PRINCIPLE:

Direct evidence of identity, when obtainable, must be preferred over mere circumstantial
evidence based on patterns and similarity, because the former indubitably offers greater certainty as to
the true identity and affiliation of the perpetrators. An amparo court cannot simply leave to remote and
hazy inference what it could otherwise clearly and directly ascertain.

The writ of amparo is a protective remedy aimed at providing judicial relief consisting of the
appropriate remedial measures and directives that may be crafted by the court, in order to address
specific violations or threats of violation of the constitutional rights to life, liberty or security. While the
principal objective of its proceedings is the initial determination of whether an enforced
disappearance, extralegal killing or threats thereof had transpiredthe writ does not, by so doing, fix
liability for such disappearance, killing or threats, whether that may be criminal, civil or administrative
under the applicable substantive law.

The writ of habeas data was conceptualized as a judicial remedy enforcing the right to privacy,
most especially the right to informational privacy of individuals. The writ operates to protect a persons
right to control information regarding himself, particularly in the instances where such information is
being collected through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends.

Needless to state, an indispensable requirement before the privilege of the writ may be extended is the
showing, at least by substantial evidence, of an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in
life, liberty or security of the victim. This, in the case at bench, the petitioner failed to do.

ROXAS vs. ARROYO

FACTS:

Background of events (Petitioner’s version):

Roxas enrolled in an exposure program to the Philippines with a group called BAYAN-USA. She then
joined a group called BAYAN-TARLAC in a health survey in La Paz, Tarlac. She had with her a passport,
wallet and Php 15k in cash, journal, digicam with memory card, laptop, external hard disk, IPOD, wrist
watch, sphygnometer, stethoscope, and medicines (hereafter known as “STUFF”).

May 19, 2009—After doing survey work, petitioner and companions decided to rest in the house of Jesus
Paolo (hereafter, Mr. Paolo). At 1:30pm, they were startled by people banging on the door, demanding
for them to open up. 15 armed men, with bonnets to conceal their faces (except the leader), tied
them up and blindfolded them. They were dragged into a van. From here on out remember, she’s
blindfolded.
When they got to the destination, she was informed that she had been detained for being a member of
Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army (CCP-NPA). She was separated from her
companions and kept in a room with metal bars. From the sound of gunfire, planes taking off and
construction bustle, she inferred she was in Fort Magsaysay.

She was subjected to 5 days straight of interrogation and torture to convince her to abandon her
communist beliefs and return to the fold. She had blindfolds on even while she was sleeping and only
got to take them off to take a bath and to occasionally sneak a peek at her
surroundings. She was able to learn the names of her 3 interrogators during her stay—Dex, James and
RC.

May 25, 2009—Petitioner was released to her uncle’s house in QC. Her abductors gave her a cellphone
with a SIM card and an email address with a password, biscuits, books, the handcuffs used on her, a
blouse, and a pair of shoes. She was told not to report what she went through to a group called
Karapatan or something untoward will happen to her and her family.

She would receive calls on the phone occasionally. For fear for her and her family’s safety, she threw
away the phone.

Start of the case

Seeking sanctuary from all the threats, she filed with the SC a Petitioner for the Writs of Amapro and
Habeas Data against her interrogators and also impleading public officials, police officers, and military
men of the highest rank (check out the list of respondents) because she believed that it was the
government that was responsible for her abduction.

She prayed:

1. that respondents be enjoined from harming or even approaching her family

2. an order be issued to inspect the detention areas in Fort Magsaysay

3. that respondents be ordered to produce documents relating to any reports about her

case, including intelligence reports and operations reports of the Special Operations

Group of the AFP

4. that respondents expunge from the records any documents pertinent to her name or

any name which sounds the same

5. that respondents be ordered to return her STUFF

SC issued the desired writs and referred the case to the CA for hearing and reception of

evidence; SC also directed the respondents to file their answer.

OSG on behalf of respondents:

1. petitioner’s alleged abduction was just “stage-managed” and a scheme to put the
government in bad light

a. according to Mr. Paolo’s report: prior to her abduction, she instructed him and his two sons to
avoid leaving the house. From this, they conclude that no one else could have known where
petitioner and companions were except the people already in the house. If there was actually an
abduction, she herself consented to it

b. the Medical Certificate showed abrasions in her wrists and knee caps. If she was indeed
choked and boxed by her abductors, it would have showed

2. even assuming that the abduction and torture were genuine

a. PGMA is immune from suit as a sitting president

b. There are no specific allegations against the officials impleaded that they actually participated
therein

3. Public respondents were not remiss in their duty to ascertain the truth behind the
allegations of the petitioner

a. Police action—when the police heard of the abduction at 4:30pm, they launched an initial
investigation. They sent a Flash Message to all the police stations around in an effort to locate
the van. The Special Investigation Task Group (Task Group CAROJAN) was formed to conduct an in
depth investigation. They contacted Karapatan and Alliance for Advancement of People’s Rights
to get help, but these never heeded. They still have not found out the abductors identities,
which they attribute to the lack of help from petitioner, her companions, and the afformentioned
groups.

b. Military action—GIBO (Secretary of Defense) first heard of the abduction when this case was
filed. But upon receipt of the resolution from the Court, he issued a Memorandum Directive to the AFP
Chief of Staff to conduct an investigation. AFP Chief of Staff sent a message to the Commanding General
of the Army Lt. Gen.

Bangit to cause the investigation. Bangit then instructed Maj. Gen. Villanueva to set this in
motion, who then tasked Office of the Provost Marshall (OPV) to conduct the investigation.
They described petitioner’s allegations as “opinionated” and cleared the military for any kind of
involvement.

