The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed the petition filed by the parents of a 19-year-old student who reportedly disappeared when she joined the radical youth group Anakbayan in 2019.
In a decision written by Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, dismissed was the petition for writs of Amparo and habeas corpus filed by Francis and Relissa Lucena in behalf of their daughter Alicia Jasper Lucena.
A press statement issued by the SC’s public information office (PIO) stated that “the issuance of a writ of Amparo is not proper and that the prayer for a writ of habeas corpus lacks merit.”
A copy of the decision was not immediately available.
Alicia’s parents filed complaints with the Department of Justice (DOJ) on the alleged disappearance of their daughter.
Kidnapping and trafficking complaints were against Kabataan Party-list Representative Sarah Elago, Bayan Muna chairperson Neri Colmenares, former Akbayan Rep. Tom Villarin, and other Anakbayan members.
Published reports quoted Alicia as having said that she voluntarily joined Anakbayan and that she opted to leave her parents’ house and stay with members of Anakbayan.
The parents then filed a petition with the SC for the issuance of the writs of Amparo and habeas corpus.
The writ of Amparo “is a special constitutional writ to protect or enforce rights other than physical liberty,” while the writ of habeas corpus “is directed to a person detaining another, commanding the former to produce the body of the latter at a designated time and place.”
Quoting from the decision, the PIO said that “the SC held that the remedy of Amparo, in its present formulation, (is) confined merely to instances of extralegal killings or enforced disappearances and to threats thereof.”
“In the case at bar, the Court said that there is not much issue that Alicia Jasper or AJ’s situation does not qualify either as an actual or threatened enforced disappearance or extralegal killing. It further said that AJ is not missing and her whereabouts are determinable and (she) is staying with the Anakbayan and its officers,” the PIO said.
“On the issue of writ of habeas corpus, the Court held that the Rules of Court envisions the writ as a remedy applicable to cases of illegal confinement or detention where a person is deprived of his or her liberty, or where the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto,” it said.
The PIO also said:
“The Court noted that it did not appear that AJ had been deprived of her liberty or that petitioners had been excluded from their rightful custody over the person of AJ. The petitioners, the Court said, failed to make a case that AJ is being detained or is being kept by the Anakbayan against her free will.
“Since the petitioner’s daughter has already attained the age of majority, which is 18-years old, AJ, in the eyes of the State, has earned the right to make independent choices with respect to the places where she wants to stay, as well as to the persons whose company she wants to keep.”