Mison v.

Gallegas Deportation/Writ of Amparo

[Interpol of Korea informed Interpol of Manila to deport and arrest Ku; MISON, as chief of BI, arrested and
detained Ku upon arrival; Ku filed for writ of amparo; JUDGE GRANTED; MISON APPEALED, as amparo
only covers EJ Killings or Enforced Disappearances; MISON CORRECT; This is not enforced
disappearance]

Interpol of Seoul, Republic of Korea sent a Notice to Interpol Manila requesting assistance in the location and
deportation of respondent Ku for arbitrarily spending money allotted as reserve fund of Phildip Korea Co., Ltd.
Consequently, the Embassy of Korea wrote a Letter-Request to petitioner, Hon. Siegfred Mison, Chairperson of
the Bureau of Immigration (BI), for the immediate arrest and deportation of Ku to Korea for being an undesirable
alien. Subsequently he was arrested by BI officers and was detained. He files for writ of amparo which was
granted by RTC ordering his release.

Was the writ properly granted? NO.

As the Amparo Rule was intended to address the intractable problem of "extralegal killings" and "enforced
disappearances," its coverage, in its present form, is confined to these two instances or to threats thereof.
"Extralegal killings" are ‘killings committed without due process of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial
proceedings." On the other hand, the elements constituting "enforced disappearances" under RA 9851 are:

(a) that there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty;
(b) that it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or a political
organization;
(c) that it be followed by the State or political organization’s refusal to acknowledge or give information on
the fate or whereabouts of the person subject of the amparo petition; and
(d) that the intention for such refusal is to remove the subject person from the protection of the law for a
prolonged period of time.

Ku’s circumstance does not come under the statutory definition of an enforced or involuntary disappearance.
Indeed, Ku was arrested by agents of the BI, but there was no refusal on the part of the BI to acknowledge such
arrest nor was there any refusal to give information on the whereabouts of Ku. Neither can it be said that the BI
had any intention to remove Ku from the protection of the law for a prolonged time. Within the Bureau, Ku’s arrest
and the fact that he was in their custody was not obscured as, in fact, these were well-documented as evidenced
by the Return of Warrant of Deportation and the After-Mission Report.

Besides, when Ku was arrested, the following day, Ku’s counsel was immediately able to file his Entry of
Appearance with Motion for Reconsideration before the BI, thereby showing that Ku’s legal rights were amply
guarded and that he was never removed from the protection of the law.
Facts
1. International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) of Seoul, Republic of Korea sent a Notice  to Interpol
Manila requesting assistance in the location and deportation of respondent Ja Hoon Ku (Ku) for arbitrarily
spending money allotted as reserve fund of Phildip Korea Co., Ltd.
2. Consequently, the Embassy of Korea wrote a Letter-Request to petitioner, Hon. Siegfred Mison,
Chairperson of the Bureau of Immigration (BI), for the immediate arrest and deportation of Ku to Korea
for being an undesirable alien. Meanwhile, Ku’s visa expired and his passport was voided by Korea.
3. Special Prosecutor Maria Antonette Bucasas-Mangrobang charged Ku for being a risk to public
interest.This finding was approved by the BI Board of Commissioners which issued a Summary
Deportation Order. BI officers, with the assistance of the Manila Police, arrested Ku. Upon arrival at the
BI detention center, Ku was detained

ALS B2021 1
Procedural History
1. Ku filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo and TPO. TPO was granted by RTC
entrusting Ku’s custody to the Philippine National Red Cross and directing the Philippine National
Police to protect Ku and his immediate family.
2. Petitioner challenged these orders before the SC to which the SC granted TRO enjoining the
enforcement of the order because of the possibility of misuse by Ku of the writ of amparo given that he
was validly arrested and placed under the jurisdiction and custody of the BI; thus the case cannot be
categorized as one of extralegal killing or enforced disappearance.
3. Petitioner verbally moved for the dismissal of the amparo petition in the RTC but this was denied . Thus,
petitioner appealed the matter to the Court via the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition.
4. Eventually, the RTC granted the privilege of the writ of amparo and Ku is ordered immediately released
from petitioner’s custody without prejudice to the institution of the proper remedy to extradition.
5. Ku also filed an appeal memorandum on his deportation order addressed to the Office of the President
(OP). OP granted Ku provisional liberty only until 31 August 2014 or until his appeal was resolved,
whichever came first.
Parties’ Contentions

Issues Ruling
1. Was the writ properly granted? 1. NO.
Rationale
1. Writ of Amparo as a remedy is confined only to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.

Amparo Rule provides:

SECTION 1. Petition. – The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right
to life, liberty and 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.

