SpecPro Case Digests

Special Proceedings Case Digests
2010 - 2012 Jurisprudence

1
SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
1. The function of habeas corpus is to determine the legality of ones detention,
meaning, if there is sufficient cause for deprivation or confinement and if there is
none to discharge him at once. (Ampatuan v. Macaraig, G.R. No. 182497, June 29,
2010 )
2. Fundamentally, in order to justify the grant of the rit of habeas corpus, the restraint
of liberty must be in the nature of an illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of
action. (So v. Taca, Jr., G.R. No. 190108, !cto"er 19, 2010)
!. There is no need to file a motion for e"ecution for an amparo or habeas corpus
decision. #ince the right to life, liberty and security of a person is at sta$e, the
proceedings should not be delayed and e"ecution of any decision thereon must be
e"pedited as soon as possible since any form of delay, even for a day, may jeopardi%e
the very rights that these rits see$ to immediately protect. (#oac v. $a%apan, G.R.
No&. 1844'1('2, 18449), 187109, Ma* +1, 2011)
WRIT OF AMPARO
1. &n amparo proceedings, the eight 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. (irect evidence of identity, hen
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. (Ro,a& v. Arro*o, G.R. No. 1891)),
Septem"er 07, 2010)
2. &n the conte"t of amparo proceedings, responsibility may refer to the participation of
the respondents, by action or omission, in enforced disappearance. )ccountability, on
the other hand, may attach to respondents ho are imputed ith $noledge relating to
the enforced disappearance and ho carry the burden of disclosure* or those ho
carry, but have failed to discharge, the burden of e"traordinary diligence in the
investigation of the enforced disappearance. (Ro%rigue- v. Arro*o, G.R. No. 19180),
Novem"er 1), 2011)
!. )n inspection order is an interim relief designed to give support or strengthen the
claim of a petitioner in an amparo petition, in order to aid the court before ma$ing a
decision. ) basic re+uirement before an amparo court may grant an inspection order is
that the place to be inspected is reasonably determinable from the allegations of the

2
party see$ing the order. (#aao v. Arro*o, G.R. No. 18'0)0, .ecem"er 1+, 2011)
,. #ections 1- and 1. of the /ule on the 0rit of )mparo re+uires the parties to establish
their claims by substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as ade+uate to support a conclusion. &n cases here the violation of the
right to life, liberty or security has already ceased, it is necessary for the petitioner in
an amparo action to prove the e"istence of a continuing threat. (/o-a%a v. Arro*o,
G.R. No&. 184+79(80, Apri 24, 2012)
1. &n an amparo petition, proof of disappearance alone is not enough. &t is li$eise
essential to establish that such disappearance as carried out ith the direct or
indirect authori%ation, support or ac+uiescence of the government. (Navia v. 0ar%ico,
G.R. No. 1844'7, June 19, 2012)
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
1. The petitioner failed to present substantial evidence that his right to life, liberty and
security ere violated, or ho his right to privacy as threatened by respondents. 2e
did not specify the particular documents to be secured, their location or hat
particular government office had custody thereof, and ho has possession
or control of the same. (Sae- v. Arro*o, G.R. No. 18+)++, Augu&t +1, 2010)
2. #ubstantial evidence of an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life,
liberty or security of the victim is an indispensable re+uirement before the privilege of
the rit may be e"tended. )n indispensable re+uirement before the privilege of the
rit may be e"tended is the shoing, at least by substantial evidence, of an actual or
threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim.
(Ro,a& v. Arro*o, G.R. No. 1891)), Septem"er 07, 2010)
!. 2abeas data is designated to protect by means of judicial complaint the image,
privacy, honor, information and freedom of information of an individual. &t is meant
to provide a forum to enforce ones right to the truth and to informational privacy,
thus safeguarding the constitutional guarantees of a persons right to life, liberty and
security against abuse in this age of information technology. The rit of habeas data
directs the issuance only against public officials or employees, or private individuals
or entities engaged in gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding
an aggrieved partys person, family or home. (M1RA/$! v. /im, G.R. No. 1847'9,
!cto"er ), 2010)
,. The doctrine of command responsibility pertains to the 3responsibility of commanders
for crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other persons
subject to their control in international ars or domestic conflict.3

)lthough originally
used for ascertaining criminal complicity, the command responsibility doctrine has

