Rodriguez vs Arroyo

FACTS:

This case involved two consolidated petitions assailing the April 12, 2010 Decision of the
Court of Appeals granting the writ of amparo and writ of habeas data by petitioner Noriel
Rodriguez, who is a member of Alyansa Dagiti Mannalon Iti Cagayan (Kagimungan), a
peasant organization affiliated with Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP).

Rodriguez claims that the military tagged KMP as an enemy of the State
under the Oplan Bantay Laya, making its members targets of extrajudicial killings
and enforced disappearances. Petitioner was then abducted, tortured and forced to confess
to being a member of the New People's Army (NPA).

Rodriguez filed before this Court a Petition for the Writ of Amparo and Petition for the
Writ of Habeas Data with Prayers for Protection Orders, Inspection of Place, and
Production of Documents and Personal Properties. The petition was filed against former
President Arroyo, Gen. Ibrado, PDG. Versoza, Lt. Gen. Bangit, Major General
Nestor Z. Ochoa, P/CSupt. Tolentino, P/SSupt. Santos, Col. De Vera, and five others. The
writs were granted but the CA dropped President Arroyo as party-respondent, as she may
not be sued in any case during her tenure of office or actual incumbency as part of her
presidential immunity. Also, the prayer for the issuance of a temporary protection order
and inspection order was denied by the CA.

The respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration on the decision of the CA but before
such motion could be resolved petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration
raising that the CA erred in not granting the interim relief for temporary protection order
and in dropping President Arroyo as party-respondent.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the interim reliefs prayed for by petitioner may be granted even after
the writs of amparo and habeas data have been granted.

2. Whether or not President Arroyo should be dropped as respondent because of her

presidential immunity.

3. Whether the doctrine of command responsibility can be used in amparo and habeas
data cases

4. Whether the rights to life, liberty and property of Rodriguez were violated or
threatened by respondents

HELD:
1. The interim reliefs prayed for by the petitioner is only available before final judgment.
Section 14 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo clearly provides that interim reliefs may
only be availed of upon filing of the petition or at anytime before final judgment. Given
that there has already been a final judgment in the given case, petitioner may no longer
avail of the interim relief of temporary protection order.

2. No, President Arroyo should not be dropped. There is no determination of

administrative, civil or criminal liability in amparo and habeas data proceedings as courts
can only go as far as ascertaining responsibility or accountability for the enforced
disappearance or extrajudicial killing.

As it was held in the case of Estrada v Desierto, a non-sitting President does not enjoy
immunity from suit, even for acts committed during the latters tenure; that courts should
look with disfavor upon the presidential privilege of immunity, especially when it
impedes the search for truth or impairs the vindication of a right. Also, the Supreme
Court (SC) reiterated that the presidential immunity from suit exists only in concurrence
with the presidents incumbency. Given these, former Pres. GMA cannot use presidential
immunity to shield herself from judicial scrutiny that would assess whether, within the
context of amparo proceedings, she was responsible or accountable for the abduction of
Rodriguez.

3. Yes, As we explained in Rubrico v. Arroyo, command responsibility pertains to 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. Although originally used for ascertaining criminal complicity, the command
responsibility doctrine has also found application in civil cases for human rights abuses.
Precisely in the given case, the doctrine of command responsibility may be used to
determine whether respondents are accountable for and have the duty to address the
abduction of Rodriguez in order to enable the courts to devise remedial measures to
protect his rights. Nothing precludes this Court from applying the doctrine of command
responsibility in amparo proceedings to ascertain responsibility and accountability in
extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.

4. Yes, the rights to life, liberty and property of Rodriguez were violated or threatened by
respondents. The SC held that there was no reason to depart from the factual findings of
the Court of Appeals, the same being supported by substantial evidence following the
doctrine of totality of evidence in amparo cases which is to consider all the pieces of
evidence adduced in their totality, and to consider any evidence otherwise inadmissible
under our usual rules to be admissible if it is consistent with the admissible evidence
adduced. The sworn affidavit of the petitioner and the medical examinations conducted
on him are sufficient evidence proving that the military personnel involved in the case
indeed abducted Rodriguez on September 6, 2009 and then detained and tortured him.

BALAO et al vs. GMA

G.R. No. 186050
December 13, 2011
FACTS: The siblings of James Balao, and Longid (petitioners), filed
with the RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet a Petition for the Issuance of a
Writ of Amparo in favor of James Balao who was abducted by
unidentified armed men earlier. Named respondents in the petition
were then President GMA, Exec Sec Eduardo Ermita, Defense Sec
Gilberto Teodoro, Jr., ILG Secretary Ronaldo Puno, National Security
Adviser (NSA) Norberto Gonzales, AFP Chief of Staff Gen. Alexander .
Yano, PNP Police Director General Jesus Verzosa, among others.
James M. Balao is a Psychology and Economics graduate of the UP-
Baguio. In 1984, he was among those who founded the Cordillera
Peoples Alliance (CPA), a coalition of NGOs working for the cause of
indigenous peoples in the Cordillera Region.

