TABLE OF CONTENTS
Writ of AmparoLadaga v. Mapagu1Gen. Yano v. SanchezRubrico v.
Macapagal-ArroyoRev. Fr. Reyes v. CA
Writ of Habeas DataIn re: Melissa RoxasGamboa v. ChanManila
Electric Co. v. Lim
Republic v. Coseteng-MagpayoUy v. ChuaDela Cruz v. GarciaReyes
v. Alejandro
Ladaga v Mapagu | ChrissaNov 23, 2012IN THE MATTER OF THE
PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF AMPARO IN FAVOR OF LILIBETH
O. LADAGA: LILIBETH O. LADAGA, Petitioner vMAJ. GEN. REYNALDO
MAPAGU, COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE ARMY'S 10TH INFANTRY
DIVISION (ID); COL. LYSANDER SUERTE, CHIEF OF STAFF, 10TH ID, LT.
COL. KURT A. DECAPIA, CHIEF, 10TH ID, PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE; COL.
OSCAR LACTAO, HEAD-TASK FORCEDAVAO; SR. SUPT. RAMON APOLINARIO,
DAVAO CITY POLICE OFFICE DIRECTOR; AND SEVERAL OTHER JOHN DOES,
Respondents
Also: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT
OF AMPARO IN FAVOR OF ANGELA A. LIBRADOTRINIDADand IN THE MATTER OF
THE PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF AMPARO IN FAVOR OF
CARLOS ISAGANI T. ZARATE:PERLAS-BERNABE, J
summary: Ladaga, Zarate and Trinidad found out from a leaked PPT
that they were on the Order of Battle List of the Armys 10th ID
headed by Mapagu. This list tagged them as members of the CCP, PA
and other groups, and made them easy targets for extra judicial
killings similar to what happened to others on the list. They also
allege that they each have been followed by suspicious (military)
men. RTC and SC denied the issuance of a writ of amparo, as
although rules of evidence have been relaxed, they failed to
provide substantial evidence necessary, and havent proven the link
to their being on a list to the threat of extrajudicial
killings.Doctrine: The Court may be more yielding to the use of
circumstantial or indirect evidence and logical inferences, but
substantial evidence is still the rule to warrant a finding that
the State has violated, is violating, or is threatening to violate,
amparo petitioners' right to life, liberty or security.
FACTS: Petitioners share the common circumstance of having their
names included in what is alleged to be a JCICC "AGILA" 3rd Quarter
2007 Order of Battle Validation Result of the Philippine Army's
1Oth Infantry Division (10th ID), 3 which is a list containing the
names of organizations and personalities in Southern Mindanao,
particularly Davao City, supposedly connected to the Communist
Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its military arm, the New
People's Army (NPA). They perceive that by the inclusion of their
names in the said Order of Battle (OB List), they become easy
targets of unexplained disappearances or extralegal killings In her
Affidavit,5 Atty. Ladaga substantiated the threats against her
life, liberty and security by narrating that since 2007,
suspicious-looking persons have been visiting her Davao City law
office during her absence, posing either as members of the military
or falsely claiming to be clients inquiring on the status of their
cases. Atty Trinidad: she has not committed any act against
national security that would justify the inclusion of her name in
the said OB List. In her Affidavit, she recounted that sometime in
May 2008, two suspicious-looking men on a motorcycle tailed her
vehicle as she went about her day going to different places. She
also recalled that on June 23, 2008, while she was away from home,
three unidentified men tried to barge into their house and later
left on board a plate-less, stainless owner typevehicle. current
Secretary General of the Union of Peoples' Lawyers in Mindanao
(UPLM) and Davao City Coordinator of the Free Legal Assistance
Group (FLAG), ATTY. CARLOS ISAGANI T. ZARATE (Atty. Zarate), was
informed sometime in May 2009 that his name was also among those
included in the OB List made public by Representative Ocampo at a
forum concerning human rights violations in Southern Mindanao. said
[PowerPoint] presentation was leaked by a conscientious soldier
petitioners Ladaga were one in asserting that the OB List is really
a military hit-list as allegedly shown by the fact that there have
already been three victims of extrajudicial killing whose violent
deaths can be linked directly to the OB List respondents' Mapagu
inconsistent statements and obvious prevarication sufficiently
prove their authorship of the subject OB List. Supposedly sourced
from their own Press Releases,respondents have been quoted in
several newspapers as saying: 1) that the 10th ID has its Order of
Battle, and, it is not for public consumption 2) that the Order of
Battle requires thorough confirmation and validation from different
law enforcement agencies, and from various sectors and stakeholders
who are the ones providing the information about the people and
organizations 3) that an order of battle does not target
individuals; it is mainly an assessment of the general threat to
national security; 4) that Representative Ocampo utilized the
material to disrupt the ongoing government efforts in the area by
raising issues and propaganda against the military; 5) that [t]he
public viewing of the falsified document of the OB was a deliberate
act of Representative Ocampo x x x to mar the image of the military
forces, gain media mileage and regain the support of the masses and
local executives; 6) that Reperesentative Ocampo twisted the data
and insinuated names as targets of the AFP/10ID when in fact these
are targets (for infiltration) by the CPP/NPA; and 7) that this
attempt of the CPP to attribute human rights violations to the
Philippine government is a cover to mask their record of killing
people. Its source email address, [email protected], has been
identified by regular correspondent of the Philippine Daily
Inquirer Jeffrey Tupas as the same one used by respondent Lt. Col.
Decapia in sending to him previous official press statements On
June 16, 2009, petitioners separately filed before the RTC a
Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo with Application for
a Production Order RTC issued separate Writs of Amparo25 in each of
the three (3) cases, directing respondents to file a verified
written return within seventy-two (72) hours and setting the case
for summary hearing In her Reply, Atty. Librado-Trinidad averred
that the present petition substantially conformed with the
requirements of the Amparo Rule, as it alleged ultimate facts on
the participation of respondents in the preparation of the OB List,
which naturally requires utmost secrecy. Petitioners Mapagu:
virtual admission to the media of the existence of the OB List, as
well as, the fact that known victims of past extrajudicial killings
have been likewise labeled as communist fronts in similar orders of
battle, more than satisfies the standard required to prove that
petitioners' life, liberty and security are at risk. During the
scheduled summary hearing on June 22, 2009, Representative Ocampo's
oral testimony on the circumstances surrounding his obtention of
the alleged military document was dispensed with and, instead, the
Affidavit he executed on June 30, 2009 was presented in the hearing
held on July 1, 2009 to form part of the documentary exhibits of
petitioners. After submission of the parties' respective Position
Papers, the RTC issued the three separate but similarly-worded
Orders finding no substantial evidence to show that the perceived
threat to petitioners' life, liberty and security was attributable
to the unlawful act or omission of the respondents Petitioners
Ladaga explicated that since respondents were being impleaded as
the responsible officers of the 10th ID the military unit that
supposedly prepared the OB List PowerPoint presentation, their
general denials on the existence of the OB List without taking
serious steps to find the persons actually responsible for the
threat could not discharge respondents from the standard of
diligence required of them under the Amparo Rule. RTC rejected
MRHence, this petition for review on certiorari respondents argue35
that the purported OB List could not have come from the military
because it does not have the distinctive marks and security
classifications of military documents. No proof of threats, nor
that Resps Magpu prepared the list ISSUE: WON Writs of Amparo
should be issued (NO)The writ of amparo was promulgated by the
Court pursuant to its rulemaking powers in response to the alarming
rise in the number of cases of enforced disappearances and
extrajudicial killings. It plays the preventive role of breaking
the expectation of impunity in the commission of extralegal
killings and enforced disappearances, as well as the curative role
of facilitating the subsequent punishment of the perpetrators. In
Tapuz v. Del Rosario: the writ of amparo is an extraordinary remedy
intended to address violations of, or threats to, the rights to
life, liberty or security and that, being a remedy of extraordinary
character, it is not one to issue on amorphous or uncertain grounds
but only upon reasonable certainty. Hence, every petition for the
issuance of the writ is required to be supported by justifying
allegations of fact on the following matters: (a) The personal
circumstances of the petitioner; (b) The name and personal
circumstances of the respondent responsible for the threat, act or
omission, or, if the name is unknown or uncertain, the respondent
may be described by an assumed appellation;(c) The right to life,
liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or threatened
with violation by an unlawful act or omission of the respondent,
and how such threat or violation is committed with the attendant
circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits; (d) The
investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal
circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authority or
individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of the
investigation, together with any report; (e) The actions and
recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the fate or
whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of the person
responsible for the threat, act or omission; and (f) The relief
prayed for. The petition may include a general prayer for other
just and equitable reliefs.ON WHETHER THE TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE
SATISFIES THE DEGREE OF PROOF REQUIRED UNDER THE AMPARO RULE.
