of TPO, PPO, and/or PO.

The Court's Ruling

There is more than sufficient factual and legal basis to grant outright the protective writs sought
by petitioners.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/writ-amprao-habeasdata-castro-tamano-vs-dela-cruz-70th-infantry-pnp-ntfa-elcac?q=writ of amparo 5/17

9/27/24, 8:33 PM G.R. No. 269249 - In the matter of the issuance of the writ of amparo and habeas data for Jonila Castro and Jhed Reiyana Tamano …

The procedural issues must be addressed preliminarily.

The Supreme Court may issue writs of

amparo at the.first instance

It is opportune to construe the principle on hierarchy of courts as a potential argument against

this Court's assumption of concurrent jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Rule on the Writ of Amparo,[27] Section 3, provides:

SEC. 3. Where to File. - The petition may be filed on any day and at any time with the Regional
Trial Court of the place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements
occurred, or with the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, or any justice of
such courts. The writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. (Emphasis
supplied)Concurrent jurisdiction is that which is possessed and bestowed by law over the same
parties or subject matter at the same time by two or more separate tribunals.[28] Direct recourse
to this Court, if it has jurisdiction concurring with another tribunal, is generally improper as the
Supreme Court is a court of last resort, and must remain to be so in order for it to satisfactorily
perform its constitutional functions, thereby allowing it to devote its time and attention to
matters within its exclusive jurisdiction and prevent the overcrowding of its docket.[29]

Exceptions to the principle of hierarchy of courts have usually been applied to petitions for
certiorari. The invocation of this Court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari has been
allowed in certain instances on the ground of special and important reasons clearly stated in the
petition, such as, (1) when dictated by the public welfare and the advancement of public policy;
(2) when demanded by the broader interest of justice; (3) when the challenged orders were
patent nullities; or (4) when analogous exceptional and compelling circumstances called for and
justified the immediate and direct handling of the case.[30]

These procedural rules in the handling of certiorari cases may be applied just as well to other
extraordinary and prerogative writs, under which amparo, as well as habeas data, may
reasonably be classified. These writs are: extraordinary, since, historically, they have been
issued "only in extraordinary cases ... and only when some gross injustice was being done by
other authorities.' They were used only sparingly and in the most urgent of circumstances ... ;"
and prerogative, as "[i]t remained the function of the King, through his court of King's Bench, to
be the judge of the necessity for their issue ... "[31]

Here, petitioners versed their claim for exemption from the hierarchy of courts rule as a special,
important, exceptional, and compelling reason. The Petition demonstrated a clear image of the

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/writ-amprao-habeasdata-castro-tamano-vs-dela-cruz-70th-infantry-pnp-ntfa-elcac?q=writ of amparo 6/17

9/27/24, 8:33 PM G.R. No. 269249 - In the matter of the issuance of the writ of amparo and habeas data for Jonila Castro and Jhed Reiyana Tamano …

danger that the State has apparently wrought and which petitioners have faced, and are still
facing, that warrant this Court's immediate action. This is even more so as various organizations
are actively interested in the outcome of the case and how it has received public attention and
gone viral over media.

Thus, petitioners properly lodged their amparo case before this Court.

The Supreme Court may issue writs of

habeas data at the first instance if it
concerns public data files of government
offices

Petitioners also have direct recourse to this Court in seeking the issuance of a writ of habeas
data.

The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data,[32] Section 3, states:

SEC. 3. Where to File. - The petition may be filed with the Regional Trial Court where the
petitioner or respondent resides, or that which has jurisdiction over the place where the data or
information is gathered, collected or stored, at the option of the petitioner.

