Human Rights Law_cases for Finals for Editing

HUMAN RIGHTS LAW ATTY. CYRUS SUALOG 2NDSEMESTER - SY 2016 -2017

BY: MILEA KIM KARLA CABUHAT

CIRIACO BOY GUINGGUING VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS September 30, 2005 G.R. No. 128959 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The liberty of the press is indeed essential. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech. - Benjamin Franklin FACTS: Complainant Cirse Choy Torralba Torralba was a broadcast journalist who handled two programs for radio stations DYLA and DYFX based in Cebu but programs were aired over portion of Visayas and Mindanao. Segundo Lim Lim caused the publication of records of criminal cases filed against complainant Torralba as well as photographs of the latter bein g arrested, by means of a one-page advertisement “Request for Public Service”, paid Service”, paid for by Lim in the Sun day Post, a weekly publication edite d and published by Ciriaco Boy Guingguing. Guingguing. The Sunday Post was circulated in the province of Bohol, as well as in the Visayas and Mindanao. Complainant Torralba filed a libel case and damages against Lim. It was claimed that the publication was also designed to degrade and malign his person and destroy him as a broadcast journalist. Lim, in his defense, claimed that Torralba was allegedly making scurrilous attacks against him and his family over the airwaves. Since Lim had no access to radio time, he opted for paid advertisements via newspaper to answer the attacks, as a measure of self-defense. ISSUE/S: ISSUE/S: Whether the advertisement in question falls squarely within the bounds of constitutionally protected expression under Section 4, Article III (Freedom of Speech) RULING: YES. In order to justify a conviction for crim inal libel against a public figure, it must be established beyond reasonable doubt that the libelous statements were made or publ ished with actual malice, meaning knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true. There are two main determinants: whether complainant is a public figure, figure, and assuming that he is, whether the publication of the subject advertisement was made with actual malice. The Supreme Court decided that (1) Complainant is a public figure; He is a broadcast journalist hosting two radio programs aired over a large portion of the Visayas and Mindanao. (2) And Actual Malice is not proven. proven . Set otherwise, the prosecution must have established beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants knew the statements in the advertisement was false or nonetheless proceeded with reckless disregard as to publish it whether or not it was true. There was nothing untruthful about what was published in the Sunday Post. The criminal cases listed in the advertisement as pending against the complainant had indeed been filed. Yet such information hardly falls within an y realm of privacy complainant could invoke, since the pendency of these criminal charges are actually matters of public record. The guarantee of free speech was enacted to protect not only polite speech, but even expression in its most unsophisticated form. Criminal libel stands as a necessary qualification to any absolutist interpretation of the free speech clause, if only because it prevents the proliferation of untruths which if unrefuted, would gain an undue influence in the public discourse. But in order to safeguard against fears that the public debate might be muted due to the reckless enforcement of libel laws, truth has been sanctioned as a defense, much more in the case when the statem ents in question address public issues or involve public figures.

