Road Injury: A Global Epidemic
            Every six (6) seconds, someone gets killed or seriously injured on the world’s roads. With 1.3 million road deaths each year, road injury is a worldwide epidemic comparable to malaria and tuberculosis. In fact, road injury is currently ranked as the No. 9 global killer. In 20 years, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates it to become the fifth (5th) most serious world health problem.

            Yet, comparing with other global killers, road injury is utterly neglected. This is especially true in developing countries where there is a lack of investments and technical know-how to improve road safety.

A National Crisis
            Nine (9) out of 10 road deaths and injuries are in the developing countries, such as the Philippines. In 2009 alone, the Philippine National Police (PNP) reported more than 20,000 road accidents. There was a dramatic increase of 35.24% over the 2008 figure. Unless drastic measures are put in place, it is expected that 2010 will be another bad year for road safety.

            The Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC) estimated that P105.3 billion worth of property – about 2.8 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) – had gone to waste because of road accidents. And this estimate is just based on accidents reported to the government and known to the police.

            Nonetheless, despite the staggering costs, the Philippines has yet to come up with updated, integrated and preferably codified laws and regulations on road safety.

A Local Menace
            Quezon City dominated all cities in the metropolis in terms of fatal road accidents. Based on MMDA data, just for the period of January-May 2009, it had a record of 6,485 road accidents with 38 deaths and 1,199 injuries. Commonwealth Avenue, EDSA, Quirino Highway, Quezon Avenue, Katipunan Avenue and C-5, all in Quezon City, recorded the most number of vehicular accidents in the entire Metro Manila.

            EDSA ranks first in terms of accident frequencies. Commonwealth Avenue ranks second, but is the first placer when it comes to number of fatalities and severity of injuries. Thus, Commonwealth Avenue earned the reputation as the “killer highway”.

The Usual Victims
            Road injury preys on the young, the poor, the differently-abled and other vulnerable persons. Among young people aged 10-24 years old, it is considered the leading global cause of death. According to statistics, the worst affected are those belonging to the poorest communities. Half of the 1.3 million people who die from road traffic crashes are pedestrians, bicyclists, and people riding motorcycles – vulnerable road users or people who are very often not able to afford a car.

 

            In the meantime, the social costs of road injuries remain high.  They bring unquantifiable suffering to the victims. They disrupt family development. The decline in household income when a family member dies or becomes disabled causes children to stop schooling and sick family members to just forego proper medical care.  

Vehicles Commonly Involved in Accidents
            Based on 2009 data, cars account for the vast majority (46%) of vehicles involved in road accidents. Jeepneys comprise 13% of vehicles involved followed by motorcycles, buses, taxicabs, vans and trucks. In terms however of recorded deaths, motorcycles have remained the highest fatality rate with 24.61 percent of the total fatal accidents. Cars came in next with 20.77 percent.

Common Causes of Road Accidents
            The 2009 data from the PNP show that 9,092 accidents were caused by human error compared to accidents caused by mechanical defects (2,706). The most common human error or bad driving acts, according to the PNP, were bad overtaking, overspeeding and bad turning.

            In a study by the National Center for Transportation Studies (NCTS) of the University of the Philippines (UP), it is found that when it comes to injury to persons and fatal accidents, the main contributing factor is inattentiveness (49% in fatalities; 44% in injuries). For accidents that resulted to property damage, 45% were due to speeding.

            In the same study, which focused on road accidents in Commonwealth Avenue, NCTS found that 57% of accidents were caused by human error, primarily by overspeeding, overtaking/excessive lane-changing, inattentiveness and aggressive driver’s behavior. In numerous cases, however, the commission of human error is said to be highly influenced and affected by such other factors as defective road designs, overly clogged junctions and intersections, improper placement of U-turn slots and overpasses, shortage in law enforcers and other circumstances beyond the control of the driver.     

Current Responses to Road Safety Challenges
            In March 2010, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution proclaiming the period from 2011 to 2020 as the Decade of Action for Road Safety. The proclamation seeks to spur global and national efforts to halt or reverse the increasing trend in road traffic deaths and injuries around the world.  In concrete terms, the Decade of Action aims to save 5 million lives and prevent 50 million serious injuries. The UN Resolution likewise recognized that road injury is a serious public health challenge that threatens the realization of Millennium Development Goals of reducing poverty and upholding the right of young children to basic education and proper health care. Thus, while encouraging the World Bank, regional development banks and other donors to dedicate at least 10% of their road investment budgets to road safety, it likewise aims to establish a $300 million-fund to encourage and support road safety interventions.  

