You are on page 1of 34

SOORDERED.

Corona(C.J.),Carpio,CarpioMorales,Velasco,Jr.,
LeonardoDe Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad,
Villarama,Jr.,Perez,MendozaandSereno,JJ.,concur.
Brion,J.,OnOfficialLeave.

Petitiondenied,judgmentandresolutionaffirmed.

Note.Jurisprudence is in unison in saying that assistance of


counsel is not indispensable in administrative proceedings. (Perez
vs.People,544SCRA532[2008])
o0o

G.R.No.189155.September7,2010.*

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF


AMPARO AND THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF
MELISSAC.ROXAS,

MELISSA C. ROXAS, petitioner, vs. GLORIA MACAPAGAL


ARROYO, GILBERT TEODORO, GEN. VICTOR S. IBRADO,
P/DIR. GEN. JESUS AME VERZOSA, LT. GEN. DELFIN N.
BANGIT, PC/SUPT. LEON NILO A. DELA CRUZ, MAJ. GEN.
RALPH VILLANUEVA, PS/SUPT. RUDY GAMIDO LACADIN,
AND CERTAIN PERSONS WHO GO BY THE NAME[S] DEX,
RCANDROSE,respondents.

WritofAmparoDoctrineofCommandResponsibilityThedoctrineof
commandresponsibilityisaruleofsubstantivelawthatestablishesliability
and by this account, cannot be a proper legal basis to implead a party
respondentinanamparopetitionThedoctrineisusedtopinpointliability.
Itmustbestatedattheoutset

_______________

*ENBANC.

212
212 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

thattheusebythepetitionerofthedoctrineofcommandresponsibilityasthe
justificationinimpleadingthepublicrespondentsinheramparopetition,is
legally inaccurate, if not incorrect. The doctrine of command responsibility
is a rule of substantive law that establishes liability and, by this account,
cannot be a proper legal basis to implead a partyrespondent in an amparo
petition.ThecaseofRubricov.Arroyo(613SCRA233[2010]),whichwas
the first to examine command responsibility in the context of an amparo
proceeding,observedthatthedoctrineisusedtopinpointliability.
Same Same The doctrine is more aptly invoked in a fullblown
criminal or administrative case rather than in a summary amparo
proceeding The writ of amparo is a protective remedy aimed at providing
judicialreliefconsistingoftheappropriateremedialmeasuresanddirectives
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.
Since the application of command responsibility presupposes an imputation
of individual liability, it is more aptly invoked in a fullblown criminal or
administrative case rather than in a summary amparo proceeding. The
obviousreasonliesinthenatureofthewrititself:Thewritofamparoisa
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,killingorthreats,whetherthatmaybecriminal,civilor
administrativeundertheapplicablesubstantivelaw.
Same Same 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
acquiescenceCommandersmaybeimpleadednotactuallyonthebasisof
commandresponsibilitybutratheronthegroundoftheirresponsibility,or
at least accountability.It must be clarified, however, that the
inapplicability of the doctrine of command responsibility in an amparo
proceedingdoesnot,byanymeas

213

VOL.630,SEPTEMBER7,2010 213

Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo
ure, preclude impleading military or police commanders on the ground that
the complained acts in the petition were committed with their direct or
indirect acquiescence. In which case, commanders may be impleadednot
actuallyonthebasisofcommandresponsibilitybutratheronthegroundof
their responsibility, or at least accountability. In Razon v. Tagitis (606
SCRA 598 [2009]), the distinct, but interrelated concepts of responsibility
andaccountabilityweregivenspecialanduniquesignificationsinrelationto
anamparoproceeding.
SameSameInAmparoproceedings,theweightthatmaybeaccorded
toparallelcircumstancesasevidenceofmilitaryinvolvementdependslargely
ontheavailabilityornonavailabilityofotherpiecesofevidencethathasthe
potential of directly proving the identity and affiliation of the perpetrators
Direct evidence of identity when obtainable must be preferred over mere
circumstantial evidence based on patterns and similarity.In Amparo
proceedings, the weight that may be accorded to parallel circumstances as
evidenceofmilitaryinvolvementdependslargelyontheavailabilityornon
availability of other pieces of evidence that has the potential of directly
proving the identity and affiliation of the perpetrators. 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
inferencewhatitcouldotherwiseclearlyanddirectlyascertain.
Same Same An order directing the public respondents to return the
personal belongings of the petitioner is already equivalent to a conclusive
pronouncement of liability.To the mind of this Court, the prayer of the
petitioner for the return of her belongings is doomed to fail regardless of
whether there is sufficient evidence to hold public respondents responsible
for the abduction of the petitioner. In the first place, an order directing the
public respondents to return the personal belongings of the petitioner is
already equivalent to a conclusive pronouncement of liability. The order
itselfisasubstantialreliefthatcanonlybegrantedoncetheliabilityofthe
public respondents has been fixed in a full and exhaustive proceeding. As
already discussed above, matters of liability are not determinable in a mere
summaryamparoproceeding.

214

214 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

Same Same Section 1 of the Amparo Rule, which defines the scope
and extent of the writ, clearly excludes the protection of property rights.
But perhaps the more fundamental reason in denying the prayer of the
petitioner, lies with the fact that a persons right to be restituted of his
property is already subsumed under the general rubric of property rights
which are no longer protected by the writ of amparo. Section 1 of the
Amparo Rule, which defines the scope and extent of the writ, clearly
excludestheprotectionofpropertyrights.
SameSameInspectionOrderAninspectionorderisaninterimrelief
designedtogivesupportorstrengthentheclaimofapetitionerinanamparo
petition,inordertoaidthecourtbeforemakingadecision.Aninspection
orderisaninterimreliefdesignedtogivesupportorstrengthentheclaimof
apetitionerinanamparopetition,inordertoaidthecourtbeforemakinga
decision. A basic requirement before an amparo court may grant an
inspection order is that the place to be inspected is reasonably determinable
fromtheallegationsofthepartyseekingtheorder.WhiletheAmparoRule
does not require that the place to be inspected be identified with clarity and
precision, it is, nevertheless, a minimum for the issuance of an inspection
orderthatthesupportingallegationsofapartybesufficientinitself,soasto
makeaprimafaciecase.This,aswasshownabove,petitionerfailedtodo.
Same Same Same An inspection order cannot issue on the basis of
allegationsthatare,inthemselves,unreliableanddoubtful.Sincethevery
estimates and observations of the petitioner are not strong enough to make
out a prima facie case that she was detained in Fort Magsaysay, an
inspection of the military camp cannot be ordered. An inspection order
cannot issue on the basis of allegations that are, in themselves, unreliable
anddoubtful.
WritofHabeasDataThewritofhabeasdatawasconceptualizedasa
judicial remedy enforcing the right to privacy, most especially the right to
informationalprivacyofindividuals.Thewritoperatestoprotectapersons
righttocontrolinformationregardinghimself,particularlyintheinstances
wheresuchinformationisbeingcollectedthroughunlawfulmeansinorder
toachieveunlawfulends.Thewritofhabeasdatawasconceptualizedasa
judicial remedy enforcing the right to privacy, most especially the right to
informationalprivacyofindividuals.Thewritoperatestoprotecta

215

VOL.630,SEPTEMBER7,2010 215

Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

persons right to control information regarding himself, particularly in the


instanceswheresuchinformationisbeingcollectedthroughunlawfulmeans
in order to achieve unlawful ends. Needless to state, an indispensable
requirementbeforetheprivilegeofthewritmaybeextendedistheshowing,
at least by substantial evidence, of an actual or threatened violation of the
righttoprivacyinlife,libertyorsecurityofthevictim.This,inthecaseat
bench,thepetitionerfailedtodo.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of


Appeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
RexJ.M.A.Fernandezforpetitioner.

PEREZ,J.:
At bench is a Petition For Review on Certiorari1 assailing the
Decision2dated26August2009oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.
SPNo.00036WRAapetitionthatwascommencedjointlyunder
theRulesontheWritofAmparo(Amparo Rule) and Habeas Data
(HabeasDataRule).Initsdecision,theCourtofAppealsextended
to the petitioner, Melissa C. Roxas, the privilege of the writs of
amparo and habeas data but denied the latters prayers for an
inspection order, production order and return of specified personal
belongings.Thefalloofthedecisionreads:

_______________

1UnderRule45oftheRulesofCourt,inrelationwithSection19ofTheRuleon
theWritofAmparo(A.M.No.07912SC)andSection19oftheRuleontheWritof
HabeasData(A.M.No.08116SC).
2 Penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam with Associate Justices Arturo G.
TayagandNormandieB.Pizarro,concurring.Rollo,pp.5082.

