Writ of Kalikasan, Amparo, Habeas Corpus
Writ of Kalikasan
Writ means Legal action
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A Writ of Kalikasan is a legal remedy under Philippine law which provides for the protection one’s right to “a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature,” as provided for in Section 16, Article II of the Philippine Constitution. It is compared with the writ of amparo but protects one’s right for a healthy environment rather than constitutional rights.
Provision for the Writ of Kaliksaan was made in 2010 by the Supreme Court of the Philippines under Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases as a Special Civil Action. The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Reynato Puno took the initiative and issued Rules of Procedure for Environmental Case because Section 16, Article II of the Philippines’ 1986 Constitution was not a self-executing provision.
The writ of Kailkasan may be sought to deal with environmental damage of such magnitude that it threatens life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
Writ of Amparo
Recurso de amparo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The writ of amparo (also called recurso de amparo or juicio de amparo) is a remedy for the protection of constitutional rights, found in certain jurisdictions. In some legal systems, predominantly those of the Spanish-speaking world, the amparo remedy or action is an effective and inexpensive instrument for the protection of individual rights.
Amparo, generally granted by a supreme or constitutional court, serves a dual protective purpose: it protects the citizen and his basic guarantees, and protects the constitution itself by ensuring that its principles are not violated by statutes or actions of the state that undermine the basic rights enshrined therein.
It resembles, in some respects, constitutional remedies such as the writ of security available in Brazil and the constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) procedure found in Germany.
In many countries, an amparo action is intended to protect all rights other than physical liberty, which may be protected instead by habeas corpus remedies. Thus, in the same way that habeas corpus guarantees physical freedom, amparo protects other basic rights. It may therefore be invoked by any person who believes that any of his rights, implicitly or explicitly protected by the constitution (or by applicable international treaties), is being violated.
Habeas corpus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Habeas corpus ; Latin: “you must present the person in court”) is a writ (legal action) which requires a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court. This ensures that a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention, in other words, detention lacking sufficient cause or evidence. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to the prisoner’s aid. The legal right to apply for a habeas corpus is also called by the same name. This right originated in the English legal system to assist wealthy landowners, but it is now available in many nations. It has historically been an important legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom of certain individuals against arbitrary state action.
A writ of habeas corpus, also known as the Great Writ, is a summons with the force of a court order; it is addressed to the custodian (a prison official for example) and demands that a prisoner be taken before the court, and that the custodian present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether the custodian has lawful authority to detain the person. If the custodian does not have authority to detain the prisoner, then they must be released from custody. The prisoner, or another person acting on his or her behalf, may petition the court, or a judge, for a writ of habeas corpus. One reason for the writ to be sought by a person other than the prisoner is that the detainee might be held incommunicado.
Most civil law jurisdictions provide a similar remedy for those unlawfully detained, but this is not always called “habeas corpus”. For example, in some Spanish-speaking nations, the equivalent remedy for unlawful imprisonment is the amparo de libertad (‘protection of freedom’).
Habeas corpus has certain limitations. It is technically only a procedural remedy; it is a guarantee against any detention that is forbidden by law, but it does not necessarily protect other rights, such as the entitlement to a fair trial. So if an imposition such as internment without trial is permitted by the law then habeas corpus may not be a useful remedy. Furthermore, in many countries, the process may be suspended due to a national emergency.
The right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus has nonetheless long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. The jurist Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the British Habeas Corpus Acts “declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty”.
The writ of habeas corpus is one of what are called the “extraordinary”, “common law”, or ” prerogative writs”, which were historically issued by the English courts in the name of the monarch to control inferior courts and public authorities within the kingdom. The most common of the other such prerogative writs are quo warranto, prohibito, mandamus, procedendo, and certiorari.
The due process for such petitions is not simply civil or criminal, because they incorporate the presumption of non-authority. The official who is the respondent has the burden to prove his authority to do or not do something. Failing this, the court must decide for the petitioner, who may be any person, not just an interested party. This differs from a motion in a civil process in which the movant must have standing, and bears the burden of proof.