According to witnesses testimony, James was abducted by unidentified

men, saying they were policemen and were arresting him for a drugs
case and then made to ride a white van.

petitioners prayed for the issuance of a writ of amparo and likewise

prayed for (1) an inspection order for the inspection of at least 11
military and police facilities which have been previously reported as
detention centers for activists abducted by military and police
operatives; (2) a production order for all documents that contain
evidence relevant to the petition, particularly the Order of Battle List
and any record or dossier respondents have on James; and (3) a witness
protection order.

the RTC issued the assailed judgment, disposing as follows:

ISSUE a Writ of Amparo Ordering the respondents to (a) disclose where

James is detained or confined, (b) to release James considering his
unlawful detention since his abduction and (c) to cease and desist from
further inflicting harm upon his person; and

DENY the issuance of INSPECTION ORDER, PRODUCTION ORDER

and WITNESS PROTECTION ORDER for failure of herein Petitioners to
comply with the stringent provisions on the Rule on the Writ of Amparo
and substantiate the same

ISSUE: WON the totality of evidence satisfies the degree of proof

required by the Amparo Rule to establish an enforced disappearance.
HELD: NO; The Rule on the Writ of Amparo was promulgated on
October 24, 2007 amidst rising incidence of extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances. It was formulated in the exercise of this
Courts expanded rule-making power for the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights enshrined in the 1987 Constitution,
albeit limited to these two situations. Extralegal killings refer to
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 person outside the
protection of law.
**
The trial court gave considerable weight to the discussion in the petition
of briefing papers supposedly obtained from the AFP indicating that the
anti-insurgency campaign of the military under the administration of
President Arroyo included targeting of identified legal organizations
under the NDF, which included the CPA, and their members, as
enemies of the state.

We hold that such documented practice of targeting activists in the

militarys counter-insurgency program by itself does not fulfill the
evidentiary standard provided in the Amparo Rule to establish an
enforced disappearance.

In the case of Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo, the Court noted that the

similarity between the circumstances attending a particular case of
abduction with those surrounding previous instances of enforced
disappearances does not, necessarily, carry sufficient weight to prove
that the government orchestrated such abduction. Accordingly, the trial
court in this case cannot simply infer government involvement in the
abduction of James from past similar incidents in which the victims also
worked or affiliated with the CPA and other left-leaning groups.

**
The petition further premised government complicity in the abduction
of James on the very positions held by the respondents. The Court in
Rubrico v. Macapagal-Arroyo had the occasion to expound on the
doctrine of command responsibility and why it has little bearing, if at
all, in amparo proceedings.

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. As the
Court stressed in Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo (Manalo), the
writ of amparo was conceived to provide expeditious and effective
procedural relief against violations or threats of violation of the basic
rights to life, liberty, and security of persons; the corresponding amparo
suit, however, is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring
proof beyond reasonable doubt x x x or administrative liability requiring
substantial evidence that will require full and exhaustive proceedings.
Of the same tenor, and by way of expounding on the nature and role of
amparo, is what the Court said in Razon v. Tagitis:

It does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the
disappearance [threats thereof or extrajudicial killings]; it determines
responsibility, or at least accountability, for the enforced disappearance
[threats thereof or extrajudicial killings] for purposes of imposing the
appropriate remedies to address the disappearance [or extrajudicial
killings].

xxxx
As the law now stands, extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearances in this jurisdiction are not crimes penalized separately
from the component criminal acts undertaken to carry out these killings
and enforced disappearances and are now penalized under the Revised
Penal Code and special laws. The simple reason is that the Legislature
has not spoken on the matter; the determination of what acts are
criminal x x x are matters of substantive law that only the Legislature
has the power to enact. x x x[

Assessing the evidence on record, we find that the participation in any

manner of military and police authorities in the abduction of James has
not been adequately proven. The identities of the abductors have not
been established, much less their link to any military or police unit.
There is likewise no concrete evidence indicating that James is being
held or detained upon orders of or with acquiescence of government
agents. Consequently, the trial court erred in granting amparo reliefs.
Such pronouncement of responsibility on the part of public respondents
cannot be made given the insufficiency of evidence. However, we agree
with the trial court in finding that the actions taken by respondent
officials are very limited, superficial and one-sided. Its candid and
forthright observations on the efforts exerted by the respondents are
borne by the evidence on record.

**
An inspection order is an interim relief designed to give support or
strengthen the claim of a petitioner in an amparo petition, in order to
aid the court before making a decision. A basic requirement before an
amparo court may grant an inspection order is that the place to be
inspected is reasonably determinable from the allegations of the party
seeking the order. In this case, the issuance of inspection order was
properly denied since the petitioners specified several military and
police establishments based merely on the allegation that the
testimonies of victims and witnesses in previous incidents of similar
abductions involving activists disclosed that those premises were used
as detention centers. In the same vein, the prayer for issuance of a
production order was predicated on petitioners bare allegation that it
obtained confidential information from an unidentified military source,
that the name of James was included in the so-called Order of Battle.
Indeed, the trial court could not have sanctioned any fishing
expedition by precipitate issuance of inspection and production orders
on the basis of insufficient claims of one party.