WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 189155 September 7, 2010

IN THE MATTER O THE PETITION OR THE !RIT O AMPARO AN" THE !RIT O HABEAS DATA IN A#OR O ME$ISSA C. RO%AS, ME$ISSA C. RO%AS, Petitioner, vs. G$ORIA MACAPAGA$&ARRO'O, GI$(ERT TEO"ORO, GEN. #ICTOR S. I(RA"O, P)"IR. GEN. *ESUS AME #ER+OSA, $T. GEN. "E$ IN N. (ANGIT, PC)SUPT. $EON NI$O A. "E$A CRU+, MA*. GEN. RA$PH #I$$ANUE#A, PS)SUPT. RU"' GAMI"O $ACA"IN, AN" CERTAIN PERSONS !HO GO (' THE NAME,S- "E%, RC AN" ROSE, Respondents. DECISI PERE+, J.: At bench is a Petition !or Revie" on Certiorari# assailin$ the Decision% dated %& Au$ust %''( of the Court of Appeals in CA)*.R. SP No. '''+&),RA - a petition that "as co..enced /ointl0 under the Rules on the ,rit of A.paro 1A.paro Rule2 and 3abeas Data 13abeas Data Rule2. In its decision, the Court of Appeals e4tended to the petitioner, Melissa C. Ro4as, the privile$e of the "rits of a.paro and habeas data but denied the latter5s pra0ers for an inspection order, production order and return of specified personal belon$in$s. 6he fallo of the decision reads7 ,3ERE! RE, the Petition is PAR6IA889 MERI6 RI :S. 6his Court hereb0 $rants Petitioner the privile$e of the ,rit of A.paro and 3abeas Data. Accordin$l0, Respondents are en/oined to refrain fro. distributin$ or causin$ the distribution to the public of an0 records in "hatever for., reports, docu.ents or si.ilar papers relative to Petitioner5s Melissa C. Ro4as, and;or Melissa Ro4as< alle$ed ties to the CPP)NPA or pertinentl0 related to the co.plained incident. Petitioner5s pra0ers for an inspection order, production order and for the return of the specified personal belon$in$s are denied for lac= of .erit. Althou$h there is no evidence that Respondents are responsible for the abduction, detention or torture of the Petitioner, said Respondents pursuant to their le$all0 .andated duties are, nonetheless, ordered to continue;co.plete the investi$ation of this incident "ith the end in vie" of prosecutin$ those "ho are responsible. Respondents are also ordered to provide protection to the Petitioner and her fa.il0 "hile in the Philippines a$ainst an0 and all for.s of harass.ent, inti.idation and coercion as .a0 be relevant to the $rant of these reliefs.+ N

,e be$in "ith the petitioner5s alle$ations. Petitioner is an A.erican citi>en of !ilipino descent.? ,hile in the :nited States, petitioner enrolled in an e4posure pro$ra. to the Philippines "ith the $roup Ba$on$ Al0ansan$ Ma=aba0an):nited States of A.erica 1BAYAN):SA2 of "hich she is a .e.ber.@ Durin$ the course of her i..ersion, petitioner toured various provinces and to"ns of Central 8u>on and, in April of %''(, she volunteered to /oin .e.bers of BAYAN)6arlac& in conductin$ an initial health surve0 in 8a Pa>, 6arlac for a future .edical .ission.A In pursuit of her volunteer "or=, petitioner brou$ht her passport, "allet "ith !ifteen 6housand Pesos 1P#@,'''.''2 in cash, /ournal, di$ital ca.era "ith .e.or0 card, laptop co.puter, e4ternal hard dis=, IPOD,B "rist"atch, sph0$.o.ano.eter, stethoscope and .edicines.( After doin$ surve0 "or= on #( Ma0 %''(, petitioner and her co.panions, Cuanito Carabeo 1Carabeo2 and Cohn Ed"ard Candoc 1Candoc2, decided to rest in the house of one Mr. Cesus Paolo 1Mr. Paolo2 in Sitio Ba$on$ Si=at, Barangay Dapani=ian, 8a Pa>, 6arlac.#' At around #7+' in the afternoon, ho"ever, petitioner, her co.panions and Mr. Paolo "ere startled b0 the loud sounds of so.eone ban$in$ at the front door and a voice de.andin$ that the0 open up.## Suddenl0, fifteen 1#@2 heavil0 ar.ed .en forcibl0 opened the door, bar$ed inside and ordered petitioner and her co.panions to lie on the $round face do"n.#% 6he ar.ed .en "ere all in civilian clothes and, "ith the e4ception of their leader, "ere also "earin$ bonnets to conceal their faces.#+ Petitioner tried to protest the intrusion, but five 1@2 of the ar.ed .en $an$ed up on her and tied her hands.#? At this /uncture, petitioner sa" the other ar.ed .en herdin$ Carabeo and Candoc, alread0 blindfolded and taped at their .ouths, to a nearb0 blue van. Petitioner started to shout her na.e.#@ A$ainst her vi$orous resistance, the ar.ed .en dra$$ed petitioner to"ards the vanbruisin$ her ar.s, le$s and =nees.#& nce inside the van, but before she can be blindfolded, petitioner "as able to see the face of one of the ar.ed .en sittin$ beside her.#A 6he van then sped a"a0. After about an hour of travelin$, the van stopped.#B Petitioner, Carabeo and Candoc "ere ordered to ali$ht.#( After she "as infor.ed that she is bein$ detained for bein$ a .e.ber of the Co..unist Part0 of the Philippines)Ne" People5s Ar.0 1CPP)NPA2, petitioner "as separated fro. her co.panions and "as escorted to a roo. that she believed "as a /ail cell fro. the sound of its .etal doors.%' !ro. there, she could hear the sounds of $unfire, the noise of planes ta=in$ off and landin$ and so.e construction bustle.%# She inferred that she "as ta=en to the .ilitar0 ca.p of !ort Ma$sa0sa0 in 8aur, Nueva Eci/a.%% ,hat follo"ed "as five 1@2 strai$ht da0s of interro$ation coupled "ith torture.%+ 6he thrust of the interro$ations "as to convince petitioner to abandon her co..unist beliefs in favor of returnin$ to Ethe fold.E%? 6he torture, on the other hand, consisted of tauntin$, cho=in$, bo4in$ and suffocatin$ the petitioner.%@

6hrou$hout the entiret0 of her ordeal, petitioner "as .ade to suffer in blindfolds even in her sleep.%& Petitioner "as onl0 relieved of her blindfolds "hen she "as allo"ed to ta=e a bath, durin$ "hich she beca.e acFuainted "ith a "o.an na.ed ERoseE "ho bathed her.%A 6here "ere also a fe" ti.es "hen she cheated her blindfold and "as able to pee= at her surroundin$s.%B Despite bein$ deprived of si$ht, ho"ever, petitioner "as still able to learn the na.es of three of her interro$ators "ho introduced the.selves to her as EDe4,E ECa.esE and ERC.E%( ERCE even told petitioner that those "ho tortured her ca.e fro. the ESpecial perations *roup,E and that she "as abducted because her na.e is included in the E rder of Battle.E+' n %@ Ma0 %''(, petitioner "as finall0 released and returned to her uncle5s house in Gue>on Cit0.+# Before bein$ released, ho"ever, the abductors $ave petitioner a cellular phone "ith a SIM+% card, a slip of paper containin$ an e).ail address "ith pass"ord,++ a plastic ba$ containin$ biscuits and boo=s,+? the handcuffs used on her, a blouse and a pair of shoes.+@ Petitioner "as also sternl0 "arned not to report the incident to the $roup Darapatan or so.ethin$ unto"ard "ill happen to her and her fa.il0.+& So.eti.e after her release, petitioner continued to receive calls fro. RC via the cellular phone $iven to her.+A ut of apprehension that she "as bein$ .onitored and also fearin$ for the safet0 of her fa.il0, petitioner thre" a"a0 the cellular phone "ith a SIM card. See=in$ sanctuar0 a$ainst the threat of future har. as "ell as the suppression of an0 e4istin$ $overn.ent files or records lin=in$ her to the co..unist .ove.ent, petitioner filed a Petition for the ,rits of A.paro and 3abeas Data before this Court on # Cune %''(.+B Petitioner i.pleaded public officials occup0in$ the upper.ost echelons of the .ilitar0 and police hierarch0 as respondents, on the belief that it "as $overn.ent a$ents "ho "ere behind her abduction and torture. Petitioner li=e"ise included in her suit ERose,E EDe4E and ERC.E+( 6he A.paro and 3abeas Data petition pra0s that7 1#2 respondents be en/oined fro. har.in$ or even approachin$ petitioner and her fa.il0< 1%2 an order be issued allo"in$ the inspection of detention areas in the Ath Infantr0 Division, !ort Ma$sa0sa0, 8aur, Nueva Eci/a< 1+2 respondents be ordered to produce docu.ents relatin$ to an0 report on the case of petitioner includin$, but not li.ited to, intelli$ence report and operation reports of the Ath Infantr0 Division, the Special perations *roup of the Ar.ed !orces of the Philippines 1A!P2 and its subsidiaries or branch;es prior to, durin$ and subseFuent to #( Ma0 %''(< 1?2 respondents be ordered to e4pun$e fro. the records of the respondents an0 docu.ent pertinent or connected to Melissa C. Ro4as, Melissa Ro4as or an0 na.e "hich sounds the sa.e< and 1@2 respondents be ordered to return to petitioner her /ournal, di$ital ca.era "ith .e.or0 card, laptop co.puter, e4ternal hard dis=, IP D, "rist"atch, sph0$.o.ano.eter, stethoscope, .edicines and her P#@,'''.'' cash.?' In a Resolution dated ( Cune %''(, this Court issued the desired "rits and referred the case to the Court of Appeals for hearin$, reception of evidence and appropriate action.?# 6he Resolution also directed the respondents to file their verified "ritten return.?% n #B Cune %''(, the ffice of the Solicitor *eneral 1 S*2, filed a Return of the ,rits?+ on behalf of the public officials i.pleaded as respondents.

