Balao v Macapagal-Arroyo Macapagal-Arroyo 662 SCRA 294 (2011) Immunity from Suit FACTS: FACTS: The siblings of James Balao, and Longid (petitioners), filed with the RT of La Trinidad, Benguet a !etition for the Issuan"e of a # rit of $mparo $mparo in fa%or of James Balao who was abdu"ted b y unidentified armed men earlier& 'amed respondents in the petition were then !resident $, *+e" Se" *duardo *rmita, efense Se" ilberto Teodoro, Jr&, Jr&, IL Se"retary Ronaldo !uno, 'ational Se"urity $d%iser ('S$) 'orberto 'orberto on-ales, on-ales, $.! hief of Staff Staff en& $le+ander $le+ander & /ano, /ano, !'! !oli"e ire"tor eneral Jesus 0er-osa, among others& James & Balao is a !sy"hology and *"onomi"s graduate of the 1!2Baguio& In 3456, he was among those who founded the ordillera !eoples $llian"e (!$), a "oalition of '7s wor8ing for the "ause of indigenous peoples in the ordillera Region& $""ording to witnesses9 witnesses9 testimony, testimony, James was abdu"ted by unidentified unidentified men, saying they were poli"emen poli"emen and were arresting him for a drugs "ase and then made to ride a white %an& !etitioners prayed for the issuan"e of a writ of amparo and li8ewise prayed for (3) an inspe"tion order for the inspe"tion of at least 33 military military and poli"e fa"ilities whi"h ha%e been pre%iously reported as detention "enters for a"ti%ists abdu"ted by military and poli"e operati%es (;) a produ"tion order for all do"uments that "ontain e%iden"e rele%ant to the petition, parti"ularly the 7rder of Battle List and any re"ord or dossier respondents ha%e on James and (<) a witness prote"tion order& the RT issued the assailed =udgment, disposing as follows: ISS1* a #rit of $mparo 7rdering the respondents to (a) dis"lose where James is detained or "onfined, (b) to release James "onsidering his unlawful detention sin"e his abdu"tion and (") to "ease and desist from further infli"ting harm upon his person and *'/ the issuan"e of I'S!*TI7' 7R*R, !R71TI7' 7R*R and #IT'*SS !R7T*TI7' 7R*R for failure of herein !etitioners to "omply with the stringent pro%isions on the Rule on the #rit of $mparo and substantiate substantiate the same ISSUE/S I! T"E TRIA# C$URT%S &U'MET $R'ERI RES*$'ET-*ETITI$ERS T$ (A) 'ISC#$SE +"ERE &AMES BA#A$ IS 'ETAIE' A' C$FIE', (B) T$ RE#EASE &AMES BA#A$ C$SI'ERI "IS U#A+FU# 'ETETI$ SICE "IS AB'UCTI$. A' (C) T$ CEASE A' 'ESIST FR$M FURT"ER IF#ICTI "ARM U*$ "IS *ERS$ IS BASE' *URE# $ C$&ECTURES SURMISES A' "EARSA EI'ECE, "ECE IT MUST BE SET ASI'E!
The Rule on the #rit #rit of Amparo of Amparo was was promul promulgat gated ed on 7"tobe 7"toberr ;6, ;>>? ;>>? amidst amidst rising rising in"ide in"iden"e n"e of @e+tralega @e+tralegall 8illingsA 8illingsA and @enfor"ed @enfor"ed disappearan"e disappearan"es&A s&A It was formulated formulated in the e+er"ise of this ourt9s ourt9s e+panded rule2ma8ing power for the prote"tion and enfor"ement of "onstitutional rights enshrined in the 345? onstitution, albeit limited limited to these two situations& @*+tralegal 8illingsA 8illingsA refer to 8illings "ommitted without due pro"ess of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or =udi"ial pro"eedings& 293 7n the other hand, @enfor @enfor"ed "ed disapp disappear earan" an"esA esA are attend attended ed by the follow following ing "hara" "hara"ter terist isti"s i"s:: an arrest arrest,, detent detention ion,, or
