WRIT OF AMPARO

Of Mexican origin, the writ of Amparo which literally means protection in Spanish 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 covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. At
its core is the power of judicial review. As envisioned by our own Supreme Court, the writ
of amparo can be availed of as protective tool and remedy for the greater protection of the
constitutional rights of the victims.
Being a prerogative writ, resort to writ of amparo does not preclude the filing
of separate criminal, civil or administrative actions. This remedy achieves its purpose through the
four (4) interim reliefs provided therein, namely: temporary protection order, inspection order,
production order and witness protection order.

WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

In general, the writ of habeas data is designed to protect by means of judicial complaint the
image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of information of an individual. It is meant to
provide a forum to enforce ones right to the truth and to informational privacy, thus
safeguarding the constitutional guarantees of a persons right to life, liberty and security against
abuse in this age of information technology, particularly in instances where such information is
being collected through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends.
As an independent and summary remedy to protect the right to privacy especially the right to
informational privacy, the proceedings for the issuance of the writ of habeas data does not entail
any finding of criminal, civil or administrative culpability. If the allegations in the petition are
proven through substantial evidence, then the Court may (a) grant access to the database or
information; (b) enjoin the act complained of; or (c) in case the database or information contains
erroneous data or information, order its deletion, destruction or rectification.

WRIT OF KALIKASAN
The writ of Kalilakasan draws its mandate from section 16 of article II of the 1987 Philippine
constitution which state that the state shall protect and advance the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. It gives flesh
to the power of the citizens to assert their rights to a better ecology and contains a very specific
set of remedies which may be availed of individually or cumulatively, to wit it is available to a
natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, peoples organization, non-governmental
organization, or any public interest group accredited by or registered with any government
agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as
to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
EDGARDO NAVIA VS. PARDICO, G.R. NO.184467
FACTS
This petition for review on certiorari challenges the decision of the RTC of Malolos which
granted the Petition for Writ of Amparo led by herein respondent against the petitioners. The
petition was led due to the mysterious disappearance of respondents husband after he
was arrested by the security of Asian Land. The petition does not contain any allegation of State
complicity, and none of the evidence presented tend to show that the government or any of its
agents orchestrated Bens disappearance. In fact, none of its agents, officials, or employees were
impleaded or implicated in Virginias amparo petition whether as responsible or
accountable persons.
ISSUE : Whether or not allegation and proof that the persons subject of the petition for Writ of
Amparo are missing are enough for such writ to issue.
RULING: The Court ruled in the negative. The Court pointed out that in an amparo
petition, proof of disappearance alone is not enough. It is likewise essential to establish that such
disappearance was carried out with the direct or indirect authorization, support or
acquiescence of the government. The writ shall cover extra legal killings and enforced
disappearances or threats thereof. "Enforced or involuntary disappearance of persons" means
the arrest, detention, or abduction o f p e r s o n s b y , o r w i t h the authorization,
support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization followed by a refusal to
acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts
of those persons, with the intention of removing from the protection of the law for a prolonged
period of time. From the statutory definition of enforced disappearance, thus, we can derive the
following elements that constitute it: (a) that there be an arrest, detention, abduction or
any form of deprivation of liberty;(b) that it be carried out by, or with the authorization,
support or acquiescence of, the State or a political organization; (c) that it be followed by the
State or political organizations refusal to acknowledge or give information on the fate or
whereabouts of the person subject of the amparo petition; and, (d) that the intention for such
refusal is to remove subject person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.