The petition may also be filed with the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals or the
Sandiganbayan when the action concerns public data files of government offices. (Emphasis
supplied)Recall that in an ABS-CBN interview, ADG Malaya said that the National Security
Council would "expose all information they have on Jonila and Jhed" and that "they may be
charged [of perjury] in relation to their alleged execution of an affidavit while in custody of the
70th [Infantry Battalion]."[33]

These statements were expressed by a high-ranking government officer of the National Security
Council, the primary advisory entity to the President of the Philippines as to all matters of
national security, apparently threatening to disclose information on petitioners that was
admittedly collected in official government capacity. This qualifies the information sought to be
protected as a public data file, over which this Court exercises jurisdiction concurrent with and
to the eventual exclusion of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan.

As similarly reasoned above regarding this Court's assumption of concurrent jurisdiction over
the present amparo case, the habeas data case at hand likewise properly falls outside the
general rule of procedure on hierarchy of courts.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/writ-amprao-habeasdata-castro-tamano-vs-dela-cruz-70th-infantry-pnp-ntfa-elcac?q=writ of amparo 7/17

9/27/24, 8:33 PM G.R. No. 269249 - In the matter of the issuance of the writ of amparo and habeas data for Jonila Castro and Jhed Reiyana Tamano …

Withal, this Court is in a position to address this detriment to petitioners' right to life, liberty,
and security via writs of amparo and habeas data as follows.

Petitioners are entitled to the issuance of

a writ of amparo

First: the writ of amparo is granted.

The Rule on the Writ of Amparo, Section 1, clearly states the purpose and coverage of such a
writ:

Sec. 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)

The Court further expounds in Ladaga v. Mapagu[34] that:

The writ of amparo was promulgated by the Court pursuant to its ruleA making powers in
response to the alarming rise in the number of cases of enforced disappearances and
extrajudicial killings. It plays the preventive role of breaking the expectation of impunity in the
commission of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, as well as the curative role of
facilitating the subsequent punishment of the perpetrators. In Tapuz v. Del Rosario, the Court
has previously held that the writ of amparo is an extraordinary remedy intended to address
violations of, or threats to, the rights to life, liberty or security and that, being a remedy of
extraordinary character, it is not one to issue on amorphous or uncertain grounds but only upon
reasonable certainty.[35]

The Rule on the Writ of Amparo also provides that for the court to render judgment granting the
privilege of the writ, the petitioner must be able to discharge the burden of proving the
allegations in the petition by the standard of proof required, that is, substantial evidence.[36]
Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion.[37]

In Navia v. Pardico,[38] the Court identified the elements constituting enforced disappearance, to
wit:

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/writ-amprao-habeasdata-castro-tamano-vs-dela-cruz-70th-infantry-pnp-ntfa-elcac?q=writ of amparo 8/17

9/27/24, 8:33 PM G.R. No. 269249 - In the matter of the issuance of the writ of amparo and habeas data for Jonila Castro and Jhed Reiyana Tamano …

From the statutory definition of enforced disappearance, thus, we can derive the following
elements that constitute it:

(a) that there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty;

(b) that it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or a political
organization;

(c) that it be followed by the State or political organization's refusal to acknowledge or give information on
the fate or whereabouts of the person subject of the amparo petition; and,

(d) that the intention for such refusal is to remove subject person from the protection of the law for a
prolonged period of time.

As thus dissected, it is now clear that for the protective writ of amparo to issue, allegation and
proof that the persons subject thereof are missing are not enough. It must also be shown and
proved by substantial evidence that the disappearance was carried out by, or with the
authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or a political organization, followed by a
refusal to acknowledge the same or give information on the fate or whereabouts of said missing
persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged
period of time. Simply put, the petitioner in an amparo case has the burden of proving by
substantial evidence the indispensable element of government participation.[39] (Emphasis
supplied)All the elements are already extant in the verbal exchanges between petitioners and Lt.
Col. Dela Cruz during the September 19, 2023 press conference, as transcribed in the Petition:
33. On 19 September 2023, during a press conference organized by the NTFA ELCAC held in the
Municipal Hall of Plaridel, Bulacan, Jonila and Jhed were suddenly presented before the media
by Dir. Alexander Umpar of the NTFA ELCAC, Lt. Col. Ronnel dela Cruz, and Hon. Mayor Jocell
Almeo Vistan Casaje.

