Writ of Amparo as it protects citizens in its constitutional liberty.

By: Ivy Leomen B. Codilla

The writ of amparo as defined by the man dubbed as Mr. Amparo, Justice Azcuna, since he was the first justice who introduced the writ of amparo in the Philippine bar exams in 1991;"A special constitutional writ to protect or enforce a constitutional right ( other than a physical liberty which is already covered by the writ of habeas corpus), in consonance with the power of the Supreme Court to adopt rules to protect or enforce constitutional rights".

Aside from the beneficial use and advantage of the writ of amparo, there are two important doctrines as established by the Supreme Court to cater and preserve our civil liberties. The first is the "Overbreath Doctrine, which states that "a governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms", it can be stated otherwise, that an overbreadth doctrine permits a party to challenge the validity of a statute even though, as applied to him, it is not unconstitutional, but it might be applied to others not before the Court whose activities are constitutionally protected (Nachura,2006;p23).

This is a new improved and better rights accorded to filipinos because what right was available before the introduction of this so called facial challenge, that in the long line of cases by the Supreme Court, a party can question the validity of a law or statute if this is unconstitutional with regard to him only and other than that he cannot question the law or the statute..

The second is the Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine, which renders a law invalid "if men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and difffer as to its application". Hence, the law is considered uncertain if it is not understandable to common people and the law is pregnable with abuses in its execution and this law violates the due process of law.