1



SPOUSES ROZELLE RAYMOND MARTIN AND CLAUDINE MARGARET SANTIAGO vs. RAFFY TULFO, BEN TULFO, AND ERWIN TULFO G.R. No. 205039 October 21, 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------FACTS: At around 11:40 in the morning of May 6, 2012, Spouses arrived at the NAIA 3 aboard a Cebu Pacific Airline flight from a vacation with their family and friends. They waited for the arr ival of their baggage but were eventually informed that it was offloaded and transferred to a different flight. Aggrieved, Spouses lodged a complaint before the Cebu Pacific complaint desk. As they were complaining, they noticed a man taking photos of Claudine with his cellular phone. Ray mart approached the man and asked what he was doing. Suddenly, the man, later identified as Ramon "Mon" Tulfo (Mon), allegedly punched and kicked Raymart, forcing the latter to fight back. When Claudine saw the commotion, she approached Mon and the latter likewise allegedly kicked and pushed her back against the counter. At that instance, Raymart rushed to defend his wife, while one Edoardo Benjamin Atilano (Atilano) joined in the brawl. Immediately thereafter, several airport security personnel came to stop the altercation and brought them to the Airport Police Department for investigation. Days after the incident, Tulfo brothers, brothers of Mon, aired on their TV program comments and expletives against Spouses Santiago, and threatened that they will retaliate. Terrified by the gravity of the threats hurled, Spouses filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of amparo against Tulfo Brothers. Erwin Tulfo filed a Manifestation and Motion to Deny Issuance of Protection Order and/ or Dismissal of the Petition Motu Proprio which was opposed by Spouses Santiago for being a prohibited pleading. The Presiding Judge issued a Resolution granting a TPO in favor of spouses and directed the Tulfo brothers to file their return/answer. In his return/answer, Ben Tulfo claimed that the statements he uttered did not involve any actual threat and that he merely expressed his strong sentiments to defend his brother. However, The RTC dismissed the petition and ordered the dissolution of the TPO. It held that the petition is not a proper subject of a writ of amparo since the rules were intended to apply solely to cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. ISSUE: Whether or not Writ of Amparo is limited only to cases of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, or threats HELD: YES. "The Rule on the Writ of Amparo," was intended to address and, thus, is presently confined to cases involving extralegal killings and/or enforced disappearances, or threats thereof: Consistent therewith, the delimitation of our current writ of amparo to extralegal killings and/or enforced disappearances, or threats thereof, is explicit from Section 1 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, which reads: 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. While the foregoing rule, as per Section 1 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC's first paragraph, does state that the writ is a remedy to protect the right to life, liberty, and security of the person desiring to avail of it, the same section's second paragraph qualifies that the protection of such rights specifically pertain to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof, which are more concrete cases that involve protection to the rights to life, liberty and security. The two paragraphs should indeed be read together in order to construe the meaning of the provision. Clearly applicable is the statutory construction rule that "clauses and phrases must not be taken as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part thereof must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts in order to produce a harmonious whole. Every part of the statute [or, in this case, procedural rule] must be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e., that every part of the statute must be considered together with other parts of the statute and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment."32 In this case, it is undisputed that petitioners' amparo petition before the RTC does not allege any case of extrajudicial killing and/or enforced disappearance, or any threats thereof, in the senses abovedescribed. Their petition is merely anchored on a broad invocation of respondents' purported violation of their right to life and security, carried out by private individuals without any showing of direct or indirect government participation. Thus, it is apparent that their amparo petition falls outside the purview of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC and, perforce, must fail.

ARTHUR BALAO, et. al., vs. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, et. al. 2



G.R. No. 186050 December 13, 2011 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FACTS: James M. Balao is a Psychology and Economics graduate of the UP-Baguio. He was

among those who founded the Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA), a coalition of non-government organizations (NGOs) working for the cause of indigenous peoples in the Cordillera Region. Sometime in 1988, while working for the CPA, he was arrested on the charge of violation of the Anti-Subversion Law but the case was eventually dismissed for lack of evidence. Sometime in 2008, Five men in civilian clothes who were carrying firearms alighted from the van and immediately approached the man poking their guns on him, and was later identified as Balao. They grabbed and handcuffed him. The man was asking why he was being apprehended. One of the armed men addressed the people witnessing the incident, saying they were policemen. Before leaving the place, one of the armed men was also heard telling the driver of the van that they are going to proceed to Camp Dangwa (PNP Provincial Headquarters in La Trinidad, Benguet).

Thus, the Balao family, with the assistance of the CPA and other NGOs, tried to locate James. They also sought the help of the media to announce James’s disappearance and wrote several government agencies to inform them of his disappearance and enlist their help in locating him. Contending that there is no plain, speedy or adequate remed y for them to protect James’s life, liberty and security, petitioners prayed for the issuance of a writ of amparo ordering the respondents to disclose where James is detained or confined, to release James, and to cease and desist from further inflicting harm upon his person. They 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 Writ of Amparo6 was issued directing respondents to file their verified return together with their supporting affidavit within five days from receipt of the writ. Respondents contended that the petition failed to meet the requirement in the Rule on the Writ of Amparo that claims must be established by substantial evidence RTC issued a Writ of Amparo Ordering the respondents to (a) disclose where James Balao is detained or confined, (b) to release James Balao 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 compl y with the stringent provisions on the Rule on the Writ of Amparo and substantiate the same.

