In the Matter of the Issuance of the Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data for Jonila F. Castro and Jhed Reiyana C. Tamano and Their Families, Jonila F. Castro and Jhed Reiyana C. Tamano vs. Lieutenant Colonel Ronnel B. Dela Cruz and Members of the 70th infantry Batallion of the Philippine Army, et al.; In the Matter of the Issuance of the Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data for Jonila F. Castro, et al. vs. Lieutenant Colonel Ronnel B. Dela Cruz and members of the 70th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army, et al.,
G.R. No. 269249 /G.R. No. 276602. May 06, 2025 [Date Uploaded: 12/10/2025.
Facts
Jonila F. Castro and Jhed Reiyana C. Tamano (collectively, the petitioners) filed a petition before the Supreme Court of the Philippines seeking the issuance of the writs of amparo and habeas data against public respondents, including Lieutenant Colonel Ronnel B. Dela Cruz and members of the 70th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army, Police Captain Carlito Buco and members of the Philippine National Police in Bataan, National Security Council Assistant Director General Jonathan Malaya, the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC), and others acting under their direction. The petitioners alleged that they were abducted by the public respondents under unfounded suspicions of involvement in anti-government activities and were coerced into executing false affidavits claiming voluntary surrender to the military. This incident stemmed from a press conference on September 19, 2023, where the petitioners publicly disputed the respondents' narrative of their surrender, leading to subsequent criminal charges against the petitioners for grave oral defamation filed on December 12, 2023, before the Municipal Trial Court of Doña Remedios Trinidad, Bulacan (Criminal Case Nos. 609-24 and 610-24).
On October 24, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a Decision in G.R. No. 269249 granting the writs of amparo and habeas data in favor of the petitioners, making them returnable to the Court of Appeals (CA). The Court directed the public respondents to file a return and issued a motu proprio Temporary Protection Order (TPO) prohibiting the respondents from entering within a one-kilometer radius of the petitioners and their immediate families. The CA was instructed to conduct a summary hearing within five days of notice, decide the petition and any interim relief (including a Production Order) within five days of submission for decision, and furnish the Supreme Court with a copy of its decision within five days of promulgation.
This Decision led to two incidents. In G.R. No. 269249, the public respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Very Urgent Omnibus Motion seeking clarification or reversal on several grounds: challenging the Supreme Court's finding of substantial evidence without a CA hearing, alleging deprivation of due process, clarifying whether timeframes referred to calendar or working days, requesting consolidation with the criminal cases in the Municipal Trial Court, and reassessing the broad scope of the TPO. In G.R. No. 276602, the petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the CA's August 2, 2024 Decision and October 29, 2024 Resolution, which denied them the privilege of the writs of amparo and habeas data after summary proceedings. The two cases were consolidated by the Supreme Court on April 2, 2025.
Issues
The resolution addressed multiple issues arising from the consolidated cases. In G.R. No. 269249, the primary issues were: (1) whether the Supreme Court properly issued the writs of amparo and habeas data outright based on substantial evidence from the face of the petition, without violating the public respondents' due process rights; (2) whether the use of substantial evidence as the quantum of proof for issuing the writs was appropriate, as opposed to prima facie evidence; (3) whether the timeframes in the Court's directives referred to calendar days or working days; (4) whether the case should be consolidated with the related criminal defamation cases pending before the Municipal Trial Court; and (5) whether the TPO's one-kilometer prohibition was overly broad and should be reassessed. In G.R. No. 276602, the issue was whether the CA erred in denying the privilege of the writs, prompting the Supreme Court to require comments for a full review, particularly in light of dissenting opinions from two CA justices.
Broader procedural and substantive issues included the distinction between issuing the writs (requiring prima facie evidence) and granting the privilege of the writs (requiring substantial evidence after summary hearing), the nature of amparo and habeas data as remedies for violations or threats to life, liberty, security, or privacy, and the applicability of consolidation rules under the Amparo Rule.
Rulings
The Supreme Court denied the OSG's Very Urgent Omnibus Motion in G.R. No. 269249 for lack of merit. It affirmed its authority to issue the writs outright under Sections 6 and 7 of the Amparo Rule and Habeas Data Rule, respectively, upon finding substantial evidence on the face of the petition, without depriving the public respondents of due process, as they were required to file a return before the CA for full merits determination. The Court clarified that prima facie evidence suffices for issuing the writs, but substantial evidence was appropriately applied here given the petition's strength, and that amparo proceedings determine state responsibility and accountability, not liability. The timeframes were ruled to be in calendar days, with the last day falling on a working day per Rule 22, Section 1 of the Rules of Court (suppletory to the special rules). Consolidation with the criminal cases was deemed implausible, as first-level courts lack jurisdiction over amparo proceedings, which are vested in higher courts like the Regional Trial Court, CA, Sandiganbayan, or Supreme Court. The TPO was affirmed, with the one-kilometer restriction maintained, though qualified to allow public respondents to perform official duties or comply with court orders without violation.