216

216 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

WHEREFORE,thePetitionisPARTIALLYMERITORIOUS.
This Court hereby grants Petitioner the privilege of the Writ of
AmparoandHabeasData.
Accordingly, Respondents are enjoined to refrain from
distributingorcausingthedistributiontothepublicofanyrecordsin
whatever form, reports, documents or similar papers relative to
PetitionersMelissaC.Roxas,and/orMelissaRoxasallegedtiesto
the CPPNPA or pertinently related to the complained incident.
Petitionersprayersforaninspectionorder,productionorderandfor
thereturnofthespecifiedpersonalbelongingsaredeniedforlackof
merit. Although there is no evidence that Respondents are
responsiblefortheabduction,detentionortortureofthePetitioner,
said Respondents pursuant to their legally mandated duties are,
nonetheless, ordered to continue/complete the investigation of this
incident with the end in view of prosecuting those who are
responsible. Respondents are also ordered to provide protection to
the Petitioner and her family while in the Philippines against any
and all forms of harassment, intimidation and coercion as may be
relevanttothegrantofthesereliefs.3

Webeginwiththepetitionersallegations.

Petitioner is an American citizen of Filipino descent.4 While in


Petitioner is an American citizen of Filipino descent.4 While in
theUnitedStates,petitionerenrolledinanexposureprogramtothe
Philippines with the group Bagong Alyansang MakabayanUnited
StatesofAmerica(BAYANUSA)ofwhichsheisamember.5During
thecourseofherimmersion,petitionertouredvariousprovincesand
towns of Central Luzon and, in April of 2009, she volunteered to
join members of BAYANTarlac6 in conducting an initial health
surveyinLaPaz,Tarlacforafuturemedicalmission.7
Inpursuitofhervolunteerwork,petitionerbroughtherpassport,
walletwithFifteenThousandPesos(P15,000.00)in

_______________

3Id.,atpp.8182.
4Id.,atp.53.
5Id.
6AsisterorganizationofBAYANUSA.
7AffidavitofPetitioner.CARollo,p.11.

217

VOL.630,SEPTEMBER7,2010 217
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

cash, journal, digital camera with memory card, laptop computer,


external hard disk, IPOD,8 wristwatch, sphygmomanometer,
stethoscopeandmedicines.9
After doing survey work on 19 May 2009, petitioner and her
companions, Juanito Carabeo (Carabeo) and John Edward Jandoc
(Jandoc), decided to rest in the house of one Mr. Jesus Paolo (Mr.
Paolo) in Sitio Bagong Sikat, Barangay Kapanikian, La Paz,
Tarlac.10 At around 1:30 in the afternoon, however, petitioner, her
companions and Mr. Paolo were startled by the loud sounds of
someonebangingatthefrontdoorandavoicedemandingthatthey
openup.11
Suddenly, fifteen (15) heavily armed men forcibly opened the
door,bargedinsideandorderedpetitionerandhercompanionstolie
on the ground face down.12 The armed men were all in civilian
clothes and, with the exception of their leader, were also wearing
bonnetstoconcealtheirfaces.13
Petitionertriedtoprotesttheintrusion,butfive(5)ofthearmed
men ganged up on her and tied her hands.14 At this juncture,
petitioner saw the other armed men herding Carabeo and Jandoc,
alreadyblindfoldedandtapedattheirmouths,toanearbybluevan.
Petitioner started to shout her name.15 Against her vigorous
resistance, the armed men dragged petitioner towards the van
bruisingherarms,legsandknees.16Onceinsidethevan,butbefore
shecanbeblindfolded,petitionerwasabletoseethefaceofoneof
thearmedmensittingbesideher.17Thevanthenspedaway.

_______________

8Adigitalmultimediaplayercombinedwithaharddrive.
9SupplementalAffidavitofPetitioner.CARollo,p.194.
10Id.
11Id.
12Id.
13Id.
14Id.
15Id.
16Id.
17Id.,atp.12.

218

218 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

After about an hour of traveling, the van stopped.18 Petitioner,


Carabeo and Jandoc were ordered to alight.19 After she was
informed that she is being detained for being a member of the
Communist Party of the PhilippinesNew Peoples Army (CPP
NPA), petitioner was separated from her companions and was
escortedtoaroomthatshebelievedwasajailcellfromthesoundof
itsmetaldoors.20Fromthere,shecouldhearthesoundsofgunfire,
the noise of planes taking off and landing and some construction
bustle.21SheinferredthatshewastakentothemilitarycampofFort
MagsaysayinLaur,NuevaEcija.22
Whatfollowedwasfive(5)straightdaysofinterrogationcoupled
with torture.23 The thrust of the interrogations was to convince
petitionertoabandonhercommunistbeliefsinfavorofreturningto
the fold.24 The torture, on the other hand, consisted of taunting,
choking,boxingandsuffocatingthepetitioner.25
Throughout the entirety of her ordeal, petitioner was made to
sufferinblindfoldseveninhersleep.26Petitionerwasonlyrelieved
ofherblindfoldswhenshewasallowedtotakeabath,duringwhich
she became acquainted with a woman named Rose who bathed
her.27 There were also a few times when she cheated her blindfold
andwasabletopeekathersurroundings.28

_______________

18Id.
19Id.
20Id.
21Id.
22Id.,atp.54.
23Id.,atpp.1215.
24Id.
25Id.
26Id.,atp.12.
27Id.,atpp.1213.
28SupplementalAffidavit.Id.,atpp.194196.

219

VOL.630,SEPTEMBER7,2010 219
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

Despitebeingdeprivedofsight,however,petitionerwasstillable
to learn the names of three of her interrogators who introduced
themselves to her as Dex, James and RC.29 RC even told
petitioner that those who tortured her came from the Special
OperationsGroup,andthatshewasabductedbecausehernameis
includedintheOrderofBattle.30
On25May2009,petitionerwasfinallyreleasedandreturnedto
heruncleshouseinQuezonCity.31Beforebeingreleased,however,
theabductorsgavepetitioneracellularphonewithaSIM32card,a
slipofpapercontaininganemailaddresswithpassword,33aplastic
bag containing biscuits and books,34 the handcuffs used on her, a
blouseandapairofshoes.35Petitionerwasalsosternlywarnednot
toreporttheincidenttothegroupKarapatanorsomethinguntoward
willhappentoherandherfamily.36
Sometime after her release, petitioner continued to receive calls
fromRCviathecellularphonegiventoher.37Outofapprehension
thatshewasbeingmonitoredandalsofearing

29Id.,atpp.1415and195.
30Id.,atp.15.
31Id.,atpp.1516.Perinvestigationofthepolice,JuanitoCarabeowasreleased
bytheabductorson24May2009alongthehighwayofBarangaySantaCruz,Lubao,
Pampanga.Hisexactwheraboutsare,however,presentlyunknown.Accordingtothe
police,Carabeohas7outstandingwarrantsofarrest.Asofthetimeofthisdecision,no
newsrelativetothereleaseand/orwhereaboutsofJohnEdwardJandocisobtainable.
32Meaning,subscriberIdentityModule.
33 The email address is riveradong@yahoo.com, with the password
dantes2009.CARollo,atp.196.
34ThebookwasLoveintheTimesofCholerabyGabrielGarciaMarquez,anda
copyofaBibleoftheKingJamesVersion.Id.,atp.195.
35Id.,atp.15.
36Id.
37Id.
220

