Case Summary (G.R. No. 142380)
Factual Background and Initial Deportation Proceedings
Interpol Seoul notified Interpol Manila on December 23, 2013, regarding Ku’s alleged misappropriation of company funds. The Korean Embassy formally requested his arrest and deportation. Ku’s visa expired on January 1, 2014, and a charge under Sec. 69 of Act No. 2711 was filed on January 3. The BI Board approved a Summary Deportation Order on January 16, leading to Ku’s arrest and detention at the BI facility.
Filing and Issuance of the Writ of Amparo
On January 17, 2014, Ku filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo. He supplemented the petition on January 22, and the RTC, Branch 47, issued the writ on the same day, finding the petition sufficient in form and substance.
Interim Protection Orders and Hearings
Ku moved for a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) on January 24. Hearings were scheduled for January 27 (TPO) and January 29 (amparo petition). Despite BI’s filing of its Return of the Writ on January 27, the RTC granted the TPO on January 28 and issued a second custody-transfer order on January 29, directing protection by the Philippine National Police–PSPG.
Supreme Court’s Temporary Restraining Order
Petitioner sought certiorari relief before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 210759). On February 4, 2014, the Court issued a TRO enjoining enforcement of the January 28 and 29 orders, directing BI to retain custody of Ku and to comment on the petition. The Court noted the risk of misuse of amparo given the valid deportation proceedings.
RTC’s Persistence and Subsequent Orders
At the RTC hearing on February 11, the petitioner orally moved to dismiss the amparo petition. On February 18, the RTC denied the motion to dismiss, prompting a second Supreme Court petition (G.R. No. 211403).
Supreme Court’s Second TRO and Provisional Liberty
On March 14, the RTC granted the privilege of the writ of amparo, ordering Ku’s release and prohibiting further detention measures. On March 18, the Supreme Court issued another TRO enjoining enforcement of the February 18 order and further proceedings in the RTC. On March 19, the OP granted Ku provisional liberty under conditions, including surrender of his passport.
Procedural Postures and Consolidated Petitions
Three petitions—G.R. Nos. 210759, 211403, and 211590—were consolidated. The BI challenged the RTC’s orders and resolutions granting amparo relief, moving to reverse the RTC’s grant of the writ and seeking administrative charges against Judge Gallegos.
Legal Question on the Privilege of the Writ of Amparo
The dispositive issue is whether the writ of amparo was properly granted. The Court examines statutory and constitutional parameters, focusing on whether Ku’s detention involved extralegal killing or enforced disappearance as defined by law.
Statutory Coverage of the Writ of Amparo
Section 1 of the Amparo Rule limits the writ to extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. Extrajudicial killing is killing without due process, and enforced disappearance involves state or state-acquiesced deprivation of liberty followed by refusal to acknowledge the person’s fate or whereabouts.
Criteria for Enforced Disappearances under R.A. 9851
R.A. 9851 enumerates elements: (a) deprivation of liberty; (b) state involvement or acquiescence; (c) subsequent refusal to acknowledge or disclose whereabouts; (d) intent to remove the person from legal protection for a prolonged period.
Application of Amparo Criteria to the Present Case
Ku’s arrest was lawful under a Summary Deportation Order and warrant. The BI acknowledged his detention, documented it, and his counsel promptly filed for reconsideration, demonstrating no concealment or prolonged removal from legal protection.
Requirements of an Amparo Petition under the Rule
Section 5 mandates detailed allegations: petitioner’s circumstances; respondent’s identity; nature and circumstances of rights violation; investigations undertaken; remedies sought; and relief prayed for, supported by affidavits and evidence.
Assessment of Claimant’s Allegations and Evidence
Ku alleged arbitrary arrest, lack of reading of rights, absence of detention documentation, risk of fabricated charges, and threats to life. The Court found these claims speculative and unsupported by evidence. Records showed access to counsel, visitor rights, and transparent detention procedures.
Impropriety in Granting the Writ in this Context
Because Ku’s detention did not involve extralegal killing or enforced disappearance threats and his whereabouts were never concealed, the amparo petition fell outside the writ
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 142380)
Procedural History
- Three consolidated petitions under G.R. Nos. 210759, 211403, and 211590 assailed multiple orders and a resolution of RTC-Manila, Branch 47 in SP. PROC. No. 14-131282.
- Orders dated 28 and 29 January 2014 granted a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) and transferred custody and protection of respondent Ku to the PNRC and PNP-PSPG.
- Order of 18 February 2014 denied the BI’s motion to dismiss the amparo petition.
- Resolution of 14 March 2014 granted the writ of amparo, ordered Ku’s release, and directed cessation of any threats to his liberty.
- Supreme Court issued TROs on 4 February 2014 and 18 March 2014 enjoining enforcement of the assailed orders and retaining BI custody.
- Petitioner filed petitions for certiorari and prohibition and a petition for review on certiorari, challenging jurisdiction, due process, and the propriety of amparo relief.
Statement of Facts
- 23 December 2013: Interpol Seoul requested assistance to locate and deport Ja Hoon Ku for alleged misappropriation of company funds.
- Republic of Korea Embassy asked BI for Ku’s immediate arrest and deportation as an undesirable alien; Ku’s visa expired on 1 January 2014.
- 3 January 2014: BI Special Prosecutor charged Ku as a risk to public interest; BI Board approved and issued a Summary Deportation Order on 16 January 2014.
- 16 January 2014: BI, aided by Manila Police, arrested Ku and detained him at BI detention center; 17 January 2014: Korea voided his passport.
- 17 and 22 January 2014: Ku filed original and supplemental petitions for writ of amparo; 22 January 2014: RTC issued writ of amparo.
- 24 January 2014: Ku moved for TPO; hearings set for 27 and 29 January 2014.
- 28 & 29 January 2014: RTC granted TPO, transferred custody and protection.
- 4 February 2014: SC TRO enjoined enforcement of RTC orders, directed BI to retain custody.
- 11 February 2014: BI moved to dismiss amparo petition; 18 February 2014: RTC denied motion.
- 14 March 2014: RTC granted amparo relief ordering Ku’s release; BI and agents ordered to cease violations.
- 19 March 2014: OP granted Ku provisional liberty until 31 August 2014, subject to conditions.
- BI oppose