Rodriguez vs Arroyo FACTS: This case involved two consolidated petitions assailing the April 12, 2010 ecision o! the Court o! Appeals granting the writ o! a"paro and writ o! ha#eas data #y petitioner $oriel Rodriguez, who is a "e"#er o! o ! Alyansa agiti %annalon &ti Cagayan '(agi"ungan), a peasant organization a!!iliated a!!iliated with (ilusang %ag#u#u*id ng +ilipinas '(%+) Rodriguez clai"s that the "ilitary tagged (%+ as an ene"y o! the State under the -plan .antay /aya, "a*ing its "e"#ers targets o! etraudicial *illings and en!orced disappearances +etitioner was then a#ducted, tortured and !orced to con!ess to #eing a "e"#er o! the $ew +eoples Ar"y '$+A) '$+A) Rodriguez !iled #e!ore this Court a +etition !or the 3rit o! A"paro A"paro and +etition +e tition !or the 3rit o! 4a#eas ata with +rayers !or +rotection -rders, &nspection o! +lace, and +roduction o! ocu"ents and +ersonal +roperties The petition was !iled against !or"er +resident Arroyo, 5en &#rado, +5 6ersoza, 6ersoza, /t 5en .angit, %aor 5eneral $estor 7 -choa, +8CSupt Tolentino, Tolentino, +8SSupt Santos, Col e 6era, 6era, and !ive others The writs were granted #ut the CA dropped +resident Arroyo as party9respondent, as she "ay not #e sued in any an y case during her tenure o! o!!ice or actual incu"#ency as part o! her presidential i""unity i""unity Also, the prayer !or the the issuance o! a te"porary protection order and inspection order was denied #y the CA The respondents !iled a %otion !or Reconsideration on the decision o! the CA #ut #e!ore such "otion could #e resolved petitioner !iled a %otion !or +artial Reconsideration raising that the CA erred in not granting the interi" relie! !or te"porary protection order and in dropping d ropping +resident Arroyo as party9respondent &SS;S: 1 3hether or not the interi" relie!s prayed !or #y petitioner "ay #e granted even a!ter the writs o! a"paro and ha#eas data have #een granted 2 3hether or not +resident Arroyo should #e dropped as respondent #ecause o! her presidential i""unity i""unity < 3hether the doctrine o! co""and responsi#ility can #e used in a"paro and ha#eas data cases = 3hether the rights to li!e, li#erty and property o! Rod riguez were violated or threatened #y respondents 4;/:
1 The interi" relie!s prayed !or #y the petitioner is only availa#le #e!ore !inal udg"ent Section 1= o! the Rule on the 3rit o! A"paro clearly provides that interi" relie!s "ay only #e availed o! upon !iling o! the petition or at anyti"e #e!ore !inal udg"ent 5iven that there has already #een a !inal udg"ent in the given case, petitioner "ay no longer avail o! the interi" relie! o! te"porary protection order 2 $o, +resident Arroyo should not #e dropped There is no deter"ination o! ad"inistrative, civil or cri"inal lia#ility in a"paro and ha#eas data proceedings as courts can only go as !ar as ascertaining responsi#ility or accounta#ility !or the en!orced disappearance or etraudicial *illing As it was held in the case o! ;strada v esierto, a non9sitting +resident does not enoy i""unity !ro" suit, even !or acts co""itted during the latter>s tenure? that courts should loo* with dis!avor upon the presidential privilege o! i""unity, especially when it i"pedes the search !or truth or i"pairs the vindication o ! a right Also, the Supre"e Court 'SC) reiterated that the presidential i""unity !ro" suit eists only in concurrence with the president>s incu"#ency 5iven these, !or"er +res 5%A cannot use presidential i""unity to shield hersel! !ro" udicial scrutiny that would assess whether, within the contet o! a"paro proceedings, she was responsi#le or accounta#le !or the a#duction o! Rodriguez < @es, As we eplained in Ru#rico v Arroyo, co""and responsi#ility pe rtains to the responsi#ility o! co""anders !or cri"es co""itted #y su#ordinate "e"#ers o! the ar"ed !orces or other persons su#ect to their con trol in international wars or do"estic con!lictB Although originally used !or ascertaining cri"inal co"plicity, the co""and responsi#ility doctrine has also !ound application in civil cases !or hu"an rights a#uses +recisely in the given case, the doctrine o! co""and responsi#ility "ay #e used to deter"ine whether respondents are accounta#le !or and have the duty to address the a#duction o! Rodriguez in order to ena#le the courts to devise re"edial "easures to protect his rights $othing precludes this Court !ro" applying the doctrine o! co""and responsi#ility in a"paro proceedings to ascertain responsi#ility and accounta#ility in etraudicial *illings and en!orced disappearances = @es, the rights to li!e, li#erty and property o! Rod riguez were violated or threatened #y respondents The SC held that there was no reason to depart !ro" the !actual !indings o! the Court o! Appeals, the sa"e #eing supported #y su#stantial evidence !ollowing the doctrine o! totality o! evidence in a"paro cases which is to consider all the pieces o! evidence adduced in their totality, and to consider any evidence otherwise inad"issi#le under our usual rules to #e ad"issi#le i! it is consistent with the ad"issi#le evidence adduced The sworn a!!idavit o! the petitioner and the "edical ea"inations conducted on hi" are su!!icient evidence proving that the "ilitary personnel involved in the case indeed a#ducted Rodriguez on Septe"#er , 200D and then detained and tortured hi"
