Punit of amparo: A case study on the limitations on Writ of Amparo set by the case of Navia et al. vs. Pardico

• Main Authors: Lim, Marc Kevin C., Mejia, John Elijah A.
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Animo Repository 2012
• Subjects: Commercial Law
• Online Access: https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_bachelors/17805
• Institution: De La Salle University

This research is a case study of the case, Navia, et al. vs. Pardio=co, in relation to the limitations of the coverage of the Writ of Amparo, being provided for the by current decision. Given the thesis question Whether or not the Writ of Amparo would still be applicable to crimes, not covered under R.A. 9851, which are committed by a private individual or entity, given the decision in Navia, et. al, vs. PArdico?, the researchers, studied and compared the Mexican Recurso de Amparo, and the Philippine Writ of Amparo. The researchers also studied crimes that violates of threatens one’s right to life, liberty, and security. The researchers applied the Theory of State Accountability by John Locke and Immanuelk Kant, in answering the thesis question. The researchers, by applying the historical approach, discovered that the main purpose of the Writ of Amparo, is to protect any person from acts or omissions that violates or threatens his right to life, liberty and security, committed by anyone. By comparing the two Amparo remedy, the researchers discovered that, the Philippine Writ of Amparo, has a broader scope than the Mexican Recurso de Amparo. The decision in Navia, et al. vs. Pardico, clearly narrows down the coverage of the Writ of Amparo, to crimes covered under R.A. 9851. Through a thorough discussion, the researchers concluded that, the Philippine Writ of Amparo is a remedy available if there is a violation or a threat to one’s right to life. Liberty, and security, any acts or omission that shall violate or threaten such rights is covered under the Writ of Amparo, regardless of who the guilty party is, whether government or not.