This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-04-24 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| As previously discussed, there is no basis to grant Lozada the privilege of the writ of amparo, considering that the illegal restraint alleged in this case had already ceased and there is no imminent or continuing restriction on his liberty. In Castillo v. Cruz,[86] this Court held as follows: Although respondents' release from confinement does not necessarily hinder supplication for the writ of amparo, absent any evidence or even an allegation in the petition that there is undue and continuing restraint on their liberty, and/or that there exists threat or intimidation that destroys the efficacy of their right to be secure in their persons, the issuance of the writ cannot be justified. (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2011-11-15 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it must be emphasized that the writs of amparo and habeas data were promulgated to ensure the protection of the people's rights to life, liberty and security.[57] The rules on these writs were issued in light of the alarming prevalence of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.[58] The Rule on the Writ of Amparo took effect on 24 October 2007,[59] and the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data on 2 February 2008.[60] | |||||