220 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

forthesafetyofherfamily,petitionerthrewawaythecellularphone
withaSIMcard.
Seekingsanctuaryagainstthethreatoffutureharmaswellasthe
suppressionofanyexistinggovernmentfilesorrecordslinkingher
tothecommunistmovement,petitionerfiledaPetitionfortheWrits
of Amparo and Habeas Data before this Court on 1 June 2009.38
Petitioner impleaded public officials occupying the uppermost
echelonsofthemilitaryandpolicehierarchyasrespondents,onthe
beliefthatitwasgovernmentagentswhowerebehindherabduction
and torture. Petitioner likewise included in her suit Rose, Dex
andRC.39
The Amparo and Habeas Data petition prays that: (1)
respondents be enjoined from harming or even approaching
petitioner and her family (2) an order be issued allowing the
inspection of detention areas in the 7th Infantry Division, Fort
Magsaysay, Laur, Nueva Ecija (3) respondents be ordered to
produce documents relating to any report on the case of petitioner
including, but not limited to, intelligence report and operation
reportsofthe7thInfantryDivision,theSpecialOperationsGroupof
the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and its subsidiaries or
branch/es prior to, during and subsequent to 19 May 2009 (4)
respondents be ordered to expunge from the records of the
respondents any document pertinent or connected to Melissa C.
Roxas,MelissaRoxasoranynamewhichsoundsthesameand(5)
respondents be ordered to return to petitioner her journal, digital
camerawithmemorycard,laptopcomputer,externalharddisk,

_______________

38Id.,at pp. 218. Shortly after filing the petition, petitioner went to the United
Statestorecuperatefromherexperience.ShecamebacktothePhilippineson30July
2009totestifyontheaffidavitsattachedtoherpetitionbeforetheCourtofAppeals,
butreturnedimmediatelytotheUnitedStates.
39 The interrogator identified only by the name of James was not similarly
impleadedasacorespondent.

221

VOL.630,SEPTEMBER7,2010 221
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo
IPOD,wristwatch,sphygmomanometer,stethoscope,medicinesand
herP15,000.00cash.40
InaResolutiondated9June2009,thisCourtissuedthedesired
writs and referred the case to the Court of Appeals for hearing,
receptionofevidenceandappropriateaction.41TheResolutionalso
directedtherespondentstofiletheirverifiedwrittenreturn.42
On18June2009,theOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG),filed
aReturnoftheWrits43onbehalfofthepublicofficialsimpleadedas
respondents.
We now turn to the defenses interposed by the public
respondents.
The public respondents label petitioners alleged abduction and
torture as stage managed.44 In support of their accusation, the
publicrespondentsprincipallyrelyonthestatementofMr.Paolo,as
containedintheSpecialReport45oftheLaPazPoliceStation.Inthe
Special Report, Mr. Paolo disclosed that, prior to the purported
abduction,petitionerandhercompanionsinstructedhimandhistwo
sons to avoid leaving the house.46 From this statement, the public
respondents drew the distinct possibility that, except for those
already inside Mr. Paolos house, nobody else has any way of
knowingwherepetitionerandhercompanionswereatthetimethey
were supposedly abducted.47 This can only mean, the public
respondentsconcluded,thatifevertherewasanyabductionit

_______________

40CARollo,pp.78.
41SupremeCourtEnBancResolution,id.,atpp.1921.
42Id.
43NoreturnwasfiledbyorfortheunknownrespondentsDex,RoseandRC.
Id.,atpp.3598.
44Id.,atp.56.
45Id.,atpp.18and90.
46Id.
47Id.,atp.58.

222

222 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

mustnecessarilyhavebeenplannedby,ordonewiththeconsentof,
thepetitionerandhercompanionsthemselves.48
Public respondents also cited the Medical Certificate49 of the
petitioner, as actually belying her claims that she was subjected to
serious torture for five (5) days. The public respondents noted that
while the petitioner alleges that she was choked and boxed by her
abductorsinflictions that could have easily produced remarkable
bruisesherMedicalCertificateonlyshowsabrasionsinherwrists
andkneecaps.50
Forthepublicrespondents,theaboveanomaliesputinquestion
the very authenticity of petitioners alleged abduction and torture,
more so any military or police involvement therein. Hence, public
respondents conclude that the claims of abduction and torture was
no more than a charade fabricated by the petitioner to put the
government in bad light, and at the same time, bring great media
mileagetoherandthegroupthatsherepresents.51
Nevertheless, even assuming the abduction and torture to be
genuine, the public respondents insist on the dismissal of the
AmparoandHabeasDatapetitionbasedonthefollowinggrounds:
(a) as against respondent President Gloria MacapagalArroyo, in
particular,becauseofherimmunityfromsuit,52and(b)asagainstall
ofthepublicrespondents,ingeneral,inviewoftheabsenceofany
specificallegationinthepetitionthattheyhadparticipatedin,orat
leastauthorized,thecommissionofsuchatrocities.53
Finally, the public respondents posit that they had not been
remissintheirdutytoascertainthetruthbehindthe

_______________

48Id.,atp.59.
49Id.,atp.17.
50Id.,atpp.6061.
51Id.,atp.60.
52Id.,atpp.4243
53Id.,atpp.4355.

223

VOL.630,SEPTEMBER7,2010 223
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

allegationsofthepetitioner.54Inboththepoliceandmilitaryarmsof
the government machinery, inquiries were setup in the following
manner:

PoliceAction

Policeauthoritiesfirstlearnedofthepurportedabductionaround
4:30 oclock in the afternoon of 19 May 2009, when Barangay
Captain Michael M. Manuel came to the La Paz Municipal Police
Station to report the presence of heavily armed men somewhere in
Barangay Kapanikian.55 Acting on the report, the police station
launchedaninitialinvestigation.56
The initial investigation revolved around the statement of Mr.
Paolo, who informed the investigators of an abduction incident
involving three (3) personslater identified as petitioner Melissa
Roxas, Juanito Carabeo and John Edward Jandocwho were all
staying in his house.57 Mr. Paolo disclosed that the abduction
occurredaround1:30oclockintheafternoon,andwasperpetrated
by about eight (8) heavily armed men who forced their way inside
hishouse.58Otherwitnessestotheabductionalsoconfirmedthatthe
armedmenusedadarkbluevanwithanunknownplatenumberand
two(2)HondaXRMmotorcycleswithnoplatenumbers.59
At 5:00 oclock in the afternoon of 19 May 2009, the
investigators sent a Flash Message to the different police stations
surroundingLaPaz,Tarlac,inanefforttotrackandlocatethevan
and motorcycles of the suspects. Unfortunately, the effort yielded
negativeresults.60

_______________

54Id.
55Id.,atpp.18and90.
56Id.
57Id.
58Id.
59Id.
60Id.,atp.113

224

224 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

On 20 May 2009, the results of the initial investigation were


included in a Special Report61 that was transmitted to the Tarlac
Police Provincial Office, headed by public respondent P/S Supt.
RudyLacadin(Supt.Lacadin).PublicrespondentSupt.Lacadin,in
turn, informed the Regional Police Office of Region 3 about the
abduction.62 Followup investigations were, at the same time,
pursued.63
On 26 May 2009, public respondent PC/Supt. Leon Nilo Dela
Cruz,asDirectoroftheRegionalPoliceOfficeforRegion3,caused
thecreationofSpecialInvestigationTaskGroupCAROJAN(Task
Group CAROJAN) to conduct an indepth investigation on the
abductionofthepetitioner,CarabeoandJandoc.64
TaskGroupCAROJANstarteditsinquirybymakingaseriesof
backgroundexaminationsonthevictimsofthepurportedabduction,
in order to reveal the motive behind the abduction and, ultimately,
the identity of the perpetrators.65 Task Group CAROJAN also
maintained liaisons with Karapatan and the Alliance for
Advancement of Peoples Rightsorganizations trusted by
petitionerinthehopesofobtainingthelattersparticipationinthe
ongoing investigations.66 Unfortunately, the letters sent by the
investigators requesting for the availability of the petitioner for
inquirieswereleftunheeded.67

_______________

61Id.,atp.18.
62AffidavitofPC/Supt.LeonNiloA.DelaCruz.Id.,atp.83.
63Id.,atpp.1890.
64InitialReportofSpecialInvestigativeTaskGroupCAROJAN,id.,atpp.112
114.
65Id.,atpp.113114.
66 See Letters sent by PC/Supt. Gil C. Meneses, head of Special Investigative
Task Group CAROJAN, to Sister Cecile Ruiz of Karapatan and the Alliance for
AdvancementofPeoplesRights.Id.,atpp.9394.
67Id.,atp.54.