Sections 17 and 18 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provide as
follows: SEC. 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence
Required. The parties shall establish their claims by substantial
evidence. x x x x SEC. 18. Judgment. The court shall render
judgment within ten (10) days from the time the petition is
submitted for decision. If the allegations in the petition are
proven by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege
of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate;
otherwise, the privilege shall be denied. Substantial evidence is
that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is more than a mere
imputation of wrongdoing or violation that would warrant a finding
of liability against the person charged. The summary nature of
amparo proceedings, as well as, the use of substantial evidence as
standard of proof shows the intent of the framers of the rule to
address situations of enforced disappearance and extrajudicial
killings, or threats thereof, with what is akin to administrative
proceedings. Suitable to, and consistent with this incipiently
unique and informal treatment of amparo cases, the Court eventually
recognized the evidentiary difficulties that beset amparo
petitioners, arising as they normally would from the fact that the
State itself, through its own agents, is involved in the enforced
disappearance or extrajudicial killing that it is supposedly tasked
by law to investigate. Thus, in Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis, the Court
laid down a new standard of relaxed admissibility of evidence to
enable amparo petitioners to meet the required amount of proof
showing the State's direct or indirect involvement in the purported
violations and found it a fair and proper rule in amparo cases 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. evidence is not to be rejected outright because
it is inadmissible under the rules for as long as it satisfies the
most basic test of reason i.e., relevance of the evidence to the
issue at hand and its consistency with all other pieces of adduced
evidence. This measure of flexibility in the admissibility of
evidence, however, does not do away with the requirement of
substantial evidence in showing the State's involvement in the
enforced disappearance, extrajudicial killing or threats thereof.
It merely permits, in the absence of hard-to-produce direct
evidence, a closer look at the relevance and significance of every
available evidence, 44 including those that are, strictly speaking,
hearsay where the circumstances of the case so require, and allows
the consideration of the evidence adduced in terms of their
consistency with the totality of the evidence Brion: Evidence that
would directly establish a violation of the right to life, liberty
and security is indubitably in the States possession. The same is
not equally true in cases where the amparo petitioner alleges (as
in this case) a threatened violation of his/her rights since the
facts, circumstances and the link between these that create an
actual threat to his/her life are measurably within the ability of
the amparo petitioner to prove. These include, among others, the
alleged documented human rights violations by the military in
Mindanao; documentary and/or testimonial evidence on the militarys
counter-insurgency operations; corroborative evidence to support
the allegations on the presence of suspicious men; and presumptive
evidence linking the deaths of Celso Pojas, Ludenio Monzon and Dr.
Rogelio Peera to their political affiliation and the similarity of
their situation to those of petitioners. A mere inclusion of ones
name in the OB List, without more, does not suffice to discharge
the burden to establish actual threat to ones right to life,
liberty and security by substantial evidence. The statement of
Representative Ocampo that the respondents are the real source of
the OB List is unquestionably hearsay evidence because, except for
the fact that he himself received the OB List from an unnamed
source merely described as a conscientious soldier, he had no
personal knowledge concerning its preparation. But even if the
Court were to apply the appropriate measure of flexibility in the
instant cases by admitting the hearsay testimony of Representative
Ocampo, a consideration of this piece of evidence to the totality
of those adduced, namely, the Press Releases issued by the 10th ID
admitting the existence of a military-prepared Order of Battle, the
affidavits of petitioners attesting to the threatening visits and
tailing of their vehicles by menacing strangers, as well as the
violent deaths of alleged militant personalities, leads to the
conclusion that the threat to petitioners' security has not be
adequately proven. the existence of the OB List could not be
directly associated with the menacing behavior of suspicious men or
the violent deaths of certain personalities, This Court likewise
sees no direct relation between the violent deaths of certain Celso
Pojas, Ludenio Monzon and Dr. Rogelio Peera and the subject OB
List. the existence of the subject OB List has not been adequately
proven, as discussed heretofore, hence, reference to the same finds
no basis. except for Celso Pojas, the names of the supposed victims
of extrajudicial killings are manifestly absent in the subject OB
List and the supposed connection of the victims to the militant
groups explicitly identified in the OB List is nothing short of
nebulous. Moreover, while respondents may have admitted through
various statements to the media that the military has its own Order
of Battle, such an admission is not equivalent to proof that the
subject OB List, which was publicly disclosed by Representative
Ocampo by way of a PowerPoint presentation, is one and the same
with the Order of Battle that the military has in its keeping. the
inclusion of petitioners' names therein does not, by itself,
constitute an actual threat to their rights to life, liberty and
security as to warrant the issuance of a writ of amparo. Secretary
of National Defense v. Manalo: a person's right to security is, in
one sense, freedom from fear and that any threat to the rights to
life, liberty or security is an actionable wrong. The term any
threat, however, cannot be taken to mean every conceivable threat
in the mind that may cause one to fear for his life, liberty or
security. The alleged threat to herein petitioners' Ladagas rights
to life, liberty and security must be actual, and not merely one of
supposition or with the likelihood of happening. And, when the
evidence adduced establishes the threat to be existent, as opposed
to a potential one, then, it goes without saying that the threshold
requirement of substantial evidence in amparo proceedings has also
been met. Thus, in the words of Justice Brion, in the context of
the Amparo rule, only actual threats, as may be established from
all the facts and circumstances of the case, can qualify as a
violation that may be addressed under the Rule on the Writ of
Amparo. The Court may be more yielding to the use of circumstantial
or indirect evidence and logical inferences, but substantial
evidence is still the rule to warrant a finding that the State has
violated, is violating, or is threatening to violate, amparo
petitioners' right to life, liberty or security. CAB: No
substantial evidence of an actual threat to petitioners' life,
liberty and security has been shown to exist in this case.
Emphasizing the extraordinary character of the amparo remedy, the
Court ruled in the cases of Roxas and Razon, Jr. that an amparo
petitioner's failure to establish by substantial evidence the
involvement of government forces in the alleged violation of rights
is never a hindrance for the Court to order the conduct of further
investigation where it appears that the government did not observe
extraordinary diligence in the performance of its duty to
investigate the complained abduction and torture or enforced
disappearance. The Court directed further investigation in the case
of Roxas because the modest efforts of police investigators were
effectively putting petitioner's right to security in danger with
the delay in identifying and apprehending her abductors. In Razon,
Jr., the Court found it necessary to explicitly order the military
and police officials to pursue with extraordinary diligence the
investigation into the abduction and disappearance of a known
activist because not only did the police investigators conduct an
incomplete and one-sided investigation but they blamed their
ineffectiveness to the reluctance and unwillingness of the
relatives to cooperate with the authorities. In both of these
cases, the incidents of abduction and torture were undisputed and
they provided the evidentiary support for the finding that the
right to security was violated and the necessity for further
investigation into such violation. Unlike Roxas and Razon, Jr.,
however, the present petitions do not involve actual cases of
abduction or disappearance that can be the basis of an
investigation. Petitioners Ladaga would insist that respondents
Magpube investigated and directed to produce the Order of Battle
that they have admitted to be in their safekeeping and justify the
inclusion of petitioners' names therein. However, without
substantial evidence of an actual threat to petitioners' rights to
life, liberty and security that consists more than just the
inclusion of their names in an OB List, an order for further
investigation into, or production of, the military's Order of
Battle, would have no concrete basis.DISPOSITIVE: DENIED
Gen Yano vs. Sanchez | COFebruary 11, 2010GEN. ALEXANDER B.
YANO, Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines, LT. GEN.
VICTOR S. IBRADO, Commanding General, Philippine Army, and MAJ.
GEN. RALPH A. VILLANUEVA, Commander, 7th Infantry Division,
Philippine Army, Petitioners, vs. CLEOFAS SANCHEZ and MARCIANA
MEDINA, Respondents.CARPIO MORALES, J
Nature: Petition for writ of amparoSUMMARY: Nicolas and Heherson
went missing. Their mothers filed a petition for a writ of Amparo.
The petition was based on the testimony of Josephine, who testified
that she saw the victims inside a camp. Respondent military
officers denied participation. CA found no link between the
disappearance to the respondent military officers but still granted
reliefs such as inspection and investigation. SC ruled that the
issuance of writ of amparo was properly denied because petitioners
were not able to adduce substantial evidence.Doctrine: The failure
to establish that the public official observed extraordinary
diligence in the performance of duty does not result in the
automatic grant of the privilege of the amparo writ. It does not
relieve the petitioner from establishing his or her claim by
substantial evidence. The omission or inaction on the part of the
public official provides, however, some basis for the court to
grant certain interim reliefs. (However, in this case, the reliefs
should not have been granted since they were stale remedies, in
light of the fact that the petitioners did not appeal). Substantial
evidence such relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion
Facts: Cleofas Sanchez filed before the SC a petition for
issuance of a Writ of Amparo with Motion for Production and
Inspection directed against Gen. Esperon, then Chief of Staff of
the AFP. SC resolved to issue a Writ of Amparo and ordered Gen.
Esperon to make a verified return of the writ before CA Justice
Sundiam, who was ordered to hear and decide the case. Cleofas
amended her petition to include herein co-respondent Marciana
Medina as additional petitioner, and to implead other military
officers including Lt. Sumangil and Sgt. Villalobos. Amended
Petition Cleofas and Marciana alleged that on Sep 17, 2006 at
around 8pm their sons Nicolas Sanchez and Heherson Medina were
catching frogs outside their home in Sitio Dalin, Barangay Bueno,
Capas, Tarlac; that at around 1am the next day, Sep 18, 2006,
Nicolas "wives" Lourdez and Rosalie Sanchez, who were then at home,
heard gunshots and saw armed men in soldiers uniforms passing by;
that at around 4am of the same day, Lourdez and Rosalie went out to
check on Nicolas and Heherson but only saw their caps, slippers,
pana and airgun for catching frogs, as well as bloodstains; and
that they immediately reported the matter to the barangay
officials. Cleofas and Marciana, together with other family
members, proceeded on Sep 19, 2006 to the Capas Station of the PNP.