            
            Parallel to these global efforts, particularly the call for a 100% use of seatbelt and helmet by 2020, the Philippines has already passed national laws mandating the use of these safety gadgets. There are bills in Congress aiming to penalize “drunken driving” and increase sanctions against damages to persons and properties caused by reckless driving. There is even a pending “road safety bill.”

            In 2009, the Philippine government, led by the DOTC, forged a partnership with civil society groups and private companies, which is dubbed as the Philippine Global Road Safety Partnership (PGRSP). Through PGRSP, government transport agencies, non-profit associations and private companies in the automotive, telecommunications, energy and transport sectors agreed to work together to help solve the country’s numerous and varied road safety challenges. 

Amparo libertad: for the protection of personal freedom, equivalent to the writ of habeas corpus;

1. Amparo contra leyes: for the judicial review of the constitutionality of statutes;
   
   
2. Amparo casacion: for the judicial review of the legality of a judicial decision;
   
   
3. Amparo administrativo: for the judicial review of administrative actions; and
   
   
4. Amparo agrario: for the protection of farmer’s rights derived from the agrarian reform process.
   

       In Latin American countries, except Cuba, the writ of amparo is expressly provided in their constitutions. It is permanently placed in their basic charters to protect against human rights abuses especially during the time they were governed by military juntas. Generally, these countries adopted the writ to provide for a remedy to protect the whole range of constitutional rights, including social and economic rights.  
      In the Philippines, the Constitution does not explicitly provide for the writ of amparo. However, several of the amparo protections are already available under our Constitution. Thus, pursuant to Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the definition of judicial power was expanded to include “the duty of the courts of justice … to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.” This is otherwise known as the Grave Abuse Clause, which accords the same general protection to human rights provided by the amparo contra leyes, amparo casacion, and amparo administrativo. The Grave Abuse Clause is regulated under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. 
      Amparo libertad is comparable to the remedy of habeas corpus. This is provided and recognized under Article III, Sections 13 and 15, Article VII, Section 18, and Article VIII, Section 5, Paragraph 1 of the 1987 Constitution.  In the Rules of Court, habeas corpus is regulated under Rule 102.  
      The 1987 Constitution enhanced the protection of human rights by giving the Supreme Court the power to “promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights.” This rule-making power unique to the 1987 Constitution is the result of our experience under martial rule.   
      The adoption of the Amparo Rule was a result of the two-day National Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances sponsored by the Supreme Court on July 16-17, 2007.           
On October 24, 2007, the Supreme Court promulgated the Amparo Rule “in light of the prevalence of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.”  As the Amparo Rule was intended to address the intractable problem of “extralegal killings” and “enforced disappearances,” its coverage, in its present form, is confined to these two instances or to threats thereof.  “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 salient provisions of the present Rule on the Writ of Amparo are as follows:
      a) The petition is exempt from the payment of legal fees. 
      b) The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party or by any qualified person in this order: (a) immediate family member; (b) relative within 4th civil degree; or (c) any concerned citizen or organization.
      c) The petition may be filed on any day and at any time with any court (trial or appellate) except the municipal or metropolitan court. Upon filing of the petition, the court shall immediately issue the writ if on its face it ought to issue. The writ shall also set the summary hearing of the petition which shall not be later than seven (7) days from the date of issuance.
      d) The respondent, upon receipt of the writ, shall within 72 hours make a return or answer which must be under oath and should exhaustively explain that he did not violate or threaten the right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party, and that he should submit all relevant information pertaining to the threat, act or omission complained of.
      e) No dilatory motions, such as motion to dismiss, shall be allowed.
      f) Upon filing of the petition or at any time before final judgment, the court may grant interim reliefs such as temporary protection order, production order, inspection order, or witness protection order. From the time the petition is submitted for decision, the court shall render judgment within ten (10) days.      