34. In this press conference, Jonila herself belied the version of respondents that they had
"surrendered" and stated categorically that they were forcibly taken by the military and that they
were forced to sign the affidavits, to wit:
... Magandang araw po sa lahat... pinili na namin magsalita ngayong araw para... katulad nga
nang sinabi kanina, mahalagang malaman natin kung ano talaga 'yong totoong nangyari... at
gusto naming mala-at sa tanong na dinukot kami o kusa kaming... o boluntaryo kaming
sumurrender. Ang totoo po ay dinukot kami ng mga military sakay ng van. Napilitan din kami na
https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/writ-amprao-habeasdata-castro-tamano-vs-dela-cruz-70th-infantry-pnp-ntfa-elcac?q=writ of amparo 9/17
9/27/24, 8:33 PM G.R. No. 269249 - In the matter of the issuance of the writ of amparo and habeas data for Jonila Castro and Jhed Reiyana Tamano …

sumurrender dahil pinagbantaan po iyong buhay namin. 'Yon po ang totoo. Hindi namin ginusto
na mapunta kami sa kustodya ng militar...

Hindi din totoo 'yong laman ng affidavit dahil ginawa 'yon, pinirmahan 'yon sa loob ng kampo ng
military. Wala na kaming magagawa sa mga pagkakataong mga 'yon. Ang gusto lang namin
mapakita ngayong araw 'yong lantarang pasismo sa mga aktibistang ang tanging hangarin ay
ipaglaban lang 'yong Manila Bay. May nangyayaring reclamation projects don. Ang problema
don iyong mga mangingisdang mawawalan ng hanapbuhay pero nagagamit yong mga military
para ipatigil 'yong mga pagkilos, masugpo Jang 'yong mga kabataan, 'yong mga mangingisdang
mga 'yon.35. Despite this revelation, respondent Lt. Col. Ronnel dela Cruz still insisted during
the same press conference that Jonila and Jhed "surrendered" and that the two were pursued
due to an informant from Pampanga, the written report of whom could not be located.
Furthermore, in the same press conference, respondent Lt. Col. dela Cruz claimed:
[... ] Wala pong intervention po 'yon. So 'yon naman po ang nangyari sa side po ng 70 IB. Ang
ginawa po sumurrender sila, inayos po namin ang pagsurrender... negotiate po kung papaano
namin makuha at dinaan naman po namin sa tamang proseso. 'Yon po 'yong sa amin. Hindi ko
lang po alam kung ano po 'yong ano n'ya pero klarong klaro po sa atin, sa lahat ng proseso
tanggapin namin sila hanggang ngayon po na punto na 'to. 'Yon po, Sir.36. During this press
conference, Jhed asked permission to be allowed to speak; when she did, Jhed categorically and
publicly supported Jonila's statements and belied the respondents' version:
Katulad lang din ng sinabi ni Jonila na kusang loob po kaming sumurrender dahil pinilit Jang
po kami. Nung gabi po ng September 2 naglalakad lang po kami sa kalsada nang meron pong
dumukot sa'min. May tumigil pong SUV sa harap namin tapos dinukot po kaming pasamahin sa
kanila. 'Yon po 'yong totoo. Akala po namin sindikato pero kilala po nila kami.37. Despite these
statements, respondent Lt. Col. dela Cruz again insisted that (a) this was part of Jonila and
Jhed's surrender; (b) they saw it as a rescue operation due to what the two environmental
activists had signed; (c) they did not operate in the Bataan area and their only areas of
responsibility were Bulacan and Pampanga; and (d) what Jhed said may be true, that indeed it
was a syndicate who took them and they had to be processed before taking them to his battalion
at the AFP.