Accompanied by officials of the National Commission on Indigenous
Peoples (NCIP), they also tried to search for Nicolas and Heherson
at the Camp Detachment of the 71st Infantry Batallion of the
Philippine Army in Barangay Burgos, San Jose, Tarlac, and at the
Camp of the Bravo Company of the Armys 71st Infantry Batallion
inside Hacienda Luisita, Tarlac City, but to no avail. Cleofas and
Marciana alleged that Josephine Galang Victoria, also known as
Antonina Galang, niece of a neighbor, later informed them that she
had seen 2 men inside Camp Servillano Aquino of the Northern Luzon
Command (Nolcom) in San Miguel, Tarlac City on Sep 21, 2006, whom
Josephine identified as Nicolas and Heherson after they had shown
her their photographs Josephine informed them that she saw the
victims again on Sept 24, 2006 and Nov 1, 2006, this time at the
Camp of the Bravo Company inside Hacienda Luisita, where she had
occasion to talk to Lt. Sumangil and Sgt. Villalobos. Cleofas and
Marciana then filed a case on Dec 21, 2006 before the Commission on
Human Rights, which endorsed to the Ombudsman for appropriate
action Contending that the victims life, liberty and security had
been and continued to be violated on account of their forced
disappearance, respondents prayed for the ff: issuance of a writ of
Amparo production of the victims bodies during the hearing on the
Writ, inspection of certain military camps issuance of temporary
and permanent protection orders rendition of judgment under S 18 of
the Rule on the Writ of Amparo Jan 24, 2008: consolidated Return of
the Writ, verified by Gen. Esperon, Lt. Sumangil, Sgt. Villalobos,
Maj. Gen. Gomez as Commander of the Armys 7th Infantry Division,
and Lt. Col. Bayani as Camp Commander of Camp Servillano Aquino of
the Nolcom in Tarlac City, was filed with the CA Lt. Gen. Yano
Commanding General of the Army, filed a Return of the Writ upon his
return from an official trip abroad. In the Return, the military
officers denied having custody of the victims. proper remedy of
respondents was to file a petition for the issuance of a Writ of
Habeas Corpus petitions ultimate objective was the production of
the bodies of the victims, as they were allegedly abducted and
illegally detained by military personnel petition failed to
indicate the matters required by paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), S 5
of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, such that the allegations were
incomplete to constitute a cause of action, aside from being based
on mere hearsay evidence, and are, at best, speculative Cleofas and
Marciana failed to present the affidavits of some other competent
persons which would clearly validate their claim that the military
violated the victims right to life, liberty or security by
abducting or detaining them petition did not allege any specific
action or inaction attributable to the military officers with
respect to their duties; or allege that respondents took any action
by filing a formal complaint or visiting the military camps
adverted to in order to verify Josephines claim that she saw the
victims on two different occasions inside the camps, or that they
took efforts to follow up on the PNP Capas Stations further action
on their complaint Gen. Esperons assertion: in compliance with the
Defense Secretarys directive in relation to cases of Writ of Amparo
against the AFP, he issued directives to the Nolcom Commander and
the Armys Commanding General to investigate and establish the
circumstances surrounding reported disappearances of victims
insofar as the claim on the possible involvement of the military
units was concerned undertook to bring any military personnel
involved, when warranted by the evidence, to the bar of justice
Maj. Gen. Gomez denied having custody or knowledge of the
whereabouts of the victims, stating that it was not army policy to
abduct civilians in his area of responsibility he was away on
official business at the time of the alleged disappearance of the
victims Lt. Col. Bayani attested he was designated Camp Commander
only on Sep 1, 2007 and thus had no personal knowledge about the
victims alleged disappearance or abduction on Sep 18, 2006 he was
informed by his immediate predecessor that no individuals were
detained in the camp as it did not even have detention facilities
in compliance with Gen. Esperons directive, their command was
conducting further investigation to verify the allegations in the
petition Lt. Sumangil denied having spoken to Josephine inside the
camp on Sep 24, 2006, on which date civilians were not allowed to
enter except on official missions or when duly authorized to
conduct transactions inside the camp. Josephine lied in claiming to
have seen the 2 victims inside the Camp of the Bravo Company
Recounted that on Sep 24, 2006, he spoke for the first and only
time, but only at the gate of the camp, with a person who
identified herself as "Antonina Galang," who informed him about the
disappearance of the victims since Sep 18, 2006. Warning him that
these men were members of the New Peoples Army (NPA), she advised
him not to entertain any queries or complaints relative to their
alleged disappearance Sgt. Villalobos disclaimed having any of the
victims in his custody or meeting anyone named Josephine Victoria,
or about the latter having entered the camps kitchen to drink water
Lt. Gen. Yano stated that upon his return from his official
functions overseas, he immediately inquired on the actions taken on
the case. he had never participated directly or indirectly; or
consented, permitted or sanctioned any illegal or illegitimate
military operations In opposing the request for issuance of
inspection and production orders, the military officers posited
that apart from compromising national security should entry into
these military camps/bases be allowed, these orders partook of the
nature of a search warrant, such that the requisites for the
issuance thereof must be complied with prior to their issuance.
such request relied solely on bare, self-serving and vague
allegations contained in Josephines affidavit CA absolved, by the
assailed Decision of Sep 17, 2008, Gen. Esperon, Lt. Gen. Yano,
Maj. Gen. Gomez, and Lt. Col. Bayani for lack of evidence linking
them to the disappearances Reliefs granted by the CA in the
interest of human rights and justice Inspections of camps Thorough
and Impartial Investigation Military officers filed a Motion for
Partial Reconsideration, arguing in the main that since respondents
failed to prove the allegations in their petition by substantial
evidence, the appellate court should not have granted those
reliefs.
Issue: #1: W/N the issuance of the writ of amaparo was properly
denied (YES)#2: W/N granting of reliefs by the CA is proper
(NO)
Held:#1: The issuance of the writ was properly denied because
the witness testimony of Josephine/Antonina has been successfully
destroyed. While Josephines story of how she saw the subject 2
missing persons appeared initially as plausible, however, her
credibility as a witness had been successfully destroyed by the
following witnesses presented by the military officers Barangay
Captain Supan of Cut-Cut II, Tarlac City, attested that she knows a
certain woman named Josephine Galang Victoria who introduces
herself as Antonina Galang, he knows the reputation of Josephine
Victoria as bad regarding her telling the truth, her truthfulness
and integrity, known to fool others and invents stories for money
reasons, that she cannot be trusted even if she is under oath
before God and the State (May galit ka yata kay Josephine, kuya.)
Gloria Galang Mansalay: she is a resident of Cut-Cut II since birth
and knows Josephine because she is her niece being the daughter of
her older brother; her general reputation in telling the truth, her
fidelity and integrity is bad, known to fool others, a liar and
invent [sic] stories for reason of money Clarita Galang Ricafrente
saying that she is a resident of Cut-cut II and Antonina Galang is
a niece and attested the same negative reputations against
Antonina. Said negative testimonies of Josephine Galang Victorias
relatives were never successfully rebutted by her and the SC gives
credence to them. No ill motive [sic] were established against the
said witnesses to testify against Antonina. Antonina Galang stated
that she was in Camp Servillano Aquino when she first saw the
missing persons riding in an army truck because she was visiting
her uncle, Major Henry Galang, allegedly living in the camp. this
story of Antonina Galang was put to doubt. TSG Edgard Reyes who
attested that as a meter reader in the camp, Major Galang was no
longer residing there in September 2006. This testimony and
revelation of TSG Reyes only bolstered the testimonies of the other
witnesses on Antoninas penchant to invent stories or tell a lie. We
are not inclined to give credence to the claims. Antonina Galang
never did see the faces of the two but were known to her through
photographs. Certainly, there may be a difference between
photographs and the faces in person. There was no express
attestation that the 2 missing were in the company of armed men.
The mothers neither moved for reconsideration nor appealed the
appellate courts Sep 17, 2008 Decision. A party who did not appeal
cannot assign such errors as are designed to have the judgment
modified. All that said appellee can do is to make a
counter-assignment of errors or to argue on issues raised at the
trial only for the purpose of sustaining the judgment in his favor,
even on grounds not included in the decision of the court a quo or
raised in the appellants assignment of errors or arguments To avoid
ambiguity in the presentation of issues, facilitate the setting
forth of arguments by the parties, and aid the court in making its
determinations. A party who fails to acquire complete relief from a
decision of the court has various remedies to correct an omission
by the court. He may move for a correction or clarification of
judgment, or even seek its modification through ordinary appeal.
There is thus no basis for the Court to skip the rule and excuse
Cleofas and Marciana for failure to properly avail themselves of
the remedies in the face of the parties contentions that have
remained disputed.
