Roxas v.
Macapagal-Arroyo
G.R. No. 189155
07 September 2010
PARTIES:
PETITIONER: MELISSA ROXAS
RESPONDENTS: PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-
ARROYO, GILBERT TEODORO, GEN. VICTOR
IBRADO, P/DIR. GEN. JESUS AME VERZOSA, LT.
GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, PC/SIPT/ LEON NILO DELA
CRUZ, MAJ.GEN. RALPH VILLANUEVA, PS/SUPT.
RUDY GAMIDO LACADIN, DEX, RC, and ROSE
NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:
Supreme Court: Petition for the issuance of Writs of
Amparo and Habeas Data
Court of Appeals: Upon order of the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals summarily heard the Original Action
for Petition of Amparo. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals
issued a judgment which is the subject of the present
Petition for Review on Certiorari.
FACTS:
Melissa Roxas, an American citizen of Filipino
descent, while in the United States, enrolled in an
exposure program to the Philippines with the group
Bagong Alyansang Makabayan-United States of America
(BAYAN- USA) of which she is a member.
On 19 May 2009, after doing survey work in Tarlac, Roxas
and her companions rested in the house of Mr. Jesus
Paolo in Sitio Bagong Sikat. While Roxas and her
companions were resting, 15 heavily armed men in
civilian clothes forcibly entered the house and dragged
them inside a van. When they alighted from the van, she
was informed that she is being detained for being a
member of Communist Party of the Philippines-New
People’s Army (CPP-NPA). She was then separated from
her companions and was brought to a room, from where
she could hear sounds of gunfire, noise of planes taking
off and landing, and some construction bustle.
She was interrogated and tortured for 5 straight days to
convince her to abandon her communist beliefs. She was
informed by a person named “RC” that those who
tortured her came from the “Special Operations Group”
and that she was abducted because her name is included
in the “Order of Battle.”
On 25 May 2009, Roxas was finally released and was
given a cellular phone with a sim card. She was sternly
warned not to report the incident to the group Karapatan
or something untoward will happen to her and her
family. After her release, Roxas continued to receive calls
from RC thru the cell phone given to her. Out of
apprehension, she threw the phone and the sim card.
Hence, on 01 June 2009, Roxas filed a petition for the
issuance of Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data before the
Supreme Court, impleading the high-ranking officials of
military and Philippine National Police (PNP), on the
belief that it was the government agents who were behind
her abduction and torture.
On 09 June 2009, the Supreme Court issued the writs and
referred the case to the Court of Appeals for hearing,
reception of evidence and appropriate action. The Court
of Appeals granted the privilege of writs of amparo and
habeas data. However, the court a quo absolved the
respondents because it was not convinced that the
respondents were responsible for the abduction and
torture of Roxas.
Aggrieved, Roxas filed an appeal with the Supreme
Court.
PERTINENT ISSUES:
Whether or not the doctrine of command responsibility is
applicable in an amparo petition.
Whether or not circumstantial evidence with regard to the
identity and affiliation of the perpetrators is enough
ground for the issuance of the privilege of the writ of
amparo.
Whether or not substantial evidence to prove actual or
threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty
or security of the victim is necessary before the privilege
of the writ may be extended.
ANSWERS:
No.
It depends. Direct evidence of identity, when obtainable
must be preferred over mere circumstantial evidence.
Yes.