38. However, Jonila's words, when she responded, were unambiguous:

Kaduda-duda naman po na hindi alam ni Bat Com kung ano yong tunay na nangyari kasi
mismong mga kumuha sa amin, inamin nilang mga sundalo sila. Nakita namin sa papel na
interrogation na papel ang nakalagay 70th 1B. Kaya hindi ako naniniwala na hindi alam ni
Battalion Commander na dinukot kami.[40]It must also be emphasized that in a petition for writ
of amparo, the court is allowed a certain degree of leniency or flexibility in the application of the
evidentiary rules by adopting the totality of evidence standard.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/writ-amprao-habeasdata-castro-tamano-vs-dela-cruz-70th-infantry-pnp-ntfa-elcac?q=writ of amparo 10/17

9/27/24, 8:33 PM G.R. No. 269249 - In the matter of the issuance of the writ of amparo and habeas data for Jonila Castro and Jhed Reiyana Tamano …

The Court explained in Razon, J, v. Tagitis[41] that evidentiary difficulties had compelled it to
adopt standards appropriate and responsive to the circumstances, without transgressing the
due process requirements that underlie every proceeding. It determined that the fair and proper
rule was to consider all the pieces of evidence adduced in their totality, and to consider any
evidence otherwise inadmissible under usual rules to be admissible if it is consistent with the
admissible evidence adduced.

In other words, the rules are reduced to the most basic test of reason, i.e., to the relevance of the
evidence to the issue at hand and its consistency with all other pieces of adduced evidence.
Thus, even hearsay testimony or circumstantial evidence can be admitted and appreciated if it
satisfies this basic minimum test.

Still, the Court issued a caveat in Bautista v. Dannug-Salucon[42] that such use of the standard
does not unquestioningly authorize the automatic admissibility of hearsay or circumstantial
evidence in all amparo proceedings, and that the matter of the admissibility of evidence should
still depend on the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.

The Court here, however, need not adjust too much to assess some of the evidence presented by
petitioners and grant the amparo prayed for.

As regards the first element, while the appended screenshots ofFacebook posts alluding to
petitioners' capture was unauthenticated by their authors, other circumstances already lead the
Court to believe that the first element of enforced disappearance is present, in that petitioners
was, indeed, forcibly taken on September 2, 2023: (1) Montalban's affidavit as to the accounts of
witnesses to the abduction in plain sight;[43] (2) petitioners' attestation that they left their
footwear during their struggle against their captors; and (3) photos[44] of petitioners' footwear
left at the scene of the abduction, affirming petitioners' attestation.

As regards the third element, Rosielie, being Jonila's mother, also tried her utmost to locate her
then missing daughter and coordinate with one Justin Gutierrez, a person who allegedly
introduced himself to Rosielie as a member of the military, and with the police authorities in
Orion Municipal Police Station, but received no positive response from them.[45]

Applying the foregoing quantum of proof particularly required by a petition for a writ of amparo,
as well as the jurisprudential principles guiding its grant or denial, there is no need to belabor
petitioners' entitlement thereto.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/writ-amprao-habeasdata-castro-tamano-vs-dela-cruz-70th-infantry-pnp-ntfa-elcac?q=writ of amparo 11/17

9/27/24, 8:33 PM G.R. No. 269249 - In the matter of the issuance of the writ of amparo and habeas data for Jonila Castro and Jhed Reiyana Tamano …

The Court finds that petitioners presented more than mere substantial evidence meriting the
protection of their freedoms through a writ of amparo.

Petitioners are entitled to the issuance of

a writ of habeas data

Second: the writ of habeas data is granted.

Section 1 of The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data states:

SECTION 1. Habeas Data. - The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose
right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the
gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party.Substantial evidence is also the minimum level of proof
required for a grant of the writ of habeas data.[46]

Again, ADG Malaya's statements during the ABS-CBN interview announcing to "expose all
information they have on Jonila and Jhed" and that "they may be charged [of perjury] in relation
to their alleged execution of an affidavit while in custody of the 70th Infantry Battalion"[47] is
already an open and express threat to petitioners' right to life, liberty, and security publicly
verbalized by government official admittedly engaged in the gathering, collecting, and storing of
data and information against petitioners.