226

226 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

The progress of the investigations conducted by Task Group


CAROJAN had been detailed in the reports68 that it submitted to
public respondent General Jesus Ame Verzosa, the Chief of the
Philippine National Police. However, as of their latest report dated
29 June 2009, Task Group CAROJAN is still unable to make a
definitive finding as to the true identity and affiliation of the
abductorsafactthattaskgroupCAROJANattributestotherefusal
ofthepetitioner,oranyofherfellowvictims,tocooperateintheir
investigativeefforts.69

MilitaryAction

Public respondent Gilbert Teodoro, the Secretary of National


Defense,firstcametoknowabouttheallegedabductionandtorture
of the petitioner upon receipt of the Resolution of this Court
directing him and the other respondents to file their return.70
Immediately thereafter, he issued a Memorandum Directive71
addressedtotheChiefofStaffoftheAFP,orderingthelatter,among
others, to conduct an inquiry to determine the validity of the
accusationofmilitaryinvolvementintheabduction.72
Acting pursuant to the Memorandum Directive, public
respondentGeneralVictorS.Ibrado,theAFPChiefofStaff,sentan
AFPRadioMessage73addressedtopublicrespondent
_______________

68SeeInitialReportdated26May2009FirstProgressReportdated27May2009
SecondProgressReportdated1June2009ThirdProgressReportdated8June2009,
on the alleged abduction and torture of Melissa Roxas, Juanito Carabeo and John
Edward Jandoc, prepared by Task Group CAROJAN, id., at pp. 112120. See also
InvestigationReportdated29June2009,id.,atpp.179185.
69Id.,atp.185.
70CounterAffidavitofSecretaryGilbertTeodoro,id.,atpp.121123.
71Id.,atp.124.
72Id.,atp.122.
73Id.,atp.77.

226

226 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

Lieutenant General Delfin N. Bangit (Lt. Gen. Bangit), the


Commanding General of the Army, relaying the order to cause an
investigationontheabductionofthepetitioner.74
For his part, and taking cue from the allegations in the amparo
petition, public respondent Lt. Gen. Bangit instructed public
respondent Major General Ralph A. Villanueva (Maj. Gen.
Villanueva), the Commander of the 7th Infantry Division of the
Army based in Fort Magsaysay, to set in motion an investigation
regardingthepossibleinvolvementofanypersonnelassignedatthe
camp in the purported abduction of the petitioner.75 In turn, public
respondent Maj. Gen. Villanueva tapped the Office of the Provost
Marshal (OPV) of the 7th Infantry Division, to conduct the
investigation.76On 23 June 2009, the OPV of the 7th Infantry
Division released an Investigation Report77 detailing the results of
itsinquiry.Insubstance,thereportdescribedpetitionersallegations
as opinionated and thereby cleared the military from any
involvementinherallegedabductionandtorture.78
TheDecisionoftheCourtofAppeals
In its Decision,79 the Court of Appeals gave due weight and
consideration to the petitioners version that she was indeed
abductedandthensubjectedtotortureforfive(5)straightdays.The
appellate court noted the sincerity and resolve by which the
petitioneraffirmedthecontentsofheraffidavitsinopencourt,and
wastherebyconvincedthatthelatterwastellingthetruth.80

_______________

74AffidavitofGeneralVictorS.Ibrado,id.,atpp.7374.
75AffidavitofLt.Gen.DelfinN.Bangit,id.,atpp.7980.
76AffidavitofMaj.Gen.RalphA.Villanueva,id.,atpp.8182.
77Id.,atpp.107110.
78Id.,atp.110.
79Rollo,pp.5082.
80Id.,atpp.6364.

227

VOL.630,SEPTEMBER7,2010 227
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

On the other hand, the Court of Appeals disregarded the


argument of the public respondents that the abduction of the
petitioner was stage managed, as it is merely based on an
unfoundedspeculationthatonlythelatterandhercompanionsknew
wheretheywerestayingatthetimetheywereforciblytaken.81The
CourtofAppealsfurtherstressedthattheMedicalCertificateofthe
petitioner can only affirm the existence of a true abduction, as its
findings are reflective of the very injuries the latter claims to have
sustained during her harrowing ordeal, particularly when she was
handcuffedandthendraggedbyherabductorsontotheirvan.82
The Court of Appeals also recognized the existence of an
ongoingthreatagainstthesecurityofthepetitioner,asmanifestedin
theattemptsofRCtocontactandmonitorher,evenaftershewas
released.83Thisthreat,accordingtotheCourtofAppeals,isallthe
morecompoundedbythefailureofthepoliceauthoritiestoidentify
thematerialperpetratorswhoarestillatlarge.84Thus,theappellate
courtextendedtothepetitionertheprivilegeofthewritofamparo
by directing the public respondents to afford protection to the
former, as well as continuing, under the norm of extraordinary
diligence,theirexistinginvestigationsinvolvingtheabduction.85
The Court of Appeals likewise observed a transgression of the
righttoinformationalprivacyofthepetitioner,notingtheexistence
of records of investigations that concerns the petitioner as a
suspected member of the CPPNPA.86 The appellate court derived
the existence of such records from a photograph and video file
presented in a press conference by partylist representatives Jovito
Palparan (Palparan) and Pastor Alcover (Alcover), which allegedly
showthepetitionerpartici

_______________

81Id.,atp.64.
82Id.,atpp.6465.
83Id.,atp.67.
84Id.,atpp.6971.
85Id.,atpp.8182.
86Id.,atpp.8081.
228

228 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

patinginrebelexercises.RepresentativeAlcoveralsorevealedthat
the photograph and video came from a female CPPNPA member
who wanted out of the organization. According to the Court of
Appeals, the proliferation of the photograph and video, as well as
any form of media, insinuating that petitioner is part of the CPP
NPA does not only constitute a violation of the right to privacy of
the petitioner but also puts further strain on her already volatile
security.87 To this end, the appellate court granted the privilege of
thewritofhabeasdatamandatingthepublicrespondentstorefrain
from distributing to the public any records, in whatever form,
relativetopetitionersallegedtieswiththeCPPNPAorpertinently
relatedtoherabductionandtorture.88
The foregoing notwithstanding, however, the Court of Appeals
wasnotconvincedthatthemilitaryoranyotherpersonactingunder
the acquiescence of the government, were responsible for the
abductionandtortureofthepetitioner.89Theappellatecourtstressed
that, judging by her own statements, the petitioner merely
believed that the military was behind her abduction.90 Thus, the
Court of Appeals absolved the public respondents from any
complicityintheabductionandtortureofpetitioner.91Thepetition
was likewise dismissed as against public respondent President
GloriaMacapagalArroyo,inviewofherimmunityfromsuit.92
Accordingly, the petitioners prayers for the return of her
personal belongings were denied.93 Petitioners prayers for an
inspectionorderandproductionorderalsometthesamefate.94

_______________

87Id.
88Id.,atpp.8182.
89Id.,atpp.7172.
90Id.,atp.73.
91Id.,atpp.7172.
92Id.,atp.73.
93Id.,atp.81.
94Id.,atpp.7577.

229

VOL.630,SEPTEMBER7,2010 229
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo
Hence,thisappealbythepetitioner.

AMPARO

A.
Petitioner first contends that the Court of Appeals erred in
absolving the public respondents from any responsibility in her
abductionandtorture.95Corollarytothis,petitioneralsofindsfault
onthepartofCourtofAppealsindenyingherprayerforthereturn
of her personal belongings.96Petitioner insists that the manner by
which her abduction and torture was carried out, as well as the
sounds of construction, gunfire and airplanes that she heard while
in detention, as these were detailed in her two affidavits and
affirmed by her in open court, are already sufficient evidence to
provegovernmentinvolvement.97Proceedingfromsuchassumption,
petitioner invokes the doctrine of command responsibility to
implicate the highranking civilian and military authorities she
impleadedasrespondentsinheramparopetition.98Thus,petitioner
seeks from this Court a pronouncement holding the respondents as
complicitinherabductionandtorture,aswellasliableforthereturn
ofherbelongings.99
CommandResponsibilityinAmparoProceedings
Itmustbestatedattheoutsetthattheusebythepetitionerofthe
doctrineofcommandresponsibilityasthejustificationinimpleading
thepublicrespondentsinheramparopetition,islegallyinaccurate,
ifnotincorrect.Thedoctrineofcommandresponsibilityisaruleof
substantivelawthates

_______________

95Id.,atpp.240and7.
96Id.
97Id.,atp.15.SeealsoCARollo,p.5.
98Id.,atp.17.
99Id.,atp.38.