#2: Granting of reliefs by the CA was not proper because reliefs
are intended to assist the Court while it determines amparo
petition. S 17 and 18 of the Amparo Rule lay down the requisite
standard of proof necessary to prove either partys claim SEC. 17.
Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. - The parties
shall establish their claim by substantial evidence. The respondent
who is a private individual or entity must prove that ordinary
diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was
observed in the performance of duty. The respondent who is a public
official or employee must prove that extraordinary diligence as
required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in
the performance of duty. The respondent public official or employee
cannot invoke the presumption that official duty has been regularly
performed to evade responsibility or liability SEC. 18. Judgment. -
The Court shall render judgment within ten (10) days from the time
the petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations in the
petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall grant
the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and
appropriate; otherwise, the privilege shall be denied. Requisite
standard of proof substantial evidence - speaks of the clear intent
of the Rule to have the equivalent of an administrative proceeding,
albeit judicially conducted, in resolving amparo petitions. CA:
evidence adduced in the present case failed to measure up to that
standard substantial evidence which a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion. Since respondents did not
avail of any remedy against the adverse judgment, the appellate
courts decision is, insofar as it concerns them, now beyond the
ambit of review. Failure to establish that the public official
observed extraordinary diligence in the performance of duty does
not result in the automatic grant of the privilege of the amparo
writ. It does not relieve the petitioner from establishing his or
her claim by substantial evidence. The omission or inaction on the
part of the public official provides, however, some basis for the
petitioner to move and for the court to grant certain interim
reliefs. Section 14 of the Amparo Rule provides for interim or
provisional reliefs that the courts may grant in order to, inter
alia, protect the witnesses and the rights of the parties, and
preserve all relevant evidence (Parts reproduced below were those
highlighted by the SC) SEC. 14. Interim Reliefs. Upon filing of the
petition or at anytime before final judgment, the court, justice or
judge may grant any of the following reliefs: (a) Temporary
Protection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon motion or motu
proprio, may order that the petitioner or the aggrieved party and
any member of the immediate family be protected in a government
agency or by an accredited person or private institution capable of
keeping and securing their safety. If the petitioner is an
organization, association or institution referred to in Section 3
(c) of this Rule, the protection may be extended to the officers
involved. (b) Inspection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon
verified motion and after due hearing, may order any person in
possession or control of a designated land or other property, to
permit entry for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying,
or photographing the property or any relevant object or operation
thereon. (c) Production Order. The court, justice, or judge, upon
verified motion and after due hearing, may order any person in
possession, custody or control of any designated documents, papers,
books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things,
or objects in digitized or electronic form, which constitute or
contain evidence relevant to the petition or the return, to produce
and permit their inspection, copying or photographing by or on
behalf of the movant provisional reliefs are intended to assist the
court before it arrives at a judicious determination of the amparo
petition. For the appellate court to, in the present case, still
order the inspection of the military camps and order the army units
to conduct an investigation into the disappearance of Nicolas and
Heherson after it absolved petitioners is thus not in order. The
reliefs granted by the appellate court to respondents are not in
sync with a finding that petitioners could not be held accountable
for the disappearance of the victims. At this late stage,
respondents can no longer avail themselves of their stale remedies
in the guise of praying for affirmative reliefs in their Comment.
No modification of judgment could be granted to a party who did not
appeal If respondents believed that the Sep 17, 2008 Decision of
the CA was merely interlocutory, they had every opportunity to
question the conclusion of said court, but they did not; could have
opposed petitioners MR filed with the appellate court, it being a
prohibited pleadingunder the Amparo Rule, but they did
not.Dispositive: petition is GRANTED. The assailed September 17,
2008 Decision and March 3, 2009 Resolution of the Court of Appeals,
insofar as it grants the assailed earlier-quoted reliefs are SET
ASIDE
Rubrico v. Macapagal-Arroyo | KatFebruary 18, 2010LOURDES D.
RUBRICO, JEAN RUBRICO APRUEBO, and MARY JOY RUBRICO
CARBONEL,Petitioners, vs.GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN. HERMOGENES
ESPERON, P/DIR. GEN. AVELINO RAZON, MAJ. DARWIN SY a.k.a. DARWIN
REYES, JIMMY SANTANA, RUBEN ALFARO, CAPT. ANGELO CUARESMA, a
certain JONATHAN, P/SUPT. EDGAR B. ROQUERO, ARSENIO C. GOMEZ, and
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,Respondents.VELASCO, JR.,J.
SUMMARY: Rubrico claimed to have been abducted by members of the
AFP and PNP. Her family had also been harassed after her release.
She filed a criminal complaint against her abductors with the
Office of the Ombudsman. Later, she filed a petition for issuance
of writ of amparo, naming as respondents President
Macapagal-Arroyo, AFP Gen Esperon, PNP Gen Razon, two local PNP
officials and the abductors. The CA dismissed her petition. Held:
The petition was properly dismissed. The President had immunity
from suit. The generals could not be held liable under the doctrine
of command responsibility. Rubrico also failed to present
substantial evidence to prove her allegations. The SC ordered the
consolidation of the factfinding aspects of the amparo petition
with the investigation of the criminal complaint, and the
incorporation of the allegations in the amparo petition in the same
criminal complaint.DOCTRINE: The Rule on the Writ of Amparo
prohibits the filing of an amparo petition should a criminal action
have been commenced; however when the criminal case is filed after
the amparo petition, the petition shall be consolidated with the
criminal action where the amparo rule shall nonetheless govern the
disposition of the relief.
FACTS: April 3, 2007: Armed men belonging to the 301st Air
Intelligence and Security Squadron (AISS) based in Fernando Air
Base in Lipa City abducted Lourdes D. Rubrico, then attending a
Lentenpabasain Bagong Bayan, Dasmarias, Cavite, and brought to, and
detained at, the air base without charges. Following a week of
relentless interrogation - conducted alternately by hooded
individuals - and what amounts to verbal abuse and mental
harassment, Lourdes, chair of the Ugnayan ng Maralita para sa Gawa
Adhikan, was released at Dasmarias, Cavite, her hometown, but only
after being made to sign a statement that she would be a military
asset. The harassment, being tailed on at least two occasions at
different places, i.e., Dasmarias, Cavite and Baclaran in Pasay
City, by motorcycle-riding men in bonnets, continued; During the
time Lourdes was missing, P/Sr. Insp. Arsenio Gomez, then
sub-station commander of Bagong Bayan, Dasmarias, Cavite, kept
sending text messages to Lourdes daughter, Mary Joy R. Carbonel
(Mary Joy), bringing her to beaches and asking her questions
aboutKarapatan,an alliance of human rights organizations. But, he
failed to make an investigation even after Lourdes disappearance
had been made known to him; A week after Lourdes release, another
daughter, Jean R. Apruebo, was constrained to leave their house
because of the presence of men watching them; Lourdes has filed
with the Office of the Ombudsman a criminal complaint for
kidnapping and arbitrary detention and administrative complaint for
gross abuse of authority and grave misconduct against Capt. Angelo
Cuaresma, Ruben Alfaro, Jimmy Santana and Jonathan, c/o
Headquarters 301st AISS, Fernando Air Base and Maj. Sy/Reyes with
address at No. 09 Amsterdam Ext., Merville Subd., Paraaque City,
but nothing has happened; and the threats and harassment incidents
have been reported to the Dasmarias municipal and Cavite provincial
police stations, but nothing eventful resulted from their
respective investigations. Two of the four witnesses to Lourdes
abduction went into hiding after being visited by government agents
in civilian clothes Karapatan conducted an investigation on the
incidents which indicate that men belonging to the AFP, namely
Capt. Cuaresma of the Philippine Air Force (PAF), Alfaro, Santana,
Jonathan and Maj. Darwin Sy/Reyes, led the abduction of Lourdes;
that unknown to the abductors, Lourdes was able to pilfer a
"mission order" which was addressed to CA Alfaro and signed by
Capt. Cuaresma The petition for the writ of amparo dated October
25, 2007 was originally filed before the SC The petition prayed
that a writ of amparo issue, ordering the individual respondents
(Macapagal-Arroyo et. al) (to desist from performing any
threatening act against the security of the petitioners (Rubricos)
and for the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) to immediately file an
information for kidnapping qualified with the aggravating
circumstance of gender of the offended party. It also prayed for
damages and for Macapagal-Arroyo et. al to produce documents
submitted to any of them on the case of Lourdes. After issuing the
desired writ and directing the Macapagal-Arroyo et. al to file a
verified written return, the Court referred the petition to the CA
for summary hearing and appropriate action. President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo, Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, then AFP Chief of Staff,
Police Director-General (P/Dir. Gen.) Avelino Razon, then PNP
Chief, Police Superintendent (P/Supt.) Roquero of the Cavite Police
Provincial Office, Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Gomez, now retired,
and the OMB filed, through the OSG, a joint return on the writ
specifically denying the material inculpatory averments against
them. OSG also denied the allegations against the impleaded
persons, namely: Cuaresma, Alfaro, Santana, Jonathan, and Sy/Reyes,
for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the allegations truth. General affirmative defenses: (1) the
President may not be sued during her incumbency; and (2) the
petition is incomplete, as it fails to indicate the matters
required by Sec. 5(d) and (e) of the Amparo Rule. Affidavits
attached to the return: Gen. Esperon: Pursuant to a directive of
then Sec. of National Defense (SND) Teodoro, Jr., he ordered the
Commanding General of the PAF to conduct an investigation to
establish the circumstances behind the disappearance and the
reappearance of Lourdes insofar as the involvement of alleged
personnel/unit is concerned. The Provost Marshall General and the
Office of the Judge Advocate General (JAGO), AFP, also undertook a
parallel action. Gen. Esperon manifested his resolve to provide the
CA with material results of the investigation; to continue with the
probe on the alleged abduction of Lourdes and to bring those
responsible, including military personnel, to the bar of justice
when warranted by the findings and the competent evidence that may
be gathered; P/Dir. Gen. Razon: an investigation he immediately
ordered upon receiving a copy of the petition is on-going, and a
background verification with the PNP Personnel Accounting and
Information System disclosed that the names Santana, Alfaro,
Cuaresma and Jonathan do not appear in the police personnel
records, although the PNP files carry the name of Darwin Reyes Y.
