|
THE case
of two missing students of the University of the
Philippines (UP) and a Bulacan farmer became the first
test case for the writ of amparo which the Supreme Court
earlier adopted as one of the legal remedies to combat
the rising number of extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearances in the country.
The
guidelines for the use of the writ, crafted by jurists
after a landmark summit initiated by the Supreme Court
two months ago, took effect October 24.
On
Wednesday the mothers of missing UP students Sherlyn
Cadapan and Karen Empeño filed their petition for the
issuance of the writ of amparo before the Supreme Court
in an effort to find the two young women missing since
June 2006 together with farmer Manuel Merino.
In their
nine-page petition for the issuance of the writ of
amparo, the petitioners asked the Court to order the
respondents in the case to immediately release from
their custody their daughters and Merino, if still
alive, and if dead, “to show the places where their
remains were placed or buried.”
The writ
of amparo, unlike the writ of habeas corpus, will deny
authorities the option of raising the defense of simple
denial when they are sued to produce, before the courts,
the bodies of victims of involuntary disappearances.
The writ
of amparo also allows courts to issue inspection order
and to direct any person in possession or control of a
designated land or other property, to permit entry for
the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying or
photographing the property or any object relevant to the
petition.
If the
respondents again deny having custody of the two
students and Merino, the petitioners asked the High
Tribunal to order an inspection of at least nine places
where they were reportedly detained by the military.
They
also asked the Court to compel the respondents to
produce documents pertinent to the petition.
“We hope
the High Court will ensure its implementation. The
military always tells us that their law is different.
It is now up to the SC to make the law work and protect
us,” Mrs. Cadapan said.
“It is
our hope that the writ of amparo will help surface our
daughters and Mr. Merino,” they added. The petitioners
claimed that the three were abducted by elements of the
military’s 56th Infantry Battalion based in Hagonoy,
Bulacan under the 7th Infantry Division then headed by
Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan.
Besides
Palparan, named respondents in the petition for writ of
amparo were President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Armed
Forces chief Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, National Police
chief Dir. Gen. Avelino Razon, former Philippine Army
chief Ret. Gen. Romeo Tolentino, Lt. Col. Rogelio Boac,
Lt. Col Felipe Anotado, Donald Caigas alias Alvin or
Alan, Arnel Enriquez, Lt. Francis Mirabelle Samson, and
the Court of Appeals Special Former 11th Division.
They
filed the petition for writ of amparo after their
petition for writ of habeas corpus before the Court of
Appeals (CA) failed to produce positive results.
Cadapan
and Empeño were temporarily staying in the house of a
certain Raquel Halili, at barangay San Miguel Hagonoy,
when they were abducted by alleged military men.
The
soldiers took with them Merino after he tried to help
the students.
The
petitioners said in an interview they believe their
daughters are still alive.
Mrs.
Cadapan claimed that her daughter made an appearance at
the house of her mother-in-law in April of this year,
escorted by her captors. She added that in August, two
brothers—Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo—who had escaped
from their military captors, claimed having seen the two
students and Merino inside a military camp.
“Our
families look to the writ of amparo as our last resort
in terms of legal remedy. More than a year has passed
and our government had not brought us our daughters
back,” said Mrs. Empeño.
The
15-man High Tribunal unanimously approved last month the
rules governing the issuance of the writ of amparo,
which is intended to address the alarming rise of
extrajucidial killings and involuntary disappearances—a
trend that prompted the United Nations to send a special
rapporteur earlier this year, Philip Alston.
The
Court said 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
unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or a private individual or entity. |
