The Philippine amparo does provide for opportunities to penalize public officials who issue such blanket denials without conducting a serious and diligent search for the victim by prohibiting the same under Section 9 and requiring, inter alia, the respondent to state in the following in their Return:

(i) the steps taken by the respondents to determine the fate or whereabouts of the victim
(ii) All relevant information in the possession of the respondent pertaining to the threats, acts or omissions against the victim.
(iii) To recover and preserve evidence related to the death or disappearance of the victim
(iv) To determine the cause, manner, location and time of death of the victim

The above information should force the respondents to certify on the above rather than merely issuing blanket denials or just declaring that the NPA was responsible for the crime without showing the investigation undertaken or the basis for such denial. Section 16 punishes with a fine or imprisonment those who fail to make a return or makes a false return. It is possible, however, that contempt may not be sufficient to strike fear into the hearts of state security forces should the judiciary waver in citing erring public officials with contempt.

One novel legal development in the Philippine amparo is the inapplicability of the “presumption of regularity” rule. Section 17 requires that the public official must prove “that extraordinary diligence was observed in the performance of duty.” Blanket denials without the corresponding diligence to investigate the killing or disappearance are unacceptable under the rule. Furthermore, since there is no presumption of regularity, the respondent public official must prove through evidence that his or her act was indeed regular rather than placing the burden of proving the ‘irregularity’ on the complainants.

Interim relief

The rule provides for immediate relief and remedies under the following:

(i) Section 14.a and 14.b [Temporary Protection Order] and [Witness Protection Order] which empowers the court to order a government agency or a private person or an ‘accredited’ institution to give protection to the aggrieved parties, their family or the organization who filed the petition.

(ii) Section 14.b [Inspection Order] which empowers the court to allow entry into a public or private property for “the purpose of inspecting, surveying, measuring or photographing” the property or any relevant object thereon

(iii) 14.c [Production Order] which empowers the court to order any person to produce “documents, papers, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things and those in digitized or electronic forms”.

 Save as PDF