Rodriguez vs Arroyo

G.R. No. 191805 November 15, 2011

Facts
Rodriguez claims that the military tagged KMP as an enemy of the State under the Oplan
Bantay Laya, making its members targets of extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearances. Later, Rodriguez was freed under certain conditions. Where Rodriguez
was made to sign an affidavit stating that he was neither abducted nor tortured. Afraid and
desperate to return home, he was forced to sign the document. Cruz advised him not to
file a case against his abductors because they had already freed him. The CHR personnel
then led him and his family to the CHR Toyota Tamaraw FX service vehicle. On 7
December 2009, Rodriguez filed before this Court a Petition for the Writ of Amparo and
Petition for the Writ of Habeas Data with Prayers for Protection Orders, Inspection of
Place, and Production of Documents and Personal Properties dated 2 December 2009.
The petition was filed against former President Arroyo, Gen. Ibrado, PDG. Versoza,Lt.
Gen. Bangit, Major General (Maj. Gen.) Nestor Z. Ochoa, P/CSupt. Tolentino, P/SSupt.
Santos, Col. De Vera, 1st Lt.Matutina, Calog, George Palacpac (Palacpac), Cruz,
Pasicolan and Callagan.
Respondents:
On 6 January 2012, respondents filed their Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the
soldiers belonging to the 17th Infantry Battalion, 5th Infantry Division of the military
cannot be held accountable for authoring the abduction and torture of petitioner. Their
arguments revolve solely on the claim that respondents were never specifically mentioned
by name as having performed, permitted, condoned, authorized, or allowed the
commission of any act or incurrence omission which would violate or threaten with
violation the rights to life, liberty, and security of petitioner-respondent and his family.
Issue:
1.Whether the doctrine of command responsibility can be used in amparo and habeas data
cases.
2.Whether the rights to life, liberty and property of Rodriguez were violated or threatened
by respondents in G.R.No. 191805.
Held
Command responsibility in amparo proceedings To attribute responsibility or
accountability to former President Arroyo, Rodriguez contends that the doctrine of
command responsibility may be applied. As we explained in Rubrico v. Arroyo,command
responsibility pertains to 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."Although originally used for ascertaining
criminal complicity, the command responsibility doctrine has also found application in
civil cases for human rights abuses. Thus, it is our view that command responsibility may
likewise find application in proceedings seeking the privilege of the writ of amparo.

Precisely in the case at bar, the doctrine of command responsibility may be used to
determine whether respondents are accountable for and have the duty to address the
abduction of Rodriguez in order to enable the courts to devise remedial measures to
protect his rights. Clearly, nothing precludes this Court from applying the doctrine of
command responsibility in amparo proceedings to ascertain responsibility and
accountability in extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.Whether the rights to
life, liberty and property of Rodriguez were violated or threatened by respondents The
fair and proper rule, to our mind, is 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.