SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS | De Lima v. Gatdula, G.R. No. 204528, 19 February 2013

De Lima v. Gatdula, 

G.R. No. 204528, 19 February 2013


FACTS In this case, petitioner Senator Leila De Lima sought the issuance of a writ of amparo, a legal remedy available in the Philippines to protect individuals whose right to life, liberty, or security is violated or threatened. De Lima alleged that she was being targeted and subjected to threats and harassment by various government agencies and officials, particularly respondent Director Alexander Gatdula of the Philippine National Police–Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG). She claimed that Gatdula, along with others, were involved in an alleged plot to implicate her in criminal activities. Whether Senator De Lima was entitled to the protection of the writ of amparo, given the alleged threats and harassment she experienced.


HELD The remedy of the Writ of Amparo is an equitable and extraordinary remedy to safeguard the right of the people to life, liberty and security as enshrined in the 1987 Constitution. It aims to address concerns such as, among others, extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. After the measures have served their purpose, the judgment will be satisfied. In Amparo cases, this is when the threats to the petitioner’s life, liberty and security cease to exist as evaluated by the court that renders the judgment.


The Supreme Court granted Senator De Lima's petition for the writ of amparo. The court held that the writ of amparo was the appropriate remedy in this case, as De Lima's right to life, liberty, and security was threatened by the actions of Gatdula and others. The court recognized the importance of providing protection to individuals in high-risk situations, such as public officials and human rights defenders, who face potential harm due to their work or positions. The court ordered the respondents to desist from engaging in any acts that could endanger De Lima's life, liberty, or security. It also directed the government to take proactive measures to investigate the alleged threats and harassment and to provide adequate security to Senator De Lima.








Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147