230

230 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

tablishesliabilityand,bythisaccount,cannotbeaproperlegalbasis
toimpleadapartyrespondentinanamparopetition.100
ThecaseofRubricov.Arroyo,101whichwasthefirsttoexamine
command responsibility in the context of an amparo proceeding,
observedthatthedoctrineisusedtopinpointliability.Rubriconotes
that:102
The evolution of the command responsibility doctrine finds its context in
the development of laws of war and armed combats. According to Fr.
Bernas, command responsibility, in its simplest terms, means 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.103 In this sense, command
responsibility is properly a form of criminal complicity. The Hague
Conventions of 1907 adopted the doctrine of command responsibility,104
foreshadowingthepresentdaypreceptofholdingasuperioraccountablefor
theatrocitiescommittedbyhissubordinatesshouldheberemissinhisduty
of control over them. As then formulated, command responsibility is an
omission mode of individual criminal liability, whereby the superior is
maderesponsibleforcrimescommittedbyhissubordinatesforfailingto

_______________

100SeeSeparateOpinionofAssociateJusticeArturoD.BrioninRubricov.Arroyo,G.R.
No.183871,18February2010,613SCRA233.
101Rubricov.Arroyo,G.R.No.183871,18February2010,613SCRA233.
102Id.
103 Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., Command Responsibility, 5 February 2007,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/publications/summit/Summit%20Papers/
Bernas%20%20Command%20Responsibility.pdf(visited2September2010).
104EugeniaLevine,CommandResponsibility,TheMensReaRequirement,GlobalPolicy
Forum,February 2005 (www.globalpolicy.org.). As stated in Kuroda v. Jalandoni, 83 Phil.
171(1949),thePhilippinesisnotasignatorytotheHagueConventions.

231

VOL.630,SEPTEMBER7,2010 231
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

prevent or punish the perpetrators105 (as opposed to crimes he ordered).


(Emphasisintheorginal,underscoringsupplied)

Sincetheapplicationofcommandresponsibilitypresupposesan
imputationofindividualliability,itismoreaptlyinvokedinafull
blown criminal or administrative case rather than in a summary
amparoproceeding.Theobviousreasonliesinthenatureofthewrit
itself:
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
specificviolationsorthreatsofviolationoftheconstitutionalrights
to life, liberty or security.106 While the principal objective of its
proceedings is the initial determination of whether an enforced
disappearance, extralegal killing or threats thereof had
transpiredthewritdoesnot,bysodoing,fixliabilityforsuch
disappearance,killingorthreats,whetherthatmaybecriminal,
civil or administrative under the applicable substantive law.107
civil or administrative under the applicable substantive law.107
The rationale underpinning this peculiar nature of an amparo writ
has been, in turn, clearly set forth in the landmark case of The
SecretaryofNationalDefensev.Manalo:108

xxxTheremedyprovidesrapidjudicialreliefasitpartakesofasummary
proceeding that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate
reliefsavailabletothepetitioneritisnotanactiontodeterminecriminal
guiltrequiringproofbeyondreasonabledoubt,orliabilityfordamages
requiringpreponder

_______________

105IavorRangelovandJovanNicic,CommandResponsibility:TheContemporaryLaw,
http://www.hlcrdc.org/uploads/editor/Command%
20Responsibility.pdf(visited2August2009)
106Razon,Jr.v.Tagitis,G.R.No.182498,3December2009,606SCRA598,602.
107SeparateOpinionofAssociateJusticeArturoD.BrioninRubricov.Arroyo,supranote
101.
108G.R.No.180906,7October2008,568SCRA1,42.

232

232 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

ance of evidence, or administrative responsibility requiring substantial


evidencethatwillrequirefullandexhaustiveproceedings.109(Emphasis
supplied)

It must be clarified, however, that the inapplicability of the


doctrine of command responsibility in an amparo proceeding does
not, by any measure, preclude impleading military or police
commandersonthegroundthatthecomplainedactsinthepetition
werecommittedwiththeirdirectorindirectacquiescence.Inwhich
case, commanders may be impleadednot actually on the basis of
command responsibilitybut rather on the ground of their
responsibility, or at least accountability. In Razon v. Tagitis,110
the distinct, but interrelated concepts of responsibility and
accountability were given special and unique significations in
relationtoanamparoproceeding,towit:

xxxResponsibilityreferstotheextenttheactorshavebeenestablishedby
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
responsibilitydefinedaboveorwhoareimputedwithknowledgerelatingto
theenforceddisappearanceandwhocarrytheburdenofdisclosureorthose
whocarry,buthavefailedtodischarge,theburdenofextraordinarydiligence
intheinvestigationoftheenforceddisappearance.

_______________

109 Deliberations of the Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court, 10


August2007,24August2007,31August2007and20September2008.
110Supranote106atpp.620621.

233

VOL.630,SEPTEMBER7,2010 233
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

ResponsibilityofPublicRespondents
Atanyrate,itisclearfromtherecordsofthecasethattheintent
of the petitioner in impleading the public respondents is to ascribe
someformofresponsibilityontheirpart,basedonherassumption
thatthey,inonewayortheother,hadcondonedherabductionand
torture.111
Toestablishsuchassumption,petitionerattemptedtoshowthatit
was government agents who were behind her ordeal. Thus, the
petitioner calls attention to the circumstances surrounding her
abductionandtorturei.e.,theforcibletakinginbroaddaylightuse
of vehicles with no license plates utilization of blindfolds
conducting interrogations to elicit communist inclinations and the
infliction of physical abusewhich, according to her, is consistent
with the way enforced disappearances are being practiced by the
militaryorotherstateforces.112
Moreover, petitioner also claims that she was held inside the
military camp Fort Magsaysaya conclusion that she was able to
inferfromthetraveltimerequiredtoreachtheplacewhereshewas
actuallydetained,andalsofromthesoundsofconstruction,gunfire
andairplanessheheardwhilethereat.113
Wearenotimpressed.Thetotalityoftheevidencepresentedby
the petitioner does not inspire reasonable conclusion that her
abductors were military or police personnel and that she was
detainedatFortMagsaysay.
First. The similarity between the circumstances attending a
particular case of abduction with those surrounding previous
instances of enforced disappearances does not, necessarily, carry
sufficient weight to prove that the government orchestrated such
abduction.Weopinethatinsofarasthepre
_______________

111Rollo,pp.2627.
112Id.,atp.15.
113CARollo,p.5.

234

234 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

sent case is concerned, the perceived similarity cannot stand as


substantialevidenceoftheinvolvementofthegovernment.
In amparo proceedings, the weight that may be accorded to
parallelcircumstancesasevidenceofmilitaryinvolvementdepends
largely on the availability or nonavailability of other pieces of
evidence that has the potential of directly proving the identity and
affiliation of the perpetrators. 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
hazyinferencewhatitcouldotherwiseclearlyanddirectlyascertain.
Inthecaseatbench,petitionerwas,infact,abletoincludeinher
Offer of Exhibits,114 the cartographic sketches115 of several of her
abductors whose faces she managed to see. To the mind of this
Court, these cartographic sketches have the undeniable potential of
givingthegreatestcertaintyastothetrueidentityandaffiliationof
petitionersabductors.Unfortunatelyforthepetitioner,thispotential
hasnotbeenrealizedinviewofthefactthatthefacesdescribedin
suchsketchesremainunidentified,muchlesshavebeenshowntobe
thatofanymilitaryorpolicepersonnel.Bluntlystated,theabductors
werenotproventobepartofeitherthemilitaryorthepolicechain
ofcommand.
Second. The claim of the petitioner that she was taken to Fort
Magsaysaywasnotadequatelyestablishedbyhermereestimateof
thetimeittooktoreachtheplacewhereshewasdetainedandbythe
soundsthatsheheardwhilethereat.LiketheCourtofAppeals,We
are not inclined to take the estimate and observations of the
petitionerasaccurateonitsfacenotonlybecausetheyweremade
mostlywhileshewasinblindfolds,butalsoinviewofthefactthat
shewasamere

_______________

114Id.,atpp.187193.
115Id.SeeExhibitG,anditssubmarkings.

