Sec of DND v.

MANALO GR #180906 omission by public officials or employees and by

private individuals or entities.
- FACTS: Understandably, since their escape, the
Manalos have been under concealment and
- Brothers Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo protection by private citizens because of the threat
were abducted by military men belonging to to their life, liberty, and security.
the CAFGU on the suspicion that they were The circumstances of respondents
members and supporters of the NPA. After abduction, detention, torture and escape
18 months of detention and torture, the reasonably support a conclusion that there is an
brothers escaped on August 13, 2007. apparent threat that they will again be abducted,
tortured, and this time, even executed.
- Ten days after their escape, they filed a These constitute threats to their liberty,
Petition for Prohibition, Injunction, and security, and life, actionable through a petition for a
Temporary Restraining Order to stop the writ of amparo, the Court explained.
military officers and agents from depriving
them of their right to liberty and other basic
rights.
- While the said case was pending, the Rule
on the Writ of Amparo took effect on
October 24, 2007. The Manalos
subsequently filed a manifestation and
omnibus motion to treat their existing
petition as amparo petition.

On December 26, 2007, the Court of

Appeals granted the privilege of the writ of
amparo.
- The CA ordered the Secretary of National
Defense and the Chief of Staff of the AFP to
furnish the Manalos and the court with all
official and unofficial investigation reports as
to the Manalos custody, confirm the present
places of official assignment of two military
officials involved, and produce all medical
reports and records of the Manalo brothers
while under military custody.
- The Secretary of National Defense and the
Chief of Staff of the AFP appealed to the SC
seeking to reverse and set aside the
decision promulgated by the CA.

ISSUE:
- Whether or not statements from the victims
themselves is sufficient for amparopetitions.
- Whether or not actual deprivation of liberty
is necessary for the right to security
of aperson may be invoked

HELD:

In upholding the CA decision, the Supreme

Court ruled that there is a continuing violation of the
Manalos right to security.
The Writ of Amparo is the most potent
remedy available to any person whose right to life,
liberty, and security has been violated or is
threatened with violation by an unlawful act or