abdu"tion of a person by a go%ernment offi"ial or organi-ed groups or pri%ate indi%iduals a"ting with the dire"t or indire"t a"uies"en"e of the go%ernment the refusal of the State to dis"lose the fate or whereabouts of the person "on"erned or a refusal to a"8nowledge the depri%ation of liberty whi"h pla"es su"h person outside the prote"tion of law&03 Se"tion 35 of the Amparo Rule pro%ides: S*& 35& Judgment. 2 The "ourt shall render =udgment within ten (3>) days from the time the petition is submitted for de"ision& If the allegations in the petition are prov5 7y 878:a:;al 5v;<5c5, the "ourt shall grant the pri%ilege of the writ and su"h reliefs as may be proper and appropriate otherwise, the pri%ilege shall be denied& (*mphasis supplied&) The threshold issue in this "ase is whether the totality of e%iden"e satisfies the degree of proof reuired by the Amparo Rule to establish an enfor"ed disappearan"e& In granting the pri%ilege of the writ of amparo, the trial "ourt ratio"inated: 7n re"ord is e%iden"e pointing to the more li8ely than not moti%e for James Balao9s disappearan"e C his a"ti%istDpoliti"al leanings& This is shown by the se%eral in"idents relating to harassments of a"ti%ists as mentioned in the unrebutted testimony of Be%erly Longid and the enumeration made in par& 65 (a) to ("") of the petition& There were also referen"es in the petition9s pars& E; et& se& to the !$ (of whi"h James Balao was an a"ti%e staff) as a front organi-ation of the ommunist !arty of the !hilippines2'ew !eople9s $rmy& ore li8ely than not he was not ta8en to parts un8nown for reasons other than his in%ol%ement in the !$, that is, politi"ally2moti%ated& T=5 Cor: co8;<5r8 :=585 >ac:8 5og= c;rc?8:ac58 :o 58:a7l;8= 878:a:;al 5v;<5c5 o> a 5>orc5< <;8app5arac5 a8 <5>;5< <5r :=5 Rl5 o :=5 +r;: o> A?paro! For a>:5r all 878:a:;al 5v;<5c5 r5@;r58 o:=;g gr5a:5r :=a ?or5 l;5ly :=a o:. <5gr55 o> proo> !13(*mphasis supplied&) The trial "ourt ga%e "onsiderable weight to the dis"ussion in the petition of briefing papers supposedly obtained from the $.! (7plan Bantay2Laya implemented sin"e ;>>3) indi"ating that the anti2 insurgen"y "ampaign of the military under the administration of !resident $rroyo in"luded targeting of identified legal organi-ations under the '., whi"h in"luded the !$, and their members, as @enemies of the state&A The petition "ited other do"uments "onfirming su"h @all2out warA poli"y whi"h resulted in the pre%alen"e of e+tra=udi"ial 8illings: namely, the published reports of the elo ommission and the 1'FR9s Spe"ial Rapporteur on *+tra=udi"ial Summary or $rbitrary *+e"utions, r& !hilip $lston& The petition also enumerated pre%iously do"umented "ases of e+tralegal 8illings of a"ti%ists belonging to militant groups, in"luding !$ leaders and wor8ers, almost all of whi"h ha%e been pre"eded by sur%eillan"e by military or poli"e agents and a"ts of harassment& onseuently, petitioners postulated that the sur%eillan"e on James and his subseuent abdu"tion are inter"onne"ted with the harassments, sur%eillan"e, threats and politi"al assassination of other members and offi"ers of !$ whi"h is his organi-ation& #e hold that su"h do"umented pra"ti"e of targeting a"ti%ists in the military9s "ounter2insurgen"y program by itself does not fulfill the e%identiary standard pro%ided in the Amparo Rule to establish an enfor"ed disappearan"e&
II! RES*$'ET-*ETITI$ERS "A' *R$E T"AT T"E $BSERE' ETRA$R'IAR 'I#IECE AS REUIRE' B A**#ICAB#E #A+S RU#ES A' REU#ATI$S I T"E *ERF$RMACE $F T"EIR $FFICIA# 'UTIES!