After a judicious review of the records, there was an established violation or threat to the life,
liberty, or security of petitioners by respondents. The writs are called to be issued for reasons so
obvious on the mere face of the Petition.

Except for a TPO, further proceedings

are required for the grant or denial of
other interim reliefs in amparo cases

As regards the interim reliefs sought, this Court grants only the TPO to petitioners.

Upon filing of the petition or at anytime before final judgment, the following reliefs may be
availed of by the petitioner: a Temporary Protection Order (TPO), an Inspection Order (IO), a
Production Order (PO), and a Witness Protection Order (WPO).[48] TPOs and WPOs may be
granted upon motion or motu proprio, whereas IOs and POs are ordered upon verified motion
and after due hearing.[49]

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/writ-amprao-habeasdata-castro-tamano-vs-dela-cruz-70th-infantry-pnp-ntfa-elcac?q=writ of amparo 12/17

9/27/24, 8:33 PM G.R. No. 269249 - In the matter of the issuance of the writ of amparo and habeas data for Jonila Castro and Jhed Reiyana Tamano …

Petitioners here pray for a TPO, a Permanent Protection Order (PPO), and a PO. As there has
been no hearings conducted as of yet on.the case, the PO should not be issued.

In the same vein, a PPO technically is not an interim relief. It is already a judgment by itself
upon the grant of the privilege of the writ of amparo, not upon the prefatory grant of the writ of
amparo.

For distinction and clarity, the prefatory grant of the writ of amparo follows Sec. 6 of the Rule on
the Writ of Amparo:
SEC. 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.Sec. 6 governs the initial evaluation and is divided into two parts: the first sentence describes
the minimum weight of evidence required for the issuance of the writ, while the second
sentence details the procedure for its issuance.[50]

On the other hand, the grant of the privilege of the writ of amparo is laid out in Sec. 18:
SEC. 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 subsequent evaluation of the petition
for the grant of the privilege of the writ of amparo comes after the issuance of the writ, the filing
of the return, and the conduct of a summary hearing.[51]

Further in De Lima v. Gatdula:[52]

The privilege of the Writ of Amparo should be distinguished from the actual order called the
Writ of Amparo. The privilege includes availment of the entire procedure outlined in AM. No.
07-9-12-SC, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. After examining the petition and its attached
affidavits, the Return and the evidence presented in the summary hearing, the judgment should
detail the required acts from the respondents that will mitigate, if not totally eradicate, the
violation of or the threat to the petitioner's life, liberty or security.[53]Given the guidelines set by
jurisprudence, the issuance of a PPO and PO shall only be improper at this point.

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is GRANTED in the following manner:

The writs of amparo and habeas data are ISSUED in favor of petitioners Jonila F. Castro and

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/writ-amprao-habeasdata-castro-tamano-vs-dela-cruz-70th-infantry-pnp-ntfa-elcac?q=writ of amparo 13/17

9/27/24, 8:33 PM G.R. No. 269249 - In the matter of the issuance of the writ of amparo and habeas data for Jonila Castro and Jhed Reiyana Tamano …

Jhed Reiyana C. Tamano, returnable to the Court of Appeals.

Respondents and all the persons and entities acting and operating under their directions,
instructions, and orders are DIRECTED to comply with the rules on return under Sec. 9 of the
Rule on the Writ of Amparo and Sec. 10 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data.

A Temporary Protection Order is ISSUED motu proprio as an interim relief against respondents
and all the persons and entities acting and operating under their directions, instructions and
orders, prohibiting them from entering within a radius of one (1) kilometer from the persons,
places of residence, school, work, or present locations, of petitioners, as well as those of their
immediate families.

The Court of Appeals is DIRECTED to:

(1) CONDUCT a summary hearing on the Petition and the other interim relief sought by petitioners, i.e.,
Production Order, within five (5) days from receipt of notice of this Decision;

(2) After hearing, DECIDE the Petition and the other interim relief sought by petitioners, i.e., Production
Order, within five (5) days from the time it is submitted for decision; and

(3) FURNISH this Court with a copy of the decision on the Petition and the other interim relief sought by
petitioners, i.e., Production Order within five (5) days from its promulgation.

