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 vs. Ronnel Dela Cruz et al.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 269249)

Key Dates

• September 2–19, 2023: Petitioners were allegedly abducted, detained, interrogated, and forced to sign affidavits.
• September 28, 2023: Petition filed for writs of amparo and habeas data with prayers for temporary protection order (TPO), permanent protection order (PPO), and production order (PO).
• October 24, 2023: Supreme Court en banc decision.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution – protection of right to life, liberty, and security (Arts. 1, 2; Bill of Rights).
• Rule on the Writ of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC).
• Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC).
• Jurisprudence on extraordinary and prerogative writs (Ladaga v. Mapagu; Navia v. Pardico; Tapuz v. Del Rosario).

Factual Background

On September 2, 2023, petitioners walking along Manrique Street, Orion, Bataan, were forcibly taken by masked men into an SUV, blindfolded, tied, and subjected to multiple stops before arrival at two separate locations. They were interrogated about organizational affiliations, threatened with violence and death, and coerced into writing affidavits prepared by military personnel. From September 12 to 15, they were brought to the 70th Infantry Battalion camp in Bulacan, medically examined, introduced to local officials and to a public attorney, and pressured to participate in a government-orchestrated press conference claiming their “voluntary surrender.” On September 19, they publicly repudiated the military’s narrative, disclosed the abduction, and were thereafter turned over to CHR custody.

Issues Presented

Whether direct filing with the Supreme Court is justified in this amparo and habeas data petition.
Whether petitioners’ rights to life, liberty, and security warrant issuance of the writ of amparo.
Whether threats to petitioners’ privacy and security justify issuance of the writ of habeas data.
Whether interim reliefs (TPO, PPO, PO) should be granted.

Jurisdictional Ruling

The Court holds that under Sections 3 of both amparo and habeas data rules, the Supreme Court has concurrent original jurisdiction, particularly given the extraordinary circumstances, public attention, and the involvement of high-level government officers. Direct recourse is therefore proper.

Entitlement to Writ of Amparo

Applying the 1987 Constitution and Rule on the Writ of Amparo, petitioners proved by substantial evidence:
• Unlawful deprivation of liberty (abduction and detention).
• State participation or acquiescence (admissions by military officers; use of military facilities and personnel).
• Refusal to acknowledge or mischaracterization of petitioners’ status (claims of “voluntary surrender”).
• Threats to remove petitioners from legal protection (threats of disappearance, torture, coerced affidavits).
Evidence includes affidavits of fact-finding team members and family, petitioners’ consistent accounts, physical remnants at the abduction site, and official statements. The writ of amparo is therefore granted.

Entitlement to Writ of Habeas Data

Under the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, petitioners demonstrated that National Security Council ADG Mala

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 269249)

Facts of the Case

Petitioners Jonila F. Castro and Jhed Reiyana C. Tamano are volunteers of AKAP KA Manila Bay, an environmental-advocacy network defending marginalized stakeholders along Manila Bay.
On September 2, 2023, at about 7:00 p.m. in Orion, Bataan, petitioners were accosted by ski-masked men in an SUV who forcibly dragged them aboard.
Captors searched their belongings for weapons, switched off their phones, tied and blindfolded them, then wrapped their heads with duct tape.
Over the next days, petitioners endured multiple stops, interrogations about identities, organizational affiliations, and plans; suffered threats of being thrown into a pit, beheading, charges of rebellion, and execution.
They were fed minimal rations, allowed sporadic removal of blindfolds to bathe, and finally taken to a motel where their blindfolds were removed and further threatened.
Captors claimed affiliation with ELCAC and an order to kill petitioners if they did not “speak”; items such as a smartphone, flash drive, notebooks, wallet, and pamphlets belonging to Jhed were not returned.
From September 5–11, petitioners were forced to type and retype affidavits of “voluntary surrender” as rebels, on stationery bearing the 70th Infantry Battalion seal and motto.
On September 12, they were brought to the 70th Infantry Battalion camp in Bulacan for processing, medical check-up, and introduction to local officials and National Intelligence personnel; Jhed’s parents also arrived.
On September 13, Public Attorney’s Office counsel Atty. Joefer Baggay prepared printed versions of the affidavits, which petitioners and Jhed’s parents swore to; they refused a planned press conference invitation.
National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) representative Emjay Chico later urged them to do a press conference to deny abduction claims.
On September 14, three CHR representatives sought confirmation of “voluntary surrender”; petitioners remained uncertain of CHR’s trustworthiness.
Petitioners agreed to a press conference on September 19, during which both publicly recounted their forcible abduction, threats, and coerced affidavits, directly contradicting respondents’ “surrender” narrative.
Afterward, CHR took custody of petitioners and released them to their families and colleagues.
On September 28, 2023, petitioners filed an “Extremely Urgent Petition” before the Supreme Court for the issuance of writs of amparo and habeas data with prayers for Temporary Protection Order (TPO), Permanent Protection Order (PPO), and Production Order (PO).

Petitioners’ Allegations and Supporting Evidence

Petitioners claim continuing threats to their lives, liberty, and security followi