The RTC further held that "more likely than not," the motive for James’s disappearance is his activist/political leanings and that James’s case is one of an enforced disappearance as defined under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. In so ruling, the RTC considered (1) the several incidents of harassment mentioned in Beverly’s testimony and enumerated in the petition; and (2) the references in the petition to the CPA as a front for the CPP-NPA. The RTC likewise ruled that the government unmistakably violated James’s right to security of person. It found the investigation conducted by respondents as very limited, superficial and one-sided. The police and military thus miserably failed to conduct an effective investigation of James’s abduction as revealed by the investigation report of respondents’ own witnesses, Supt. Martin and P/S Supt. Fortunato Basco Albas, the Commander of Task Force Balao. It further noted that respondents did not investigate the military officials believed to be behind the abduction as said military officials were merely invited to a dialogue and there was no investigation made in Camp Dangwa where the abductors were believed to have taken James as narrated by the 3



witnesses. Moreover, the RTC observed that despite the undertaking of respondents to investigate the abduction and provide results thereof, four months have passed but petitioners have not been furnished reports regarding the investigation. Both parties appealed. ISSUE/S: whether the totality of evidence satisfies the degree of proof required by the Amparo Rule to establish an enforced disappearance. The abduction of James Balao can only be attributed to the Respondents who have command responsibility of all the actions of their subordinates and who are the primary persons in the implementation of the government’s all out war policy.

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. Subsequently, we have clarified that the inapplicability of the doctrine of command responsibility in an amparo proceeding does not, by any measure, preclude impleading military or police commanders on the ground that the complained acts in the petition were committed with their direct or indirect acquiescence. Commanders may therefore be impleaded — not actually on the basis of command responsibility — but rather on the ground of their responsibility, or at least accountability. Assessing the evidence on record, we find that the participation in an y 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.

In view of the foregoing evidentiary gaps, respondents clearly failed to discharge their burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of James’s abduction. Such ineffective investigation extant in the records of this case prevents us from completely exonerating the respondents from allegations of accountability for James’ disappearance. As to the matter of dropping President Arroyo as party-respondent, though not raised in the petitions, we hold that the trial court clearly erred in holding that presidential immunity cannot be properly invoked in an amparo proceeding. As president, then President Arroyo was enjoying immunity from suit when the petition for a writ of amparo was filed. Moreover, the petition is bereft of any allegation as to what specific presidential act or omission violated or threatened to violate petitioners’ protected rights. 2. Lastly, on the denial of the prayer for interim reliefs under the Amparo Rule. An inspection order is an interim relief designed to give supp ort or strengthen the claim of a petitioner in an amparo petition, in order to aid the court before making a decision.48 A basic requirement before an amparo court may grant an inspection order is that the place to be insp ected is reasonably determinable from the allegations of the party seeking the order.49 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 4



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. Nonetheless, the trial court is not precluded, as further evidence warrants, to grant the above interim reliefs to aid it in making a decision upon evaluation of the actions taken by the respondents under the norm of extraordinary diligence. WHEREFORE, the petitions in G.R. Nos. 186050 and 186059 are PARTLY GRANTED. The Judgment dated January 19, 2009 of the R egional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet, Branch 63, in Special Proceeding No. 08-AMP-0001 is MODIFIED as follows: 1) REVERSING the grant of the privilege of the w rit of amparo; 2) AFFIRMING the denial of the prayer for inspection and production orders, without prejudice to the subsequent grant thereof, in the course of hearing and other developments in the investigations by the Philippine National Police/Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group and the Armed Forces of the Philippines; 3) ORDERING the incumbent Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, or his successor, and the incumbent Director General of the Philippine National Police, or his successor, to CONTINUE the investigations and actions already commenced by the Philippine National Police Regional Office – Cordillera, Baguio City Police, Northern Luzon Command, Philippine National Police/Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group, Philippine Army-Intelligence Service Unit and other concerned units, and specifically take and continue to take the necessary steps: (a) to identify the persons described in the cartographic sketches submitted by Task Force Balao; (b) to locate and search the vehicles bearing the pla te numbers submitted by the petitioners and which James Balao had reported to be conducting surveillance on his person prior to his abduction on September 17, 2008, and investigate the registered owners or whoever the previous and present possessors/transferees thereof; and to pursue any other leads relevant to the abduction of James Balao; The incumbent Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief of Staff, Philippine National Police Director General, or their successors, shall ensure that the investigations and actions of their respective units on the abduction of James Balao are pursued with extraordinary diligence as required by Sec. 17 of the Amparo Rule.