235

VOL.630,SEPTEMBER7,2010 235
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

sojournerinthePhilippines,whosefamiliaritywithFortMagsaysay
andthetraveltimerequiredtoreachitisinitselfdoubtful.116With
nothing else but obscure observations to support it, petitioners
claim that she was taken to Fort Magsaysay remains a mere
speculation.
Insum,thepetitionerwasnotabletoestablishtoaconcretepoint
that her abductors were actually affiliated, whether formally or
informally, with the military or the police organizations. Neither
doestheevidenceathandprovethatpetitionerwasindeedtakento
themilitarycampFortMagsaysaytotheexclusionofotherplaces.
Theseevidentiarygaps,inturn,makeitvirtuallyimpossibleto
determine whether the abduction and torture of the petitioner
was in fact committed with the acquiescence of the public
respondents. On account of this insufficiency in evidence, a
pronouncement of responsibility on the part of the public
respondents,therefore,cannotbemade.
PrayerfortheReturnofPersonalBelongings
ThisbringsUstotheprayerofthepetitionerforthereturnofher
personalbelongings.
Initsdecision,theCourtofAppealsdeniedtheaboveprayerof
thepetitionerbyreasonofthefailureofthelattertoprovethatthe
publicrespondentswereinvolvedinherabduc

_______________

116Rollo,pp.7576.AsobservedbytheCourtofAppeals:
Asrespondentscorrectlyargued,consideringthatPetitionerisanAmericancitizen
who claimed to be unfamiliar with Fort Magsaysay or its immediate vicinity, she
cannotpossiblyhaveanyfamiliarityoractualknowledgeofthebuildingsinoraround
Fort Magsaysay or the relative distances to and from the same. Petitioner failed to
offerasingleevidencetodefinitelyprovethatshewasbroughttoFortMagsaysayto
the exclusion of other places. It is also unfortunate that her two other companions
Messrs.CarabeoandJandoc,chosenottoappearinCourttocorroboratethetestimony
ofthePetitioner.

236

236 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

tion and torture.117 We agree with the conclusion of the Court of


tion and torture.117 We agree with the conclusion of the Court of
Appeals,butnotentirelywiththereasonusedtosupportit.Tothe
mindofthisCourt,theprayerofthepetitionerforthereturnofher
belongingsisdoomedtofailregardlessofwhetherthereissufficient
evidencetoholdpublicrespondentsresponsiblefortheabductionof
thepetitioner.
In the first place, an order directing the public respondents to
returnthepersonalbelongingsofthepetitionerisalreadyequivalent
to a conclusive pronouncement of liability. 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.Asalreadydiscussedabove,mattersofliabilityarenot
determinableinameresummaryamparoproceeding.118
Butperhapsthemorefundamentalreasonindenyingtheprayer
of the petitioner, lies with the fact that a persons right to be
restituted of his property is already subsumed under the general
rubricofpropertyrightswhicharenolongerprotectedbythewrit
of amparo.119 Section 1 of the Amparo Rule,120 which defines the
scope and extent of the writ, clearly excludes the protection of
propertyrights.

_______________

117Id.,atp.81.
118Razon,Jr.v.Tagitis,supranote106atpp.688689.
119Tapuzv.DelRosario,G.R.No.182484,17June2008,554SCRA768,784785.
120Section1oftheAmparoRulestates:
Section1.Petition.ThepetitionforawritofAmparoisaremedyavailableto
any person whose right to life, liberty and securityis violated or threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a
privateindividualorentity.
Thewritshallcoverextralegalkillingsandenforceddisappearancesorthreats
thereof.(Emphasissupplied).

237

VOL.630,SEPTEMBER7,2010 237
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

B.
ThenexterrorraisedbythepetitioneristhedenialbytheCourt
ofAppealsofherprayerforaninspectionofthedetentionareasof
FortMagsaysay.121
Considering the dearth of evidence concretely pointing to any
militaryinvolvementinpetitionersordeal,thisCourtfindsnoerror
onthepartoftheCourtofAppealsindenyinganinspectionofthe
militarycampatFortMagsaysay.Weagreewiththeappellatecourt
thatacontrarystancewouldbeequivalenttosanctioningafishing
expedition, which was never intended by the Amparo Rule in
providing for the interim relief of inspection order.122 Contrary to
theexplicitposition123espousedbythepetitioner,theAmparoRule
doesnotallowafishingexpeditionforevidence.
Aninspectionorderisaninterimreliefdesignedtogivesupport
orstrengthentheclaimofapetitionerinanamparopetition,inorder
to aid the court before making a decision.124 A basic requirement
before an amparo court may grant an inspection order is that the
placetobeinspectedisreasonablydeterminablefromtheallegations
of the party seeking the order. While the Amparo Rule does not
require that the place to be inspected be identified with clarity and
precision, it is, nevertheless, a minimum for the issuance of an
inspection order that the supporting allegations of a party be
sufficient in itself, so as to make a prima facie case. This, as was
shownabove,petitionerfailedtodo.
Sincetheveryestimatesandobservationsofthepetitionerarenot
strongenoughtomakeoutaprimafaciecasethatshewasdetained
inFortMagsaysay,aninspectionofthemilitary

_______________

121Rollo,pp.2731.
122Id.,atp.76.
123Id.,atp.28.
124Yanov.Sanchez,G.R.No.186640,11February2010,612SCRA347.

238

238 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

camp cannot be ordered. An inspection order cannot issue on the


basisofallegationsthatare,inthemselves,unreliableanddoubtful.

HABEASDATA

As earlier intimated, the Court of Appeals granted to the


petitionertheprivilegeofthewritofhabeasdata,byenjoiningthe
public respondents from distributing or causing the distribution to
the public any records in whatever form, reports, documents or
similar papers relative to the petitioners alleged ties with the
CPPNPA or pertinently related to her abduction and torture.
Though not raised as an issue in this appeal, this Court is
constrained to pass upon and review this particular ruling of the
Court of Appeals in order to rectify, what appears to Us, an error
infectingthegrant.
FortheproperappreciationoftherationaleusedbytheCourtof
Appeals in granting the privilege of the writ of habeas data, We

quotehereundertherelevantportion125ofitsdecision:
quotehereundertherelevantportion125ofitsdecision:

Underthesepremises,Petitionerprayedthatalltherecords,intelligence
reportsandreportsontheinvestigationsconductedonMelissaC.Roxasor
Melissa Roxas be produced and eventually expunged from the records.
PetitionerclaimedtobeincludedintheGovernmentsOrderofBattleunder
Oplan Bantay Laya which listed political opponents against whom false
criminalchargeswerefiledbasedonmadeupandperjuredinformation.
PendingresolutionofthispetitionandbeforePetitionercouldtestify
before Us, Exarmy general Jovito Palparan, Bantay partylist, and
PastorAlcoveroftheAllianceforNationalismandDemocracypartylist
held a press conference where they revealed that they received an
information from a female NPA rebel who wanted out of the
organization, that Petitioner was a communist rebel. Alcover claimed
thatsaidinformationreachedthemthrualetter

_______________

125Rollo,pp.8081.

239

VOL.630,SEPTEMBER7,2010 239
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

withphotoofPetitionerholdingfirearmsatanNPAtrainingcampand
avideoCDofthetrainingexercises.
Clearly, and notwithstanding Petitioners denial that she was the
person in said video, there were records of other investigations on
Melissa C. Roxas or Melissa Roxas which violate her right to privacy.
Without a doubt, reports of such nature have reasonable connections, one
way or another, to petitioners abduction where she claimed she had been
subjected to cruelties and dehumanizing acts which nearly caused her life
preciselyduetoallegationofherallegedmembershipintheCPPNPA.And
ifsaidreportorsimilarreportsaretobecontinuouslymadeavailabletothe
public,Petitionerssecurityandprivacywillcertainlybeindangerofbeing
violatedortransgressedbypersonswhohavestrongsentimentsoraversion
against members of this group. The unregulated dissemination of said
unverified video CD or reports of Petitioners alleged ties with the CPP
NPA indiscriminately made available for public consumption without
evidenceofitsauthenticityorveracitycertainlyviolatesPetitionersrightto
privacywhichmustbeprotectedbythisCourt.We,thus,deemitnecessary
to grant Petitioner the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Data. (Emphasis
supplied).