Muga. Per the initial investigation report of the Dasmarias
municipal police station, P/Dir. Gen. Razon disclosed, Lourdes was
abducted by six armed men in the afternoon of April 3, 2007 and
dragged aboard a Toyota Revo with plate number XRR 428, which plate
was issued for a Mitsubishi van to AK Cottage Industry with address
at 9 Amsterdam St., Merville Subd., Paraaque City. The person
residing in the apartment on that given address is one Darius/Erwin
See @ Darius Reyes allegedly working, per the latters house helper,
in Camp Aguinaldo. P/Dir. Gen. Razon: Mrs. Rubrico never contacted
nor coordinated with the local police or other investigating units
of the PNP after her release, although she is in the best position
to establish the identity of her abductors and/or provide positive
description through composite sketching. He manifested that the PNP
is ready to assist and protect the Rubricos and the key witnesses
from threats, harassments and intimidation from whatever source and
to assist the Court in the implementation of its orders. P/Supt.
Roquero: started conducting, upon receipt of Lourdes complaint, an
investigation and submitting the corresponding report to the PNP
Calabarzon, observing that neither Lourdes nor her relatives
provided the police with relevant information; P/Insp. Gomez:
alleged that Lourdes, her kin and witnesses refused to cooperate
with the investigating Cavite PNP; and Overall Deputy Ombudsman
Orlando Casimiro: cases for violation of Articles 267 and 124, or
kidnapping and arbitrary detention, respectively, have been filed
with, and are under preliminary investigation by the OMB against
those believed to be involved in Lourdes kidnapping; Upon receipt
of the petition for a writ ofamparo, proper coordination was made
with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and other
Law Enforcement Offices (MOLEO) where the subject criminal and
administrative complaints were filed. Rubricos arguments: The
return was no more than a general denial of averments in the
petition. They, thus, pleaded to be allowed to present evidenceex
parteagainst the President, Santana, Alfaro, Capt. Cuaresma, Darwin
Sy, and Jonathan. And with leave of court, they also asked to serve
notice of the petition through publication, owing to their failure
to secure the current address of the latter five and thus submit,
as the CA required, proof of service of the petition on them. The
hearing started on November 13, 2007. In that setting, Rubricos
counsel prayed for the issuance of a temporary protection order
(TPO) against Macapagal-Arroyo et.al. on the basis of the
allegations in the petition. November 20, 2007 hearing:, the CA
granted Rubricos motion that the petition and writ be served by the
courts process server on Darwin Sy/Reyes, Santana, Alfaro, Capt.
Cuaresma, and Jonathan. CA: dropped the President as respondent;
denied TPO; and effectively denied the motion for notice by
publication owing to Rubricos failure to submit the affidavit
required under Sec. 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. CA (July 31,
2008): dismissed petition with respect to respondent Gen. Esperon,
P/Dir. Gen. Razon, Supt. Roquero, P/Sr. Insp. Gomez (ret.) and the
Office of the Ombudsman. Nevertheless, in order that Rubricos
complaint will not end up as another unsolved case, the heads of
the AFP and the PNP are directed to ensure that the investigations
already commenced are diligently pursued to bring the perpetrators
to justice. The Chief of Staff of the AFP and P/Dir. Gen. Avelino
Razon are directed to regularly update Rubricos and this Court on
the status of their investigation. Hence petition for reviewISSUE
#1: W/N the President should be dropped as party respondent? YES
RATIO #1: The presidential immunity from suit remains preserved
under our system of government, albeit not expressly reserved in
the present constitution Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J. observed that it
was already understood in jurisprudence that the President may not
be sued during his or her tenure. The President, during his tenure
of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or
criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in the
Constitution or law. It will degrade the dignity of the high office
of the President, the Head of State, if he can be dragged into
court litigations while serving as such. It is important that he be
freed from any form of harassment, hindrance or distraction to
enable him to fully attend to the performance of his official
duties and functions. Unlike the legislative and judicial branch,
only one constitutes the executive branch and anything which
impairs his usefulness in the discharge of the many great and
important duties imposed upon him by the Constitution necessarily
impairs the operation of the Government. And lest it be overlooked,
the petition is simply bereft of any allegation as to what specific
presidential act or omission violated or threatened to violate
Rubricos protected rights.ISSUE #2: W/N the peitition should be
dismissed? YESRATIO #2: None of the four individual respondents
(Esperon et. al.) has been implicated as being connected to, let
alone as being behind, the alleged abduction and harassment of
Lourdes. Their names were not even mentioned in LourdesSinumpaang
Salaysayof April 2007 nor in the respective Sinumpaang Salaysay
and/or Karagdagang Sinumpaang Salaysayof Jeanand Mary Joy. CA: Gen.
Esperon and P/Dir. Gen. Razon were included in the case on the
theory that they, as commanders, were responsible for the unlawful
acts allegedly committed by their subordinates against the
Rubricos. "The privilege of the writ of amparo must be denied as
against Gen. Esperon and P/Dir. Gen. Razon for the simple reason
that the Rubricos have not presented evidence showing that those
who allegedly abducted and illegally detained Lourdes and later
threatened her and her family were, in fact, members of the
military or the police force." The two generals would have been
accountable for the abduction and threats if the actual malefactors
were members of the AFP or PNP. As regards the three other
answering respondents (Roquero et. al.), they were impleaded
because they allegedly had not exerted the required extraordinary
diligence in investigating and satisfactorily resolving Lourdes
disappearance or bringing to justice the actual perpetrators of
what amounted to a criminal act, albeit there were allegations
against P/Insp. Gomez of acts constituting threats against Mary
Joy.
COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY While in a qualified sense tenable, the
dismissal by the CA of the case as against Gen. Esperon and P/Dir.
Gen. Razon is incorrect if viewed against the backdrop of the
stated rationale underpinning the assailed decision vis--vis the
two generals, i.e., command responsibility. The Court assumes the
latter stance owing to the fact that command responsibility, as a
concept defined, developed, and applied under international law,
has little, if at all, bearing in amparo proceedings. The evolution
of the command responsibility doctrine finds its context in the
development of laws of war and armed combats. "Command
responsibility" means 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." Command responsibility is properly a form of criminal
complicity. The Hague Conventions of 1907 adopted the doctrine of
command responsibility,foreshadowing the present-day precept of
holding a superior accountable for the atrocities committed by his
subordinates should he be remiss in his duty of control over them.
As then formulated, command responsibility is "an omission mode of
individual criminal liability," whereby the superior is made
responsible forcrimes committedby his subordinates for failing to
prevent or punish the perpetrators(as opposed to crimes he
ordered). The doctrine has recently been codified in the Rome
Statuteof the International Criminal Court (ICC) to which the
Philippines is signatory. Sec. 28 of the Statute imposes individual
responsibility on military commanders for crimes committed by
forces under their control. The country is, however, not yet
formally bound by the terms and provisions embodied in this
treaty-statute, since the Senate has yet to extend concurrence in
its ratification. While there are several pending bills on command
responsibility,there is still no Philippine law that provides for
criminal liability under that doctrine. 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
have done, as a form of criminal complicity through omission, for
individual respondents criminal liability (Esperon et. al) , if
there be any, is beyond the reach of amparo. 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. Secretary of National Defense v.
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
of administrative liability requiring substantial evidence that
will require full and exhaustive proceedings." Razon v. Tagitis:
(Nature and role of writ of Amparo) It does not determine guilt nor
pinpoint criminal culpability for the disappearance [threats
thereof or extra-judicial killings]; it determines responsibility,
or at least accountability, for the enforced disappearance [threats
thereof or extra-judicial killings] for purposes of imposing the
appropriate remedies to address the disappearance [or
extra-judicial killings]. As the law now stands, extra-judicial
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. Reason: The Legislature has not spoken on the matter; the
determination of what acts are criminal are matters of substantive
law that only the Legislature has the power to enact. If command
responsibility were to be invoked and applied to these proceedings,
it should, at most, be only to determine the author who, at the
first instance, is accountable for, and has the duty to address,
the disappearance and harassments complained of, so as to enable
the Court to devise remedial measures that may be appropriate under
the premises to protect rights covered by the writ of amparo. The
determination should not be pursued to fix criminal liability on
respondents preparatory to criminal prosecution, or as a prelude to
administrative disciplinary proceedings under existing
administrative issuances, if there be any.NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
The Rubricos have not adduced substantial evidence pointing to
government involvement in the disappearance of Lourdes. The
Rubricos have not shown that the actual perpetrators of the
abduction and the harassments that followed formally or informally
formed part of either the military or the police chain of command.
