WRIT OF AMPARO PROCEEDINGS

An amparo proceeding is not criminal in nature nor does it ascertain the criminal liability of individuals or entities involved.  Neither does it partake of a civil or administrative suit.

It bears stressing that command responsibility is properly a form of criminal complicity, and thus a substantive rule that points to criminal or administrative liability. An amparo proceeding is not criminal in nature nor does it ascertain the criminal liability of individuals or entities involved.  Neither does it partake of a civil or administrative suit. Rather, it is a remedial measure designed to direct specified courses of action to government agencies to safeguard the constitutional right to life, liberty and security of aggrieved individuals.

In other words, command responsibility may be loosely applied in amparo cases in order to identify those accountable individuals that have the power to effectively implement whatever processes an amparo court would issue. In such application, the amparo court does not impute criminal responsibility but merely pinpoint the superiors it considers to be in the best position to protect the rights of the aggrieved party. 

Contrary to the ruling of the appellate court, there is no need to file a motion for execution for an amparo or habeas corpus decision.  Since the right to life, liberty and security of a person is at stake, the proceedings should not be delayed and execution of any decision thereon must be expedited as soon as possible since any form of delay, even for a day, may jeopardize the very rights that these writs seek to immediately protect. The Solicitor General’s argument that the Rules of Court supplement the Rule on the Writ of Amparo is misplaced.  The Rules of Court only find suppletory application in an amparo proceeding if the Rules strengthen, rather than weaken, the procedural efficacy of the writ.   As it is, the Rule dispenses with dilatory motions in view of the urgency in securing the life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party.  Suffice it to state that a motion for execution is inconsistent with the extraordinary and expeditious remedy being offered by an amparo proceeding.  In fine, the appellate court erred in ruling that its directive to immediately release Sherlyn, Karen and Merino was not automatically executory. For that would defeat the very purpose of having summary proceedings in amparo petitions.  Summary proceedings, it bears emphasis, are immediately executory without prejudice to further appeals that may be taken therefrom. (LT. COL. ROGELIO BOAC ET AL, VS. ERLINDA T. CADAPAN & CONCEPCION E. EMPENO G.R. NO. 184461-62, MAY 31, 2011, CARPIO MORALES, J.).