3
also found application in civil cases for human rights abuses. (Ro%rigue- v. Arro*o,
G.R. No. 19180), Novem"er 1), 2011)
1. The rit of habeas data is an independent and summary remedy designed to protect
the image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of information of an individual,
and to provide a forum to enforce ones right to the truth and to informational privacy.
&t see$s to protect a persons right to control information regarding oneself,
particularly in instances in hich such information is being collected through
unlaful means in order to achieve unlaful ends. &t must be emphasi%ed that in order
for the privilege of the rit to be granted, there must e"ist a ne"us beteen the right
to privacy on the one hand, and the right to life, liberty or security on the other.
(Gam"oa v. $2an, G.R. No. 19+'+', Ju* 24, 2012)
4. 5ursuant to the doctrine of command responsibility, the 5resident, as the 6ommander'
in'6hief of the )F5, can be held liable for affront against the petitioners rights to
life, liberty and security as long as substantial evidence e"ist to sho that he or she
had e"hibited involvement in or can be imputed ith $noledge of the violations, or
had failed to e"ercise necessary and reasonable diligence in conducting the necessary
investigations re+uired under the rules. (Sae- v. Arro*o, G.R. No. 18+)++, Septem"er
2), 2012)

4
G.R. No. 182497 | Ju! 29" 2#1# | NURHIDA JUHURI AMPATUAN" $%.
JUDGE &IRGI'IO $%. MACARAIG" DIRECTOR GENERA' A&E'INO
RA(ON" JR." DIRECTOR GEARY BARIAS" PSSUPT. CO YEE M. CO" JR.
)* PO'ICE CHIEF INSPECTOR AGAPITO +UIMSON | J. P!,!-
DOCTRINE.
T2e 3unction o3 2a"ea& corpu& i& to %etermine t2e egait* o3 one4& %etention, meaning, i3
t2ere i& &u33icient cau&e 3or %eprivation or con3inement an% i3 t2ere i& none to %i&c2arge 2im
at once.
FACTS.
5etitioner alleged in her petition that her husband 571 )mpatuan as assigned at #ultan
8udarat 9unicipal 5olice #tation. 7n 1, )pril 2::., he as as$ed by his 6hief of 5olice to
report to the 5rovincial (irector of #hariff 8abunsuan, #uperintendent ;smael 5ua )li. The
latter brought 571 )mpatuan to #uperintendent 5iang )dam, 5rovincial (irector of the
5hilippine <ational 5olice (5<5) 9aguindanao. 571 )mpatuan as directed to stay at the
5olice 5rovincial 7ffice of 9aguindanao ithout being informed of the cause of his restraint.
The ne"t day, 11 )pril 2::., 571 )mpatuan as brought to the =eneral #antos 6ity )irport
and as made to board a 5hilippine )irlines plane bound for 9anila. >pon landing at the
9anila (omestic )irport, 571 )mpatuan as turned over to policemen of 9anila and
brought to 9anila 9ayor )lfredo ?im by 5olice (irector =eary @arias and =eneral /oberto
/osales. ) press briefing as then conducted here it as announced that 571 )mpatuan
as arrested for the $illing of to 6ommission on ;lections (679;?;6) 7fficials. 2e as
then detained at the 5olice Aail in >nited <ations )venue, 9anila. Thereafter, 571 )mpatuan
as brought to in+uest 5rosecutor /enato =on%aga of the 7ffice of the 6ity 5rosecutor of
9anila due to the alleged murder of )tty. )lioden (. (alaig, head of the ?a (epartment of
the 679;?;6. 7n 2: )pril 2::., 571 )mpatuan as turned'over to the /egional
2ead+uarters #upport =roup in 6amp @agong (ia, Taguig 6ity. 7n 21 )pril 2::., the 6ity
5rosecutor of 9anila recommended that the case against 571 )mpatuan be set for further
investigation and that the latter be released from custody unless he is being held for other
chargesBlegal grounds.
)rmed ith the 21 )pril 2::. recommendation of the 9anila 6itys 5rosecution 7ffice,
petitioner, ho is the ife of 571 )mpatuan, filed a 5etition for the &ssuance of a 0rit of
2abeas 6orpus before the /T6 of 9anila on 22 )pril 2::..
/espondents, hile admitting that to date no criminal case as filed against 571 )mpatuan,
assert that the latter is under restrictive custody since he is facing an administrative case for
grave misconduct. They submitted to this 6ourt the 5re'charge ;valuation /eport and 6harge
#heet. Further, in support of their position, respondents cited the case of #572 9analo, et al.
v. 2on. 6alderon, =./. <o. 1-.C2: claiming that habeas corpus ill not lie for a 5<5