,e no" turn to the defenses interposed b0 the public respondents. 6he public respondents label petitioner5s alle$ed abduction and torture as Esta$e .ana$ed.E?? In support of their accusation, the public respondents principall0 rel0 on the state.ent of Mr. Paolo, as contained in the Special Report?@ of the 8a Pa> Police Station. In the Special Report, Mr. Paolo disclosed that, prior to the purported abduction, petitioner and her co.panions instructed hi. and his t"o sons to avoid leavin$ the house.?& !ro. this state.ent, the public respondents dre" the distinct possibilit0 that, e4cept for those alread0 inside Mr. Paolo5s house, nobod0 else has an0 "a0 of =no"in$ "here petitioner and her co.panions "ere at the ti.e the0 "ere supposedl0 abducted.?A 6his can onl0 .ean, the public respondents concluded, that if ever there "as an0 EabductionE it .ust necessaril0 have been planned b0, or done "ith the consent of, the petitioner and her co.panions the.selves.?B Public respondents also cited the Medical Certificate?( of the petitioner, as actuall0 bel0in$ her clai.s that she "as sub/ected to serious torture for five 1@2 da0s. 6he public respondents noted that "hile the petitioner alle$es that she "as cho=ed and bo4ed b0 her abductors-inflictions that could have easil0 produced re.ar=able bruises-her Medical Certificate onl0 sho"s abrasions in her "rists and =nee caps.@' !or the public respondents, the above ano.alies put in Fuestion the ver0 authenticit0 of petitioner5s alle$ed abduction and torture, .ore so an0 .ilitar0 or police involve.ent therein. 3ence, public respondents conclude that the clai.s of abduction and torture "as no .ore than a charade fabricated b0 the petitioner to put the $overn.ent in bad li$ht, and at the sa.e ti.e, brin$ $reat .edia .ilea$e to her and the $roup that she represents.@# Nevertheless, even assu.in$ the abduction and torture to be $enuine, the public respondents insist on the dis.issal of the A.paro and 3abeas Data petition based on the follo"in$ $rounds7 1a2 as a$ainst respondent President *loria Macapa$al)Arro0o, in particular, because of her i..unit0 fro. suit,@% and 1b2 as a$ainst all of the public respondents, in $eneral, in vie" of the absence of an0 specific alle$ation in the petition that the0 had participated in, or at least authori>ed, the co..ission of such atrocities.@+ !inall0, the public respondents posit that the0 had not been re.iss in their dut0 to ascertain the truth behind the alle$ations of the petitioner.@? In both the police and .ilitar0 ar.s of the $overn.ent .achiner0, inFuiries "ere set)up in the follo"in$ .anner7 Police Action Police authorities first learned of the purported abduction around ?7+' o5cloc= in the afternoon of #( Ma0 %''(, "hen Barangay Captain Michael M. Manuel ca.e to the 8a Pa> Municipal Police Station to report the presence of heavil0 ar.ed .en so.e"here in Barangay Dapani=ian.@@ Actin$ on the report, the police station launched an initial investi$ation.@& 6he initial investi$ation revolved around the state.ent of Mr. Paolo, "ho infor.ed the investi$ators of an abduction incident involvin$ three 1+2 persons-later identified as petitioner Melissa Ro4as, Cuanito Carabeo and Cohn Ed"ard Candoc-"ho "ere all sta0in$ in his house.@A

Mr. Paolo disclosed that the abduction occurred around #7+' o5cloc= in the afternoon, and "as perpetrated b0 about ei$ht 1B2 heavil0 ar.ed .en "ho forced their "a0 inside his house.@B ther "itnesses to the abduction also confir.ed that the ar.ed .en used a dar= blue van "ith an un=no"n plate nu.ber and t"o 1%2 3onda HRM .otorc0cles "ith no plate nu.bers.@( At @7'' o5cloc= in the afternoon of #( Ma0 %''(, the investi$ators sent a !lash Messa$e to the different police stations surroundin$ 8a Pa>, 6arlac, in an effort to trac= and locate the van and .otorc0cles of the suspects. :nfortunatel0, the effort 0ielded ne$ative results.&' n %' Ma0 %''(, the results of the initial investi$ation "ere included in a Special Report&# that "as trans.itted to the 6arlac Police Provincial ffice, headed b0 public respondent P;S Supt. Rud0 8acadin 1Supt. 8acadin2. Public respondent Supt. 8acadin, in turn, infor.ed the Re$ional Police ffice of Re$ion + about the abduction.&% !ollo")up investi$ations "ere, at the sa.e ti.e, pursued.&+ n %& Ma0 %''(, public respondent PC;Supt. 8eon Nilo Dela Cru>, as Director of the Re$ional Police ffice for Re$ion +, caused the creation of Special Investi$ation 6as= *roupCAR CAN 16as= *roup CAR CAN2 to conduct an in)depth investi$ation on the abduction of the petitioner, Carabeo and Candoc.&? 6as= *roup CAR CAN started its inFuir0 b0 .a=in$ a series of bac=$round e4a.inations on the victi.s of the purported abduction, in order to reveal the .otive behind the abduction and, ulti.atel0, the identit0 of the perpetrators.&@ 6as= *roup CAR CAN also .aintained liaisons "ith Darapatan and the Alliance for Advance.ent of People5s Ri$hts-or$ani>ations trusted b0 petitioner-in the hopes of obtainin$ the latter5s participation in the on$oin$ investi$ations.&& :nfortunatel0, the letters sent b0 the investi$ators reFuestin$ for the availabilit0 of the petitioner for inFuiries "ere left unheeded.&A 6he pro$ress of the investi$ations conducted b0 6as= *roup CAR CAN had been detailed in the reports&B that it sub.itted to public respondent *eneral Cesus A.e Ier>osa, the Chief of the Philippine National Police. 3o"ever, as of their latest report dated %( Cune %''(, 6as= *roup CAR CAN is still unable to .a=e a definitive findin$ as to the true identit0 and affiliation of the abductors-a fact that tas= $roup CAR CAN attributes to the refusal of the petitioner, or an0 of her fello" victi.s, to cooperate in their investi$ative efforts.&( Militar0 Action Public respondent *ilbert 6eodoro, the Secretar0 of National Defense, first ca.e to =no" about the alle$ed abduction and torture of the petitioner upon receipt of the Resolution of this Court directin$ hi. and the other respondents to file their return.A' I..ediatel0 thereafter, he issued a Me.orandu. DirectiveA# addressed to the Chief of Staff of the A!P, orderin$ the latter, a.on$ others, to conduct an inFuir0 to deter.ine the validit0 of the accusation of .ilitar0 involve.ent in the abduction.A% Actin$ pursuant to the Me.orandu. Directive, public respondent *eneral Iictor S. Ibrado, the A!P Chief of Staff, sent an A!P Radio Messa$eA+ addressed to public respondent 8ieutenant

