Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo G.R. No. 189155 07 September 2010
PONENTE: Perez, J. PARTIES: PETITIONER: MELISSA ROXAS RESPONDENTS: PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GILBERT TEODORO, GEN. VICTOR IBRADO, P/DIR. GEN. JESUS AME VERZOSA, LT. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, BANGIT, PC/SIPT/ PC/SIPT/ LEON NILO DELA CRUZ, MAJ.GEN. RALPH VILLANUEVA, PS/SUPT. RUDY GAMIDO LACADIN, DEX, RC, and ROSE NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND: Supreme Court: Petition for t he issuance of Wri ts of Amparo and Habeas Data Court of Appeals : Upon order of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals Appeals summarily summarily heard the Original Action for Petition 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.
informed that she is being detained for being a member of Communist Party of the Philippines- New People’s Army (CPP-NPA). (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. 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 to 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. On 09 June 2009,
the Supreme Court issued the writs and
referred the case to the Court of Appeals for hearing, reception of evidence and appropriate action. The Court of Appeals 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. Aggrieved, Aggrieved, Roxas Roxas filed an an appeal appeal with the the Supreme Supreme Court. Court.
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 her companions were resting, 15 heavily armed men in civilian clothes forcibly entered the house and dragged them inside a van. van . When they alighted from the van, she was
PERTINENT ISSUES: Whether or not the doctrine of command responsibility is applicable in an amparo petition.
Whether or not 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. Whether or not 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. ANSWERS: No. It depends. Direct evidence of identity, when obtainable must be preferred over mere circumstantial evidence. Yes. SUPREME COURT RULINGS: 1. DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY AND THE WRIT OF 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 relief consisting of the appropriate remedial measures 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 liability 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 liability, 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.
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 nonavailability 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.
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.
DISPOSITIVE: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. However, it modified the directive of the Court of the Appeals for further investigation, as follows: Appointing the CHR as the lead agency tasked with conducting further investigation regarding the abduction and torture of the petitioner. Accordingly, the CHR shall, under the norm of extraordinary diligence, take or continue to take the necessary steps: (a) to identify the persons described in the cartographic sketches submitted by the petitioner, as well as their whereabouts; and (b) to pursue any other leads relevant to petitioner’s abduction and tor ture. Directing the incumbent Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP), or his successor, and the incumbent Chief of Staff of the AFP, or his successor, to extend assistance to the ongoing investigation of the CHR, including but not limited to furnishing the latter a copy of its personnel records circa the time of the petitioner’s abduction and torture, subject to reasonable regulations consistent with the Constitution and existing laws. Further directing the incumbent Chief of the PNP, or his successor, to furnish to this Court, the Court of Appeals, and the petitioner or her representative, a copy of the reports of its investigations and their recommendations, other than those that are already part of the records of this case, within ninety (90) days from receipt of this decision. Further directing the CHR to (a) furnish to the Court of Appeals within ninety (90) days from receipt of this decision, a copy of the reports on its investigation and its corresponding recommendations; and to (b) provide or continue to provide protection to the petitioner during her stay or visit to the Philippines, until such time as may hereinafter be determined by this Court. The Supreme Court likewise referred the case back to the Court of Appeals, for the purposes of monitoring compliance with the above directives and determining whether, in light of any recent reports or
recommendations, there would already be sufficient evidence to hold any of the public respondents responsible or, at least, accountable. After making such determination, the Court of Appeals shall submit its own report with recommendation to the Supreme Court for its consideration. It was declared that the Court of Appeals will continue to have jurisdiction over this case in order to accomplish its tasks under this decision.
