Human Rights Case Digest

Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo G.R. No. 189155 07 September 2010 PONENTE: Perez, J. PARTIES: PETITIONER: MELISSA ROXAS RESPONDENTS: PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GILBERT TEODORO, GEN. VICTOR IBRADO, P/DIR. GEN. JESUS AME VERZOSA, LT. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, PC/SIPT/ LEON NILO DELA CRUZ, MAJ.GEN. RALPH VILLANUEVA, PS/SUPT. RUDY GAMIDO LACADIN, DEX, RC, and ROSE NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND: Supreme Court: Petition for the issuance of Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data Court of Appeals: Upon order of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals summarily heard the Original Action for Petition of Amparo. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals issued a judgment which is the subject of the present Petition for Review on Certiorari. FACTS: Melissa Roxas, an American citizen of Filipino descent, while in the United States, enrolled in an exposure program to the Philippines with the group Bagong Alyansang Makabayan-United States of America (BAYAN- USA) of which she is a member. On 19 May 2009, after doing survey work in Tarlac, Roxas and her companions rested in the house of Mr. Jesus Paolo in Sitio Bagong Sikat. While Roxas and her companions were resting, 15 heavily armed men in civilian clothes forcibly entered the house and dragged them inside a van. When they alighted from the van, she was informed that she is being detained for being a member of Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army (CPP-NPA). She was then separated from her companions and was brought to a room, from where she could hear sounds of gunfire, noise of planes taking off and landing, and some construction bustle. She was interrogated and tortured for 5 straight days to convince her to abandon her communist beliefs. She was informed by a person named “RC” that those who tortured her came from the “Special Operations Group” and that she was abducted because her name is included in the “Order of Battle.” On 25 May 2009, Roxas was finally released and was given a cellular phone with a sim card. She was sternly warned not to report the incident to the group Karapatan or something untoward will happen to her and her family. After her release, Roxas continued to receive calls from RC thru the cell phone given to her. Out of apprehension, she threw the phone and the sim card.

Hence, on 01 June 2009, Roxas filed a petition for the issuance of Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data before the Supreme Court, impleading the high-ranking officials of military and Philippine National Police (PNP), on the belief that it was the government agents who were behind her abduction and torture. On 09 June 2009, the Supreme Court issued the writs and referred the case to the Court of Appeals for hearing, reception of evidence and appropriate action. The Court of Appeals granted the privilege of writs of amparo and habeas data. However, the court a quo absolved the respondents because it was not convinced that the respondents were responsible for the abduction and torture of Roxas. Aggrieved, Roxas filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.

PERTINENT ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the doctrine of command responsibility is applicable in an amparo petition. 2. Whether or not circumstantial evidence with regard to the identity and affiliation of the perpetrators is enough ground for the issuance of the privilege of the writ of amparo. 3. Whether or not substantial evidence to prove actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim is necessary before the privilege of the writ may be extended. ANSWERS: 1. No. 2. It depends. Direct evidence of identity, when obtainable must be preferred over mere circumstantial evidence. 3. Yes. SUPREME COURT RULINGS: 1. DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY AND THE WRIT OF AMPARO Command responsibility as justification in impleading respondents is legally inaccurate – The use of the doctrine of command responsibility as justification in impleading the respondents in her amparo petition, is legally inaccurate, if not incorrect. Such doctrine is a rule of substantive law that establishes liability and, by this account, cannot be a proper legal basis to implead a party-respondent in an amparo petition. The Writ of Amparo as a protective remedy – As held in the case of Rubrico v. Arroyo, the writ of amparo is a protective remedy aimed at providing judicial relief consisting of the appropriate remedial measures and directives that may be crafted by the court, in order to address specific violations or threats of violation of the constitutional rights to life, liberty or security. It does not fix liability for such disappearance, killing or threats, whether that may be criminal, civil or administrative under the applicable substantive law. Since the application of command responsibility presupposes an imputation of individual liability, it is more aptly invoked in a full-blown criminal or administrative case rather than in a summary amparo proceeding. However, the inapplicability of the doctrine of command responsibility does not preclude impleading military or police commanders on the ground that the complained acts in the petition were committed with their direct or indirect acquiescence. In which case, commanders may be impleaded — not actually on the basis of command responsibility—but rather on the ground of their responsibility, or at least accountability.

2. EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN AMPARO PROCEEDINGS In amparo proceedings, direct evidence of identity must be preferred over mere circumstantial evidence – In amparo proceedings, the weight that may be accorded to parallel circumstances as evidence of military involvement depends largely on the availability or non-availability of other pieces of evidence that has the potential of directly proving the identity and affiliation of the perpetrators. Direct evidence of identity, when obtainable, must be preferred over mere circumstantial evidence based on patterns and similarity, because the former indubitably offers greater certainty as to the true identity and affiliation of the perpetrators. 3. EVIDENCE REQURED IN HABEAS DATA PROCEEDINGS Substantial evidence of an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim is an indispensable requirement before the privilege of the writ may be extended – An indispensable requirement before the privilege of the writ may be extended is the showing, at least by substantial evidence, of an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim. In the case at bar, Roxas failed to show that there is an actual or threatened violation of such right. Hence, until such time that any of the respondents were found to be actually responsible for the abduction and torture of Roxas, any inference regarding the existence of reports being kept in violation of the petitioner’s right to privacy becomes farfetched, and premature. The Court must, at least in the meantime, strike down the grant of the privilege of the writ of habeas data. DISPOSITIVE: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. However, it modified the directive of the Court of the Appeals for further investigation, as follows: Appointing the CHR as the lead agency tasked with conducting further investigation regarding the abduction and torture of the petitioner. Accordingly, the CHR shall, under the norm of extraordinary diligence, take or continue to take the necessary steps: (a) to identify the persons described in the cartographic sketches submitted by the petitioner, as well as their whereabouts; and (b) to pursue any other leads relevant to petitioner’s abduction and torture. Directing the incumbent Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP), or his successor, and the incumbent Chief of Staff of the AFP, or his successor, to extend assistance to the ongoing investigation of the CHR, including but not limited to furnishing the latter a copy of its personnel records circa the time of the petitioner’s abduction and torture, subject to reasonable regulations consistent with the Constitution and existing laws. Further directing the incumbent Chief of the PNP, or his successor, to furnish to this Court, the Court of Appeals, and the petitioner or her representative, a copy of the reports of its investigations and their recommendations, other than those that are already part of the records of this case, within ninety (90) days from receipt of this decision. Further directing the CHR to (a) furnish to the Court of Appeals within ninety (90) days from receipt of this decision, a copy of the reports on its investigation and its corresponding recommendations; and to (b) provide or continue to provide protection to the petitioner during her stay or visit to the Philippines, until such time as may hereinafter be determined by this Court. The Supreme Court likewise referred the case back to the Court of Appeals, for the purposes of monitoring compliance with the above directives and determining whether, in light of any recent reports or recommendations, there would already be sufficient evidence to hold any of the public respondents responsible or, at least, accountable. After making such determination, the Court of Appeals shall submit its own report with recommendation to the Supreme Court for its consideration. It was declared that the Court of Appeals will continue to have jurisdiction over this case in order to accomplish its tasks under this decision.