*eneral Delfin N. Ban$it 18t. *en. Ban$it2, the Co..andin$ *eneral of the Ar.0, rela0in$ the order to cause an investi$ation on the abduction of the petitioner.A? !or his part, and ta=in$ cue fro. the alle$ations in the a.paro petition, public respondent 8t. *en. Ban$it instructed public respondent Ma/or *eneral Ralph A. Iillanueva 1Ma/. *en. Iillanueva2, the Co..ander of the Ath Infantr0 Division of the Ar.0 based in !ort Ma$sa0sa0, to set in .otion an investi$ation re$ardin$ the possible involve.ent of an0 personnel assi$ned at the ca.p in the purported abduction of the petitioner.A@ In turn, public respondent Ma/. *en. Iillanueva tapped the ffice of the Provost Marshal 1 PI2 of the Ath Infantr0 Division, to conduct the investi$ation.A& n %+ Cune %''(, the PI of the Ath Infantr0 Division released an Investi$ation ReportAA detailin$ the results of its inFuir0. In substance, the report described petitioner5s alle$ations as EopinionatedE and thereb0 cleared the .ilitar0 fro. an0 involve.ent in her alle$ed abduction and torture.AB 6he Decision of the Court of Appeals In its Decision,A( the Court of Appeals $ave due "ei$ht and consideration to the petitioner5s version that she "as indeed abducted and then sub/ected to torture for five 1@2 strai$ht da0s. 6he appellate court noted the sincerit0 and resolve b0 "hich the petitioner affir.ed the contents of her affidavits in open court, and "as thereb0 convinced that the latter "as tellin$ the truth.B' n the other hand, the Court of Appeals disre$arded the ar$u.ent of the public respondents that the abduction of the petitioner "as Esta$e .ana$ed,E as it is .erel0 based on an unfounded speculation that onl0 the latter and her co.panions =ne" "here the0 "ere sta0in$ at the ti.e the0 "ere forcibl0 ta=en.B# 6he Court of Appeals further stressed that the Medical Certificate of the petitioner can onl0 affir. the e4istence of a true abduction, as its findin$s are reflective of the ver0 in/uries the latter clai.s to have sustained durin$ her harro"in$ ordeal, particularl0 "hen she "as handcuffed and then dra$$ed b0 her abductors onto their van.B% 6he Court of Appeals also reco$ni>ed the e4istence of an on$oin$ threat a$ainst the securit0 of the petitioner, as .anifested in the atte.pts of ERCE to contact and .onitor her, even after she "as released.B+ 6his threat, accordin$ to the Court of Appeals, is all the .ore co.pounded b0 the failure of the police authorities to identif0 the .aterial perpetrators "ho are still at lar$e.B? 6hus, the appellate court e4tended to the petitioner the privile$e of the "rit of a.paro b0 directin$ the public respondents to afford protection to the for.er, as "ell as continuin$, under the nor. of e4traordinar0 dili$ence, their e4istin$ investi$ations involvin$ the abduction.B@ 6he Court of Appeals li=e"ise observed a trans$ression of the ri$ht to infor.ational privac0 of the petitioner, notin$ the e4istence of Erecords of investi$ationsE that concerns the petitioner as a suspected .e.ber of the CPP)NPA.B& 6he appellate court derived the e4istence of such records fro. a photo$raph and video file presented in a press conference b0 part0)list representatives Covito Palparan 1Palparan2 and Pastor Alcover 1Alcover2, "hich alle$edl0 sho" the petitioner participatin$ in rebel e4ercises. Representative Alcover also revealed that the photo$raph and video ca.e fro. a fe.ale CPP)NPA .e.ber "ho "anted out of the or$ani>ation. Accordin$ to

the Court of Appeals, the proliferation of the photo$raph and video, as "ell as an0 for. of .edia, insinuatin$ that petitioner is part of the CPP)NPA does not onl0 constitute a violation of the ri$ht to privac0 of the petitioner but also puts further strain on her alread0 volatile securit0. BA 6o this end, the appellate court $ranted the privile$e of the "rit of habeas data .andatin$ the public respondents to refrain fro. distributin$ to the public an0 records, in "hatever for., relative to petitioner5s alle$ed ties "ith the CPP)NPA or pertinentl0 related to her abduction and torture.BB 6he fore$oin$ not"ithstandin$, ho"ever, the Court of Appeals "as not convinced that the .ilitar0 or an0 other person actin$ under the acFuiescence of the $overn.ent, "ere responsible for the abduction and torture of the petitioner.B( 6he appellate court stressed that, /ud$in$ b0 her o"n state.ents, the petitioner .erel0 EbelievedE that the .ilitar0 "as behind her abduction.(' 6hus, the Court of Appeals absolved the public respondents fro. an0 co.plicit0 in the abduction and torture of petitioner.(# 6he petition "as li=e"ise dis.issed as a$ainst public respondent President *loria Macapa$al)Arro0o, in vie" of her i..unit0 fro. suit.(% Accordin$l0, the petitioner5s pra0ers for the return of her personal belon$in$s "ere denied.(+ Petitioner5s pra0ers for an inspection order and production order also .et the sa.e fate.(? 3ence, this appeal b0 the petitioner. AMPAR A. Petitioner first contends that the Court of Appeals erred in absolvin$ the public respondents fro. an0 responsibilit0 in her abduction and torture.(@ Corollar0 to this, petitioner also finds fault on the part of Court of Appeals in den0in$ her pra0er for the return of her personal belon$in$s.(& Petitioner insists that the .anner b0 "hich her abduction and torture "as carried out, as "ell as the sounds of construction, $un)fire and airplanes that she heard "hile in detention, as these "ere detailed in her t"o affidavits and affir.ed b0 her in open court, are alread0 sufficient evidence to prove $overn.ent involve.ent.(A Proceedin$ fro. such assu.ption, petitioner invo=es the doctrine of co..and responsibilit0 to i.plicate the hi$h)ran=in$ civilian and .ilitar0 authorities she i.pleaded as respondents in her a.paro petition.(B 6hus, petitioner see=s fro. this Court a pronounce.ent holdin$ the respondents as co.plicit in her abduction and torture, as "ell as liable for the return of her belon$in$s.(( Co..and Responsibilit0 in A.paro Proceedin$s It .ust be stated at the outset that the use b0 the petitioner of the doctrine of co..and responsibilit0 as the /ustification in i.pleadin$ the public respondents in her a.paro petition, is le$all0 inaccurate, if not incorrect. 6he doctrine of co..and responsibilit0 is a rule of

substantive la" that establishes liabilit0 and, b0 this account, cannot be a proper le$al basis to i.plead a part0)respondent in an a.paro petition.#'' 6he case of Rubrico v. Arro0o,#'# "hich "as the first to e4a.ine co..and responsibilit0 in the conte4t of an a.paro proceedin$, observed that the doctrine is used to pinpoint liabilit0. Rubrico notes that7#'% 6he evolution of the co..and responsibilit0 doctrine finds its conte4t in the develop.ent of la"s of "ar and ar.ed co.bats. Accordin$ to !r. Bernas, Eco..and responsibilit0,E in its si.plest ter.s, .eans the Eresponsibilit0 of co..anders for cri.es co..itted b0 subordinate .e.bers of the ar.ed forces or other persons sub/ect to their control in international "ars or do.estic conflict.E#'+ In this sense, co..and responsibilit0 is properl0 a for. of cri.inal co.plicit0. 6he 3a$ue Conventions of #('A adopted the doctrine of co..and responsibilit0, #'? foreshado"in$ the present)da0 precept of holdin$ a superior accountable for the atrocities co..itted b0 his subordinates should he be re.iss in his dut0 of control over the.. As then for.ulated, co..and responsibilit0 is E./ om0110o/ mo2e o3 0/204025.6 7r0m0/.6 60.b060t0,E "hereb0 the superior is .ade responsible for 7r0me1 7omm0tte2 b0 his subordinates for failin$ to prevent or punish the perpetrators#'@ 1as opposed to cri.es he ordered2. 1E.phasis in the or$inal, underscorin$ supplied2 Since the application of co..and responsibilit0 presupposes an i.putation of individual liabilit0, it is .ore aptl0 invo=ed in a full)blo"n cri.inal or ad.inistrative case rather than in a su..ar0 a.paro proceedin$. 6he obvious reason lies in the nature of the "rit itself7 6he "rit of a.paro is a protective re.ed0 ai.ed at providin$ /udicial relief consistin$ of the appropriate re.edial .easures and directives that .a0 be crafted b0 the court, in order to address specific violations or threats of violation of the constitutional ri$hts to life, libert0 or securit0. #'& ,hile the principal ob/ective of its proceedin$s is the initial deter.ination of "hether an enforced disappearance, e4trale$al =illin$ or threats thereof had transpired-the "rit does not, b0 so doin$, fi4 liabilit0 for such disappearance, =illin$ or threats, "hether that .a0 be cri.inal, civil or ad.inistrative under the applicable substantive la".#'A 6he rationale underpinnin$ this peculiar nature of an a.paro "rit has been, in turn, clearl0 set forth in the land.ar= case of 6he Secretar0 of National Defense v. Manalo7#'B 4 4 4 6he re.ed0 provides rapid /udicial relief as it parta=es of a su..ar0 proceedin$ that reFuires onl0 substantial evidence to .a=e the appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner< it is not an action to deter.ine cri.inal $uilt reFuirin$ proof be0ond reasonable doubt, or liabilit0 for da.a$es reFuirin$ preponderance of evidence, or ad.inistrative responsibilit0 reFuirin$ substantial evidence that "ill reFuire full and e4haustive proceedin$s.#'(1E.phasis supplied2 It .ust be clarified, ho"ever, that the inapplicabilit0 of the doctrine of co..and responsibilit0 in an a.paro proceedin$ does not, b0 an0 .easure, preclude i.pleadin$ .ilitar0 or police co..anders on the $round that the co.plained acts in the petition "ere co..itted "ith their direct or indirect acFuiescence. In "hich case, co..anders .a0 be i.pleaded-not actuall0 on the basis of co..and responsibilit0-but rather on the $round of their responsibilit0, or at least accountabilit0. In Ra>on v. 6a$itis,##' the distinct, but interrelated concepts of responsibilit0 and

