In a move to enhance the protection of a person’s rights to life, liberty, security, and privacy of communication, the Supreme Court (SC) has started its multi-sector focus group discussions (FGDs) on legal remedies available under the Writs of Amparo, Habeas Corpus, and Habeas Data.
Spearheaded by the SC’s Committee on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, the FGDs started in Baguio City and will also be conducted in Cebu City and Davao City.
The SC’s Public Information Office (SC-PIO) said that participants in the FGDs are members of the judiciary, law groups and public interest lawyers, academe, non-government organizations, civil society organizations, and law enforcement agencies.
The FGDs will conclude in September and all actionable findings and recommendations will be submitted to the technical working group of the Human Rights Committee for deliberation and resolution before submitting its final recommendations to the SC as a full court.
The SC-PIO said “the consultations form part of the Judiciary's continued efforts to review the relevance and effectiveness of the rules, as guided by the principles laid out in the Supreme Court's Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022- 2027.”
The 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 of Habeas Data is a remedy to a 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.
The Writ of Habeas Corpus, considered the most powerful writ, is a legal remedy against arbitrary arrest and detention. Through the writ, a court can order a person who arrested and detained another person to bring the arrested and detained person personally before the court for judicial inquiry.
The Philippines also has the Writ of Kalikasan, a legal remedy for a healthy environment.
Earlier, Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo and Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, chairperson of SC’s Committee on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, had expressed the need for the Writ of Kalayaan to address “not only the congestions in jail facilities but also any issue that frustrates the inherent dignity and humane treatment of persons deprived of liberty (PDLs).”
In his speech last May at the Manila Hotel before the new lawyers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Caloocan-Malabon-Navotas (IBP-CalMaNa) Chapter, Justice Leonen reiterated the need to address the “colossal and perennial problem” of jail congestion.
In October 2023 during his jail visitations in line with the National Correctional Consciousness Week, Chief Justice Gesmundo declared that adopting a Writ of Kalayaan would help decongest the country’s overcrowded jails.
The SC is expected to gain “a deeper understanding of the effectiveness and limitations of the protective writs” during its consultations in FGDs, the SC-PIO said in its press briefer.
It said the FGDs “serve as avenues for its participants to share their experiences and discuss challenges and areas for improvement in the formulation and implementation of the writs.”
It said that submission may be sent by the public to [email protected]. Submissions received on or before Sept. 25, 2024, will be considered by the committee, it also said.
Lately, the SC had received several petitions for a Writ of Amparo in connection with red-tagging of persons who have been named by law enforcers as members or supporters of terrorist organizations.
In one of its decisions, the SC had declared that red-tagging, vilification, labelling, and guilt by association threaten a person’s right to life, liberty or security and may justify the issuance of the court’s protective order through a Writ of Amparo.
The SC ruled: “Red-tagging has been acknowledged by international organizations as a form of harassment and intimidation. As early as 2007, the United Nations Human Rights Council observed the prevalence of a practice in the Philippines where groups at the left of the political spectrum are characterized as front organizations of anti-democratic groups. The report called the practice ‘vilification,’ ‘labelling,’ or guilt by association.”
The SC also said:
“More than a decade after, red-tagging also transitioned to online social media platforms like Facebook. As noted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in its Annual Report dated 29 June 2020, labelling certain groups or persons as ‘reds’ oftentimes came with frequent surveillance and direct harassment.
“Some received death threats either through text or online direct messages. A number of women activists have reported being threatened with rape or other forms of sexual assault. While some of these red-labelling remained as threats, the report also noted that some of those red-tagged individuals were eventually killed.
“Just last year, various United Nations special rapporteurs made a public plea to stop the practice of red-tagging in the country, stating: ‘Human rights defenders in the Philippines continue to be red-tagged, labelled as 'terrorists' and ultimately killed in attempts to silence them and delegitimize their human rights work. This must end.’
“The foregoing accounts of red-tagging depict it as a likely precursor to abduction or extrajudicial killing. Being associated with communists or terrorists makes the red-tagged person a target of vigilantes, paramilitary groups, or even State agents. Thus, it is easy to comprehend how a person may, in certain circumstances, develop or harbor fear that being red-tagged places his or her life or security in peril.”
Meanwhile, in resolving cases involving the anti-terrorism law, Chief Justice Gesmundo had said that the courts must strike a balance between the right of the government to protect itself and the fundamental rights of the people.
“Thus, it becomes imperative that in responding to threats of terrorism, the state cannot be overzealous and casually disregard these rights. On the other hand, our courts cannot be overcautious and allow unrestricted exercise of rights which can easily cover and disguise terroristic acts,” Gesmundo stressed.
The rules on Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) of 2020 and related law issued by the SC became effective last Jan. 15.
Among the salient provisions of the rules state that law enforcers cannot legally conduct online surveillance like wiretapping of conversations, intercepting social media accounts, and collecting and reproducing images and photographs of suspected terrorist groups or individuals without an order from the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA order, if issued within 72 hours from the termination of the summary proceedings on the surveillance petition, may also require telecommunication firms and internet providers to provide the needed data sought by law enforcers.
Also, suspected members of terrorist groups and individuals who are arrested without judicial warrants cannot be detained for more than 36 hours from the time of arrest without written authority from the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC).
Before the lapse of the 14-day extension which is counted from the day of arrest, the ATC through the Department of Justice (DOJ) should file before the regional trial court (RTC) a motion for extension of detention of the suspected terrorist for not more than 10 days. The motion should contain the justification for the continued detention of a suspect.
If the RTC finds no evidence for further detention, the detained suspected terrorist should be released immediately.