"These decisions unfortunately disregard the actual state of human rights in the Philippines today that has prompted the promulgation of the new remedy in the first place. This spate of decisions will only encourage the re-escalation of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances because of the continuing impunity which has unfortunately and unwittingly been judicially engendered further," it said in a statement on the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) website.

"It seems that the heralded promise that was amparo is floundering not in any local RTC who might be more in touch with reality but in the ivy towers of the Court of Appeals. After giving the amparo a chance, where else can the victims really go for real justice?" it added.

NUPL scored in particular the CA's dismissal of amparo petitions for the supposed failure of the victims-petitioners to prove their rights to life, liberty or security were violated or under threat.

It cited the case of survivor-witness Francis Saez who implicated retired Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan Jr. to the killing of two human rights workers in Southern Tagalog.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition because "it appears" to have been precipitated by "fear that something might happen to him, not because of an apparent or visible threats to his life, liberty or security."

The CA also dismissed the amparo petition of Nilo Baculo, a media man who believes he is also under threat.

Similar petitions for the writ were also recently dismissed one after the other in the case of agriculturist Jonas Burgos, peace consultant Elizabeth Principe and the Gumanoy sisters, daughters of one of Southern Tagalog human rights workers.

NUPL said the court, justice or judge, upon motion or motu proprio, may order that the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any member of the immediate family be protected in a government agency or by an accredited person or private institution capable of keeping and securing their safety.

"Clearly, the Court may grant a temporary protection motu proprio, or "on its own initiative or discretion" even without a
request or motion from the petitioner. Unlike the other interim
relief, protection orders may be granted without a hearing. The intent of the rule, therefore, is to facilitate these protection orders rather than make it a burden for the petitioners to prove that they are under threat," it said.

It added the Protection Order is precisely a mantle intended to protect the victim should his claim to threats be true.

No injury is caused if the Court will grant it and state that "even if the threat has not yet been fully established by direct evidence, the Court grants you protection and warns any person or entity not to violate your right to life, liberty or security," it said.

"The writ of amparo is in the nature of an affirmative action wherein the Court should grant the protection order if the respondents fail to prove that they are not threatening the life of the victim.
Dismissing a petition on the ground that the threat 'appears' to be baseless is surely not the intent of the amparo rule," it added.

NUPL also said the CA decisions' unreasonable standard of asking the victims for "clear evidence" of "apparent or visible" threats to the life of the petitioner could be misplaced.

"Judicial decisions will have to be in touch with the reality outside the immaculate walls and towers of the courtyards. There have been 900 extra judicial killings, several hundreds of disappearances, and daily accounts of almost routinary torture of the most heinous kinds in the Philippines since 2001 and there has been very little 'visible or apparent' evidence gathered by the police to identify the perpetrators. The only time when the victims will have the opportunity to get a 'visible or apparent' evidence of the threats is when a gun is already pointed at them and the trigger is about to be pulled," it said.

"It seems that the Court of Appeals did not find the allegations of petitioners 'relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion that there is a real and actual threat' to the life, liberty or security of Saez, a survivor-witness himself who implicated a notorious general for the killing of his two fellow human rights workers and who is being asked to 'spy' on his own lawyers who are themselves members of NUPL. The decision considers the report of surveillance, and the 'tailing' of the victim as nothing more than a mere baseless 'fear,'" it said.

NUPL cited a report to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on September 9, 1985 on the human rights situation of Chile under Gen.
Augusto Pinochet.

It cited the case in March 1980 of teacher Oscar Salazar Jahnsen appeared before the Santiago Appeals Court, and complained of the conspicuous tailing to which he had been subject and expressed his fear of being illegally arrested and requested that he be granted adequate protection.

When the respective report was requested from the Minister of the Interior, the Minister replied, "in this Department of State there is no information about this person."

Six days later the court rejected the application and on April 28 the teacher Salazar was killed in a "security operation."

On the other hand, it said the basis of the custody of the military must be a legal basis, not upon the whim or request of anyone, even the victim especially since the AFP is not a hotel or a boarding house where anyone can just demand board and lodging.

"If there is no arrest warrant or commitment order, the Court of Appeals cannot order that a victim remain in the custody of the AFP as in the case of Gumanoy, who is a minor," it said.

Also, it said a decision dismissing an amparo petition because a subject 'wants' to be under the military's custody, rather than with his family, is based on an unrealistic assessment of the facts and, denies reality and even common human experience. "It simply taxes one's credulity," it said.

"The power to interpret law is therefore a power that can make a difference. The power is weak only in the hands of weaklings; the power is puny only to those whose minds no longer dream and dare," it added. - GMANews.TV

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/111020/Group-Denials-of-amparo-petitions-to-promote-more-killings