accountabilit0 "ere $iven special and uniFue si$nifications in relation to an a.paro proceedin$, to "it7 4 4 4 Re1po/10b060t8 refers to the e4tent the actors have been established b0 substantial evidence to have participated in "hatever "a0, b0 action or o.ission, in an enforced disappearance, as a .easure of the re.edies this Court shall craft, a.on$ the., the directive to file the appropriate cri.inal and civil cases a$ainst the responsible parties in the proper courts. A77o5/t.b060t8, on the other hand, refers to the .easure of re.edies that should be addressed to those "ho e4hibited involve.ent in the enforced disappearance "ithout brin$in$ the level of their co.plicit0 to the level of responsibilit0 defined above< or "ho are i.puted "ith =no"led$e relatin$ to the enforced disappearance and "ho carr0 the burden of disclosure< or those "ho carr0, but have failed to dischar$e, the burden of e4traordinar0 dili$ence in the investi$ation of the enforced disappearance. Responsibilit0 of Public Respondents At an0 rate, it is clear fro. the records of the case that the intent of the petitioner in i.pleadin$ the public respondents is to ascribe so.e for. of responsibilit0 on their part, based on her assu.ption that the0, in one "a0 or the other, had condoned her abduction and torture.### 6o establish such assu.ption, petitioner atte.pted to sho" that it "as $overn.ent a$ents "ho "ere behind her ordeal. 6hus, the petitioner calls attention to the circu.stances surroundin$ her abduction and torture-i.e., the forcible ta=in$ in broad da0li$ht< use of vehicles "ith no license plates< utili>ation of blindfolds< conductin$ interro$ations to elicit co..unist inclinations< and the infliction of ph0sical abuse-"hich, accordin$ to her, is consistent "ith the "a0 enforced disappearances are bein$ practiced b0 the .ilitar0 or other state forces.##% Moreover, petitioner also clai.s that she "as held inside the .ilitar0 ca.p !ort Ma$sa0sa0-a conclusion that she "as able to infer fro. the travel ti.e reFuired to reach the place "here she "as actuall0 detained, and also fro. the sounds of construction, $un)fire and airplanes she heard "hile thereat.##+ ,e are not i.pressed. 6he totalit0 of the evidence presented b0 the petitioner does not inspire reasonable conclusion that her abductors "ere .ilitar0 or police personnel and that she "as detained at !ort Ma$sa0sa0. !irst. 6he si.ilarit0 bet"een the circu.stances attendin$ a particular case of abduction "ith those surroundin$ previous instances of enforced disappearances does not, necessaril0, carr0 sufficient "ei$ht to prove that the $overn.ent orchestrated such abduction. ,e opine that insofar as the present case is concerned, the perceived si.ilarit0 cannot stand as substantial evidence of the involve.ent of the $overn.ent. In a.paro proceedin$s, the "ei$ht that .a0 be accorded to parallel circu.stances as evidence of .ilitar0 involve.ent depends lar$el0 on the availabilit0 or non)availabilit0 of other pieces of evidence that has the potential of directl0 provin$ the identit0 and affiliation of the perpetrators. Direct evidence of identit0, "hen obtainable, .ust be preferred over .ere circu.stantial

evidence based on patterns and si.ilarit0, because the for.er indubitabl0 offers $reater certaint0 as to the true identit0 and affiliation of the perpetrators. An a.paro court cannot si.pl0 leave to re.ote and ha>0 inference "hat it could other"ise clearl0 and directl0 ascertain. In the case at bench, petitioner "as, in fact, able to include in her ffer of E4hibits,##? the carto$raphic s=etches##@ of several of her abductors "hose faces she .ana$ed to see. 6o the .ind of this Court, these carto$raphic s=etches have the undeniable potential of $ivin$ the $reatest certaint0 as to the true identit0 and affiliation of petitioner5s abductors. :nfortunatel0 for the petitioner, this potential has not been reali>ed in vie" of the fact that the faces described in such s=etches re.ain unidentified, .uch less have been sho"n to be that of an0 .ilitar0 or police personnel. Bluntl0 stated, the abductors "ere not proven to be part of either the .ilitar0 or the police chain of co..and. Second. 6he clai. of the petitioner that she "as ta=en to !ort Ma$sa0sa0 "as not adeFuatel0 established b0 her .ere esti.ate of the ti.e it too= to reach the place "here she "as detained and b0 the sounds that she heard "hile thereat. 8i=e the Court of Appeals, ,e are not inclined to ta=e the esti.ate and observations of the petitioner as accurate on its face-not onl0 because the0 "ere .ade .ostl0 "hile she "as in blindfolds, but also in vie" of the fact that she "as a .ere so/ourner in the Philippines, "hose fa.iliarit0 "ith !ort Ma$sa0sa0 and the travel ti.e reFuired to reach it is in itself doubtful.##& ,ith nothin$ else but obscure observations to support it, petitioner5s clai. that she "as ta=en to !ort Ma$sa0sa0 re.ains a .ere speculation. In su., the petitioner "as not able to establish to a concrete point that her abductors "ere actuall0 affiliated, "hether for.all0 or infor.all0, "ith the .ilitar0 or the police or$ani>ations. Neither does the evidence at hand prove that petitioner "as indeed ta=en to the .ilitar0 ca.p !ort Ma$sa0sa0 to the e4clusion of other places. 6hese evidentiar0 $aps, in turn, .a=e it virtuall0 i.possible to deter.ine "hether the abduction and torture of the petitioner "as in fact co..itted "ith the acFuiescence of the public respondents. n account of this insufficienc0 in evidence, a pronounce.ent of responsibilit0 on the part of the public respondents, therefore, cannot be .ade. Pra0er for the Return of Personal Belon$in$s 6his brin$s :s to the pra0er of the petitioner for the return of her personal belon$in$s. In its decision, the Court of Appeals denied the above pra0er of the petitioner b0 reason of the failure of the latter to prove that the public respondents "ere involved in her abduction and torture.##A ,e a$ree "ith the conclusion of the Court of Appeals, but not entirel0 "ith the reason used to support it. 6o the .ind of this Court, the pra0er of the petitioner for the return of her belon$in$s is doo.ed to fail re$ardless of "hether there is sufficient evidence to hold public respondents responsible for the abduction of the petitioner. In the first place, an order directin$ the public respondents to return the personal belon$in$s of the petitioner is alread0 eFuivalent to a conclusive pronounce.ent of liabilit0. 6he order itself is a substantial relief that can onl0 be $ranted once the liabilit0 of the public respondents has been

