Rubrico

G.R.
18 February 2010

v.

Macapagal-Arroyo
No.

183871

PONENTE: Velasco, Jr., J.

PARTIES:
1.
2.

PETITIONERS: LOURDES RUBRICO, JEAN RUBRICO APRUEBO, and MARY JOY RUBRICO CARBONEL
RESPONDENTS: PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, P/DIR. GEN.
AVELINO RAZON, MAJ. DARWIN SY, JIMMY SANTANA, RUBEN ALFARO, CAPT. ANGELO CUARESMA,
P/SUPT. EDGAR ROQUERO, ARSENIO GOMEZ, JONATHAN, and OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari of CA decision

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:
1.
2.

Supreme Court: Original Action for a Petition for the Writ of Amparo
Court of Appeals: Upon order of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals summarily heard the Original
Action for Petition of Amparo. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals issued a partial judgment which is the
subject of the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.

FACTS:
On 03 April 2007, Lourdes Rubrico, chair of Ugnayan ng Maralita para sa Gawa Adhikan, was abducted by
armed men belonging to the 301st Air Intelligence and Security Squadron (AISS) based in Lipa City while
attending a Lenten pabasa in Dasmarinas, Cavite. She was brought to and detained at the air base
without charges. She was released a week after relentless interrogation, but only after she signed a
statement
that
she
would
be
a
military
asset.
Despite her release, she was tailed on at least 2 occasions. Hence, Lourdes filed a complaint with the
Office of the Ombudsman a criminal complaint for kidnapping and arbitrary detention and grave
misconduct against Cuaresma, Alfaro, Santana, and Jonathan, but nothing has happened. She likewise
reported the threats and harassment incidents to the Dasmarinas municipal and Cavite provincial police
stations, but nothing eventful resulted from their investigation.
Meanwhile, the human rights group Karapatan conducted an investigation which indicated that men
belonging to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) led the abduction of Lourdes. Based on such
information, Rubrico filed a petition for the writ of amparo with the Supreme Court on 25 October 2007,
praying that respondents be ordered to desist from performing any threatening act against the security of
petitioners and for the Ombudsman to immediately file an information for kidnapping qualified with the
aggravating circumstance of gender of the offended party. Rubrico also prayed for damages and for
respondents to produce documents submitted to any of them on the case of Lourdes.
The Supreme Court issued the desired writ and then referred the petition to the Court of Appeals (CA) for
summary hearing and appropriate action. At the hearing conducted on 20 November 2007, the CA
granted petitioners motion that the petition and writ be served on Darwin Sy/Reyes, Santana, Alfaro,
Cuaresma, and Jonathan. By a separate resolution, the CA dropped the President as respondent in the
case.
On 31 July 2008, after due proceedings, the CA rendered its partial judgment, dismissing the petition with
respect to Esperon, Razon, Roquero, Gomez, and Ombudsman.
Hence, the petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court.

