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. (BOAC VS. CADAPAN [2011]).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.