fi4ed in a full and e4haustive proceedin$. As alread0 discussed above, .atters of liabilit0 are not deter.inable in a .ere su..ar0 a.paro proceedin$.##B But perhaps the .ore funda.ental reason in den0in$ the pra0er of the petitioner, lies "ith the fact that a person5s ri$ht to be restituted of his propert0 is alread0 subsu.ed under the $eneral rubric of propert0 ri$hts-"hich are no lon$er protected b0 the "rit of a.paro.##( Section # of the A.paro Rule,#%' "hich defines the scope and e4tent of the "rit, clearl0 e4cludes the protection of propert0 ri$hts. B. 6he ne4t error raised b0 the petitioner is the denial b0 the Court of Appeals of her pra0er for an inspection of the detention areas of !ort Ma$sa0sa0. #%# Considerin$ the dearth of evidence concretel0 pointin$ to an0 .ilitar0 involve.ent in petitioner5s ordeal, this Court finds no error on the part of the Court of Appeals in den0in$ an inspection of the .ilitar0 ca.p at !ort Ma$sa0sa0. ,e a$ree "ith the appellate court that a contrar0 stance "ould be eFuivalent to sanctionin$ a Efishin$ e4pedition,E "hich "as never intended b0 the A.paro Rule in providin$ for the interi. relief of inspection order.#%% Contrar0 to the e4plicit position#%+ espoused b0 the petitioner, the A.paro Rule does not allo" a Efishin$ e4peditionE for evidence. An inspection order is an interi. relief desi$ned to $ive support or stren$then the clai. of a petitioner in an a.paro petition, in order to aid the court before .a=in$ a decision.#%? A basic reFuire.ent before an a.paro court .a0 $rant an inspection order is that the place to be inspected is reasonabl0 deter.inable fro. the alle$ations of the part0 see=in$ the order. ,hile the A.paro Rule does not reFuire that the place to be inspected be identified "ith clarit0 and precision, it is, nevertheless, a .ini.u. for the issuance of an inspection order that the supportin$ alle$ations of a part0 be sufficient in itself, so as to .a=e a pri.a facie case. 6his, as "as sho"n above, petitioner failed to do. Since the ver0 esti.ates and observations of the petitioner are not stron$ enou$h to .a=e out a pri.a facie case that she "as detained in !ort Ma$sa0sa0, an inspection of the .ilitar0 ca.p cannot be ordered. An inspection order cannot issue on the basis of alle$ations that are, in the.selves, unreliable and doubtful. 3ABEAS DA6A As earlier inti.ated, the Court of Appeals $ranted to the petitioner the privile$e of the "rit of habeas data, b0 en/oinin$ the public respondents fro. Edistributin$ or causin$ the distribution to the public an0 records in "hatever for., reports, docu.ents or si.ilar papersE relative to the petitioner5s Ealle$ed ties "ith the CPP)NPA or pertinentl0 related to her abduction and torture.E 6hou$h not raised as an issue in this appeal, this Court is constrained to pass upon and revie" this particular rulin$ of the Court of Appeals in order to rectif0, "hat appears to :s, an error infectin$ the $rant.

!or the proper appreciation of the rationale used b0 the Court of Appeals in $rantin$ the privile$e of the "rit of habeas data, ,e Fuote hereunder the relevant portion#%@ of its decision7 :nder these pre.ises, Petitioner pra0ed that all the records, intelli$ence reports and reports on the investi$ations conducted on Melissa C. Ro4as or Melissa Ro4as be produced and eventuall0 e4pun$ed fro. the records. Petitioner clai.ed to be included in the *overn.ent5s rder of Battle under plan Banta0 8a0a "hich listed political opponents a$ainst "ho. false cri.inal char$es "ere filed based on .ade up and per/ured infor.ation. Pendin$ resolution of this petition and before Petitioner could testif0 before :s, E4)ar.0 $eneral Covito Palaparan, Banta0 part0)list, and Pastor Alcover of the Alliance for Nationalis. and De.ocrac0 part0)list held a press conference "here the0 revealed that the0 received an infor.ation fro. a fe.ale NPA rebel "ho "anted out of the or$ani>ation, that Petitioner "as a co..unist rebel. Alcover clai.ed that said infor.ation reached the. thru a letter "ith photo of Petitioner holdin$ firear.s at an NPA trainin$ ca.p and a video CD of the trainin$ e4ercises. Clearl0, and not"ithstandin$ Petitioner5s denial that she "as the person in said video, there "ere records of other investi$ations on Melissa C. Ro4as or Melissa Ro4as "hich violate her ri$ht to privac0. ,ithout a doubt, reports of such nature have reasonable connections, one "a0 or another, to petitioner5s abduction "here she clai.ed she had been sub/ected to cruelties and dehu.ani>in$ acts "hich nearl0 caused her life precisel0 due to alle$ation of her alle$ed .e.bership in the CPP)NPA. And if said report or si.ilar reports are to be continuousl0 .ade available to the public, Petitioner5s securit0 and privac0 "ill certainl0 be in dan$er of bein$ violated or trans$ressed b0 persons "ho have stron$ senti.ents or aversion a$ainst .e.bers of this $roup. 6he unre$ulated disse.ination of said unverified video CD or reports of Petitioner5s alle$ed ties "ith the CPP)NPA indiscri.inatel0 .ade available for public consu.ption "ithout evidence of its authenticit0 or veracit0 certainl0 violates Petitioner5s ri$ht to privac0 "hich .ust be protected b0 this Court. ,e, thus, dee. it necessar0 to $rant Petitioner the privile$e of the ,rit of 3abeas Data. 1E.phasis supplied2. 6he "rit of habeas data "as conceptuali>ed as a /udicial re.ed0 enforcin$ the ri$ht to privac0, .ost especiall0 the ri$ht to infor.ational privac0 of individuals.#%& 6he "rit operates to protect a person5s ri$ht to control infor.ation re$ardin$ hi.self, particularl0 in the instances "here such infor.ation is bein$ collected throu$h unla"ful .eans in order to achieve unla"ful ends. Needless to state, an indispensable reFuire.ent before the privile$e of the "rit .a0 be e4tended is the sho"in$, at least b0 substantial evidence, of an actual or threatened violation of the ri$ht to privac0 in life, libert0 or securit0 of the victi..#%A 6his, in the case at bench, the petitioner failed to do. 6he .ain proble. behind the rulin$ of the Court of Appeals is that there is actuall0 no evidence on record that sho"s that an0 of the public respondents had violated or threatened the ri$ht to privac0 of the petitioner. 6he act ascribed b0 the Court of Appeals to the public respondents that "ould have violated or threatened the ri$ht to privac0 of the petitioner, i.e., =eepin$ records of investi$ations and other reports about the petitioner5s ties "ith the CPP)NPA, "as not adeFuatel0 proven-considerin$ that the ori$in of such records "ere virtuall0 une4plained and its e4istence,

clearl0, onl0 inferred b0 the appellate court fro. the video and photo$raph released b0 Representatives Palparan and Alcover in their press conference. No evidence on record even sho"s that an0 of the public respondents had access to such video or photo$raph. In vie" of the above considerations, the directive b0 the Court of Appeals en/oinin$ the public respondents fro. Edistributin$ or causin$ the distribution to the public an0 records in "hatever for., reports, docu.ents or si.ilar papersE relative to the petitioner5s Ealle$ed ties "ith the CPP)NPA,E appears to be devoid of an0 le$al basis. 6he public respondents cannot be ordered to refrain fro. distributin$ so.ethin$ that, in the first place, it "as not proven to have. Ieril0, until such ti.e that an0 of the public respondents "ere found to be actuall0 responsible for the abduction and torture of the petitioner, an0 inference re$ardin$ the e4istence of reports bein$ =ept in violation of the petitioner5s ri$ht to privac0 beco.es farfetched, and pre.ature. !or these reasons, this Court .ust, at least in the .eanti.e, stri=e do"n the $rant of the privile$e of the "rit of habeas data. DISP SI6I N ! 63E CASE ur revie" of the evidence of the petitioner, "hile tellin$ of its innate insufficienc0 to i.pute an0 for. of responsibilit0 on the part of the public respondents, revealed t"o i.portant thin$s that can $uide :s to a proper disposition of this case. ne, that further investi$ation "ith the use of e4traordinar0 dili$ence .ust be .ade in order to identif0 the perpetrators behind the abduction and torture of the petitioner< and t"o, that the Co..ission on 3u.an Ri$hts 1C3R2, pursuant to its Constitutional .andate to Einvesti$ate all for.s of hu.an ri$hts violations involvin$ civil and political ri$hts and to provide appropriate le$al .easures for the protection of hu.an ri$hts,E#%B .ust be tapped in order to fill certain investi$ative and re.edial voids. !urther Investi$ation Must Be :nderta=en Ironic as it see.s, but part and parcel of the reason "h0 the petitioner "as not able to adduce substantial evidence provin$ her alle$ations of $overn.ent co.plicit0 in her abduction and torture, .a0 be attributed to the inco.plete and one)sided investi$ations conducted b0 the $overn.ent itself. 6his Ea"="ardE situation, "herein the ver0 persons alle$ed to be involved in an enforced disappearance or e4trale$al =illin$ are, at the sa.e ti.e, the ver0 ones tas=ed b0 la" to investi$ate the .atter, is a uniFue characteristic of these proceedin$s and is the .ain source of the Eevidentiar0 difficultiesE faced b0 an0 petitioner in an0 a.paro case.#%( Co$ni>ant of this situation, ho"ever, the A.paro Rule placed a potent safe$uard-reFuirin$ the Erespondent "ho is a public official or e.plo0eeE to prove that no less than Ee4traordinar0 dili$ence as reFuired b0 applicable la"s, rules and re$ulations "as observed in the perfor.ance of dut0.E#+' 6hus, unless and until an0 of the public respondents is able to sho" to the satisfaction of the a.paro court that e4traordinar0 dili$ence has been observed in their investi$ations, the0 cannot shed the alle$ations of responsibilit0 despite the prevailin$ scarcit0 of evidence to that effect.

