Key Takeaway: The Writs of Amparo and Habeas Corpus Do Not Apply to Voluntary Departures by Adults

Relissa Santos Lucena and Francis B. Lucena v. Sarah Elago, et al., G.R. No. 252120, September 15, 2020

Imagine a parent’s anguish when their child leaves home and joins a political group, cutting off all communication. This was the reality faced by Relissa and Francis Lucena when their daughter, Alicia Jasper S. Lucena (AJ), joined Anakbayan and left their home. The Lucenas sought the Supreme Court’s intervention through the writs of amparo and habeas corpus, hoping to regain custody of their adult daughter. This case raises critical questions about the limits of these legal remedies and the rights of adults to make their own choices.

The Lucenas’ story is a poignant illustration of the challenges parents face when their adult children make life choices they disagree with. AJ, at 19 years old, joined Anakbayan, a youth organization advocating for national democracy, and left her family home multiple times. Her parents filed a petition for the issuance of the writs of amparo and habeas corpus, alleging that AJ was being held against her will and that her decision to stay with Anakbayan was influenced by indoctrination.

Legal Context: Understanding Amparo and Habeas Corpus

The writ of amparo is a legal remedy designed to protect individuals from extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, or threats thereof. As defined in Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, it covers instances where a person’s right to life, liberty, and security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission. The Supreme Court has clarified that the writ applies specifically to these two situations:

“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 whereabouts of the person concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which places such persons outside the protection of law.

The writ of habeas corpus, on the other hand, is intended to address illegal confinement or detention where a person is deprived of their liberty or where rightful custody is withheld. Section 1, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court states that the writ extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention.

In this case, the Lucenas argued that AJ’s decision to stay with Anakbayan was not based on free and informed consent but was a result of indoctrination and brainwashing. However, these arguments were based on speculation and were contradicted by AJ’s own statements.

Case Breakdown: The Journey of Alicia Jasper S. Lucena

AJ, born on July 24, 2001, enrolled at Far Eastern University in 2018 and was enticed to join Anakbayan. She informed her parents of her membership in February 2019 and subsequently left home multiple times. Her longest absence was from March to May 2019, during which she was involved in Anakbayan’s recruitment activities and campaigning for the Kabataan Partylist.

In July 2019, AJ left home for the third time and did not return. She also dropped out of university. Her mother, Relissa, testified before the Senate Committee on Public Order and Dangerous Drugs about AJ’s disappearance. In August 2019, AJ appeared at a press conference with representatives of various party-lists, where she denied being abducted and affirmed her voluntary association with Anakbayan.

The Supreme Court’s decision focused on the applicability of the writs of amparo and habeas corpus. The Court noted that AJ was not missing and her whereabouts were known, thus not qualifying as an enforced disappearance. Furthermore, AJ had reached the age of majority and was legally emancipated, which terminated her parents’ custodial rights.

“Here, there is not much issue that AJ’s situation does not qualify either as an actual or threatened enforced disappearance or extralegal killing. AJ is not missing. Her whereabouts are determinable. By all accounts, she is staying with the Anakbayan and its officers which, at least insofar as AJ’s case is concerned, are not agents or organizations acting on behalf of the State.”

The Court also dismissed the habeas corpus petition, stating that AJ was not being detained against her will. AJ’s own statements contradicted her parents’ claims, as she affirmed her voluntary decision to leave home and join Anakbayan.

“The only argument raised by the petitioners to support the view that AJ is being detained — i.e., AJ’s decision to stay with the Anakbayan is not a product of free and informed consent but of the indoctrination and brainwashing she endured from the group when she was still a minor — fails to persuade for it rests on pure speculation and assumption.”

Practical Implications: Navigating Family and Legal Boundaries

This ruling underscores the limitations of the writs of amparo and habeas corpus in cases where an adult voluntarily leaves home. It highlights the importance of respecting the autonomy of adults, even when their choices may cause distress to their families. For parents facing similar situations, it is crucial to understand that legal remedies are limited when it comes to adult children’s decisions.

Key Lessons:

• Understand the specific conditions under which the writs of amparo and habeas corpus can be applied.
• Respect the legal rights and autonomy of adult children, even when their choices are difficult to accept.
• Seek alternative forms of support, such as counseling or mediation, to address family conflicts.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the writ of amparo?

The writ of amparo is a legal remedy designed to protect individuals from extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, or threats thereof.

What is the writ of habeas corpus?

The writ of habeas corpus is a legal remedy that addresses illegal confinement or detention where a person is deprived of their liberty or rightful custody is withheld.

Can parents use these writs to bring back an adult child who has left home?

No, these writs do not apply to situations where an adult voluntarily leaves home and is not being held against their will.

What should parents do if their adult child joins a group they disagree with?

Parents should seek alternative forms of support, such as counseling or mediation, to address family conflicts and respect their adult child’s autonomy.

How can I determine if my situation qualifies for the writ of amparo or habeas corpus?

Consult with a legal professional who can assess whether your situation meets the specific conditions required for these writs.

What are the legal rights of an adult child in the Philippines?

Upon reaching the age of majority, an adult child gains the right to make independent choices regarding their life, including where they live and the groups they associate with.

ASG Law specializes in family law and human rights issues. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.