Rubrico v. Macapagal-Arroyo G.R. No. 183871 18 February 2010 PONENTE: Velasco, Jr., J. PARTIES: PETITIONERS: LOURDES RUBRICO, JEAN RUBRICO APRUEBO, and MARY JOY RUBRICO CARBONEL RESPONDENTS: PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, P/DIR. GEN. AVELINO RAZON, MAJ. DARWIN SY, JIMMY SANTANA, RUBEN ALFARO, CAPT. ANGELO CUARESMA, P/SUPT. EDGAR ROQUERO, ARSENIO GOMEZ, JONATHAN, and OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari of CA decision PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND: Supreme Court: Original Action for a Petition for the Writ of Amparo Court of Appeals: Upon order of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals summarily heard the Original Action for Petition of Amparo. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals issued a partial judgment which is the subject of the present Petition for Review on Certiorari. FACTS: On 03 April 2007, Lourdes Rubrico, chair of Ugnayan ng Maralita para sa Gawa Adhikan, was abducted by armed men belonging to the 301st Air Intelligence and Security Squadron (AISS) based in Lipa City while attending a Lenten pabasa in Dasmarinas, Cavite. She was brought to and detained at the air base without charges. She was released a week after relentless interrogation, but only after she signed a statement that she would be a military asset. Despite her release, she was tailed on at least 2 occasions. Hence, Lourdes filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman a criminal complaint for kidnapping and arbitrary detention and grave misconduct against Cuaresma, Alfaro, Santana, and Jonathan, but nothing has happened. She likewise reported the threats and harassment incidents to the Dasmarinas municipal and Cavite provincial police stations, but nothing eventful resulted from their investigation. Meanwhile, the human rights group Karapatan conducted an investigation which indicated that men belonging to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) led the abduction of Lourdes. Based on such information, Rubrico filed a petition for the writ of amparo with the Supreme Court on 25 October 2007, praying that respondents be ordered to desist from performing any threatening act against the security of petitioners and for the Ombudsman to immediately file an information for kidnapping qualified with the aggravating circumstance of gender of the offended party. Rubrico also prayed for damages and for respondents to produce documents submitted to any of them on the case of Lourdes. The Supreme Court issued the desired writ and then referred the petition to the Court of Appeals (CA) for summary hearing and appropriate action. At the hearing conducted on 20 November 2007, the CA granted petitioner’s motion that the petition and writ be served on Darwin Sy/Reyes, Santana, Alfaro, Cuaresma, and Jonathan. By a separate resolution, the CA dropped the President as respondent in the case. On 31 July 2008, after due proceedings, the CA rendered its partial judgment, dismissing the petition with respect to Esperon, Razon, Roquero, Gomez, and Ombudsman.

Hence, the petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court. PERTINENT ISSUE: Whether or not the doctrine of command responsibility is applicable in an amparo petition. ANSWER: No. SUPREME COURT RULINGS: DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY and THE WRIT OF AMPARO Doctrine of Command Responsibility has little, if at all, bearing in amparo proceedings – [C]ommand 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. According to Fr. Bernas, command responsibility, in its simplest terms, 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. In this sense, 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 for crimes committed by his subordinates for failing to prevent or punish the perpetrators. There is no Philippine law that provides for criminal liability under the Doctrine of Command Responsibility – 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 seemed to have done, as a form of criminal complicity through omission, for individual respondents criminal liability, if there be any, is beyond the reach of amparo. In other words, 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. Reluctance of the amparo petitioners 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 – [T]he right to security of persons is a guarantee of the protection of one’s right by the government. And this protection includes conducting effective investigations of extra-legal killings, enforced disappearances, or threats of the same kind. The nature and importance of an investigation are captured in the Velasquez Rodriguez case, in which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights pronounced: [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 victim or his family or upon offer of proof, without an effective search for the truth by the government. The remedy of amparo ought to be resorted to and granted judiciously – 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. DISPOSITIVE: The Supreme Court partially granted the petition for review. It issued a decision as follows: Affirming the dropping of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from the petition; 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 Ombudsman 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. 17 of the Amparo Rule. The Chief of Staff of the AFP and Director-General of the PNP are directed to order their subordinate officials, in particular, to do the following: (a) 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 OMBUDSMAN with copy furnished to petitioners, the CA, and this Court; (b) Pursue with extraordinary diligence the evidentiary leads relating to Maj. Darwin Sy and the Toyota Revo vehicle with Plate No. XRR 428; and (c) 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 the 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 are likewise directed to submit a full report of the results of the investigations to the Court, the CA, the OMB, and petitioners. The Supreme Court accordingly referred the case back to the CA for the purpose of monitoring the investigations and the actions of the AFP and the PNP.