,ith this in .ind, ,e note that e4traordinar0 dili$ence, as reFuired b0 the A.paro Rule, "as not full0 observed in the conduct of the police and .ilitar0 investi$ations in the case at bar. A perusal of the investi$ation reports sub.itted b0 6as= *roup CAR CAN sho"s .odest effort on the part of the police investi$ators to identif0 the perpetrators of the abduction. 6o be sure, said reports are replete "ith bac=$round chec=s on the victi.s of the abduction, but are, at the sa.e ti.e, co.parativel0 silent as to other concrete steps the investi$ators have been ta=in$ to ascertain the authors of the cri.e. Althou$h conductin$ a bac=$round investi$ation on the victi.s is a lo$ical first step in e4posin$ the .otive behind the abduction-its necessit0 is clearl0 out"ei$hed b0 the need to identif0 the perpetrators, especiall0 in li$ht of the fact that the petitioner, "ho "as no lon$er in captivit0, alread0 ca.e up "ith alle$ations about the .otive of her captors. Instead, 6as= *roup CAR CAN placed the fate of their investi$ations solel0 on the cooperation or non)cooperation of the petitioner-"ho, the0 clai., "as less than enthusiastic in participatin$ in their investi$ative efforts.#+# ,hile it .a0 be conceded that the participation of the petitioner "ould have facilitated the pro$ress of 6as= *roup CAR CAN5s investi$ation, this Court believes that the for.er5s reticence to cooperate is hardl0 an e4cuse for 6as= *roup CAR CAN not to e4plore other .eans or avenues fro. "hich the0 could obtain relevant leads.#+% Indeed, "hile the alle$ations of $overn.ent co.plicit0 b0 the petitioner cannot, b0 the.selves, hold up as adeFuate evidence before a court of la"-the0 are, nonetheless, a vital source of valuable investi$ative leads that .ust be pursued and verified, if onl0 to co.pl0 "ith the hi$h standard of dili$ence reFuired b0 the A.paro Rule in the conduct of investi$ations. Assu.in$ the non)cooperation of the petitioner, 6as= *roup CAR CAN5s reports still failed to e4plain "h0 it never considered see=in$ the assistance of Mr. Cesus Paolo-"ho, alon$ "ith the victi.s, is a central "itness to the abduction. 6he reports of 6as= *roup CAR CAN is silent in an0 atte.pt to obtain fro. Mr. Paolo, a carto$raphic s=etch of the abductors or, at the ver0 least, of the one "ho, b0 petitioner5s account, "as not "earin$ an0 .as=.1avvphi1 6he recollection of Mr. Paolo could have served as a co.parative .aterial to the s=etches included in petitioner5s offer of e4hibits that, it .a0 be pointed out, "ere prepared under the direction of, and first sub.itted to, the C3R pursuant to the latter5s independent investi$ation on the abduction and torture of the petitioner.#++ But as .entioned earlier, the C3R s=etches re.ain to be unidentified as of this date. In li$ht of these considerations, ,e a$ree "ith the Court of Appeals that further investi$ation under the nor. of e4traordinar0 dili$ence should be underta=en. 6his Court si.pl0 cannot "rite finis to this case, on the basis of an inco.plete investi$ation conducted b0 the police and the .ilitar0. In a ver0 real sense, the ri$ht to securit0 of the petitioner is continuousl0 put in /eopard0 because of the deficient investi$ation that directl0 contributes to the dela0 in brin$in$ the real perpetrators before the bar of /ustice. 6o add teeth to the appellate court5s directive, ho"ever, ,e find it fittin$, na0, necessar0 to shift the pri.ar0 tas= of conductin$ further investi$ations on the abduction and torture of the petitioner upon the C3R.#+? ,e note that the C3R, unli=e the police or the .ilitar0, see.s to

en/o0 the trust and confidence of the petitioner-as evidenced b0 her attendance and participation in the hearin$s alread0 conducted b0 the co..ission.#+@ Certainl0, it "ould be reasonable to assu.e fro. such cooperation that the investi$ations of the C3R have advanced, or at the ver0 least, bears the .ost pro.ise of advancin$ farther, in ter.s of locatin$ the perpetrators of the abduction, and is thus, vital for a final resolution of this petition. !ro. this perspective, ,e also dee. it /ust and appropriate to rele$ate the tas= of affordin$ interi. protection to the petitioner, also to the C3R. 3ence, ,e .odif0 the directive of the Court of the Appeals for further investi$ation, as follo"s #.2 Appointin$ the C3R as the lead a$enc0 tas=ed "ith conductin$ further investi$ation re$ardin$ the abduction and torture of the petitioner. Accordin$l0, the C3R shall, under the nor. of e4traordinar0 dili$ence, ta=e or continue to ta=e the necessar0 steps7 1a2 to identif0 the persons described in the carto$raphic s=etches sub.itted b0 the petitioner, as "ell as their "hereabouts< and 1b2 to pursue an0 other leads relevant to petitioner5s abduction and torture. %.2 Directin$ the incu.bent Chief of the Philippine National Police 1PNP2, or his successor, and the incu.bent Chief of Staff of the A!P, or his successor, to e4tend assistance to the on$oin$ investi$ation of the C3R, includin$ but not li.ited to furnishin$ the latter a cop0 of its personnel records circa the ti.e of the petitioner5s abduction and torture, sub/ect to reasonable re$ulations consistent "ith the Constitution and e4istin$ la"s. +.2 !urther directin$ the incu.bent Chief of the PNP, or his successor, to furnish to this Court, the Court of Appeals, and the petitioner or her representative, a cop0 of the reports of its investi$ations and their reco..endations, other than those that are alread0 part of the records of this case, "ithin ninet0 1('2 da0s fro. receipt of this decision. ?.2 !urther directin$ the C3R to 1a2 furnish to the Court of Appeals "ithin ninet0 1('2 da0s fro. receipt of this decision, a cop0 of the reports on its investi$ation and its correspondin$ reco..endations< and to 1b2 provide or continue to provide protection to the petitioner durin$ her sta0 or visit to the Philippines, until such ti.e as .a0 hereinafter be deter.ined b0 this Court. Accordin$l0, this case .ust be referred bac= to the Court of Appeals, for the purposes of .onitorin$ co.pliance "ith the above directives and deter.inin$ "hether, in li$ht of an0 recent reports or reco..endations, there "ould alread0 be sufficient evidence to hold an0 of the public respondents responsible or, at least, accountable. After .a=in$ such deter.ination, the Court of Appeals shall sub.it its o"n report "ith reco..endation to this Court for final action. 6he Court of Appeals "ill continue to have /urisdiction over this case in order to acco.plish its tas=s under this decision. !HERE ORE, the instant petition is PARTIA$$' MERITORIOUS. ,e hereb0 render a decision7