In G.R. No. 276602, the Court required the public respondents to comment on the Petition for Review on Certiorari within a non-extendible 15-day period and directed the CA to elevate the complete records of CA-G.R. SP No. 00073 within five days, reserving final judgment pending full deliberation, noting the separate opinions of two CA justices.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court's reasoning emphasized the protective and extraordinary nature of the writs of amparo and habeas data as remedies against violations or threats to constitutional rights to life, liberty, security, and privacy, particularly extralegal killings, enforced disappearances, or threats thereof. It distinguished between the issuance of the writs, which can occur outright if the petition's face warrants it (based on prima facie evidence, or here, the higher substantial evidence provided), and the grant of the privilege, which requires a summary hearing and substantial evidence under Sections 18 and 16 of the respective rules. Due process was not violated, as the public respondents' opportunity to respond arises via the return and CA hearing, aligning with the summary and urgent character of these proceedings.
On evidence quanta, the Court explained that while prima facie evidence (good and sufficient on its face) triggers writ issuance, substantial evidence (adequate for a reasonable mind to conclude) supports privilege grants, but petitioners' petition exceeded the minimum, justifying immediate action. The proceedings are neither civil, criminal, nor administrative but focus on state accountability, not liability.
Time computation follows suppletory Rules of Court, prioritizing calendar days unless specified, to ensure expeditious resolution. Consolidation under Section 23 of the Amparo Rule applies only to subsequent criminal actions subsuming amparo petitions, but not vice versa, and first-level courts lack jurisdiction over prerogative writs, as statutorily allocated to higher tribunals.
The TPO, though nominally under Section 14(a) of the Amparo Rule (typically involving placement in protective custody), was expansively interpreted as a motu proprio interim relief to create a "safe space," prohibiting proximity to prevent threats, consistent with jurisprudence like In Re Manglalan and Egar v. Bacarro. This restriction is not absolute, allowing official acts or court-authorized actions, and does not hinder videoconferencing hearings. The Court underscored amparo's evolution as a preventive and curative shield against impunity, reviving "salvage" to mean "save" amid societal realities, while cautioning against diluting the remedy through baseless petitions.
In requiring comments in G.R. No. 276602, the Court ensured judicious review, acknowledging potential merit in the petitioners' appeal given CA dissents, to fully assess entitlement to the privilege based on prevailing facts and rules.
###
Grok, December 10, 2025.
###
The #SupremeCourtPH (SC) has denied the motion filed by officers of the Philippine Army, Philippine National Police, National Security Council, and the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (Respondents) questioning the writs of 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘰 and 𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢 earlier granted to environmental advocates Jonila F. Castro and Jhed Reiyana C. Tamano.
In a resolution written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 upheld its earlier Decision granting the issuance of writs of 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘰 and 𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢, along with the Temporary Protection Order (TPO), in favor of Castro and Tamano against the Respondents. The TPO barred the Respondents from entering within a radius of one kilometer from the persons of Castro and Tamano, their residence, schools, work, or current locations, and that of their immediate family members.
In praying for the issuance of the writs of 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘰 and 𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢, Castro and Tamano alleged that the Respondents abducted them and coerced them into signing false affidavits based on unfounded suspicions of involvement in anti-government activities.
The SC issued the writs and directed the Court of Appeals (CA) to conduct summary proceedings to determine the full merits of the petition. The SC also ordered the Respondents to file a verified return before the CA.
The Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, challenged the Court’s finding of substantial evidence which, according to them, should be adjudicated by the CA. They also claimed they were denied due process when they were not required to comment, and that the enforcement of the issued TPO is a broad sweep.
The Supreme Court rejected their claims.
The SC explained that writs of 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘰 and 𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢, unlike the privilege of the writs of amparo and habeas data, may be issued outright under the 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘳𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘰 and 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘳𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘏𝘢𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘴 𝘋𝘢𝘵𝘢 if on the face of the petition, it ought to issue.
The quanta of proof in 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘰 and 𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢 proceedings are two-fold. 𝘗𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘦 evidence, which is evidence that is good and sufficient on its face, is the evidence necessary to issue writs of 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘰 and 𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢. Substantial evidence, which is the evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, is the evidence required for the issuance of the privilege of the writs of 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘰 and 𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢 after a hearing.
In this case, the petition, on its face, shows more than 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘦 reason—substantial evidence—to conclude that the writs must issue in their favor. Despite this, the SC ruled that the use of substantial evidence to grant the writs did not violate Respondents’ right to due process. The 𝘈𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘰 and 𝘏𝘢𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘴 𝘋𝘢𝘵𝘢 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴 allow courts to recognize stronger proof when it exists, justifying the immediate issuance of the writs.
The SC also affirmed its issuance of a TPO. A temporary protection order under the 𝘈𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘰 𝘙𝘶𝘭𝘦 may be issued to place petitioners or their family members under the care of a government agency, accredited person, or private institution capable of securing their safety. While Castro and Tamano did not seek a TPO in its technical sense, the SC saw it fit to prohibit Respondents from physically approaching petitioners, citing previous cases.
The SC also noted that the CA had denied the privileges of the writs of 𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘰 and 𝘩𝘢𝘣𝘦𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢, which they are now challenging before the SC. It thus directed the Respondents to file their Comment to ensure the complete resolution of the case.
Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=157257
Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=157248
Supreme Courts press release
###