BALAO et al vs. GMA G.R. No. 186050 December 13, 2011
FA!": The siblings of James Balao, and Longid (petitioners), filed
with the RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet a Petition for the Issuane of a !rit of "mparo in fa#or of James Balao who was abduted b$ unidentified armed men earlier% &amed respondents in the petition were then President '", *e +e duardo rmita, efense +e 'ilberto Teodoro, Jr%, IL' +eretar$ Ronaldo Puno, &ational +eurit$ "d#iser (&+") &orberto 'on-ales, ".P Chief of +taff 'en% "le*ander % /ano, P&P Polie iretor 'eneral Jesus 0er-osa, among others% James % Balao is a Ps$holog$ and onomis graduate of the 1P2 Baguio% In 3456, he was among those who founded the Cordillera Peoples "lliane (CP"), a oalition of &'7s wor8ing for the ause of indigenous peoples in the Cordillera Region% "ording to witnesses9 testimon$, James was abduted b$ unidentified men, sa$ing the$ were poliemen and were arresting him for a drugs ase and then made to ride a white #an% petitioners pra$ed for the issuane of a writ of amparo and li8ewise pra$ed for (3) an inspetion order for the inspetion of at least 33 militar$ and polie failities whih ha#e been pre#iousl$ reported as detention enters for ati#ists abduted b$ militar$ and polie operati#es (;) a prodution order for all douments that ontain e#idene rele#ant to the petition, partiularl$ the 7rder of Battle List and an$ reord or dossier respondents ha#e on James and (<) a witness protetion order% the RTC issued the assailed =udgment, disposing as follows: I++1 a !rit of "mparo 7rdering the respondents to (a) dislose where James is detained or onfined, (b) to release James onsidering his unlawful detention sine his abdution and () to ease and desist from further infliting harm upon his person and &/ the issuane of I&+PCTI7& 7RR, PR71CTI7& 7RR and !IT&++ PR7TCTI7& 7RR for failure of herein Petitioners to ompl$ with the stringent pro#isions on the Rule on the !rit of "mparo and substantiate the same #""$%: !7& the totalit$ of e#idene satisfies the degree of proof
re>uired b$ the "mparo Rule to establish an enfored disappearane%
&%LD: &7 The Rule on the !rit of "mparo was promulgated on
7tober ;6, ;??@ amidst rising inidene of Ae*tralegal 8illings and Aenfored disappearanes% It was formulated in the e*erise of this Court9s e*panded rule2ma8ing power for the protetion and enforement of onstitutional rights enshrined in the 345@ Constitution, albeit limited to these two situations% A*tralegal 8illings refer to 8illings ommitted without due proess of law, i%e%, without legal safeguards or =udiial proeedings% 7n the other hand, Aenfored disappearanes are attended b$ the following harateristis: an arrest, detention, or abdution of a person b$ a go#ernment offiial or organi-ed groups or pri#ate indi#iduals ating with the diret or indiret a>uiesene of the go#ernment the refusal of the +tate to dislose the fate or whereabouts of the person onerned or a refusal to a8nowledge the depri#ation of libert$ whih plaes suh person outside the protetion of law% The trial ourt ga#e onsiderable weight to the disussion in the petition of briefing papers supposedl$ obtained from the ".P indiating that the anti2insurgen$ ampaign of the militar$ under the administration of President "rro$o inluded targeting of identified legal organi-ations under the &., whih inluded the CP", and their members, as Aenemies of the state% !e hold that suh doumented pratie of targeting ati#ists in the militar$9s ounter2insurgen$ program b$ itself does not fulfill the e#identiar$ standard pro#ided in the "mparo Rule to establish an enfored disappearane% In the ase of Ro*as #% aapagal2"rro$o, the Court noted that the similarit$ between the irumstanes attending a partiular ase of abdution with those surrounding pre#ious instanes of enfored disappearanes does not, neessaril$, arr$ suffiient weight to pro#e that the go#ernment orhestrated suh abdution% "ordingl$, the trial ourt in this ase annot simpl$ infer go#ernment in#ol#ement in the abdution of James from past similar inidents in whih the #itims also wor8ed or affiliated with the CP" and other left2leaning groups% The petition further premised go#ernment ompliit$ in the abdution of James on the #er$ positions held b$ the respondents% The Court in Rubrio #% aapagal2"rro$o had the oasion to e*pound on the
