Rodriguez vs Arroyo (2011)

FACTS:

This case involved two consolidated petitions.

Noriel Rodriguez, who is a member of Alyansa Dagiti Mannalon Iti Cagayan

(Kagimungan), a peasant organization affiliated with Kilusang Magbubukid ng
Pilipinas (KMP).

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.
Petitioner was abducted for 9 days and then tortured and forced to confess to being
a member of the New People's Army (NPA). He was coerced to sign documents that
he was not subjected to torture and abduction and that he surrendered as a former
NPA now willing to become a government’s asset.

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.

The petition was filed against former President Arroyo, high ranking generals of the
military and other officers.
The writs were granted.
But the CA dropped President Arroyo as party-respondent, as she may not be sued in
any case during her tenure of office or actual incumbency as part of her presidential
immunity. Also, the prayer for the issuance of a temporary protection order and
inspection order was denied by the CA.

The respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration on the decision of the CA but
before such motion could be resolved petitioner filed a Motion for Partial
Reconsideration raising that the CA erred in not granting the interim relief for
temporary protection order and in dropping President Arroyo as party-respondent.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the interim reliefs prayed for by petitioner may be granted even
after the writs of amparo and habeas data have been granted.

2. Whether or not President Arroyo should be dropped as respondent because of her

presidential immunity.

3. Whether the doctrine of command responsibility can be used in amparo and

habeas data cases

4. Whether the rights to life, liberty and property of Rodriguez were violated or
threatened by respondents

HELD:

1. The interim reliefs prayed for by the petitioner is only available before final
judgment. Section 14 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo clearly provides that interim
reliefs may only be availed of upon filing of the petition or at anytime before final
judgment. Given that there has already been a final judgment in the given case,
petitioner may no longer avail of the interim relief of temporary protection order.

2. No, President Arroyo should not be dropped. There is no determination of

administrative, civil or criminal liability in amparo and habeas data proceedings as
courts can only go as far as ascertaining responsibility or accountability for the
enforced disappearance or extrajudicial killing.
It does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability
for the disappearance; rather, it determines responsibility, or at
least accountability, for the enforced disappearance for purposes of
imposing the appropriate remedies to address the
disappearance. 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. In all these cases,
the issuance of the Writ of Amparo is justified by our primary goal
of addressing the disappearance, so that the life of the victim is
preserved and his liberty and security are restored.[70] (Emphasis
supplied.)

As it was held in the case of Estrada v Desierto, a non-sitting President does not
enjoy immunity from suit, even for acts committed during the latter’s tenure; that
courts should look with disfavor upon the presidential privilege of immunity,
especially when it impedes the search for truth or impairs the vindication of a right.
Also, the Supreme Court (SC) reiterated that the presidential immunity from suit
exists only in concurrence with the president’s incumbency. Given these, former
Pres. GMA cannot use presidential immunity to shield herself from judicial scrutiny
that would assess whether, within the context of amparo proceedings, she was
responsible or accountable for the abduction of Rodriguez.

3. Yes, 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. Precisely in the given case, 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. 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.
4. Yes, the rights to life, liberty and property of Rodriguez were violated or
threatened by respondents. The SC held that there was no reason to depart from the
factual findings of the Court of Appeals, the same being supported by substantial
evidence following the doctrine of totality of evidence in amparo cases which 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. The sworn affidavit of the
petitioner and the medical examinations conducted on him are sufficient evidence
proving that the military personnel involved in the case indeed abducted Rodriguez
on September 6, 2009 and then detained and tortured him.