In the "ase of Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo,23 the ourt noted that the similarity between the "ir"umstan"es attending a parti"ular "ase of abdu"tion with those surrounding pre%ious instan"es of enfor"ed disappearan"es does not, ne"essarily, "arry suffi"ient weight to pro%e that the go%ernment or"hestrated su"h abdu"tion& $""ordingly, the trial "ourt in this "ase "annot simply infer go%ernment in%ol%ement in the abdu"tion of James from past similar in"idents in whi"h the %i"tims also wor8ed or affiliated with the !$ and other left2leaning groups& The petition further premised go%ernment "ompli"ity in the abdu"tion of James on the %ery positions held by the respondents, stating that 22 The abdu"tion of James Balao "an only be attributed to the Respondents who ha%e co??a< r58po8;7;l;:y of all the a"tions of their subordinates and who are the primary persons in the implementation of the go%ernment9s all out war poli"y&3 (*mphasis supplied&) The ourt in Rubrico v. Macapagal-Arroyo43 had the o""asion to e+pound on the do"trine of "ommand responsibility and why it has little bearing, if at all, in amparo pro"eedings& The e%olution of the "ommand responsibility do"trine finds its "onte+t in the de%elopment of laws of war and armed "ombats& $""ording to .r& Bernas, @"ommand responsibility,A in its simplest terms, means the @responsibility of "ommanders for "rimes "ommitted by subordinate members of the armed for"es or other persons sub=e"t to their "ontrol in international wars or domesti" "onfli"t&A In this sense, "ommand responsibility is properly a form of "riminal "ompli"ity& The Fague on%entions of 34>? adopted the do"trine of "ommand responsibility, foreshadowing the present2day pre"ept of holding a superior a""ountable for the atro"ities "ommitted by his subordinates should he be remiss in his duty of "ontrol o%er them& $s then formulated, "ommand responsibility is @an omission mode of indi%idual "riminal liability,A whereby the superior is made responsible for "rimes "ommitted by his subordinates for failing to pre%ent or punish the perpetrators (as opposed to "rimes he ordered)& The do"trine has re"ently been "odified in the Rome Statute of the International riminal ourt (I) to whi"h the !hilippines is signatory& Se"& ;5 of the Statute imposes indi%idual responsibility on military "ommanders for "rimes "ommitted by for"es under their "ontrol& The "ountry is, howe%er, not yet formally bound by the terms and pro%isions embodied in this treaty2statute, sin"e the Senate has yet to e+tend "on"urren"e in its ratifi"ation& #hile there are se%eral pending bills on "ommand responsibility, there is still no !hilippine law that pro%ides for "riminal liability under that do"trine& It may plausibly be "ontended that "ommand responsibility, as legal basis to hold militaryDpoli"e "ommanders liable for e+tra2legal 8illings, enfor"ed disappearan"es, or threats, may be made appli"able to this =urisdi"tion on the theory that the "ommand responsibility do"trine now "onstitutes a prin"iple of international law or "ustomary international law in a""ordan"e with the in"orporation "lause of the onstitution& S:;ll ;: Dol< 75 ;appropr;a:5 :o apply :o :=585 proc55<;g8 :=5
co??a< r58po8;7;l;:y a8 :=5 CA 855?5< :o =av5 or? o> cr;?;al co?pl;c;:y :=rog= o?;88;o >or ;<;v;<al r58po<5:8% cr;?;al l;a7;l;:y ;> :=5r5 75 ay ;8 75yo< :=5 r5ac= o> a?paro! In other words :=5 Cor: cr;?;al clpa7;l;:y 5v5 ;> ;c;<5:ally a cr;?5 or a ;>rac:;o o> a a
howe%er, @is not an a"tion to determine "riminal guilt reuiring proof beyond reasonable doubt + + + or administrati%e liability reuiring substantial e%iden"e that will reuire full and e+hausti%e pro"eedings&A 7f the same tenor, and by way of e+pounding on the nature and role ofamparo, is what the ourt said in Raon v. !agitis: It does not determine guilt nor pinpoint "riminal "ulpability for the disappearan"e Gthreats thereof or e+tra=udi"ial 8illingsH, ;: <5:5r?;58 responsibility or a: l5a8: accountability >or :=5 5>orc5< <;8app5arac5 :=r5a:8 :=5r5o> or 5:ra<;c;al ;ll;g83 >or prpo858 o> ;?po8;g :=5 appropr;a:5 r5?5<;58 :o a< r5?5<;58 :=a: 8=ol< 75 a<a;l5< :o <;8c=arg5 :=5 7r<5 o> 5:raor<;ary <;l;g5c5 ; :=5 ;v58:;ga:;o o> :=5 5>orc5< <;8app5arac5 & + + +3 (*mphasis supplied&) $ssessing the e%iden"e on re"ord, we find that the parti"ipation in any manner of military and poli"e authorities in the abdu"tion of James has not been adeuately pro%en& The identities of the abdu"tors ha%e not been established, mu"h less their lin8 to any military or poli"e unit& There is li8ewise no "on"rete e%iden"e indi"ating that James is being held or detained upon orders of or with a"uies"en"e of go%ernment agents& onseuently, the trial "ourt erred in granting amparo reliefs by ordering the respondent offi"ials (3) to dis"lose where James Balao is detained or "onfined, (;) to release him from su"h detention or "onfinement, and (<) to "ease and desist from further infli"ting harm upon his person& Su"h pronoun"ement of responsibility on the part of publi" respondents "annot be made gi%en the insuffi"ien"y of e%iden"e&93 Fowe%er, we agree with the trial "ourt in finding that the a"tions ta8en by respondent offi"ials are @%ery limited, superfi"ial and one2sided&A Its "andid and forthright obser%ations on the efforts e+erted by the respondents are borne by the e%iden"e on re"ord, thus: + + + the %iolation of the right to se"urity as prote"tion by the go%ernment is unmista8able& The poli"e and the military miserably failed in "ondu"ting an effe"ti%e in%estigation of James Balao9s abdu"tion as
re%ealed by the in%estigation report of respondent9s own witnesses Fonorable hief Superintendent *ugene artin and Fonorable Senior Superintendent .ortunato $lbas& The in%estigation was C to use the words in The Se"retary of 'ational efense, et& al&, %& analo et& al& C @ v5ryl;?;:5< 8p5r>;c;al a< o58;<5<&A The a"tions ta8en were simply these: (a) organi-ation of the @Tas8 .or"e BalaoA (b) "ondu"t of o"ular inspe"tion at the pla"e of abdu"tion (") ta8ing of sworn statements of "i%ilian witnesses, whose testimonies did not pro%e mu"h as shown by the "ontinued disappearan"e of James Balao (d) dialogue with impli"ated military offi"ials as well as family members and friends of James Balao and (e) writing of letter to the !$& The ourt does not want to se"ond2guess poli"e proto"ols in in%estigation but surely some things are amiss where the in%estigation I '7T I'0*STI$T* the military offi"ials belie%ed to be behind the abdu"tion as they were merely in%ited to a dialogue and where the in%estigation I '7T L*$ to amp angwa where the abdu"tors were supposed to ha%e pro"eeded as narrated by the witnesses& To the mind of this ourt, there is a seeming pre=udi"e in the pro"ess of in%estigation to pin suspe"ts who are not "onne"ted with the military establishments& By any measure, this "annot be a thorough and good faith in%estigation but one that falls short of that reuired by the #rit of $mparo&403 Respondents reiterate that they did their =ob the best they "ould and fault the petitioners instead for their non2"ooperation whi"h "aused delay in the in%estigation& They parti"ularly blamed Be%erly who failed to attend the 7"tober 3E, ;>>5 in%itation to appear before the in%estigators and shed light on James9s disappearan"e&
III! T"E FACTUA# CIRCUMSTACES A' T"E EI'ECE *RESETE' I T"E MANALO CASE ARE T$TA## 'IFFERET FR$M T"E CASE AT BAR, "ECE T"E TRIA# C$URT R$SS# ERRE' I A**#I T"E RU#I T"EREI T$ T"E CASE AT BAR& #e are not persuaded& .irst, the Tas8 .or"e Balao had a"8nowledged the fa"t that !ol& hief Supt& artin was already in "onstant "oordination with the Balao family and !$, and hen"e the in%estigators "ould ha%e readily obtained whate%er information they needed from Be%erly& !ol& hief Supt& artin e%en mentioned in his affida%it that Tas8 .or"e Balao was able to se"ure the testimonies of two eyewitnesses with the help of Be%erly and the Balao family, and that as a result "artographi" s8et"hes were made of some suspe"ts& 413 oreo%er, Be%erly had e+plained during the "ross2e+amination "ondu"ted by $sso"iate Soli"itor !aderanga that she was at the time "oordinating with national and lo"al agen"ies e%en as the poli"e in%estigation was ongoing&423 There is nothing wrong with petitioners9 simultaneous re"ourse to other legal a%enues to gain publi" attention for a possible enfor"ed disappearan"e "ase in%ol%ing their %ery own "olleague& Respondents should e%en "ommend su"h initiati%e that will en"ourage those who may ha%e any information on the identities and whereabouts of James9s abdu"tors to help the !'