SO ORDERED.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Inting, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez,
Dimaampao, Marquez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concur.
Lazaro-Javier, Zalameda, and Singh, JJ., On official business.

On official business.

[1] Rollo, pp. 3-36.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/writ-amprao-habeasdata-castro-tamano-vs-dela-cruz-70th-infantry-pnp-ntfa-elcac?q=writ of amparo 14/17

9/27/24, 8:33 PM G.R. No. 269249 - In the matter of the issuance of the writ of amparo and habeas data for Jonila Castro and Jhed Reiyana Tamano …

[2] Id. at 8.

[3] Id. at 9.

[4] Id. at 9-10.

[5] Id. at 10.

[6] Id.

[7] See id. at 59.

[8] Id. at 11.

[9] Id.

[10] Id. at 11-12.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] See id at 14-16.

[14] Id. at 18.

[15] Id. at 14-15.

[16] Id. at 16-17.

[17] Id. at 18.

[18] Id.

[19] Id. at 18-19.

[20] Id. at 18.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/writ-amprao-habeasdata-castro-tamano-vs-dela-cruz-70th-infantry-pnp-ntfa-elcac?q=writ of amparo 15/17

9/27/24, 8:33 PM G.R. No. 269249 - In the matter of the issuance of the writ of amparo and habeas data for Jonila Castro and Jhed Reiyana Tamano …

[21] Id.

[22] Id. at 97-109.

[23] Id. at 110-112.

[24] Id. at 113-118.

[25] Id. at 119-121.

[26] Id. at 123-128.

[27] A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, October 24, 2007.

[28] Pat-Og v. Civil Service Commission, 710 Phil. 501, 514 (2013) [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division).

[29] Palafox, Jr. v. Mendiola, G.R. No. 209551, February 15, 2021 [Per J. Hernando, Third Division],

citing Dy v. Bibat-Palamos, 717 Phil. 776, 782-783 (2013) [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].

[30] Id.

[31] See Kumar v. People, 874 Phil. 214, 228 (2020) [Per SAJ Leonen, Third Division].

[32] A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC, February 2, 2008.

[33] Rollo, p. 18.

[34] 698 Phil. 525 (2012) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc].

[35] Id. at 540

[36] Sec.
18. Judgment. - The court shall render 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.

[37] Republic v. Cayanan, 820 Phil. 452, 461 (2017) [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc].

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/writ-amprao-habeasdata-castro-tamano-vs-dela-cruz-70th-infantry-pnp-ntfa-elcac?q=writ of amparo 16/17

9/27/24, 8:33 PM G.R. No. 269249 - In the matter of the issuance of the writ of amparo and habeas data for Jonila Castro and Jhed Reiyana Tamano …

[38] 688 Phil. 266 (2012) [Per J. Del Castillo, En Banc].

[39] Id. at 279-280.

[40] Rollo, pp. 16-17.

[41] See 621 Phil. 536,609 (2009) [Per J. Brion, En Banc].

[42] 824 Phil. 293,310 (2018) [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc].

[43] Rollo, p. 103.

[44] Id. at 96.

[45] Id. at 119-121.

[46] HABEAS DATA WRIT RULE, Sec. 16.

[47] Rollo, p. 18.

[48] AMPARO WRIT RULE, Sec. 14.

[49] Id.

[50] Deduro v. Vinoya, G.R. No. 254753, July 4, 2023 [Per J. Zalameda, En Banc].

[51] Id.

[52] 704 Phil. 235 (2013) [Per SAJ Leonen, En Banc].

[53] Id. at 249.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/writ-amprao-habeasdata-castro-tamano-vs-dela-cruz-70th-infantry-pnp-ntfa-elcac?q=writ of amparo 17/17