EDITA T. BURGOS vs. GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., et.al.

G.R. No. 183711 5



June 22, 2010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this same Resolution, we also affirmed the CA’s dismissal of the petitions for Contempt and issuance of a Writ of Amparo with respect to President Macapagal-Arroyo who was then entitled, as President, to immunity from suit. The March 15, 2011 CHR Report On March 15, 2011, the CHR submitted to the Court its Investigation Report on the Enforced Disappearance of Jonas Burgos (CHR Report), in compliance with our June 22, 2010 Resolution. On the basis of the gathered evidence, the CHR submitted the following findings:

Petition for Habeas Corpus The CA held that the issue in the petition for habeas corpus is not the illegal confinement or detention of Jonas, but his enforced disappearance. Considering that Jonas was a victim of enforced disappearance, the present case is beyond the ambit of a petition for habeas corpus. Petition for the Writ of Amparo Based on its finding that Jonas was a victim of enforced disappearance, the CA concluded that the present case falls within the ambit of the Writ of Amparo. The CA found that the totality of the evidence supports the petitioner’s allegation that the military was involved in the enforced disappearance of Jonas. Based on these considerations, the CA resolved to: 1) RECOGNIZING the abduction of Jonas Burgos as an enforced disappearance covered by the Rule on the Writ of Amparo; 2) With regard to authorship, a) DECLARING Maj. Harry A. Baliaga, Jr. RESPONSIBLE for the enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos; and b) DECLARING the Armed Forces of the Philippines and elements of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, particularly the Philippine Army, ACCOUNTABLE for the enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos; 3) DECLARING the Philippine National Police ACCOUNTABLE for the conduct of an exhaustive investigation of the enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos. To this end, the PNP through its investigative arm, the PNP-CIDG, is directed to exercise extraordinary diligence to identify and locate the abductors of Jonas Burgos who are still at large and to establish the link between the abductors of Jonas Burgos and those involved in the ERAP 5 incident. (4) DIRECTING the incumbent Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Director General of the Philippine National Police, and their successors, to ensure the continuance of their investigation and coordination on the enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos until the persons found responsible are brought before the bar of justice; (5) DIRECTING the Commission on Human Rights to continue with its own indep endent investigation on the enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos with the same degree of diligence required under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo; and

6



(6) DIRECTING the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police to extend full assistance to the Commission on Human Rights in the conduct of the latter’s investigation. The Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Director General, Philippine National Police and the Chairman, Commission on Human Rights are hereby DIRECTED to submit a quarterly report to this Court on the results of their respective investigation. The filing of petitioner’s Affidavit-Complaint against Maj. Harry A. Baliaga, Jr., et al. before the Department of Justice on June 9, 2011 is NOTED. Petitioner is DIRECTED to immediately inform this Court of any development regarding the outcome of the case.12 The Respondent’s April 3, 2013 Motion for P artial Reconsideration B. On the Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela After reviewing the newly discovered evidence submitted by the petitioner and considering all the developments of the case, including the March 18, 2013 CA decision that confirmed the validity of the issuance of the Writ of Amparo in the present case, we resolve to deny the petitioner’s Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela. We note and conclude, based on the developments highlighted above, that the beneficial purpose of the Writ of Amparo has been served in the present case. The Writ of Amparo serves both a preventive and a curative role. It is curative as it facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators through the investigation and remedial action that it directs.24 The focus is on procedural curative remedies rather than on the tracking of a specific criminal or the resolution of administrative liabilities. The unique nature of Amparo proceedings has led us to define terms or concepts specific to what the proceedings seek to achieve. In the present case, while Jonas remains missing, the series of calculated directives issued by the Court outlined above and the extraordinary diligence the CHR demonstrated in its investigations resulted in the criminal prosecution of Lt. Baliaga. We take judicial notice of the fact that the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 216, has already found probable cause for arbitrary detention against Lt. Baliaga and has ordered his arrest in connection with Jonas’ disappearance. We also emphasize that the CA in its March 18, 2013 decision already ruled with finality on the entities responsible and accountable (as these terms are defined in Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis) for the enforced disappearance of Jonas. In its March 18, 2013 de cision, the CA found, by substantial evidence, that Lt. Baliaga participated in the abduction on the basis of Cabintoy’s positive identification that he was one of the abductors of Jonas who told him not to interfere because the latter had been under surveillance for drugs. In the same Decision, the CA also held the AFP and the PNP accountable for having failed to discharge the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance of Jonas. Thus, the CA issued the following directives to address the enforced disappearance of Jonas: Based on the above considerations, in particular, the final ruling of the CA that confirmed the validity of the issuance of the Writ of Amparo and its determination of the entities responsible for the enforced disappearance of Jonas, we resolve to deny the petitioner’s prayer to issue the writ of Amparo anew and to refer the case to the CA based on the newly discovered evidence. We so conclude as the petitioner’s request for the reissuance of the writ and for the rehearing of the case by the CA would be redundant and superfluous in light of: (1) the ongoing investigation being conducted by the DOJ through the NBI; (2) the CHR investigation directed by the Court in this Resolution; and (3) the continuing investigation directed by the CA in its March 18, 2013 de cision. We emphasize that while the Rule on the Writ of A mparo accords the Court a wide latitude in crafting remedies to address an enforced disappearance, it cannot (without violating the nature 7



