Roxas v.
Macapagal-Arroyo informed that she is being detained for being a member of Communist
G.R. No. 189155
07 September 2010
PONENTE: Perez, J.
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
Party of the Philippines-New Peoples 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-respondent in an amparo
petition.
The Writ of Amparo as a protective remedy As held in the case of
Rubrico v. Arroyo, 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. It does not fix liability for such
disappearance, killing or threats, whether that may be criminal, civil or
administrative under the applicable substantive law. Since the
application of command responsibility presupposes an imputation of
individual liability, it is more aptly invoked in a full-blown criminal or
administrative case rather than in a summary amparo proceeding.
However, the inapplicability of the doctrine of command responsibility
does not 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 impleaded not actually on the basis of command
responsibilitybut rather on the ground of their responsibility, or at
least accountability.
2. EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN AMPARO PROCEEDINGS
In amparo proceedings, direct evidence of identity must be preferred
over mere circumstantial evidence In amparo proceedings, the
weight that may be accorded to parallel circumstances as evidence of
military involvement depends largely on the availability or non-
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.
3. EVIDENCE REQURED IN HABEAS DATA PROCEEDINGS
Substantial evidence of an actual or threatened violation of the right to
privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim is an indispensable
requirement before the privilege of the writ may be extended 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. 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 petitioners 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.
DISPOSITIVE: recommendations, there would already be sufficient evidence to hold
any of the public respondents responsible or, at least, accountable.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. After making such determination, the Court of Appeals shall submit its
However, it modified the directive of the Court of the Appeals for own report with recommendation to the Supreme Court for its
further investigation, as follows: consideration. It was declared that the Court of Appeals will continue
Appointing the CHR as the lead agency tasked with conducting further to have jurisdiction over this case in order to accomplish its tasks
under this decision.
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 described in the cartographic sketches submitted by the
petitioner, as well as their whereabouts; and (b) to pursue any other
leads relevant to petitioners abduction and torture.

Directing the incumbent Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP),

or his successor, and the incumbent Chief of Staff of the AFP, or his
successor, to extend assistance to the ongoing investigation of the
CHR, including but not limited to furnishing the latter a copy of its
personnel records circa the time of the petitioners abduction and
torture, subject to reasonable regulations consistent with the
Constitution and existing laws.

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, other than those that are already part of the
records of this case, within ninety (90) days from receipt of this
decision.

Further directing the CHR to (a) furnish to the Court of Appeals within
ninety (90) days from receipt of this decision, a copy of the reports on
its investigation and its corresponding recommendations; and to (b)
provide or continue to provide protection to the petitioner during her
stay or visit to the Philippines, until such time as may hereinafter be
determined by this Court.

The Supreme Court likewise referred the case back to the Court of
Appeals, for the purposes of monitoring compliance with the above
directives and determining whether, in light of any recent reports or