Thewritofhabeasdatawasconceptualizedasajudicialremedy
enforcing the right to privacy, most especially the right to
informationalprivacyofindividuals.126Thewritoperatestoprotect
a persons right to control information regarding himself,
particularly in the instances where such information is being
collectedthroughunlawfulmeansinordertoachieveunlawfulends.
Needless to state, an indispensable requirement before the
privilege of the writ may be extended is the showing, at least by
substantialevidence,ofanactualorthreatenedviolation

_______________

126Annotation to the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, A.M. No. 08116SC,
effective2February2008(pamphletreleasedbytheSupremeCourt),p.23.

240

240 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim.127


This,inthecaseatbench,thepetitionerfailedtodo.
The main problem behind the ruling of the Court of Appeals is
that there is actually no evidence on record that shows that any of
thepublicrespondentshadviolatedorthreatenedtherighttoprivacy
of the petitioner. The act ascribed by the Court of Appeals to the
publicrespondentsthatwouldhaveviolatedorthreatenedtheright
to privacy of the petitioner, i.e., keeping records of investigations
andotherreportsaboutthepetitionerstieswiththeCPPNPA,was
not adequately provenconsidering that the origin of such records
were virtually unexplained and its existence, clearly, only inferred
by the appellate court from the video and photograph released by
RepresentativesPalparanandAlcoverintheirpressconference.No
evidence on record even shows that any of the public respondents
hadaccesstosuchvideoorphotograph.
Inviewoftheaboveconsiderations,thedirectivebytheCourtof
Appeals enjoining the public respondents from distributing or
causingthedistributiontothepublicanyrecordsinwhateverform,
reports, documents or similar papers relative to the petitioners
allegedtieswiththeCPPNPA,appearstobedevoidofanylegal
basis. The public respondents cannot be ordered to refrain from
distributing something that, in the first place, it was not proven to
have.
Verily, until such time that any of the public respondents were
foundtobeactuallyresponsiblefortheabductionand

_______________

127Section1oftheHabeasDataRulestates:
SECTION1.HabeasData.Thewritofhabeasdata is a remedy available to
any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or
threatenedby an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a
privateindividualorentityengagedinthegathering,collectingorstoringofdataor
informationregardingtheperson,family,homeandcorrespondenceoftheaggrieved
party.(Emphasissupplied).

242

242 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

torture of the petitioner, any inference regarding the existence of


reports being kept in violation of the petitioners right to privacy
becomesfarfetched,andpremature.
For these reasons, this Court must, at least in the meantime,
strikedownthegrantoftheprivilegeofthewritofhabeasdata.
DISPOSITIONOFTHECASE
Ourreviewoftheevidenceofthepetitioner,whiletellingofits
innateinsufficiencytoimputeanyformofresponsibilityonthepart
of the public respondents, revealed two important things that can
guide Us to a proper disposition of this case. One, that further
investigation with the use of extraordinary diligence must be made
inordertoidentifytheperpetratorsbehindtheabductionandtorture
of the petitioner and two, that the Commission on Human Rights
(CHR), pursuant to its Constitutional mandate to investigate all
formsofhumanrightsviolationsinvolvingcivilandpoliticalrights
and to provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of
humanrights,128mustbetappedinordertofillcertaininvestigative
andremedialvoids.
FurtherInvestigationMustBeUndertaken
Ironic as it seems, but part and parcel of the reason why the
petitioner was not able to adduce substantial evidence proving her
allegations of government complicity in her abduction and torture,
may be attributed to the incomplete and onesided investigations
conducted by the government itself. This awkward situation,
wherein the very persons alleged to be involved in an enforced
disappearance or extralegal killing are, at the same time, the very
ones tasked by law to investigate the matter, is a unique
characteristicofthese

128CONSTITUTION,ArticleVIII,Section18.

242

242 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo
proceedings and is the main source of the evidentiary difficulties
facedbyanypetitionerinanyamparocase.129
Cognizant of this situation, however, the Amparo Rule placed a
potentsafeguardrequiringtherespondentwhoisapublicofficial
oremployeetoprovethatnolessthanextraordinarydiligenceas
required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in
theperformanceofduty.130Thus,unlessanduntilanyofthepublic
respondentsisable to show to the satisfaction of theamparo court
that extraordinary diligence has been observed in their
investigations, they cannot shed the allegations of responsibility
despitetheprevailingscarcityofevidencetothateffect.
With this in mind, We note that extraordinary diligence, as
requiredbytheAmparoRule,wasnotfullyobservedintheconduct
ofthepoliceandmilitaryinvestigationsinthecaseatbar.
A perusal of the investigation reports submitted by Task Group
CAROJAN shows modest effort on the part of the police
investigatorstoidentifytheperpetratorsoftheabduction.

_______________

129 In Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis, supra note 106 at p. 684, this Court, thru Associate
JusticeArturoD.Brion,recognizedthethree(3)typesofevidentiarydifficultiesfaced
by a petitioner in an amparo petition. In explaining the origins of such difficulties,
JusticeBrionexplained:
These difficulties largely arise because the State itself the party whose
involvementisallegedinvestigatesenforceddisappearances.xxx.
130Section17oftheAmparoRulestates:
SEC.17.BurdenofProofandStandardofDiligenceRequired.xxx.
xxxx.
The respondent who is a public official or employee must prove that
extraordinarydiligenceasrequiredbyapplicablelaws,rulesandregulationswas
observedintheperformanceofduty.(Emphasissupplied.)

243

VOL.630,SEPTEMBER7,2010 243
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

To be sure, said reports are replete with background checks on the


victims of the abduction, but are, at the same time, comparatively
silentastootherconcretestepstheinvestigatorshavebeentakingto
ascertain the authors of the crime. Although conducting a
background investigation on the victims is a logical first step in
exposing the motive behind the abductionits necessity is clearly
outweighed by the need to identify the perpetrators, especially in
lightofthefactthatthepetitioner,whowasnolongerincaptivity,
alreadycameupwithallegationsaboutthemotiveofhercaptors.
Instead, Task Group CAROJAN placed the fate of their
investigations solely on the cooperation or noncooperation of the
petitionerwho, they claim, was less than enthusiastic in
participating in their investigative efforts.131 While it may be
conceded that the participation of the petitioner would have
facilitated the progress of Task Group CAROJANs investigation,
thisCourtbelievesthattheformersreticencetocooperateishardly
anexcuseforTaskGroupCAROJANnottoexploreothermeansor
avenues from which they could obtain relevant leads.132 Indeed,
while the allegations of government complicity by the petitioner
cannot,bythemselves,holdupasadequateevidencebeforeacourt
of lawthey are, nonetheless, a vital source of valuable
investigative leads that must be pursued and verified, if only to
complywiththehighstan

_______________

131CARollo,p.185.
132 Placed in a similar situation, the case of Rubricov.Arroyo,supra note 101,
instructs:
The seeming reluctance on the part of the Rubricos or their witnesses to
cooperate ought not to pose a hindrance to the police in pursuing, on its own
initiative,theinvestigationinquestiontoitsnaturalend.TorepeatwhattheCourt
saidinManalo,therighttosecurityofpersonsisaguaranteeoftheprotectionofones
right by the government. And this protection includes conducting effective
investigationsofextralegalkillings,enforceddisappearances,orthreatsofthesame
kind.(Emphasissupplied).