! in its in%estigation& $ssuming there was relu"tan"e on the part of the Balao family and !$ to submit James9s relati%es or "olleagues for uestioning by agents of the !'! and $.!, they "annot be faulted for su"h stan"e owing to the military9s per"eption of their organi-ation as a "ommunist front: ergo, enemies of the State who may be targeted for liuidation& But more important, su"h non2"ooperation pro%ides no e+"use for respondents9 in"omplete and one2sided in%estigations& $s we held in Rubrico v. Macapagal-Arroyo43:
$s regards !DSupt& Romero and !DInsp& ome-, the ourt is more than satisfied that they ha%e no dire"t or indire"t hand in the alleged enfor"ed disappearan"e of Lourdes and the threats against her daughters& A8 pol;c5 o>>;c5r8 :=og= :=5;r8 Da8 :=5 <:y :o :=orog=ly ;v58:;ga:5 :=5 a7<c:;o o> #or<58 a <:y :=a: Dol< ;cl<5 loo;g ;:o :=5 ca85 ?a5r a< l;5 <5:a;l8 o> :=5 <;8app5arac5, ;<5:;>y;g D;:58858 a< o7:a;;g 8:a:5?5:8 >ro? :=5?, a< >olloD;g 5v;<5:;ary l5a<8, su"h as the Toyota Re%o %ehi"le with plate number RR 6;5, a< 85cr;g a< pr585rv;g 5v;<5c5 r5la:5< :o :=5 a7<c:;o a< :=5 :=r5a:8 :=a: ?ay a;< ; :=5 pro85c:;o o> :=5 p5r8o/8 r58po8;7l5& $s we said in Manalo, the right to se"urity, as a guarantee of prote"tion by the go%ernment, is brea"hed by the superfi"ial and one2sidedCChen"e, ineffe"ti%eCCin%estigation by the military or the poli"e of reported "ases under their =urisdi"tion& $s found by the $, the lo"al poli"e stations "on"erned, in"luding !DSupt& Rouero and !DInsp& ome-, did "ondu"t a preliminary fa"t2finding on petitioners9 "omplaint& They "ould not, howe%er, ma8e any headway, owing to what was per"ei%ed to be the refusal of Lourdes, her family, and her witnesses to "ooperate& !etitioners9 "ounsel, $tty& Re+ J&&$& .ernande-, pro%ided a plausible e+planation for his "lients and their witnesses9 attitude, @T=5y3 :=5 R7r;co8 or :=5;r D;:58858 :o coop5ra:5 og=: o: :o po85 a =; p5r8o8 ;8 a gara:55 o> :=5 pro:5c:;o o> o5%8 r;g=: 7y :=5 gov5r?5:! A< :=;8 pro:5c:;o ;cl<58 co<c:;g 5>>5c:;v5 ;v58:;ga:;o8 o> 5:ra-l5gal ;ll;g8 5>orc5< <;8app5arac58 or :=r5a:8 o> :=5 8a?5 ; :=5 v;c:;? or his family or upon offer of proof, without an effe"ti%e sear"h for the truth by the go%ernment&A 443 (*mphasis supplied&) Indeed, why -ero in on James9s own 8in and "olleagues when independent eyewitnesses already pro%ided firsthand a""ounts of the in"ident, as well as des"riptions of the abdu"torsK #ith the "artographi" s8et"hes ha%ing been made from inter%iews and statements of witnesses, the poli"e in%estigators "ould ha%e ta8en proper steps to establish the personal identities of said suspe"ts and yet this was not done, the poli"e in%estigators not e%en lifting a finger to as"ertain whether the "artographi" s8et"hes would mat"h with any enlisted personnel of $.! and !'!, or their "i%ilian agentsDassets& $s to the %ehi"les, the plate numbers of whi"h ha%e earlier been dis"losed by James to his family and the !$ as used in "ondu"ting sur%eillan"e on him prior to his abdu"tion, the military merely denied ha%ing a %ehi"le with su"h plate number on their property list despite the fa"t that the same plate number (1S 4;;) was sighted atta"hed to a "ar whi"h was par8ed at the !$2IS1 "ompound in 'a%y Base, Baguio ity& $s to the other plate number gi%en by James (T'F ?5?), while the poli"e in%estigators were able to %erify the name and address of the registered owner of the %ehi"le, there is no showing that said owner had been in%estigated or that efforts had been made to lo"ate the said %ehi"le& Respondents9 insisten"e that the !$ produ"e the alleged "ompanions of James in his rented residen"e for in%estigation by the !'! team, while 8eeping silent as to why the poli"e in%estigators had not a"ti%ely pursued those e%identiary leads pro%ided by eyewitnessesand the Balao family, only reinfor"e the trial "ourt9s