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

It was an exercise for the first time of the Court’s expanded power to promulgate rules to protect our people’ s
constitutional rights, which made its maiden appearance in the 1987 Constitution in response to the Filipino
experience of the martial law regime. As the Amparo Rule was intended to address the intractable problem of
"extralegal killings" and "enforced disappearances," its coverage, in its present form, is confined to these two
instances or to threats thereof. "Extralegal killings" are ‘killings committed without due process of law, i.e.,
without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings." On the other hand, "enforced disappearances" are "attended
by the following characteristics: an arrest, detention or abduction of a person by a government official or
organized groups or private individuals acting with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the
government; the refusal of the State to disclose the fate or where about s of the person concerned or a
refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which places such persons outside the protection of
law."

Thus, the elements constituting "enforced disappearances" under RA9851 are:

(a) that there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty;
(b) that it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or a political
organization;
(c) that it be followed by the State or political organization’s refusal to acknowledge or give information on
the fate or whereabouts of the person subject of the amparo petition; and
(d) that the intention for such refusal is to remove the subject person from the protection of the law for a
prolonged period of time.

With the enactment of R.A. No. 9851, the Amparo Rule is now a procedural law anchored, not only on the
constitutional rights to life, liberty and security, but on a concrete statutory definition as well of what an ‘enforced
or involuntary disappearance’ is. Therefore, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC’s reference to enforced disappearances should
be construed to mean the enforced or involuntary disappearance of persons contemplated in Section 3(g) of R.A.
No. 9851.

ALS B2021 2
Guided by the parameters of R.A. No. 9851, we can readily discern that Ku’s circumstance does not come
under the statutory definition of an enforced or involuntary disappearance. Indeed, Ku was arrested by
agents of the BI, but there was no refusal on the part of the BI to acknowledge such arrest nor was there any
refusal to give information on the whereabouts of Ku. Neither can it be said that the BI had any intention to
remove Ku from the protection of the law for a prolonged time.

Although Ku claims that he was arbitrarily arrested and detained by agents of the BI, that he was not read his
rights under the constitution and was not informed of the reason for hi s arrest, nor provided a copy of any
document leading to his arrest and detention, the arresting officers are all consistent in testifying that, upon
Ku’s arrest, they introduced themselves as agents of the BI, presented to Ku the Warrant of Deportation,
and informed him of his constitutional rights as well as the expiration of his visa.

More importantly, there was no attempt on the part of the BI to conceal Ku or his whereabouts. Within the
Bureau, Ku’s arrest and the fact that he was in their custody was not obscured as, in fact, these were well-
documented as evidenced by the Return of Warrant of Deportation and the After-Mission Report.

More importantly, in the Return of the Writ, petitioner readily disclosed to the trial court that Ku was in the custody
of the BI pursuant to a Warrant of Deportation and a Summary Deportation Order.

These documents and pleading show that there was never any intention on the part of the BI to remove Ku from
the protection of the law for a prolonged time. Besides, when Ku was arrested, the following day, Ku’s counsel
was immediately able to file his Entry of Appearance with Motion for Reconsideration before the BI, thereby
showing that Ku’s legal rights were amply guarded and that he was never removed from the protection of the law.

Section 5 of the Amparo Rule enumerates what an amparo petition should contain, among which is the right to
life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission
of the respondent, and how such threat or violation is committed with the attendant circumstances detailed in
supporting affidavits, to wit:

SEC. 5. Contents of Petition. – The petition shall be signed and verified and shall allege the following:
(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner;
(b) The name and personal circumstances of the respondent responsible for the threat, act or omission,
or, if the name is unknown or uncertain, the respondent may be described by an assumed appellation;
(c) The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of the respondent, and how such threat or violation is committed with the
attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits;
(d) The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal circumstances, and addresses of
the investigating authority or individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of the investigation, together
with any report;
(e) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the fate or whereabouts of the
aggrieved party and the identity of the person responsible for the threat, act or omission; and
(f) The relief prayed for.

The petition may include a general prayer for other just and equitable reliefs.

Ku claims that he fears for his life and feels the serious danger of being detained for a long period of time without
any cause, and that he fears that the BI will fabricate criminal cases against him to hold him under detention.

The allegations of Ku, though, are specious. It is to be noted that the Amparo Rule requires the parties to
establish their claims by substantial  evidence. Other than making unfounded claims, however, Ku was not
able to present evidence that he was exposed to "life-threatening situations" while confined at the BI Detention
Center. On the contrary, the records show that he is afforded visitorial rights and that he has access to his
counsel.

Moreover, his primary fear, which prompted him to file the amparo petition, was that the BI would trump up
charges against him so as to justify his detention. The fact remains, however, that even before his arrest,
deportation charges against him were already duly filed and ruled upon by the BI.

ALS B2021 3
It is to be emphasized that the fundamental function of the writ of amparo is to cause the disclosure of details
concerning the extrajudicial killing or the enforced disappearance of an aggrieved party. As Ku and his
whereabouts were never hidden, there was no need for the issuance of the privilege of the writ of amparo in the
case at bar.
Disposition
Writ of amparo not properly granted by RTC.

ALS B2021 4