#.2 A!!IRMIN* the denial of the petitioner5s pra0er for the return of her personal belon$in$s< %.2 A!!IRMIN* the denial of the petitioner5s pra0er for an inspection of the detention areas of !ort Ma$sa0sa0. +.2 REIERSIN* the $rant of the privile$e of habeas data, "ithout pre/udice, ho"ever, to an0 .odification that this Court .a0 .a=e on the basis of the investi$ation reports and reco..endations sub.itted to it under this decision. ?.2 M DI!9IN* the directive that further investi$ation .ust be underta=en, as follo"s a. APP IN6IN* the Co..ission on 3u.an Ri$hts as the lead a$enc0 tas=ed "ith conductin$ further investi$ation re$ardin$ the abduction and torture of the petitioner. Accordin$l0, the Co..ission on 3u.an Ri$hts shall, under the nor. of e4traordinar0 dili$ence, ta=e or continue to ta=e the necessar0 steps7 1a2 to identif0 the persons described in the carto$raphic s=etches sub.itted b0 the petitioner, as "ell as their "hereabouts< and 1b2 to pursue an0 other leads relevant to petitioner5s abduction and torture. b. DIREC6IN* the incu.bent Chief of the Philippine National Police, or his successor, and the incu.bent Chief of Staff of the Ar.ed !orces of the Philippines, or his successor, to e4tend assistance to the on$oin$ investi$ation of the Co..ission on 3u.an Ri$hts, includin$ but not li.ited to furnishin$ the latter a cop0 of its personnel records circa the ti.e of the petitioner5s abduction and torture, sub/ect to reasonable re$ulations consistent "ith the Constitution and e4istin$ la"s. c. !urther DIREC6IN* the incu.bent Chief of the Philippine National Police, or his successor, to furnish to this Court, the Court of Appeals, and the petitioner or her representative, a cop0 of the reports of its investi$ations and their reco..endations, other than those that are alread0 part of the records of this case, "ithin ninet0 1('2 da0s fro. receipt of this decision. d. !urther DIREC6IN* the Co..ission on 3u.an Ri$hts 1a2 to furnish to the Court of Appeals "ithin ninet0 1('2 da0s fro. receipt of this decision, a cop0 of the reports on its investi$ation and its correspondin$ reco..endations< and 1b2 to provide or continue to provide protection to the petitioner durin$ her sta0 or visit to the Philippines, until such ti.e as .a0 hereinafter be deter.ined b0 this Court. @.2 RE!ERRIN* BACD the instant case to the Court of Appeals for the follo"in$ purposes7 a. 6o M NI6 R the investi$ations and actions ta=en b0 the PNP, A!P, and the C3R<

b. 6o DE6ERMINE "hether, in li$ht of the reports and reco..endations of the C3R, the abduction and torture of the petitioner "as co..itted b0 persons actin$ under an0 of the public respondents< and on the basis of this deter.inationc. 6o S:BMI6 to this Court "ithin ten 1#'2 da0s fro. receipt of the report and reco..endation of the Co..ission on 3u.an Ri$hts-its o"n report, "hich shall include a reco..endation either for the DISMISSA8 of the petition as a$ainst the public respondents "ho "ere found not responsible and;or accountable, or for the APPR PRIA6E REMEDIA8 MEAS:RES, AS MA9 BE A88 ,ED B9 63E AMPAR AND 3ABEAS DA6A R:8ES, 6 BE :NDER6ADEN as a$ainst those found responsible and;or accountable. Accordin$l0, the public respondents shall re.ain personall0 i.pleaded in this petition to ans"er for an0 responsibilities and;or accountabilities the0 .a0 have incurred durin$ their incu.bencies. ther findin$s of the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated %& Au$ust %''( in CA)*.R. SP No. '''+&),RA that are not contrar0 to this decision are A!!IRMED. S RDERED.

*OSE PORTUGA$ PERE+ Associate Custice ,E C NC:R7 RENATO C. CORONA Chief Custice ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Custice PRES(ITERO *. #E$ASCO, *R. Associate Custice TERESITA *. $EONAR"O& "ECASTRO Associate Custice "IOS"A"O M. PERA$TA Associate Custice MARIANO C. "E$ CASTI$$O Associate Custice CONCHITA CARPIO MORA$ES Associate Custice ANTONIO E"UAR"O (. NACHURA Associate Custice 1 n fficial 8eave2 ARTURO ". (RIONJ Associate Custice $UCAS P. (ERSAMIN Associate Custice RO(ERTO A. A(A" Associate Custice

MARTIN S. #I$$ARAMA, *R. Associate Custice

*OSE CATRA$ MEN"O+A Associate Custice

MARIA $OUR"ES P.A. SERENO Associate Custice CER6I!ICA6I N

Pursuant to Section #+, Article IIII of the Constitution, it is hereb0 certified that the conclusions in the above Decision "ere reached in consultation before the case "as assi$ned to the "riter of the opinion of the Court. RENATO C. CORONA Chief Custice

oot/ote1
J

n fficial 8eave.

:nder Rule ?@ of the Rules of Court, in relation "ith Section #( of 6he Rule on the ,rit of A.paro 1A.M. No. 'A)()#%)SC2 and Section #( of the Rule on the ,rit of 3abeas Data 1A.M. No. 'B)#)#&)SC2.
%

Penned b0 Associate Custice Noel *. 6i/a. "ith Associate Custices Arturo *. 6a0a$ and Nor.andie B. Pi>arro, concurrin$. Rollo, pp @')B%.
+

Id. at B#)B%. Id. at @+. Id. A sister or$ani>ation of BAYAN):SA. Affidavit of Petitioner. CA rollo, p.##. A di$ital .ulti).edia pla0er co.bined "ith a hard drive. Supple.ental Affidavit of Petitioner. CA rollo, p. #(?. Id. Id.

&

#'

##

#%

Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. at #%. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. at @?. Id. at #%)#@. Id. Id. Id. at #%. Id. at #%)#+. Supple.ental Affidavit. Id. at #(?)#(&. Id. at #?)#@ and #(@. Id. at #@.

#+

#?

#@

#&

#A

#B

#(

%'

%#

%%

%+

%?

%@

%&

%A

%B

%(

+'

+#

Id. at #@)#&. Per investi$ation of the police, Cuanito Carabeo "as released b0 the abductors on %? Ma0 %''( alon$ the hi$h"a0 of Barangay Santa Cru>, 8ubao, Pa.pan$a. 3is e4act "herabouts are, ho"ever, presentl0 un=no"n. Accordin$ to the police, Carabeo has A outstandin$ "arrants of arrest. As of the ti.e of this decision, no ne"s relative to the release and;or "hereabouts of Cohn Ed"ard Candoc is obtainable.
+%

Meanin$, subscriber Identit0 Module.

++

6he e.ail address is Eriveradon$K0ahoo.co.,E "ith the pass"ord Edantes%''(.E CA rollo, at #(&.
+?

6he boo= "as E8ove in the 6i.es of CholeraE b0 *abriel *arcia MarFue>, and a cop0 of a Bible of the Din$ Ca.es Iersion. Id. at #(@.
+@

Id. at #@. Id. Id.

+&

+A

+B

Id. at %)#B. Shortl0 after filin$ the petition, petitioner "ent to the :nited States to recuperate fro. her e4perience. She ca.e bac= to the Philippines on +' Cul0 %''( to testif0 on the affidavits attached to her petition before the Court of Appeals, but returned i..ediatel0 to the :nited States.
+(

6he interro$ator identified onl0 b0 the na.e of ECa.esE "as not si.ilarl0 i.pleaded as a co)respondent.
?'

CA rollo, pp. A)B. Supre.e Court En Banc Resolution, id. at #()%#. Id.

?#

?%

?+

No return "as filed b0 or for the un=no"n respondents EDe4,E ERoseE and ERC.E Id. at +@)(B.
??

Id. at @&. Id. at #B and ('. Id. Id. at @B. Id. at @(. Id. at #A. Id. at &')&#. Id. at &'. Id. at ?%)?+

?@

?&

?A

?B

?(

@'

@#

@%

@+

Id. at ?+)@@. Id. Id. at #B and ('. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. at ##+ Id. at #B. Affidavit of PC;Supt. 8eon Nilo A. Dela Cru>. Id. at B+. Id. at #B)('. Initial Report of Special Investi$ative 6as= *roup CAR CAN, id. at ##%)##?. Id. at ##+)##?.

@?

@@

@&

@A

@B

@(

&'

&#

&%

&+

&?

&@

&&

See 8etters sent b0 PC;Supt. *il C. Meneses, head of Special Investi$ative 6as= *roup CAR CAN, to Sister Cecile Rui> of Darapatan and the Alliance for Advance.ent of People5s Ri$hts. Id. at (+)(?.
&A

Id. at @?.