SUPREME COURT RULINGS:
1. DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY
AND THE WRIT OF AMPARO
Command responsibility as justification in impleading
respondents is legally inaccurate – The use of the doctrine
of command responsibility as justification in impleading
the respondents in her amparo petition, is legally
inaccurate, if not incorrect. Such doctrine is a rule of
substantive law that establishes liability and, by this
account, cannot be a proper legal basis to implead a party- DISPOSITIVE:
respondent in an amparo petition.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of
The Writ of Amparo as a protective remedy – As held in Appeals. However, it modified the directive of the Court
the case of Rubrico v. Arroyo, the writ of amparo is a of the Appeals for further investigation, as follows:
protective remedy aimed at providing judicial relief
consisting of the appropriate remedial measures and Appointing the CHR as the lead agency tasked with
directives that may be crafted by the court, in order to conducting further investigation regarding the abduction
address specific violations or threats of violation of the and torture of the petitioner. Accordingly, the CHR shall,
constitutional rights to life, liberty or security. It does not under the norm of extraordinary diligence, take or
fix liability for such disappearance, killing or threats, continue to take the necessary steps: (a) to identify the
whether that may be criminal, civil or administrative persons described in the cartographic sketches submitted
under the applicable substantive law. Since the by the petitioner, as well as their whereabouts; and (b) to
application of command responsibility presupposes an pursue any other leads relevant to petitioner’s abduction
imputation of individual liability, it is more aptly invoked and torture.
in a full-blown criminal or administrative case rather than
Directing the incumbent Chief of the Philippine National
in a summary amparo proceeding. However, the
Police (PNP), or his successor, and the incumbent Chief
inapplicability of the doctrine of command responsibility
of Staff of the AFP, or his successor, to extend assistance
does not preclude impleading military or police
to the ongoing investigation of the CHR, including but
commanders on the ground that the complained acts in
not limited to furnishing the latter a copy of its personnel
the petition were committed with their direct or indirect
records circa the time of the petitioner’s abduction and
acquiescence. In which case, commanders may be
torture, subject to reasonable regulations consistent with
impleaded — not actually on the basis of command
the Constitution and existing laws.
responsibility—but rather on the ground of their
responsibility, or at least accountability. Further directing the incumbent Chief of the PNP, or his
successor, to furnish to this Court, the Court of Appeals,
2. EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN AMPARO
and the petitioner or her representative, a copy of the
PROCEEDINGS
reports of its investigations and their recommendations,
In amparo proceedings, direct evidence of identity must other than those that are already part of the records of this
be preferred over mere circumstantial evidence – In case, within ninety (90) days from receipt of this decision.
amparo proceedings, the weight that may be accorded to
Further directing the CHR to (a) furnish to the Court of
parallel circumstances as evidence of military
Appeals within ninety (90) days from receipt of this
involvement depends largely on the availability or non-
decision, a copy of the reports on its investigation and its
availability of other pieces of evidence that has the
corresponding recommendations; and to (b) provide or
potential of directly proving the identity and affiliation of
continue to provide protection to the petitioner during
the perpetrators. Direct evidence of identity, when
her stay or visit to the Philippines, until such time as may
obtainable, must be preferred over mere circumstantial
hereinafter be determined by this Court.
evidence based on patterns and similarity, because the
former indubitably offers greater certainty as to the true The Supreme Court likewise referred the case back to the
identity and affiliation of the perpetrators. Court of Appeals, for the purposes of monitoring
compliance with the above directives and determining
3. EVIDENCE REQURED IN HABEAS DATA
whether, in light of any recent reports or
PROCEEDINGS
recommendations, there would already be sufficient
Substantial evidence of an actual or threatened violation evidence to hold any of the public respondents
of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the responsible or, at least, accountable. After making such
victim is an indispensable requirement before the determination, the Court of Appeals shall submit its own
privilege of the writ may be extended – An indispensable report with recommendation to the Supreme Court for its
requirement before the privilege of the writ may be consideration. It was declared that the Court of Appeals
extended is the showing, at least by substantial evidence, will continue to have jurisdiction over this case in order
of an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy to accomplish its tasks under this decision.
in life, liberty or security of the victim. In the case at bar,
Roxas failed to show that there is an actual or threatened
violation of such right. Hence, until such time that any of
the respondents were found to be actually responsible for
the abduction and torture of Roxas, any inference
regarding the existence of reports being kept in violation
of the petitioner’s right to privacy becomes farfetched,
and premature. The Court must, at least in the meantime,
strike down the grant of the privilege of the writ of habeas
data.