of the writ of Amparo as a summary remedy that provides rapid judicial relief) grant remedies that would complicate and prolong rather than expedite the investigations already ongoing. Note that the CA has already determined with finality that Jonas was a victim of enforced disappearance. We clarify that by denying the petitioner’s motion, we do not thereby rule on the admissibility or the merits of the newly discovered evidence submitted by the petitioner. We likewise do not foreclose any investigation by the proper investigative and prosecutory agencies of the other entities whose identities and participation in the enforced disappearance of Jonas may be disclosed in future investigations and proceedings. Considering that the present case has already reached the prosecution stage, the petitioner’s motion should have been filed with the proper investigative and prosecutory agencies of the government. To expedite proceedings, we refer the petitioner’s motion, this Resolution and its covered cases to the DOJ for investigation, for the purpose of filing the appropriate criminal charges in the proper courts against the proper parties, if warranted, based on the gathered evidence. For this purpose, we direct the petitioner to furnish the DOJ and the NBI copies of her Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela, together with the sealed attachments to the Motion, within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution. As mentioned, we take judicial notice of the ongoing investigation by the DOJ, through the NBI, of the disappearance of Jonas. This DOJ investigation is without prejudice to the Office of the Ombudsman’s exercise of its primary jurisdiction over the investigation of the criminal aspect of this case should the case be determined to be cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.29 As we direct below, further investigation for purposes of the present proceedings shall continue to be undertaken by the CHR, in close coordination with the NBI, for the completion of the investigation under the terms of our June 22, 2010 Resolution and the additional directives under the present Resolution. As a final note, we emphasize that our ROLE in a writ of Amparo proceeding is merely to determine whether an enforced disappearance has taken place; to determine who is responsible or accountable; and to define and impose the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance. As shown above, the beneficial purpose of the Writ of Amparo has been served in the present case with the CA’s final determination of the persons responsible and accountable for the enforced disappearance of Jonas and the commencement of criminal action against Lt. Baliaga. At this stage, criminal, investigation and prosecution proceedings are already beyond the reach of the Writ of Amparo proceeding now before us. Based on the above developments, we now hold that the full extent of the remedies envisioned by the Rule on the Writ of Amparo has been served and exhausted. Considering the foregoing, the Court RESOLVES to: (1) DENY petitioner Edita Burgos’ Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela; (2) REFER the petitioner’s Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela, th is Resolution and its covered cases to the Department of Justice for investigation for the purpose of filing the appropriate criminal charges in the proper courts against the proper parties if such action is warranted by the gathered evidence. The referral to the Department of Justice is without prejudice to the Office of the Ombudsman’s exercise of its primary jurisdiction over the investigation should the case be determined to be cognizable by the Sandiganbayan; (3) DIRECT the petitioner to furnish the Department of Justice and the National Bureau of Investigation copies of her Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela, together with the sealed attachments to the Motion, within five (5) days from receipt o f this Resolution;