244

244 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

dard of diligence required by the Amparo Rule in the conduct of


investigations.
Assuming the noncooperation of the petitioner, Task Group
CAROJANs reports still failed to explain why it never considered
seeking the assistance of Mr. Jesus Paolowho, along with the
victims, is a central witness to the abduction. The reports of Task
GroupCAROJANissilentinanyattempttoobtainfromMr.Paolo,
acartographicsketchoftheabductorsor,attheveryleast,oftheone
who,bypetitionersaccount,wasnotwearinganymask.
TherecollectionofMr.Paolocouldhaveservedasacomparative
materialtothesketchesincludedinpetitionersofferofexhibitsthat,
itmaybepointedout,werepreparedunderthedirectionof,andfirst
submitted to, the CHR pursuant to the latters independent
investigationontheabductionandtortureofthepetitioner.133Butas
mentionedearlier,theCHRsketchesremaintobeunidentifiedasof
thisdate.
In light of these considerations, We agree with the Court of
Appeals that further investigation under the norm of extraordinary
diligenceshouldbeundertaken.ThisCourtsimplycannotwritefinis
to this case, on the basis of an incomplete investigation conducted
by the police and the military. In a very real sense, the right to
securityofthepetitioneriscontinuouslyputinjeopardybecauseof
the deficient investigation that directly contributes to the delay in
bringingtherealperpetratorsbeforethebarofjustice.
Toaddteethtotheappellatecourtsdirective,however,Wefind
it fitting, nay, necessary to shift the primary task of conducting
further investigations on the abduction and torture of the petitioner
upontheCHR.134WenotethattheCHR,unlike

_______________

133TSN,30July2009,pp.171173.
134WefollowsuitwiththerecentcaseofBurgosv.Arroyo,G.R.No.183711,22
June2010,621SCRA481,wherethisCourt,afterhavingfoundsignificantlapsesin
theconductofthepoliceinvestigations, resolved to assign the CHR, as its directly
commissioned

245

VOL.630,SEPTEMBER7,2010 245
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

thepoliceorthemilitary,seemstoenjoythetrustandconfidenceof
the petitioneras evidenced by her attendance and participation in
the hearings already conducted by the commission.135 Certainly, it
would be reasonable to assume from such cooperation that the
investigationsoftheCHRhaveadvanced,orattheveryleast,bears
the most promise of advancing farther, in terms of locating the
perpetratorsoftheabduction,andisthus,vitalforafinalresolution
of this petition. From this perspective, We also deem it just and
appropriatetorelegatethetaskofaffordinginterimprotectiontothe
petitioner,alsototheCHR.
Hence,WemodifythedirectiveoftheCourtoftheAppealsfor
furtherinvestigation,asfollows

1.)AppointingtheCHRastheleadagencytaskedwithconductingfurther
investigation regarding the abduction and torture of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the CHR shall, under the norm of extraordinary diligence,
take or continue to take the necessary steps: (a) to identify the persons
describedinthecartographicsketchessubmittedbythepetitioner,aswell
as their whereabouts and (b) to pursue any other leads relevant to
petitionersabductionandtorture.
2.)DirectingtheincumbentChiefofthePhilippineNationalPolice(PNP),
or his successor, and the incumbent Chief of Staff of the AFP, or his
successor,toextendassistancetotheongoinginvestigationoftheCHR,
includingbutnotlimitedtofurnishingthelatteracopyofitspersonnel
recordscircathetimeofthepetitionersabductionandtorture,subjectto
reasonableregulationsconsistentwiththeConstitutionandexistinglaws.

_______________

agency,withthetaskofcontinuingtheinvestigationsonthedisappearanceofJonas
Burgos.
135Rollo,p.33.

246

246 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

3.)Further directing the incumbent Chief of the PNP, or his successor, to


furnish to this Court, the Court of Appeals, and the petitioner or her
representative, a copy of the reports of its investigations and their
recommendations,otherthanthosethatarealreadypartoftherecordsof
thiscase,withinninety(90)daysfromreceiptofthisdecision.
4.)FurtherdirectingtheCHRto(a)furnishtotheCourtofAppealswithin
ninety(90)daysfromreceiptofthisdecision,acopyofthereportsonits
investigationanditscorrespondingrecommendationsandto(b)provide
orcontinuetoprovideprotectiontothepetitionerduringherstayorvisit
to the Philippines, until such time as may hereinafter be determined by
thisCourt.


Accordingly, this case must be referred back to the Court of
Appeals,forthepurposesofmonitoringcompliancewiththeabove
directivesanddeterminingwhether,inlightofanyrecentreportsor
recommendations,therewouldalreadybesufficientevidencetohold
any of the public respondents responsible or, at least, accountable.
Aftermakingsuchdetermination,theCourtofAppealsshallsubmit
its own report with recommendation to this Court for final action.
The Court of Appeals will continue to have jurisdiction over this
caseinordertoaccomplishitstasksunderthisdecision.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is PARTIALLY
MERITORIOUS.Weherebyrenderadecision:

1.)AFFIRMING the denial of the petitioners prayer for the


returnofherpersonalbelongings
2.)AFFIRMING the denial of the petitioners prayer for an
inspectionofthedetentionareasofFortMagsaysay.
247

VOL.630,SEPTEMBER7,2010 247
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

3.)REVERSING the grant of the privilege of habeas data,


without prejudice, however, to any modification that this Court
may make on the basis of the investigation reports and
recommendationssubmittedtoitunderthisdecision.
4.)MODIFYINGthedirectivethatfurtherinvestigationmustbe
undertaken,asfollows
a.APPOINTING the Commission on Human Rights as the
lead agency tasked with conducting further investigation
regarding the abduction and torture of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the Commission on Human Rights shall, under
the norm of extraordinary diligence, take or continue to take
thenecessarysteps:(a)toidentifythepersonsdescribedinthe
cartographic sketches submitted by the petitioner, as well as
theirwhereaboutsand(b)topursueanyotherleadsrelevant
topetitionersabductionandtorture.
b.DIRECTING the incumbent Chief of the Philippine
NationalPolice,orhissuccessor,andtheincumbentChiefof
StaffoftheArmedForcesofthePhilippines,orhissuccessor,
to extend assistance to the ongoing investigation of the
Commission on Human Rights, including but not limited to
furnishingthelatteracopyofitspersonnelrecordscirca the
time of the petitioners abduction and torture, subject to
reasonable regulations consistent with the Constitution and
existinglaws.
c.FurtherDIRECTINGtheincumbentChiefofthePhilippine
NationalPolice,orhissuccessor,tofurnishtothisCourt,the
Court of Appeals, and the petitioner or her representative, a
copyofthereportsofitsinvestigationsandtheirrec

248

248 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

ommendations, other than those that are already part of the


records of this case, within ninety (90) days from receipt of
thisdecision.
d.FurtherDIRECTINGtheCommissiononHumanRights(a)
to furnish to the Court of Appeals within ninety (90) days
from receipt of this decision, a copy of the reports on its
investigationanditscorrespondingrecommendationsand(b)
to provide or continue to provide protection to the petitioner
during her stay or visit to the Philippines, until such time as
mayhereinafterbedeterminedbythisCourt.
5.)REFERRINGBACKtheinstantcasetotheCourtofAppeals
forthefollowingpurposes:
a.To MONITOR the investigations and actions taken by the
PNP,AFP,andtheCHR
b.To DETERMINE whether, in light of the reports and
recommendationsoftheCHR,theabductionandtortureofthe
petitioner was committed by persons acting under any of the
publicrespondentsandonthebasisofthisdetermination
c.ToSUBMITtothisCourtwithinten(10)daysfromreceipt
of the report and recommendation of the Commission on
Human Rightsits own report, which shall include a
recommendationeitherfortheDISMISSALofthepetitionas
against the public respondents who were found not
responsible and/or accountable, or for the APPROPRIATE
REMEDIAL MEASURES, AS MAY BE ALLOWED BY
THE AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA RULES, TO BE
UNDERTAKEN as against those found responsible and/or
accountable.

249

VOL.630,SEPTEMBER7,2010 249
Roxasvs.MacapagalArroyo

Accordingly, the public respondents shall remain personally


impleaded in this petition to answer for any responsibilities and/or
accountabilitiestheymayhaveincurredduringtheirincumbencies.
Other findings of the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated 26
August2009inCAG.R.SPNo.00036WRAthatarenotcontrary
tothisdecisionareAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.

Corona(C.J.),Carpio,CarpioMorales,Velasco,Jr.,Nachura,
LeonardoDe Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad,
Villarama,Jr.,MendozaandSereno,JJ.,concur.
Brion,J.,OnOfficialLeave.

Petitionpartiallymeritorious.

Note.The promulgation of the Amparo Rule was an exercise


for the first time of the Supreme Courts expanded power to
promulgaterulestoprotectourpeoplesconstitutionalrights,which
madeitsmaidenappearanceinthe1987Constitutioninresponseto
the Filipino experience of the martial law regime. (Secretary of
NationalDefensevs.Manalo,568SCRA1[2008])
o0o
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

You might also like