      In the landmark Amparo case of Secretary of Defense v. Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo, G.R. No. 180906 promulgated on 7 October 2008, Chief Justice Puno found the respondent Manalo brothers to be victims of enforced disappearances perpetrated by military and paramilitary units. While the brothers were no longer in captivity as they were able to escape at the time they filed their petitions for habeas corpus and amparo, the continuing threat to them to be again arrested, detained and tortured remained strong and thus constitutive of a threat against security of their persons within the purview of Section 1 of the Amparo Rule, thus:      

Section 1.  Petition. – The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.            

The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.  

      In that Manalo brothers case, Chief Justice Puno elaborated on the right to security of person. According to him, this right finds basis in Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution which provides, viz:         

Sec. 2.  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable …     

      At the core of this guarantee is the immunity of one’s person, including the extensions of his/her person – houses, papers, and effects – against government intrusion.  Section 2 not only limits the state’s power over a person’s home and possessions, but more importantly, protects the privacy and sanctity of the person himself.  The purpose of this provision was enunciated by the Supreme Court in the early case of People v. CFI of Rizal, Branch IX, Quezon City, viz:

      The purpose of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures is to prevent violations of private security in person and property and unlawful invasion of the security of the home by officers of the law acting under legislative or judicial sanction and to give remedy against such usurpation when attempted. (Adams v. New York, 192 U.S. 858; Alvero v. Dizon, 76 Phil. 637 [1946]). The right to privacy is an essential condition to the dignity and happiness and to the peace and security of every individual, whether it be of home or of persons and correspondence. (Tañada and Carreon, Political Law of the Philippines, Vol. 2, 139 [1962]). The constitutional inviolability of this great fundamental right against unreasonable searches and seizures must be deemed absolute as nothing is closer to a man’s soul than the serenity of his privacy and the assurance of his personal security.  Any interference allowable can only be for the best causes and reasons. (emphases supplied)        

While the right to life under Article III, Section 1 guarantees essentially the right to be alive - upon which the enjoyment of all other rights is preconditioned - the right to security of person is a guarantee of the quality of this life. In a broad sense, the right to security of person “emanates in a person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation.  It includes the right to exist, and the right to enjoyment of life while existing, and it is invaded not only by a deprivation of life but also of those things which are necessary to the enjoyment of life according to the nature, temperament, and lawful desires of the individual.”

      In my opinion, the above disquisition by the Chief Justice on the right to security of person may provide a fertile ground to justify the inclusion within the ambit of Amparo cases of unjust and inhumane evictions and demolitions. For isn’t the right against unjust and inhumane evictions and demolitions subsumed under the right of the people to be secure in their persons and houses? Aside from this civil and political right to be secure in their persons and houses under Article I of the Bill of Rights, the right against unjust and inhumane evictions and demolitions also find basis in the Social Justice provisions of the Constitution, the Urban Development and Housing Act and a number of international instruments.           

The article on Human Rights and Social Justice, specifically Article XIII, Section 10 of the Constitution specifically commands that: 

      SECTION 10.  Urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings demolished except in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner. 
        The above constitutional edict is even reflective of the Philippine government’s international obligations to recognize the universal rights of a person to adequate housing and against enforced evictions guaranteed by such instruments as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which in Article 11, provides thus: 

“Article 11. 
      1.  The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right…” 
       In its General Comment on the right to adequate housing and against forced evictions, the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights stated that ”where eviction is considered justified, it should be carried out in strict compliance with international human rights law and in accordance with general principles of reasonableness and proportionality.” It added that “evictions should not result in individuals being rendered homeless or vulnerable to the violation of other human rights.” 

      It is clear therefore that, as a matter of constitutional mandate and international covenant, evictions and demolitions affecting the urban poor may only be done lawfully and in a just and humane manner. In the context of the Urban Development and Housing Act (UDHA), this would mean faithful compliance with the provision of Section 28. Failure to observe the requirements of this section would mean that a demolition and/or eviction is unjust and inhumane. The requirements under Section 28 of the UDHA are as follows: 

NOTICE upon affected persons at least 30 days prior to demolition;

1. CONSULTATION with the relocatees and the community where they are to be relocated;
   
   
2. The PRESENCE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS or their representatives during the conduct of eviction or demolition;
   