A preliminary police investigation report, would tend to show a
link, however hazy, between the license plate of the vehicle
allegedly used in the abduction of Lourdes and the address of
Darwin Reyes/Sy, who was alleged to be working in Camp Aguinaldo.
Then there were affidavits and testimonies on events that
transpired which, if taken together, logically point to military
involvement in the alleged disappearance of Lourdes, such as, but
not limited to, her abduction in broad daylight, her being forcibly
dragged to a vehicle blindfolded and then being brought to a place
where the sounds of planes taking off and landing could be heard.
Mention may also be made of the fact that Lourdes was asked about
her membership in the Communist Party and of being released when
she agreed to become an "asset." The identities and links to the
AFP or the PNP of the alleged abductors, namely Cuaresma, Alfaro,
Santana, Jonathan, and Sy/Reyes, have yet to be established. Based
on the separate sworn statements of Maj. Paul Cianoand Technical
Sergeant John N. Romano, officer-in-charge and a staff of the 301st
AISS, none of the alleged abductors of Lourdes belonged to the
301st AISS based in San Fernando Air Base. Neither were they
members of any unit of the Philippine Air Force, per the
certificationof Col. Raul Dimatactac, Air Force Adjutant. A
verification with the Personnel Accounting and Information System
of the PNP yielded the information that, except for a certain
Darwin Reyes y Muga, the other alleged abductors, i.e., Cuaresma,
Alfaro, Santana and Jonathan, were not members of the PNP. The
Rubricos, when given the opportunity to identify Police Officer 1
Darwin Reyes y Muga, made no effort to confirm if he was the same
Maj. Darwin Reyes a.k.a. Darwin Sy they were implicating in Lourdes
abduction. The Rubricos have not successfully controverted Esperon
et. als documentary evidence, adduced to debunk the formers
allegations directly linking Lourdes abductors and tormentors to
the military or the police establishment. Lourdes, when queried on
cross-examination, expressed the belief that Sy/Reyes was an NBI
agent. The Court is aware of what was referred to in Razonas the
"evidentiary difficulties" presented by the nature of, and
encountered by the Rubricos in, enforced disappearance cases. But
it is precisely for this reason that the Court should take care too
that no wrong message is sent, lest one conclude that any kind or
degree of evidence, even the outlandish, would suffice to secure
amparo remedies and protection. Sec. 17, as complemented by Sec. 18
of the Amparo Rule, expressly prescribes the minimum evidentiary
substantiation requirement and norm to support a cause of action
under the Rule, thus: Sec. 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of
Diligence Required.The parties shall establish their claims by
substantial evidence. Sec. 18. Judgment.x x x If the allegations in
the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall
grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper
and appropriate; otherwise, the privilege shall be denied.
Substantial evidence is more than a mere imputation of wrongdoing
or violation that would warrant a finding of liability against the
person charged;it is more than a scintilla of evidence. It means
such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally
reasonable minds might opine otherwise. Per the CAs evaluation of
their evidence, consisting of the testimonies and affidavits of the
three Rubrico women and five other individuals, The Rubricos have
not satisfactorily hurdled the evidentiary bar required of and
assigned to them under the AmparoRule. In a very real sense, the
burden of evidence never even shifted to answering respondents.
POLICE OFFICERS NOT INVOLVED As regards P/Supt. Romero and P/Insp.
Gomez, the Court is more than satisfied that they have no direct or
indirect hand in the alleged enforced disappearance of Lourdes and
the threats against her daughters. As police officers, though,
theirs was the duty to thoroughly investigate the abduction of
Lourdes, a duty that would include looking into the cause, manner,
and like details of the disappearance; identifying witnesses and
obtaining statements from them; and following evidentiary leads,
such as the Toyota Revo vehicle with plate number XRR 428, and
securing and preserving evidence related to the abduction and the
threats that may aid in the prosecution of the person/s
responsible. As we said inManalo,the right to security, as a
guarantee of protection by the government, is breached by the
superficial and one-sidedhence, ineffectiveinvestigation by the
military or the police of reported cases under their jurisdiction.
As found by the CA, the local police stations concerned, including
P/Supt. Roquero and P/Insp. Gomez, did conduct a preliminary
fact-finding on Rubricos complaint. They could not, however, make
any headway, owing to what was perceived to be the refusal of
Lourdes, her family, and her witnesses to cooperate. Rubricos
counsel, Atty. Rex J.M.A. Fernandez, provided a plausible
explanation for his clients and their witnesses attitude, "They do
not trust the government agencies to protect them." The difficulty
arising from a situation where the party whose complicity in
extra-judicial killing or enforced is alleged to be the same party
who investigates it is understandable, though. The seeming
reluctance on the part of the Rubricos or their witnesses to
cooperate ought not to pose a hindrance to the police in pursuing,
on its own initiative, the investigation in question to its natural
end. The right to security of persons is a guarantee of the
protection of ones right by the government. And this protection
includes conducting effective investigations of extra-legal
killings, enforced disappearances, or threats of the same kind.
Rodriguezcase: The duty to investigate must be undertaken in a
serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be
ineffective. An investigation must have an objective and be assumed
by the State as its own legal duty,not a step taken by private
interests that depends upon the initiative of the victimor his
family or upon offer of proof, without an effective search for the
truth by the government. NOT HARASSED There is nothing concrete to
support the charge of having been harassed by respondent P/Insp.
Gomez, save for Mary Joys bare allegations of harassment. During
her cross-examination, when asked what specific act or threat P/Sr.
Gomez committed against her or her mother and sister, Mary Joy
replied "None "OMB TOOK ACTION OMB has taken the necessary
appropriate action on said complaint. As culled from the
affidavitof the Deputy Overall Ombudsman and the joint affidavitsof
the designated investigators, all dated November 7, 2007, the OMB
had, on the basis of said complaint, commenced criminaland
administrative proceedings against Cuaresma, Alfaro, Santana,
Jonathan, and Sy/Reyes. The requisite orders for the submission of
counter-affidavits and verified position papers had been sent
out.PRIVILEGE OF WRIT OF AMPARO The privilege of the writ of
amparo, to reiterate, is a remedy available to victims of
extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances or threats of
similar nature, regardless of whether the perpetrator of the
unlawful act or omission is a public official or employee or a
private individual.NOT PROVIDED CORRECT ADDRESSES AND NO SUPPORTING
AFFIDAVITS Rubricos have not provided the CA with the correct
addresses of respondents Cuaresma, Alfaro, Santana, Jonathan, and
Sy/Reyes. The mailed envelopes containing the petition for a writ
of amparo individually addressed to each of them have all been
returned unopened. Rubricos motion before the appellate court for
notice or service via publication has not been accompanied by
supporting affidavits as required by the Rules of Court. The
appealed CA partial judgmentdisposing of the underlying petition
for a writ of amparo without (1) pronouncement as to the
accountability, or lack of it, of the four non-answering
respondents or (2) outright dismissal of the same petition as to
themhews to the prescription of Sec. 20 of the Amparo Rule on
archiving and reviving cases. Rubricos have also not furnished this
Court with sufficient data as to where the afore-named respondents
may be served a copy of their petition for review.NO LINK The
petition did not allege ultimate facts as would link the OMB in any
manner to the violation or threat of violation of the petitioners
rights to life, liberty, or personal security.PRIVILEGE OF WRIT OF
AMPARO The privilege of the writ of amparo is envisioned basically
to protect and guarantee the rights to life, liberty, and security
of persons, free from fears and threats that vitiate the quality of
this life.It is an extraordinary writ conceptualized and adopted in
light of and in response to the prevalence of extra-legal killings
and enforced disappearances. Accordingly, the remedy ought to be
resorted to and granted judiciously, lest the ideal sought by the
Amparo Rule be diluted and undermined by the indiscriminate filing
of amparo petitions for purposes less than the desire to secure
amparo reliefs and protection and/or on the basis of
unsubstantiated allegations.NO SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE Rubricos failed
to adduce the threshold substantive evidence to establish the
predicate facts to support their cause of action, i.e., the
adverted harassments and threats to their life, liberty, or
security, against responding respondents, as responsible for the
disappearance and harassments complained of. This is not to say,
however, that Rubricos allegation on the fact of the abduction
incident or harassment is necessarily contrived. The reality on the
ground, however, is that the military or police connection has not
been adequately proved either by identifying the malefactors as
components of the AFP or PNP; or in case identification is not
possible, by showing that they acted with the direct or indirect
acquiescence of the government. For this reason, the Court is
unable to ascribe the authorship of and responsibility for the
alleged enforced disappearance of Lourdes and the harassment and
threats on her daughters to individual respondents. To this extent,
the dismissal of the case against them is correct and must,
accordingly, be sustained.AMPARO RELIEFS The appealed decision
veritably extended the privilege of the writ of amparo to the
Rubricos when it granted what to us are amparo reliefs. Consider:
the appellate court decreed, and rightly so, that the police and
the military take specific measures for the protection of Rubricos
right or threatened right to liberty or security. The protection
came in the form of directives specifically to Gen. Esperon and
P/Dir. Gen. Razon, requiring each of them (1) to ensure that the
investigations already commenced by the AFP and PNP units,
respectively, under them on the complaints of Lourdes and her
daughters are being pursued with urgency to bring to justice the
perpetrators of the acts complained of; and (2) to submit to the
CA, copy furnished the petitioners, a regular report on the
progress and status of the investigations. The directives obviously
go to Gen. Esperon in his capacity as head of the AFP and, in a
sense, chief guarantor of order and security in the country. P/Dir.