dotrine of ommand responsibilit$ and wh$ it has little bearing, if at all, in amparo proeedings% It ma$ plausibl$ be ontended that ommand responsibilit$, as legal basis to hold militar$Dpolie ommanders liable for e*tra2legal 8illings, enfored disappearanes, or threats, ma$ be made appliable to this =urisdition on the theor$ that the ommand responsibilit$ dotrine now onstitutes a priniple of international law or ustomar$ international law in aordane with the inorporation lause of the Constitution% +till, it would be inappropriate to appl$ to these proeedings the dotrine of ommand responsibilit$, as the C" seemed to ha#e done, as a form of riminal ompliit$ through omission, for indi#idual respondents9 riminal liabilit$, if there be an$, is be$ond the reah of amparo% In other words, the Court does not rule in suh proeedings on an$ issue of riminal ulpabilit$, e#en if inidentall$ a rime or an infration of an administrati#e rule ma$ ha#e been ommitted% "s the Court stressed in +eretar$ of &ational efense #% analo (analo), the writ of amparo was onei#ed to pro#ide e*peditious and effeti#e proedural relief against #iolations or threats of #iolation of the basi rights to life, libert$, and seurit$ of persons the orresponding amparo suit, howe#er, Ais not an ation to determine riminal guilt re>uiring proof be$ond reasonable doubt * * * or administrati#e liabilit$ re>uiring substantial e#idene that will re>uire full and e*hausti#e proeedings% 7f the same tenor, and b$ wa$ of e*pounding on the nature and role of amparo, is what the Court said in Ra-on #% Tagitis: It does not determine guilt nor pinpoint riminal ulpabilit$ for the disappearane Ethreats thereof or e*tra=udiial 8illingsF it determines responsibilit$, or at least aountabilit$, for the enfored disappearane Ethreats thereof or e*tra=udiial 8illingsF for purposes of imposing the appropriate remedies to address the disappearane Eor e*tra=udiial 8illingsF% **** "s the law now stands, e*tra=udiial 8illings and enfored disappearanes in this =urisdition are not rimes penali-ed separatel$ from the omponent riminal ats underta8en to arr$ out these 8illings and enfored disappearanes and are now penali-ed under the Re#ised Penal Code and speial laws% The simple reason is that the Legislature has not spo8en on the matter the determination of what ats are
riminal * * * are matters of substanti#e law that onl$ the Legislature has the power to enat% * * *E "ssessing the e#idene on reord, we find that the partiipation in an$ manner of militar$ and polie authorities in the abdution of James has not been ade>uatel$ pro#en% The identities of the abdutors ha#e not been established, muh less their lin8 to an$ militar$ or polie unit% There is li8ewise no onrete e#idene indiating that James is being held or detained upon orders of or with a>uiesene of go#ernment agents% Conse>uentl$, the trial ourt erred in granting amparo reliefs% +uh pronounement of responsibilit$ on the part of publi respondents annot be made gi#en the insuffiien$ of e#idene% Gowe#er, we agree with the trial ourt in finding that the ations ta8en b$ respondent offiials are A#er$ limited, superfiial and one2sided% Its andid and forthright obser#ations on the efforts e*erted b$ the respondents are borne b$ the e#idene on reord% "n inspetion 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 deision% " basi re>uirement before an amparo ourt ma$ grant an inspetion order is that the plae to be inspeted is reasonabl$ determinable from the allegations of the part$ see8ing the order% In this ase, the issuane of inspetion order was properl$ denied sine the petitioners speified se#eral militar$ and polie establishments based merel$ on the allegation that the testimonies of #itims and witnesses in pre#ious inidents of similar abdutions in#ol#ing ati#ists dislosed that those premises were used as detention enters% In the same #ein, the pra$er for issuane of a prodution order was prediated on petitioners9 bare allegation that it obtained onfidential information from an unidentified militar$ soure, that the name of James was inluded in the so2alled 7rder of Battle% Indeed, the trial ourt ould not ha#e santioned an$ Afishing e*pedition b$ preipitate issuane of inspetion and prodution orders on the basis of insuffiient laims of one part
%$