obser%ation that the in%estigators are seemingly intent on building up a "ase against other persons so as to defle"t any suspi"ion of military or poli"e in%ol%ement in James Balao9s disappearan"e& In %iew of the foregoing e%identiary gaps, respondents "learly failed to dis"harge their burden of e+traordinary diligen"e in the in%estigation of James9s abdu"tion& Su"h ineffe"ti%e in%estigation e+tant in the re"ords of this "ase pre%ents us from "ompletely e+onerating the respondents from allegations of a""ountability for James9 disappearan"e& The reports submitted by the !'! Regional 7ffi"e, Tas8 .or"e Balao and Baguio ity !oli"e Station do not "ontain meaningful results or details on the depth and e+tent of the in%estigation made& In Raon, Jr. v. !agitis, the ourt obser%ed that su"h reports of top poli"e offi"ials indi"ating the personnel and units they dire"ted to in%estigate "an ne%er "onstitute e+hausti%e and meaningful in%estigation, or eual detailed in%estigati%e reports of the a"ti%ities underta8en to sear"h for the %i"tim& 4G3 I :=5 8a?5 ca85 D5 8:r5885< :=a: :=5 8:a <;l;g5c5 r5@;r5< J :=5 <:y o> p7l;c o>>;c;al8 a< 5?ploy558 :o o785rv5 5:raor<;ary <;l;g5c5 J call5< >or 5:raor<;ary ?5a8r58 5p5c:5< ; :=5 pro:5c:;o o> co8:;::;oal r;g=:8 a< ; :=5 co85@5: =a 5:ra-<;c;al ;ll;g8 a< 5>orc5< <;8app5arac5 ca858! $s to the matter of dropping !resident $rroyo as party2respondent, though not raised in the petitions, we hold that the trial "ourt "learly erred in holding that presidential immunity "annot be properly in%o8ed in an amparo pro"eeding& $s president, then !resident $rroyo was en=oying immunity from suit when the petition for a writ of amparo was filed& oreo%er, the petition is bereft of any a llegation as to what spe"ifi" presidential a"t or omission %iolated or threatened to %iolate petitioners9 prote"ted rights&463 In order to effe"ti%ely address thru the amparo remedy the %iolations of the "onstitutional rights to liberty and se"urity of James who remains missing to date, the ourt deems it appropriate to refer this "ase ba"8 to the trial "ourt for further in%estigation by the !'! and I and monitoring of their in%estigati%e a"ti%ities that "omplies with the standard of diligen"e reuired by the Amparo Rule& Se"tion ;6 of Republi" $"t 'o& M4?E, otherwise 8nown as the @!'! LawA 4H3 spe"ifies the !'! as the go%ernmental offi"e with the mandate to @GiHn%estigate and pre%ent "rimes, effe"t the arrest of "riminal offenders, bring offenders to =usti"e and assist in their prose"ution&A The trial "ourt should further %alidate the results of su"h in%estigations and a"tions through hearings it may deem ne"essary to "ondu"t&
I! T"E TRIA# C$URT C$RRECT# 'EIE' *ETITI$ER-RES*$'ETS% *RAER F$R T"E ISSUACE $F A IS*ECTI$ $R'ER *R$'UCTI$ $R'ER A' A +ITESS *R$TECTI$ $R'ER! Lastly, on the denial of the prayer for interim reliefs under the Amparo Rule& $n inspe"tion order is an interim relief designed to gi%e support or strengthen the "laim of a petitioner in an amparo petition, in order to aid the "ourt before ma8ing a de"ision& 43 $ basi" reuirement before an amparo "ourt may grant an inspe"tion order is that the pla"e to be inspe"ted is reasonably determinable from the allegations of the party see8ing the order&493 In this "ase, the issuan"e of inspe"tion order was properly denied sin"e the petitioners spe"ified se%eral military and poli"e establishments based merely on the allegation that the testimonies of %i"tims and witnesses in previous in"idents of similar abdu"tions in%ol%ing a"ti%ists dis"losed that those premises were used as detention "enters& In the same %ein, the prayer for issuan"e of a produ"tion order was predi"ated on petitioners9 bare allegation that it obtained "onfidential information from an unidentified military sour"e, that the name of James was in"luded in the so2"alled 7rder of Battle& Indeed, the trial "ourt "ould not
ha%e san"tioned any @fishing e+peditionA by pre"ipitate issuan"e of inspe"tion and produ"tion orders on the basis of insuffi"ient "laims of one pa rty& 'onetheless, the trial "ourt is not pre"luded, as further e%iden"e warrants, to grant the abo%e interim reliefs to aid it in ma8ing a de"ision upon e%aluation of the a"tions ta8en by the respondents under the norm of e+traordinary diligen"e&