8



(4) DIRECT the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court to allow the duly-authorized representatives of the Commission on Human Rights to inspect the requested documents in camera within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution. For this purpose, the documents shall be examined and compared with the cartographic sketches of the two abductors of Jonas Burgos without copying and bringing the documents outside the premises of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court. The inspection of the documents shall be conducted within office hours and for a reasonable period of time that would allow the Commission on Human Rights to comprehensively investigate the lead provided by Virgilio Eustaquio; (5) DIRECT the National Bureau of Investigation to coordinate and provide direct investigative assistance to the Commission on Human Rights as the latter may require, pursuant to the authority granted under the Court's June 22, 2010 Resolution. (6) REQUIRE the Commission on Human Rights to submit a supplemental investigation report to the Department of Justice, copy furnished the petitioner, the National Bureau of Investigation, the incumbent Chiefs of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Philippine National Police and the Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group, and all the respondents, within sixty (60) days from receipt of this Resolution. (7) DECLARE this Writ of Amparo proceeding closed and terminated, without prejudice to the concerned parties' compliance with the above directives and subject to the Court's continuing jurisdiction to enforce compliance with this Resolution.

Burgos vs. Gen. Esperon JONAS BURGOS, farmer and son of the late press freedom hero Joe Burgos. He was a member of the Alyansa ng Masasaka sa Bulacan (AMB), an affiliate of the Kilusang 9



Magbubukid ng Pilipinas, an organization tagged by the military as an "enemy of the state". He was abducted by armed men 28 April 2007 while having lunch in a Quezon City restaurant.

Witnesses revealed to police investigators that the young Burgos was forcibly taken by four to eight men from the EVER Gotesco Mall to a waiting maroon Toyota Revo. One of the abductors reportedly identified himself as a police officer.Police investigation also yielded a car plate number. Task Force Usig said the name of a certain Mauro Mudlong came up when Quezon City Policemen submitted plate number TAB 194 to the LTO.The vehicle was traced in a military camp in Bulacan belonging to 56th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army. AFP Chief of Staff Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, Jr. said that the license plate TAB 194 must have been stolen. In May 2007, Mrs. Burgos filed an information with the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). In June of the same year, she filed a complaint with the Quezon City police and the next month with the National Capital Region-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG). In August 2007, Mrs. Burgos filed a petition for habeas corpus with the Supreme Court and then a petition for writ of amparo in December of the same year. On July 17, 2008, after 33 hearings in ten months, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for habeas corpus, stating that Mrs. Burgos failed to show that the military was behind the abduction. The appellate court partially granted the petition for writ of amparo and directed the military and police to provide Mrs. Burgos all the documents she needed. In August 2008, Mrs. Burgos appealed the Court of Appeals’ decision to the Supreme Court. After almost a year, the high court merely ordered the CHR to reinvestigate the case because of “serious lapses” in the investigation of authorities. On March 15 this year, almost four years since Jonas disappeared, the CHR submitted its report and recommendations to the Supreme Court, which include the filing of criminal charges against Baliaga who was identified by two witnesses.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT the issuance of the writ of Amparo anew and to refer the case to the CA based on the newly discovered evidence for rehearing are proper.

RULING: NO

10



MELISSA C. ROXAS vs. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, et. al.

G.R. No. 189155 September 07, 2010 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Melissa Roxas vs. Macapagal-Arroyo

MELISSA ROXAS v. MACAPAGAL-ARROYO (2010) J. Perez PONENTE: Perez, J. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND: 1. 2.

Supreme Court: Petition for the issuance of Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data 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 judgment which is the subject of the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.