&B

See Initial Report dated %& Ma0 %''(< !irst Pro$ress Report dated %A Ma0 %''(< Second Pro$ress Report dated # Cune %''(< 6hird Pro$ress Report dated B Cune %''(, on the alle$ed abduction and torture of Melissa Ro4as, Cuanito Carabeo and Cohn Ed"ard Candoc, prepared b0 6as= *roup CAR CAN, id. at ##%)#%'. See also Investi$ation Report dated %( Cune %''(, id. at #A()#B@.
&(

Id. at #B@. Counter)Affidavit of Secretar0 *ilbert 6eodoro, id. at #%#)#%+. Id. at #%?. Id. at #%%.

A'

A#

A%

A+

Id. at AA. Affidavit of *eneral Iictor S. Ibrado, id. at A+)A?. Affidavit of 8t. *en. Delfin N. Ban$it, id. at A()B'. Affidavit of Ma/. *en. Ralph A. Iillanueva, id. at B#)B%. Id. at #'A)##'. Id. at ##'. Rollo, pp. @')B%. Id. at &+)&?. Id. at &?. Id. at &?)&@. Id. at &A. Id. at &()A#. Id. at B#)B%. Id. at B')B#. Id. Id. at B#)B%. Id. at A#)A%. Id. at A+. Id. at A#)A%. Id. at A+. Id. at B#. Id. at A@)AA. Id. at %)?' and A.

A?

A@

A&

AA

AB

A(

B'

B#

B%

B+

B?

B@

B&

BA

BB

B(

('

(#

(%

(+

(?

(@

(&

Id. Id. at #@. See also CA rollo, p. @. Id. at #A. Id. at +B.

(A

(B

((

#''

See Separate pinion of Associate Custice Arturo D. Brion in Rubrico v. Arro0o, *.R. No. #B+BA#, #B !ebruar0 %'#'.
#'#

Rubrico v. Arro0o, *.R. No. #B+BA#, #B !ebruar0 %'#'. Id.

#'%

#'+

CoaFuin *. Bernas, S.C., Command e!pon!i"ility, @ !ebruar0 %''A, http7;;sc./udiciar0.$ov.ph;publications;su..it;Su..itL%'Papers;BernasL%') L%'Co..andL%'Responsibilit0.pdf 1visited % Septe.ber %'#'2.
#'?

Eu$enia 8evine, Co..and Responsibilit0, 6he Mens Rea ReFuire.ent, #lo"al Policy $or%m, !ebruar0 %''@ 1""".$lobalpolic0.or$.2. As stated in Duroda v. Calandoni, B+ Phil. #A# 1#(?(2, the Philippines is not a si$nator0 to the 3a$ue Conventions.
#'@

Iavor Ran$elov and Covan Nicic, ECo..and Responsibilit07 6he Conte.porar0 8a",E http7;;""".hlc)rdc.or$;uploads;editor;Co..andL%'Responsibilit0.pdf 1visited % Au$ust %''(2
#'&

Ra>on, Cr. v. 6a$itis, *.R. No. #B%?(B, + Dece.ber %''(, &'& SCRA @(B, &'%.

#'A

Separate pinion of Associate Custice Arturo D. Brion in Rubrico v. Arro0o, supra note #'#.
#'B

*.R. No. #B'('&, A ctober %''B, @&B SCRA #, ?%.

#'(

Deliberations of the Co..ittee on the Revision of the Rules of Court, #' Au$ust %''A, %? Au$ust %''A, +# Au$ust %''A and %' Septe.ber %''B.
##'

Supra note #'& at &%')&%#. Rollo, pp. %&)%A. Id. at #@. CA rollo, p. @. Id. at #BA)#(+.

###

##%

##+

##?

##@

Id. See E4hibit E*,5 and its sub).ar=in$s. Rollo, pp. A@)A&. As observed b0 the Court of Appeals7 As respondents correctl0 ar$ued, considerin$ that Petitioner is an A.erican citi>en "ho clai.ed to be unfa.iliar "ith !ort Ma$sa0sa0 or its i..ediate vicinit0, she cannot possibl0 have an0 fa.iliarit0 or actual =no"led$e of the buildin$s in or around !ort Ma$sa0sa0 or the relative distances to and fro. the sa.e. Petitioner failed to offer a sin$le evidence to definitel0 prove that she "as brou$ht to !ort Ma$sa0sa0 to the e4clusion of other places. It is also unfortunate that her t"o other co.panions Messrs. Carabeo and Candoc, chose not to appear in Court to corroborate the testi.on0 of the Petitioner.

##&

##A

Id. at B#. a&on, 'r. v. (agiti!, supra note #'& at &BB)&B(. 6apu> v. Del Rosario, *.R. No. #B%?B?, #A Cune %''B, @@? SCRA A&B, AB?)AB@. Section # of the A.paro Rule states7 Section #. Petition. ) 6he petition for a "rit of Amparo is a re.ed0 available to an0 person "hose ri$ht to life, libert0 and securit0 is violated or threatened "ith violation b0 an unla"ful act or o.ission of a public official or e.plo0ee, or of a private individual or entit0. 6he "rit shall cover e4tra)le$al =illin$s and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. 1E.phasis supplied2.

##B

##(

#%'

#%#

ollo, pp. %A)+#. Id. at A&. Id. at %B. 9ano v. Sanche>, *.R. No. #B&&?', ## !ebruar0 %'#'. Rollo, pp. B')B#.

#%%

#%+

#%?

#%@

#%&

Annotation to the Rule on the ,rit of 3abeas Data, A.M. No. 'B)#)#&)SC, effective % !ebruar0 %''B 1pa.phlet released b0 the Supre.e Court2, p. %+.
#%A

Section # of the 3abeas Data Rule states7 SEC6I N #. )a"ea! Data. ) 6he "rit of ha"ea! data is a re.ed0 available to an0 person "hose ri$ht to privac0 in life, libert0 or securit0 is violated or threatened

b0 an unla"ful act or o.ission of a public official or e.plo0ee, or of a private individual or entit0 en$a$ed in the $atherin$, collectin$ or storin$ of data or infor.ation re$ardin$ the person, fa.il0, ho.e and correspondence of the a$$rieved part0. 1E.phasis supplied2.
#%B

C NS6I6:6I N, Article IIII, Section #B.

#%(

In Ra>on, Cr. v. 6a$itis, supra note #'& at &B?, this Court, thru Associate Custice Arturo D. Brion, reco$ni>ed the three 1+2 t0pes of evidentiar0 difficulties faced b0 a petitioner in an a.paro petition. In e4plainin$ the ori$ins of such difficulties, Custice Brion e4plained7 E6hese difficulties lar$el0 arise because the State itself M the part0 "hose involve.ent is alle$ed M investi$ates enforced disappearances. 4 4 4.E
#+'

Section #A of the A.paro Rule states7 SEC. #A. B%rden o* Proo* and Standard o* Diligence e+%ired. M 4 4 4. 4 4 4 4. 6he respondent "ho is a public official or e.plo0ee .ust prove that e4traordinar0 dili$ence as reFuired b0 applicable la"s, rules and re$ulations "as observed in the perfor.ance of dut0. 1E.phasis supplied.2

#+#

CA rollo, p. #B@. Placed in a si.ilar situation, the case of Rubrico v. Arro0o, supra note #'#, instructs7 6he see.in$ reluctance on the part of the Rubricos or their "itnesses to cooperate ou$ht not to pose a hindrance to the police in pursuin$, on its o"n initiative, the investi$ation in Fuestion to its natural end. 6o repeat "hat the Court said in ,analo, the ri$ht to securit0 of persons is a $uarantee of the protection of one5s ri$ht b0 the $overn.ent. And this protection includes conductin$ effective investi$ations of e4tra)le$al =illin$s, enforced disappearances, or threats of the sa.e =ind. 1E.phasis supplied2.

#+%

#++

6SN, +' Cul0 %''(, pp. #A#)#A+.

#+?

,e follo" suit "ith the recent case of Bur$os v. Arro0o, *.R. No. #B+A##, %% Cune %'#', "here this Court, after havin$ found si$nificant lapses in the conduct of the police investi$ations, resolved to assi$n the C3R, as its directl0 co..issioned a$enc0, "ith the tas= of continuin$ the investi$ations on the disappearance of Conas Bur$os.
#+@

ollo, p. ++.