   
3. Proper IDENTIFICATION of all persons taking part in demolitions;
   
   
4. Execution only during WEEKDAYS and OFFICE HOURS;
   
   
5. NO USE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT (except for permanent/concrete structures); and
   
   
6. ADEQUATE RELOCATION.
   
   

        Thus, as illustrated above, by clear provisions of the Constitution, international covenants and statute, the right against unjust and inhumane evictions and demolitions is clearly existing. You may ask: why am I belaboring on this point?  If we are pushing for the inclusion of such cases within the coverage of the Rule on Amparo, we must convincingly prove that there is already a right against unjust and inhumane evictions and demolitions recognized under the law and which should be enforceable and demandable through our courts. We must remember that the rule on amparo is a procedural rule and not a law. The Supreme Court cannot, by enacting rules, create, diminish or modify any substantive right. The right itself must exist under the law to be enforced only by a procedural rule.  
      Having settled that, we must then proceed to consider whether there is a need for a new remedy, such as the resort to a writ of amparo, considering the already available legal remedies to address cases of violations of rights against unjust and inhumane evictions and demolitions. The question therefore is whether the present Rules of Court are sufficient in providing legal solutions to the mounting cases of unjust and inhumane evictions and demolitions.  

      Under the present rules, the following are the only available remedies: 
If the eviction and/or demolition is only about to be implemented, the affected persons can file a case of Injunction or Prohibition before courts of competent jurisdiction;

1. If the eviction and/or demolition has already been conducted, affected persons can file a case for damages;
   
   
2. In any case, they can likewise file appropriate criminal cases against responsible persons for the unlawful demolition under Section 45 of the UDHA, or applicable provisions of the Revised Penal Code or special criminal laws;
   
   
3. They can file administrative suits with a proper government authority, such as the Ombudsman, DILG, and the Civil Service Commission.
   
   

        Section 45 of the UDHA states that any person who violates any provision of that law shall be imposed the penalty of not more than six (6) years of imprisonment or a fine of not less than five thousand (5,000) pesos, but not more than ten thousand (10,000) pesos or both.  While this provision appears to be broad enough to cover responsible persons, whether government officials or private individuals who fail to observe the requirements under Section 28 of the UDHA, the same has not been tested in actual litigation.  There is even a debate on whom among the government officials or private individuals should actually be answerable to each and every requirement considering the seeming vagueness in the language of certain portions of the law. 
    Judicial reforms in terms of inexpensive and more expeditious court process, especially in the face of widespread and almost daily occurrence of unlawful demolitions, particularly in the urban poor residential communities in Metro Manila are in order.  It is general knowledge that the current available legal remedies, such as injunction or prohibition, are often costly and cumbersome to secure.  It is now hoped that the applicability of the inexpensive and the readily available Writ of Amparo may fill the need of the affected urban poor families to make concerned public officials or private entities accountable to their legal duties to conduct lawful, just and humane evictions and demolitions.   
      Last year, Chief Justice Puno talked about the possibility of expanding the Writ of Amparo. This proposal was recently supported by the Commission on Human Rights. While there are positive signs that the Supreme Court may consider broadening the Writ, there appears to be well-meaning legal practitioners who, while agreeing in principle that the Writ should cover other rights such as the right against unjust and inhumane evictions and demolitions, they are not however ready to concede to an immediate expansion of the Amparo Rule on the argument that the Supreme Court should first focus on perfecting or fine-tuning the current version of the Writ as covering only cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. The point, according to them, is to first plug in the loopholes of the current rule before considering the expansion to cover other rights. Statistics show that from 2007 to 2009, only 33 Amparo cases were filed and only 1 of them went to the Supreme Court. There was even apparent confusion among different courts and justices as to the application of certain provisions of the Amparo rule. There is not even a clear enforcement and monitoring system of Amparo cases.
        That argument to first perfect the current system may seem convincing. However, it is my view that problems besetting the present form of the Rule on Amparo may have been largely caused by inadequacies in the Rule or lack of sufficient education of the bench, bar and the public about the intricacies of Amparo Rule. Such matters, I suppose, should not affect the intrinsic merits of including within the Rule cases of unjust and inhumane evictions and demolitions. In fact, it is my considered opinion that Amparo may be better implemented in cases of evictions and demolitions than in situations of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances where respondent authorities may just easily deny liabilities and/or remove traces of evidence of their wrongdoing. In evictions and demolitions, especially in the context of the UDHA, there are specified concerned officials or persons who, through the Writ of Amparo, may easily be held accountable.

