Principal to the pursuit of truth and justice is the unconditional regard for every person’s fundamental rights to life, liberty, and security—even if an individual is arrested for an alleged criminal offense.
It is with this guiding principle that the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) lauds the declaration of the Supreme Court (SC) affirming the issuance of a Writ of Amparo as a protective remedy against extralegal killings when it ruled in favor of Christina Gonzales, widow of a victim killed in the alleged illegal drugs operation by the Antipolo City police.
The decision, penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, states that the SC denied the petition for review filed by the involved law enforcers challenging the previous 2018 Court of Appeals (CA) ruling which issued the Writ of Amparo, as well as a Permanent Protection Order (PPO) that barred police officers from entering within a one kilometer radius of Christina’s residence and work addresses. Upon assessment of all present evidence, the high court discovered major lapses in the conduct of the buy-bust operation which resulted in Christina’s husband’s death. Furthermore, the SC has determined that there were indeed threats to the life of Christina and the previous CA ruling was only befitting and pertinent.
CHR notes that with the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) continued investigation on the campaign against illegal drugs, the Court’s decision provides a timely and welcome assurance of protection for the most vulnerable against threats or intimidation; most especially if done by a public official or employee, or by a public individual or entity.
The Commission highlights the importance of these meaningful measures that ensure judicial relief for cases that might endanger one’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, or security. The Writ of Amparo, in particular, is a substantial petition as its protective remedies extend to the immediate family of aggrieved parties, or—in cases where there is no immediate family—any collateral relatives or known associations.
Taking into account similar cases that are yet to be tried in the Courts, CHR remains hopeful that the progress of inquiries and their succeeding verdicts will adhere to the immediate, independent, and impartial standards mandated upon the distinctive functions of the judiciary.
We likewise hope that more government agencies, especially those from the security sector, follow suit and unequivocally uphold the human rights of all. ###