Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Macapagal-Arroyo
G.R. No. 183711, July 05, 2011
TOPIC: Powers and functions of the President | Special Powers | Powers as Commander-in-Chief
Petitioner: Edita T. Burgos
Respondents: PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., LT. GEN. ROMEO P. TOLENTINO, MAJ. GEN.
JUANITO GOMEZ, MAJ. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, LT. COL. NOEL CLEMENT, LT. COL. MELQUIADES FELICIANO, DIRECTOR GENERAL OSCAR
CALDERON
Ponente: Brion, J. 3 consolidated cases with same petitioner; resolution review of CA decision
FACTS
Consolidated petitions for Habeas Corpus, Contempt and Writ of Amparo [the only one granted] filed by Edita T. Burgos.
- from news item: Jonas Joseph T. Burgos was a farmer-activist, and his father Joe Burgos was a figurehead of press freedom. He was
abducted in April 2007, by military and police, as determined by the CA in 2013.
- in a 2010 resolution
- SC referred the case to CHR for investigation of the abduction, as the investigation by the PNP-CIDG, by the AFP Provost Marshal,
and even by the CHR had been less than complete; for one, there were very significant lapses in the handling of the investigation. In
particular, we highlighted the PNP-CIDG's failure to identify the cartographic sketches of two (one male and one female) of the five
abductors of Jonas, based on their interview of eyewitnesses to the abduction.
- the CHR was tasked to ascertain he identities of the persons in the cartographic sketches, to determine the identities and location of
military officials that are the possible abductors, to ascertain whether Jonas was abducted by members of the CPP/NPA, the identities
and whereabouts of the Ka Dante and Ka Enso of the CPP/NPA, undertaking all measures, in the investigation of the Burgos abduction,
that may be necessary to live up to the extraordinary measures we require in addressing an enforced disappearance under the Rule
on the Writ of Amparo.
- case of contempt against president arroyo dismissed by the CA was affirmed as she is entitled as President to immunity from suit.
SC RULING
A. Amparo
- case to be remanded to CA to allow Lt. Baliaga and the present Amparo respondents to file their respective Comments on the CHR
Report within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of this Resolution.
- We also note that Office of the Judge Advocate General (TJAG) failed and/or refused to provide the CHR with copies of documents
relevant to the case of Jonas, and thereby disobeyed our June 22, 2010 Resolution.
- Section 16 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides that any person who otherwise disobeys or resists a lawful process or order of
the court may be punished for contempt, viz: SEC. 16. Contempt. - The court, justice or judge may order the respondent who
refuses to make a return, or who makes a false return, or any person who otherwise disobeys or resists a lawful process or order of
the court to be punished for contempt. The contemnor may be imprisoned or imposed a fine
- we resolve to require General Roa of TJAG, AFP, and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, JI, AFP, at the time of our June 22, 2010
Resolution, and then incumbent Chief of Staff, AFP, [16] to show cause and explain, within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days
from receipt of this Resolution, why they should not be held in contempt of this Court for defying our June 22, 2010 Resolution.
B. Habeas Corpus
- we resolve to set aside the CA's dismissal of the habeas corpus petition and issue anew the writ of habeas corpus returnable to the
Presiding Justice of the CA who shall immediately refer the writ to the same CA division that decided the habeas corpus petition
- we also order that Lt. Baliaga be impleaded as a party to the habeas corpus petition and require him - together with the incumbent
Chief of Staff, AFP; the incumbent Commanding General, Philippine Army; and the Commanding Officer of the 56th IB at the time of
the disappearance of Jonas, Lt. Col. Feliciano - to produce the person of Jonas and to show cause why he should not be released from
detention.
- The CA shall rule on the merits of the habeas corpus petition in light of the evidence previously submitted to it, the proceedings
already conducted, and the subsequent developments in this case. The Court of Appeals and the parties may require Prosecutor
Emmanuel Velasco, Jeffrey Cabintoy, Edmund Dag-uman, Melissa Concepcion Reyes, Emerito Lipio and Marlon Manuel to testify in this
case.
Contempt, whether direct or indirect, may be civil or criminal depending on the nature and effect of the contemptuous act. Criminal
contempt is "conduct directed against the authority and dignity of the court or a judge acting judicially; it is an act obstructing the
administration of justice which tends to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect." On the other hand, civil contempt is the failure
to do something ordered to be done by a court or a judge for the benefit of the opposing party therein and is therefore, an offense
against the party in whose behalf the violated order was made. If the purpose is to punish, then it is criminal in nature; but if to
compensate, then it is civil.
- We agree with the CA that indirect contempt is the appropriate characterization of the charge filed by the petitioner against the
respondents and that the charge is criminal in nature.
- A criminal contempt proceeding - sui generis as it partakes some of the elements of both a civil and criminal proceeding, without
completely falling under either proceeding. It uses the principles and rules applicable to criminal cases, to the extent that criminal
procedure is consistent with the summary nature of a contempt proceeding. the accused is afforded many of the protections
provided in regular criminal cases; and that proceedings under statutes governing them are to be strictly construed.
- In proceedings for criminal contempt, the defendant is presumed innocent and the burden is on the prosecution to prove the
charges beyond reasonable doubt.
- For the petitioner to succeed in her petition to declare the respondents in contempt for filing false returns in the habeas corpus
proceedings before the CA, she has the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents had custody of Jonas. the
pieces of evidence on record as of the time of the CA proceedings were merely circumstantial and did not provide a direct link
between the respondents and the abduction of Jonas
- the chr report have introduced new information, so Investigations will continue, consistent with the nature of Amparo proceedings to
be alive until a definitive result is achieved, and these investigations may yet yield additional evidence affecting the conclusion the
CA made. For this reason, we can only conclude that the CA's dismissal of the contempt charge should be provisional, i.e., without
prejudice to the re-filing of the charge in the future should the petitioner find this step warranted by the evidence
- In light of the dismissal of the petitions against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo who is no the longer the President of the Republic
of the Philippines, she should now be dropped as a party-respondent in these petitions.