WRIT OF AMPARO CANNOT BE INVOKED AGAINST NON-STATE ACTORS
On 15 September 2020, the Supreme Court En Banc issued a Decision of even datein G.R. No. 252120 entitled “In the Matter of the Petition for Writ of Amparo and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Favor of Alicia Jasper S. Lucena vs. Sarah Elago, et al.” The case is a Petition for the issuance of a Writ of Amparo and Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by parents Relissa Santos Lucena and Francis B. Lucena (hereinafter as “Spouses Lucena”) against respondents who are personalities and/or officers of the progressive group Anakbayan.
Spouses Lucena alleged that their daughter, Alicia Jaspers Lucena (“AJ”), was recruited by the progressive group when she was in Grade 11 at the Far Eastern University. Spouses Lucena alleged, that AJ who left their home and joined full-time the progressive group Anakbayan, did not act on his own free will and volition as she was allegedly a victim of radicalization and indoctrination. In a Press Conference, however, in a Senate Investigation, AJ testified that she was not abducted, and she voluntarily joined Anakbayan.
In dismissing the Petition, the Supreme Court En Banc cited the case of Agcaoili vs. Fariňas, G.R. No. 232395 (03 July 2018), and held that the remedy of a Writ of Amparo is confined on to extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. In the case at bar, the Supreme Court held that AJ’s situation does not qualify either as an actual or threatened disappearance of extralegal killing. The Court held that AJ is not missing and her whereabouts are determinable, i.e. she is staying with the Anakbayan and its officers, “who are not agents or organizations acting on behalf of the State.”
Likewise, the Supreme Court En Banc dismissed the Petition for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Court reiterated that it pertains to a remedy to produce the body of a person who has been deprived of liberty. In the case at bar, the Court cited two reasons for the denying the plea of Spouses Lucena for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus. First, Spouses Lucena failed to prove their case that their daughter AJ is being detained or is being kept by the Anakbayan against her free will. The Court gave weight to the Affidavit of AJ stating that she left home because of abuse and repression employed by her parents. Second, the Court held that AJ already reached the age of majority and is, thus, legally emancipated which meant the termination of the Spouses Lucena’s parental authority – which include their custodial rights – over the person and property of AJ.
The Court left with an emphatic message that while it commiserates with the feeling of distress of the parents of AJ, their remedy does not lie with the Court. The Court En Banc held:
“As she has already attained the age of majority, AJ – at least in the eyes of the State – has earned the right to make independent choices with respect to the places where she wants to stay, as well as to the persons whose company she wants to keep. Such choices, so long as they do not violate any law or any other persons’ rights, has to be respected and let alone, lest we trample upon AJ’ s personal liberty – the very freedom supposed to be protected by the writs of amparo and habeas corpus. While we understand that petitioners may feel distressed over AJ’ s decision to leave their home and stay with the Anakbayan, their recourse unfortunately does not lie with the Court through the instant petition. The writs of amparo and habeas corpus were never meant to temper the brashness of youth. The resolution of the conflict besetting petitioners and their daughter AJ is simply beyond the competence of the writs applied for.”