Gen. Razon is called upon to perform a duty pertaining to the PNP,
a crime-preventing, investigatory, and arresting institution. As
the CA, however, formulated its directives, no definitive time
frame was set in its decision for the completion of the
investigation and the reportorial requirements. It also failed to
consider Gen. Esperon and P/Dir. Gen. Razons imminent compulsory
retirement from the military and police services, respectively. The
CA directives, as hereinafter redefined and amplified to fully
enforce the amparo remedies, are hereby given to, and shall be
directly enforceable against, whoever sits as the commanding
general of the AFP and the PNP.TWO POSTULATES and their
implications need highlighting for a proper disposition of this
case [IMPT] First, a criminal complaint for kidnapping and,
alternatively, for arbitrary detention rooted in the same acts and
incidents leading to the filing of the subject amparo petition has
been instituted with the OMB. The usual initial steps to determine
the existence of aprima faciecase against the five (5) impleaded
individuals suspected to be actually involved in the detention of
Lourdes have been set in motion. It must be pointed out, though,
that the filingof the OMB complaint came before the effectivity of
the Amparo Rule on October 24, 2007. Second, Sec. 22of the Amparo
Rule proscribes the filing of an amparo petition should a criminal
action have, in the meanwhile, been commenced. The succeeding Sec.
23,on the other hand, provides that when the criminal suit is filed
subsequent to a petition for amparo, the petition shall be
consolidated with the criminal action where the Amparo Rule shall
nonetheless govern the disposition of the relief under the Rule.
Under the terms of said Sec. 22, the present petition ought to have
been dismissed at the outset. But as things stand, the outright
dismissal of the petition by force of that section is no longer
technically feasible in light of the interplay of the following
factual mix: (1) the Court has, pursuant to Sec. 6of the Rule,
already issued ex parte the writ of amparo; (2) the CA, after a
summary hearing, has dismissed the petition, but not on the basis
of Sec. 22; and (3) the complaint in OMB named as respondents only
those believed to be the actual abductors of Lourdes, while the
instant petition impleaded, in addition, those tasked to
investigate the kidnapping and detention incidents and their
superiors at the top. Yet, the acts and/or omissions subject of the
criminal complaint and the amparo petition are so linked as to call
for the consolidation of both proceedings to obviate the mischief
inherent in a multiplicity-of-suits situation. Given the above
perspective and to fully apply the beneficial nature of the writ of
amparo as an inexpensive and effective tool to protect certain
rights violated or threatened to be violated, the Court hereby
adjusts to a degree the literal application of Secs. 22 and 23 of
the Amparo Rule to fittingly address the situation obtaining under
the premises. Towards this end, two things are at once indicated:
(1) the consolidation of the probe and fact-finding aspects of the
instant petition with the investigation of the criminal complaint
before the OMB; and (2) the incorporation in the same criminal
complaint of the allegations in this petition bearing on the
threats to the right to security. Withal, the OMB should be
furnished copies of the investigation reports to aid that body in
its own investigation and eventual resolution of OMB Case. OMB
shall be given easy access to all pertinent documents and evidence,
if any, adduced before the CA. Lourdes, as complainant in OMB case,
should be allowed, if so minded, to amend her basic criminal
complaint if the consolidation of cases is to be fully
effective.DISPOSITION: PARTIALLY GRANTS this petition for review
Affirming the dropping of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from
the petition for a writ of amparo; Affirming the dismissal of the
amparo case as against Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, and P/Dir. Gen.
Avelino Razon, insofar as it tended, under the command
responsibility principle, to attach accountability and
responsibility to them, as then AFP Chief of Staff and then PNP
Chief, for the alleged enforced disappearance of Lourdes and the
ensuing harassments allegedly committed against petitioners. The
dismissal of the petition with respect to the OMB is also affirmed
for failure of the petition to allege ultimate facts as to make out
a case against that body for the enforced disappearance of Lourdes
and the threats and harassment that followed; and Directing the
incumbent Chief of Staff, AFP, or his successor, and the incumbent
Director-General of the PNP, or his successor, to ensure that the
investigations already commenced by their respective units on the
alleged abduction of Lourdes Rubrico and the alleged harassments
and threats she and her daughters were made to endure are pursued
with extraordinary diligence as required by Sec. 1749of the Amparo
Rule. They shall order their subordinate officials, in particular,
to do the following: Determine based on records, past and present,
the identities and locations of respondents Maj. Darwin Sy, a.k.a.
Darwin Reyes, Jimmy Santana, Ruben Alfaro, Capt. Angelo Cuaresma,
and one Jonathan; and submit certifications of this determination
to the OMB with copy furnished to petitioners, the CA, and this
Court; Pursue with extraordinary diligence the evidentiary leads
relating to Maj. Darwin Sy and the Toyota Revo vehicle with Plate
No. XRR 428; and Prepare, with the assistance of petitioners and/or
witnesses, cartographic sketches of respondents Maj. Sy/Reyes,
Jimmy Santana, Ruben Alfaro, Capt. Angelo Cuaresma, and a certain
Jonathan to aid in positively identifying and locating them. The
investigations shall be completed not later than six (6) months
from receipt of this Decision; and within thirty (30) days after
completion of the investigations, the Chief of Staff of the AFP and
the Director-General of the PNP shall submit a full report of the
results of the investigations to the Court, the CA, the OMB, and
petitioners. This case is accordingly referred back to the CA for
the purpose of monitoring the investigations and the actions of the
AFP and the PNP.*May Separate Opinion rin si Carpio Morales but on
command responsibility not the writ so I wont put it naSeparate
Opinion BRION,J. (only on Amparo parts) With this law (of Republic
Act No. 9851 (RA 9851), otherwise known as "An Act Defining and
Penalizing Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide
and Other Crimes Against Humanity, Organizing Jurisdiction,
Designating Special Courts, and for Related Purposes" which defined
enforced or involuntary disappearance, and liability under the
doctrine of command responsibility), the Rule on the Writ
ofAmparois now a procedural law anchored, not only on the
constitutional rights to the rights to life, liberty and security,
but on a concrete statutory definition as well of what an "enforced
or involuntary disappearance" is. The doctrine of command
responsibility is a substantive rule that establishes criminal or
administrative liability that is different from the purpose and
approach of the Amparo Rule. The Amparo Rule merely provides for a
procedural protective remedy against violations or threats of
violations of the constitutional rights to life, liberty and
security. It does not addresscriminal, civil or administrative
liabilityas these are matters determined from the application of
substantive law. Liability under the doctrine of command
responsibility is no longer simply administrative (based on neglect
of duty),but is now criminal. This new development all the more
stresses that the doctrine of command responsibility has limited
application to the Rule on the Writ ofAmparowhose concern is the
protection of constitutional rights through procedural remedies.
The factual issue an Amparo case directly confronts is whether
there has been a disappearance or an extrajudicial killing or
threats to the constitutional rights to life, liberty and security.
If at all possible, a preliminary determination can be made on who
could have perpetrated the acts complained of, but only for the
purpose of pointing the way to the remedies that should be
undertaken. On the basis of a positive finding, the case proceeds
to its main objective of defining and directing the appropriate
procedural remedies to address the threat, disappearance or
killing.In meeting these issues, theAmparoRule specifies the
standard of diligence that responsible public officials carry in
the performance of their duties. Expressly,one duty theAmparoRule
commands is the investigation of a reported crime that, by law, the
police is generally duty bound to address. It has never been the
intention of the Amparo Rule to determine liability, whether
criminal or administrative; the Court, under theAmparoRule, can
only direct that procedural remedies be undertaken for the
protection of constitutional rights to life, liberty and security.
