Consti II case digest: REYES VS GONZALES

WRIT OF AMPARO
DEFINITION:
Is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty,or 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.


FACTS:
Petitioner and 49 others were arrested in the Manila Peninsula Hotel Seige and were charged of the crime of rebellion under the Revised Penal Code. DILG issued Hold Departure Order in the interest of national security and public safety.

On December 13, 2007, RTC issued an order dismissing the charge for Rebellion against the petitioner and 17 others for lack of probable cause. That petitioners and other accused civilians were arrested because they ignored the call of the police despite the deadline given to them to come out from the 2nd Floor of the Hotel and submit themselves to the police authorities.

Counsel for petitioner file thru the DOJ for the lifting of the HDO since despite the dismissal of the crime of rebellion, he was held by the BID officials at NAIA as his name is included in the Hold Departure List. This happens every time he left for abroad.

Writ of Amparo was filed on the ground that the respondents violated the petitioner’s constitutional right to travel.


ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner’s right to liberty has been violated or threatened with violation by the issuance of the subject HDO, which would entitle him to the privilege of the writ of amparo.

HELD:
No. The writ is a remedy for any person whose wright to life, liberty or security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private person or entity.

The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearance or threats thereof.

Liberty has been defined as the right to exist and the right to be free form arbitrary restraint or servitude. The term cannot be dwarfed from arbitrary into mere freedom from physical restraint of the person of the citizen, but is deemed to embrace the right of man to enjoy the facilities he has been endowed by his Creator.

Security is the freedom of persons from fear, freedom from threat.

In the case at bar, the restriction on petitioner;s right to travel as a consequence of the pendency of the criminal case filed against him was not unlawful. Petitioner has also failed to establish that his right to travel was impaired in the manner and to the extent that it AMOUNTED to a serious violation of his right to life, liberty and security for which there exists no readily available legal recourse or remedy.