CA’s decision:

 Gave great weight to petitioner’s version of the story

 Disregarded the “stage managed” argument of respondents because it was based on unfounded
speculation that only Roxas and companions knew where they were

 Medical Certificate can only affirm that there was indeed an abduction; it cannot be reflective of
the actual injuries suffered

 There is an ongoing threat to the security of petitioner and family and so extended the privilege of the
writ of amparo and ordered respondents to use extraordinary diligence to continue the investigations

 There is a transgression of the the petitioner’s right to information privacy because according
to photos and videos (supplied by party-list reps Jovito Palparan and Pastor Alcover), there were “records
of investigation” concenrning petitioner’s involvement in the CPP-NPA—CA granted the privilege of
the writ of habeas data, mandating respondents to refrain from distributing to the public any
records relative to her alleged ties with the CPP-NPA or her abduction and torture.

 CA not convinced that the military or any of the public officials were involved in the abduction and
torture and also absolved PGMA because of immunity from suit.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Roxas sufficiently identified her perpetrators with whom she has adequate knowledge.

Whether or not Roxas will be granted her petitioner for Habeas Data and Writ of Amparo.

No!

RATIO:

 Petitioner invokes doctrine of command responsibility in impleading the public respondents

o Incorrect. Rubrico v. Arroyo: Command responsibility refers to the responsibility of

commanders for crimes committed by their subordinate members or other persons subject to
their control in international wars or domestic conflict

o Since its application presupposes imputation of individual liability, it is invoked in criminal

cases, not amparo proceedings—see definition of writ of amapro in Sec. of National Defense v. Manalo

 However, they may be impleaded on the basis of responsibility or accountability

o Razon v. Tagitis: Responsibility—extent the actors have been established by

substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way in an enforced disappearance; the
Court may craft the directive to file an appropriate civil or criminal proceeding against them.
Accountability—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 or imputed with knowledge relating to the disappearance or those who carry
the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of enforced disappearances
 Totality of evidence does not prove that respondents were her abductors or that she was detained in
Fort Magsaysay

o Direct evidence of identity (cartographic sketched of abductors, which Roxas was able to
describe) is accorded more weight than mere circumstantial evidence in amapro proceedings (i.e.
past abductions in Fort Magsaysay having similar circumstances as hers)

o Given that the identities of the men in the cartographic sketches were not
identified as belonging to the military or public officials, they cannot be held liable

o Roxas is just a sojourner in the Philippines and not even a citizen, so the Court can’t rely on
her inference that she was taken to Fort Magsaysay merely because the distance from Mr.
Paolo’s house to where they were taken felt like the distance between the house and
Fort Magsaysay

 With regard prayer for the return of her belongings

o The order itself is a substantial relief that can only be granted once the liability of the public
respondents has been fixed in a full and exhaustive proceeding. Matters of liability are not
discusses in amparo cases.

 Prayer for inspection of Fort Magsaysay

o Since it was not proven that Fort Magsaysay was indeed the palce where
abductees were taken, an order to inspect it would be tantamount to a “fishing expedition” for evidence

o It is a rule in amapro that a place inspected must at least be identified with clarity and
precision and that allegations be sufficient in themselves to make a prima facie case

 HABEAS DATA

o Conceptualized as a judicial remedy for enforcing a right to privacy, most

especially the right to informational privacy of individuals. It operates to protect a person’s right to
control information regarding himself, particularly, in the instances where such information is
being collected through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends

o The indispesable element is a showing, at least substantially, that a violation or threatened

violation of the right to privacy in lifem liberty or security has happened, which the
petitioner has failed to do

o There is no evidence that any of the public respondents have violated or

threatened a right to privacy of the petitioner. There wasn’t even evidence that they had access to the
photos and videos

o The grant of habeas data by the CA has no legal basis

 Extraordinary diligence was not exercised by the respodnents

o The reports of Task Group CAROJAN contained background checks of the abductees
but none about the abductors. They also blame the failure of their investigation on the petitioner’s lack
of participation. They could have used many other means, i.e. a cartographic sketch of the unmasked
abductor could have been obtained from the testimony of Mr. Paolo

RULING:

 Deny prayer for return of belongings

 Deny prayer for inspection of detention areas in Fort Magsaysay

 Reverse grant of privilege of habeas data, without prejudice to changes that might occur

after the investigation is completed

 Modifying directive for further investiation:

o Appointing Commision on Human Rights (CHR) to be the lead agency in the

investigation

o Directing incumbent Chief of PNP or whoever succeeds him and the chief of staff

of the AFP to assist the CHR

o Directing PNP chief to furnish CA with copies of the investigation reports

o Directing CHR to furnish CA with copy of report and recommendations within 90

days from receipt of this decision

 Referring the case back to the CA for monitoring, determination if the abduction was

indeed performed by public respondents, and to submit the report to the SC within 10

days from the receipt of the report from the CHR

 All other findings not contrary to the ones here, affirmed

SHORT DIGEST:

Roxas had an immersion here in the Philippines, enrolled herself in an exposure program. One day, after
doing survey work, she was abducted by armed men. There the abductors told her that she was
adbucted by reason of her being member of the CCP-NPA. She was interrogated by them and was
tortured. The armed men introduced themselves as part of the Special Operations Group and with that,
Roxas also knew the names of some of them. After 5 days of being held captive, she was realeased by
the armed men.

Seeking sanctuary against the threat of future harm as well as the suppresion of any existing government
files or records linking her to the CCP-NPA, petitioner filed a Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data while she
impleaded public officials to answer for her abduction and torture.