     Kaugnay ng kasabihang “we are a government of laws” ay ang katotohanan na lahat ng aspeto ng buhay natin ay nakapaloob sa, at napapalibutan ng mga batas. May batas sa panganganak, aborsyon, edukasyon, trabaho, pag-aasawa, pagbabarkada, pangangalunya, burol, libing, manahan, pag-jingle sa pader at jaywalking. Sa dinami-dami ng mga batas, nakalulungkot na iilan lamang ang talagang nakakaintindi sa mga ito. Ang maraming hindi nakakaintindi, na karaniwang maliliit na mamamayan, ang kadalasang nagdurusa sa kamangmangan o kaya’y sa hindi sinasadyang paglabag sa batas. Wala namang lusot ang mga pobre: “Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance with it” daw.  
      Ang puno’t dulo kung bakit hindi maabot-abot ang batas ng nakararami ay sapagkat talagang mahirap itong abutin. Nasa banyagang wika ito at kahit English major ka na, mahirap pa ring intindihin dahil mukhang pang-alien ang pagkakasulat. Legal goobledygook nga raw, sabi ni Sen. Biazon. Ang nagpapalala pa rito ay ang realidad na ang mga abogado na nag-aral ng batas at maaari sanang katuwangin ng mahihirap na maintindihan ang mga batas ay hindi mo madalas mahagilap. Not accessible at this time, sabi nga ng boses sa cellphone mo. Walang panahon o pagkakataon ang mga attorneys para ipaunawa ang mga batas sa marami nilang potensyal na kliyente: ang mga pobreng Pinoy. 
      Layon kung gayon ng Attorneys@Large ang ilapit ang batas sa mga tao at ang mga tao sa batas. Behikulo rin ito para sa mga “service-oriented” na mga abogado. Accessibility ang puntirya. Demystifiying the law; humanizing the lawyer, ang drama.
      Ang depinisyong ibibigay ng diksyunaryo sa salitang “attorney” ay “agent” o “authorized representative”. Sa ganitong konteksto maiintindihan ang terminong “attorney-in-fact” na itinatawag sa awtorisadong tao na binibigyan ng Special Power of Attorney o SPA. Batay sa SPA, ang “attorney-in-fact” ay may kapangyarihang kumatawan sa iyo sa mga transaksyon o gawaing nais mong isakatuparan. Kaugnay ng konseptong ito ang “attorney-at-law” o “lawyer” na patungkol naman sa isang lisensyado at propesyonal na tao na may kapangyarihang “kumatawan” o “mag-ahente” para sa iyo sa mga usaping legal na iyong kinasasangkutan.  
      Samantala, karaniwang naririnig natin ang mga katagang “at large” sa expression na “the accused is at large” na ang ibig sabihin ay hindi nakakulong o wala sa kustodiya ang akusado. Siya ay “at liberty” o “without restraint”. May kagaya rin nitong kahulugan ang “at large” sa “attorneys@large”. Ang mga abogadong nasa programa ay malaya at hindi limitado sa mga tradisyunal na usaping legal. At large sila sapagkat sila ay “at liberty” o “without restraint” sa pagpili ng mga paksa at pagtalakay ng mga isyu. At hindi lang mga abogado ang at large kungdi pati ang kanilang mga kliyente. Walang partikular na tao o grupo silang pinaglilingkuran kungdi ang higit na nakararami ang nais na pagsilbihan. Kung gayon, sa pagpili ng kliyente at mga “kaso”, at large ang mga abogado sapagkat sila ay kaisa mismo ng  komunidad at ordinaryong indibidwal.
       Ang suma total ng mga paliwanag: ang “attorneys at large” ay samahan ng mga abogadong nag-aahente at kumakatawan sa mga interes ng maliliit sa mga isyung legal na nakakaapekto sa karamihan sa isang pamamaraang malaya at mapagpalaya. Ito ang aspeto ng programang talagang “empowering” at “redeeming” na kalinya ng mga layunin ng CEC.