FACTS: Melissa Roxas, an American citizen of Filipino descent, while in the United States, enrolled in an exposure program to the Philippines with the group Bagong Alyansang Makabayan-United States of America (BAYAN- USA) of which she is a member. On 19 May 2009, after doing survey work in Tarlac, Roxas and her companions rested in the house of Mr. Jesus Paolo in Sitio Bagong Sikat. While Roxas and h er companions were resting, 15 heavily armed men in civilian clothes forcibly entered the house and dragged them inside a van. When they alighted from the van, she was informed that she is being detained for being a member of Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army (CPP-NPA). She was then separated from her companions and was brought to a room, from where she could hear sounds of gunfire, noise of planes taking off and landing, and some construction bustle. She was interrogated and tortured for 5 straight days to convince her to abandon her communist beliefs. She was informed by a person named “RC” that those who tortured her came from the “Special Operations Group” and that she was abducted because her name is included in the “Order of Battle.” On 25 May 2009, Roxas was finally released and was given a cellular phone with a sim card. She was sternly warned not to report the incident to the group Karapatan or something untoward will happen to her and her family. After her release, Roxas continued to receive calls from RC thru the cell phone given t o her. Out of apprehension, she threw the phone and the sim card. Hence, on 01 June 2009, Roxas filed a petition for the issuance of Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data before the Supreme Court, impleading the high-ranking officials of military and Philippine National Police (PNP), on the belief that it was the government agents who were behind her abduction and torture. SC issued the writs and referred the case to the CA for hearing, reception of evidence and appropriate action. CA granted the privilege of writs of amparo and habeas data. However, the court a quo absolved the respondents because it was not convinced that the respondents were responsible for the abduction and torture of Roxas. 11



Aggrieved, Roxas filed an appeal with the SC. ISSUES/HELD: 1) WON the doctrine of command responsibility is applicable in an amparo petition

NO

–

DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY AND THE WRIT O F AMPARO Command responsibility as justification in impleading respondents is legally inaccurate – The use of the doctrine of command responsibility as justification in impleading the respondents in her amparo petition, is legally inaccurate, if not incorrect. Such doctrine is a rule of substantive law that establishes liability and, by this account, cannot be a proper legal basis to implead a party-respondent in an amparo petition. The Writ of Amparo as a protective remedy – As held in the case of Rubrico v. Arroyo, the writ of amparo is a protective remedy aimed at providing judicial r elief consisting of the appropriate remedial m easures and directives that may be crafted by the court, in order to address specific violations or threats of violation of the constitutional rights to life, liberty or security. It does not fix l iability for such disappearance, killing or threats, whether that may be criminal , civil or administrative under the applicable substantive law. Since the application of command responsibility presupposes an imputation of individual liabilit y, it is more aptly invoked in a full-blown criminal or administrative case rather than in a summary amparo proceeding. However, the inapplicability of the doctrine of command responsibility does not preclude impleading military or police commanders on the ground that the complained acts in the petition were committed with their direct or indirect acquiescence. In which case, commanders may be impleaded — not actually on the basis of command responsibility — but rather on the ground of their responsibility, or at least accountability. 2) WON circumstantial evidence with regard to the identity and affiliation of the perpetrators is enough ground for the issuance of the privilege of the writ of amparo NO –

EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN AMPARO PROCEEDINGS In amparo proceedings, direct evidence of identity must be preferred over mere circumstantial evidence – In amparo proceedings, the weight that may be accorded to parallel circumstances as evidence of military involvement depends largely on the availability or non-availability of other pieces of evidence that has the potential of directly proving the identity and affiliation of the perpetrators. Direct evidence of identity, when obtainable, must be preferred over mere circumstantial evidence based on patterns and similarity, because the former indubitably offers greater certainty as to the true identity and affiliation of the perpetrators. 3) WON substantial evidence to prove actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim is necessary before the privilege of the writ may be extended YES –

EVIDENCE REQURED IN HABEAS DATA PROCEEDINGS Substantial evidence of an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim is an indispensable requirement before the privilege of the writ may be extended – An indispensable requirement before the privilege of the writ may be extended is the showing, at least by substantial evidence, of an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim. In the case at bar, Roxas failed to show that there is an actual or threatened violation of such right. Hence, until such time that any of the respondents were found to be actually responsible for the abduction and torture of Roxas, any inference regarding the existence of reports being kept in violation of the petitioner’s right to privacy becomes farfetched, and premature. The Court must, at least in the meantime, strike down the grant of the privilege of the writ of habeas data.

12

Human Rights Law_cases for Finals for Editing

Recommend Documents