Theponenciaholds that the needed additional actions should be
undertaken by the CA. I concur with this ruling as it is legally
correct; the CA started the fact-finding on the case and has
adequate powers and capability to pursue it. I wish to reiterate in
this Separate Opinion, however, that an alternative way exists that
is more direct and more efficient in achieving the goals of the
Rule on theWritofAmparo i.e. the full and complete investigation
with the observance of extraordinary diligence, and the
recommendation for the prosecution of the parties who appear to be
responsible for the violation of the constitutional rights to life,
liberty and security. This alternative is based on the relevant
provisions of theAmparoRule, particularly Sections 20 to 23 which
provide: SECTION 20. Archiving and Revival of Cases. The court
shall not dismiss the petition, but shall archive it, if upon its
determination it cannot proceed for a valid cause such as the
failure of petitioner or witnesses to appear due to threats on
their lives. A periodic review of the archived cases shall be made
by theAmparocourt that shall, motu proprioor upon motion by any
party, order their revival when ready for further proceedings. The
petition shall be dismissed with prejudice upon failure to
prosecute the case after the lapse of two (2) years from notice to
the petitioner of the order archiving the case. The clerks of court
shall submit to the Office of the Court Administrator a
consolidated list of archived cases under this Rule not later than
the first week of January of every year. SECTION 21. Institution of
Separate Actions. This Rule shall not preclude the filing of
separate criminal, civil or administrative actions. SECTION 22.
Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action When a criminal action has
been commenced, no separate petition shall be filed. The reliefs
under the writ shall be available by motion in the criminal case.
The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the
reliefs available under the writ of amparo. SECTION 23.
Consolidation. When a criminal action is filed subsequent to the
filing of a petition for the writ, the latter shall be consolidated
with the criminal action. When a criminal action and a separate
civil action are filed subsequent to a petition for a writ
ofAmparo, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal
action. After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall
continue to apply to the disposition of the reliefs in the
petition. SECTION 26. Applicability to Pending Cases. This Rule
shall govern cases involving extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances or threats thereof pending in the trial and
appellate courts. Section 22 of theAmparoRule would be the closest
provision to apply to the present case since a criminal action has
been commenced before the Ombudsman (on April 19, 2007) before the
present petition was filed on October 25, 2007. Under Section 22,
no petition for the Writ ofAmparocan technically be filed because
of the previous commencement of criminal action before the
Ombudsman. In the regular course, the present petition should have
been dismissed outright at the first instance. Yet, as the case
developed, the Court issued the Writ ofAmparoand the CA denied the
petition on other grounds. As things now stand, it appears late in
the day to dismiss the petition on the basis of Section 22. We
should consider, too, that the present petition came under a unique
non-repeatable circumstance the Ombudsman complaint was filed
before the Amparo Rule took effect; thus, the petitioners did not
really have a choice of remedies when they filed the criminal
complaint before the Ombudsman. There is likewise the consideration
that the Ombudsman complaint was only against the perceived
perpetrators of the kidnapping, whereas the present petition
impleaded even those who had the duty to investigate or could
effectively direct investigation of the case. The kidnapping and
the threats that resulted, too, are inextricably linked and should
not separately and independently be considered under prevailing
procedural rules. Under the circumstances, I believe that the best
approach is to simply avail of the possibilities that the combined
applicationof the above-quoted provisions offer,
appropriatelymodified to fit the current situation. Thus, this
Court can simply consolidate the investigative and fact-finding
aspects of the present petition with the investigation of the
criminal complaint before the Ombudsman, directing in the process
that the threats to the right to security aired in the present
petition be incorporated in the Ombudsman complaint. Necessarily,
all the records and evidence so far adduced before the CA should
likewise be turned over and be made available to the Ombudsman in
its investigation, in accordance with the dispositions made in this
Decision. For purposes of its delegated investigative and
fact-finding authority, the Ombudsman should be granted the
complete investigative power available under the Amparo Rule. The
petitioners should be allowed, as they see fit, to amend their
Ombudsman complaint to give full effect to this consolidation. In
the above manner, the Court continues to exercise jurisdiction over
the Amparo petition and any interim relief issue that may arise,
taking into account the Ombudsmans investigative and fact-finding
recommendations. The Ombudsman, for its part, shall rule on the
complaint before it in accordance with its authority under Republic
Act 6770 and its implementing rules and regulations, and report to
the Court its investigative and fact-finding recommendations on the
Amparo petition within one year from the promulgation of this
Decision. The incumbent Chiefs of the AFP and the PNP and their
successors shall remain parties to the Ombudsman case and to the
present petition in light of and under the terms of the
consolidation, and can be directed to act, as the ponencia does
direct them to act. Now that the case has been remanded for further
investigation and monitoring to the Court of Appeals, the
investigation using the standards of extraordinary diligence now
rests with that court to enforce, using all the powers and
authority that this Court can grant under the Rule on the Writ
ofAmparo.
Rev. Fr. Reyes v. CA | MabelRevered Father Robert Reyes,
Petitioner vsRaul Gonzales, in his capacity as the secretary of the
CA, secretary Department of Justice, and Commissioner Marcelino
Libanan, in his capacity as the Commissioner of the Bureau of
Immigration, respondentsDecember 3, 2009Leonardo-De Castro, J.
Nature: Rule 45 petitionSummary: Fr. Reyes was arrested in the
Manila Peninsula Seige. A criminal case for rebellion was filed
against him. Pursuant to this criminal case, a Hold Departure Order
was issued by the DOJ. However, even after the criminal case has
been dismissed, the Hold Departure Order subsisted. Fr. Reyes then
filed before the SC a Writ of Amparo alleging that the Hold
Departure Order violates his right to liberty. The SC denied his
request on the ground that the direct recourse to the SC is
inappropriate, and that the request to lift the order should have
been filed before the RTC. Also, the constitutionality of the
circulars granting DOJ the power to issue HDO cannot be raised.
Doctrine: That the Amparo Rule in its present form is confined
to the two instances of extralegal killings and enforces
disappearances, or to threats thereof. When a criminal action has
been commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be filed.
The reliefs under the writ shall be available by motion in the
criminal case.1avFacts: Petitioner Father Reyes was among those
arrested in the Manila Peninsula Hotel siege. Together with 50
others, Father Reyes was brought to Camp Crame to await inquest
proceesings. In the evening of the same day, the DOJ Panel of
Prosecutors conducted inquest proceedings to ascertin whether or
not there was probable cause to hold Father Reyes and the others
for trial on charges of Rebellion and/or Inciting to Rebellion.
Subsequently, upon the request of the DILG, respondent DOJ
Secretary Gonzales issued Hold Departure Order (HDO) ordering
respondent Commissioner of Immigration to include in the Hold
Departure List of the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID)
the name of Father Reyes and 49 others relative to the Rebellion
cases in the interest of national security and public safety. After
finding probable cause against Father Reyes and 36 others for the
crime of Rebellion under Art. 134 RPC, the DOJ Panel of Prosecutors
filed an Information before the RTC. Father Reyes filed a Motion
for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause and Release of the
Accused Fr. Reyes Upon Recognizance He asserted that the DOJ panel
failed to produce any evidence indicating his specific
participation in the crime charged; and that under the
Constitution, the determination of probable cause must be made
personally by a judge RTC then issued an Order dismissing the
charge for Rebellion against Fr. Reyes and 17 others for lack of
probable cause. RTC explained that the evidence submitted by the
DOJ Panel of Investigating Prosecutors failed to show that Fr.
Reyes and the other accused-civilians consipired and confederated
with the accused-soldiers in taking arms against the government;
that Fr. Reyes and other accused-civilians were arrested because
they ignored the call of the police despite the deadline given to
them to come out from the hotel; and that the mere presence at the
scene of the crime and expressing ones sentiments on electora and
political reforms did not make then conspirators absent cncrete
evidence that the accused-civilians knew beforehand the intent of
the accused-soldiers to commit rebellion; and that the cooperation
which the law penalizes must be one that is knowingly and
intentionally rendered. Fr. Reyes counsel, Atty. Francisco Chavez,
then wrote the DOJ Secretay requesting the lifting of the HDO in
view of the dismissal of the Criminal Case. On the same date, Sec.
Gonzales relied to the letter stating that the DOJ could not act on
the request until Atty. Chavezs right to represent Fr. Reyes is
settled in view of the fact that a certain Atty. Bautista
representing himself as counsel of Fr. Reyes had also written a
letter to the DOJ. Fr. Reyes then filed before the CA a petition
claiming that despite the dismissal of the rebellion case against
him, the HDO still subsists and that every time he would present
himself at the NAIA for his flights abroad, he stands to be
detained and interrogated by BOD officers because of the continued
inclusion of his name in the Hold Departure List. On the other
hand, the Solicitor argued the following in favor of the
respondent: That the Secretary of Justice is authorized to issue
Hold Departure Orders That HDO was issued by Sec. Gonzales in the
course of the preliminary investigation of the case against Fr.
Reyes upon the request of the DILG That the lifting of HDO is
premature in view of a pending MR That Fr. Reyes failed to exhaust
administrative remedies by filing a motion to lift HDO before the
DOJ And that the constitutionality of the Circulars giving DOJ the
power to issue HDO cannot be attacked collaterally in an amparo
proceeding CA dismised the petition and denied the privilege of the
writ of amparo. Hence, this petition. Fr. Reyes additional
arguments (arguments in addition to those raised before the CA)
That the writ of amparo does not only exclusively apply to
situations of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances
but encompasses the whole gamut of liverties protected by the
Constitution That liberty includes the right to exist and the right
to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude and
includes the right of the citizens to be free to use his faculties
in all lawful ways. Part of the right to liberty guaranteed by the
Constitution is the right of a person to travel.Issue # 1: WON Fr.
Reyes right