BALAO et al vs.

GMA (Exec Sec, DND, DILG, AFPCS, PNP Chief etc)

G.R. No. 186050 December 13, 2011

FACTS: The siblings of James Balao, and Longid (petitioners), filed with the RTC of
La Trinidad, Benguet a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in favor of
James Balao who was abducted by unidentified armed men in 2008.

James M. Balao is a Psychology and Economics graduate of the UP-Baguio. In 1984,

he was among those who founded the Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA), a coalition of
NGOs working for the cause of indigenous peoples in the Cordillera Region.

According to witnesses’ testimony, James was abducted by unidentified men, saying

they were policemen and were arresting him for a drugs case and then made to ride
a white van.

Petitioners prayed for the issuance of a writ of amparo. RTC granted it ruling as well
to deny respondents petition to drop PGMA from among the respondents.

ISSUE:
Whether PGMA and the high-ranking officials are liable by virtue of command
responsibility.
RULING: NO

The Court in Rubrico v. Macapagal-Arroyo[34] had the occasion to expound on the

doctrine of command responsibility and why it has little bearing, if at all,
in amparo proceedings:

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.

(Nota Bene) Subsequently, we have clarified that the inapplicability of the doctrine
of command responsibility in an amparo proceeding does not, by any measure,
preclude impleading military or police commanders on the ground that the
complained acts in the petition were committed with their direct or indirect
acquiescence. Commanders may therefore be impleaded not actually on the basis of
command responsibility but rather on the ground of their responsibility, or at
least accountability.

In Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis, the Court defined responsibility and accountability as

these terms are applied to amparo proceedings, as follows:
x x x Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have been established by
substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way, by action or
omission, in an enforced disappearance, as a measure of the remedies this
Court shall craft, among them, the directive to file the appropriate criminal
and civil cases against the responsible parties in the proper
courts. Accountability, on the other hand, refers to the measure of
remedies that should be addressed to those who exhibited involvement
in the enforced disappearance without bringing the level of their complicity to
the level of responsibility defined above; or who are imputed with knowledge
relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of
disclosure; or those who carry, but have failed to discharge, the burden
of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced
disappearance. x x x

(DISPOSITION)
1. Assessing the evidence on record, we find that the participation in any manner of
military and police authorities in the abduction of James has not been adequately
proven.
2. PGMA immune from suit.