PERTINENT ISSUE: Whether or not the doctrine of command responsibility is applicable in an amparo
petition.
ANSWER: No.
SUPREME COURT RULINGS:
DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY and THE WRIT OF AMPARO
Doctrine of Command Responsibility has little, if at all, bearing in amparo proceedings [C]ommand
responsibility, as a concept defined, developed, and applied under international law, has little, if at all,
bearing in amparo proceedings.
The evolution of the command responsibility doctrine finds its context in the development of laws of war
and armed combats. According to Fr. Bernas, command responsibility, in its simplest terms, means the
responsibility of commanders for crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other
persons subject to their control in international wars or domestic conflict. In this sense, command
responsibility is properly a form of criminal complicity. The Hague Conventions of 1907 adopted the
doctrine of command responsibility, foreshadowing the present-day precept of holding a superior
accountable for the atrocities committed by his subordinates should he be remiss in his duty of control over
them. As then formulated, command responsibility is an omission mode of individual criminal liability,
whereby the superior is made responsible for crimes committed by his subordinates for failing to prevent or
punish the perpetrators.
There is no Philippine law that provides for criminal liability under the Doctrine of Command Responsibility
While there are several pending bills on command responsibility, there is still no Philippine law that provides
for criminal liability under that doctrine. It may plausibly be contended that command responsibility, as
legal basis to hold military/police commanders liable for extra-legal killings, enforced disappearances, or
threats, may be made applicable to this jurisdiction on the theory that the command responsibility doctrine
now constitutes a principle of international law or customary international law in accordance with the
incorporation clause of the Constitution. Still, it would be inappropriate to apply to these proceedings the
doctrine of command responsibility, as the CA seemed to have done, as a form of criminal complicity
through omission, for individual respondents criminal liability, if there be any, is beyond the reach of
amparo. In other words, the Court does not rule in such proceedings on any issue of criminal culpability,
even if incidentally a crime or an infraction of an administrative rule may have been committed.
Reluctance of the amparo petitioners or their witnesses to cooperate ought not to pose a hindrance to the
police in pursuing, on its own initiative, the investigation in question to its natural end [T]he right to security
of persons is a guarantee of the protection of ones right by the government. And this protection includes
conducting effective investigations of extra-legal killings, enforced disappearances, or threats of the same
kind. The nature and importance of an investigation are captured in the Velasquez Rodriguez case, in
which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights pronounced: [The duty to investigate] must be
undertaken in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective. An investigation
must have an objective and be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, not a step taken by private
interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon offer of proof, without an
effective search for the truth by the government.
The remedy of amparo ought to be resorted to and granted judiciously The privilege of the writ of amparo
is envisioned basically to protect and guarantee the rights to life, liberty, and security of persons, free from
fears and threats that vitiate the quality of this life. It is an extraordinary writ conceptualized and adopted in
light of and in response to the prevalence of extra-legal killings and enforced disappearances.
Accordingly, the remedy ought to be resorted to and granted judiciously, lest the ideal sought by the
Amparo Rule be diluted and undermined by the indiscriminate filing of amparo petitions for purposes less
than the desire to secure amparo reliefs and protection and/or on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations.

DISPOSITIVE:
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition for review. It issued a decision as follows:
1.

Affirming the dropping of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from the petition;

2.

Affirming the dismissal of the amparo case as against Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, and P/Dir. Gen.
Avelino Razon, insofar as it tended, under the command responsibility principle, to attach
accountability and responsibility to them, as then AFP Chief of Staff and then PNP Chief, for the alleged
enforced disappearance of Lourdes and the ensuing harassments allegedly committed against
petitioners. The dismissal of the petition with respect to the Ombudsman is also affirmed for failure of
the petition to allege ultimate facts as to make out a case against that body for the enforced
disappearance of Lourdes and the threats and harassment that followed; and

3.

Directing the incumbent Chief of Staff, AFP, or his successor, and the incumbent Director-General of
the PNP, or his successor, to ensure that the investigations already commenced by their respective units
on the alleged abduction of Lourdes Rubrico and the alleged harassments and threats she and her
daughters were made to endure are pursued with extraordinary diligence as required by Sec. 17 of the
Amparo Rule. The Chief of Staff of the AFP and Director-General of the PNP are directed to order their

subordinate officials, in particular, to do the following:

(a) Determine based on records, past and present, the identities and locations of respondents Maj. Darwin
Sy, a.k.a. Darwin Reyes, Jimmy Santana, Ruben Alfaro, Capt. Angelo Cuaresma, and one Jonathan; and
submit certifications of this determination to the OMBUDSMAN with copy furnished to petitioners, the CA,
and this Court;
(b) Pursue with extraordinary diligence the evidentiary leads relating to Maj. Darwin Sy and the Toyota Revo
vehicle with Plate No. XRR 428; and
(c) Prepare, with the assistance of petitioners and/or witnesses, cartographic sketches of respondents Maj.
Sy/Reyes, Jimmy Santana, Ruben Alfaro, Capt. Angelo Cuaresma, and a certain Jonathan to aid in
positively identifying and locating them.
The investigations shall be completed not later than six (6) months from receipt of the Decision; and within
thirty (30) days after completion of the investigations, the Chief of Staff of the AFP and the Director-General
of the PNP are likewise directed to submit a full report of the results of the investigations to the Court, the
CA, the OMB, and petitioners.
The Supreme Court accordingly referred the case back to the CA for the purpose of monitoring the
investigations and the actions of the AFP and the PNP.