5
personnel under restrictive custody. They claim that this is authori%ed under #ection 12, 5ar.
, of /.). .111 authori%ing the 6hief of 5<5 to place the 5<5 personnel under restrictive
custody during the pendency of administrative case for grave misconduct.
ISSUE.
0hether or not the rit of habeas corpus may be validly issued in favor of the petitioner.
HE'D.
<o. The function of habeas corpus is to determine the legality of ones detention, meaning, if
there is sufficient cause for deprivation or confinement and if there is none to discharge him
at once. For habeas corpus to issue, the restraint of liberty must be in the nature of illegal and
involuntary deprivation of freedom hich must be actual and effective, not nominal or moral.
=ranting arguendo that the administrative case as ante'dated, the 6ourt cannot simply
ignore the filing of an administrative case filed against 571 )mpatuan. &t cannot be denied
that the 5<5 has its on administrative disciplinary mechanism and as clearly pointed out by
the respondents* the 6hief 5<5 is authori%ed to place 571 )mpatuan under restrictive
custody pursuant to #ection 12, 5ar. , of /.). .111.
=iven that 571 )mpatuan has been placed under restrictive custody, such constitutes a valid
argument for his continued detention. This 6ourt has held that a restrictive custody and
monitoring of movements or hereabouts of police officers under investigation by their
superiors is not a form of illegal detention or restraint of liberty.
/estrictive custody is, at best, nominal restraint hich is beyond the ambit of habeas corpus.
&t is neither actual nor effective restraint that ould call for the grant of the remedy prayed
for. &t is a permissible precautionary measure to assure the 5<5 authorities that the police
officers concerned are alays accounted for.

6
G.R. No. 19#1#8 | O/0o1!, 19" 2#1# | DA&ID E. SO" o 1!2)34 o4 25% *)u620!,
MARIA E'ENA SO GUISANDE $%. HON. ESTEBAN A. TAC'A" JR. )* DR.
BERNARDO A. &ICENTE" N)05o)3 C!0!, 4o, M!0)3 H!)302 | J. N)/2u,)
DOCTRINE.
5un%amenta*, in or%er to 6u&ti3* t2e grant o3 t2e 7rit o3 2a"ea& corpu&, t2e re&traint o3
i"ert* mu&t "e in t2e nature o3 an iega an% invountar* %eprivation o3 3ree%om o3 action.
FACTS.
5etitioner (avid ;. #o filed the petition for the rits of habeas corpus and amparo on behalf
of his daughter, 9a. ;lena #o =uisande, accused of Dualified Theft in the criminal case
pending before Audge Tacla. 5etitioner #o alleged, among others, that =uisande as under a
life'threatening situation hile confined at the <692, the government hospital ordered by
the /T6 9andaluyong 6ity to ascertain the actual psychological state of =uisande, ho as
being charged ith a non'bailable offense. The 6ourt of )ppeals ordered that 5etition for
0rit of 2abeas 6orpus and 0rit of )mparo and all other pending incidents thereon be
(&#9&##;( for having been rendered moot and academic ith the dismissal of the criminal
case for Dualified Theft against =uisande. Through counsel, and using strong ords, #o
vehemently opposed the dismissal of the petitions because they had filed criminal complaints
and an administrative case against respondents Audge Tacla and (r. Eicente, as ell as the
<692 and an attending doctor thereat, for purported violations of accused =uisandes rights
during her confinement at the <692.
ISSUE.
0hether or not the dismissal of the 5etition for 0rit of 2abeas 6orpus and 0rit of )mparo
is valid and proper.
HE'D.
<o. <otably, nohere in the transcript of the 6) hearing on (ecember !, 2::C, nor in the
7rder recited in open court by Austice 5i%arro, is there an affirmation of petitioner #os claim
that the confinement of accused =uisande at the <692 as illegal. <either ere the
respective acts performed by respondents Audge Tacla and (r. Eicente in ascertaining the
mental condition of accused =uisande to ithstand trial declared unlaful. 7n the contrary,
the <692, a ell'reputed government forensic facility, albeit not held in high regard by
petitioner #os and accused =uisandes family, had assessed =uisande fit for trial.
The /ules on the 0rits of 2abeas 6orpus and )mparo are clear* the act or omission or the
threatened act or omission complained of ' confinement and custody for habeas corpus and

7
violations of, or threat to violate, a persons life, liberty, and security for amparo cases '
should be illegal or unlaful.
The most basic criterion for the issuance of the rit, therefore, is that the individual see$ing
such relief is illegally deprived of his freedom of movement or place under some form of
illegal restraint. &f an individuals liberty is restrainted via some legal process, the rit of
habeas corpus is unavailing. Fundamentally, in order to justify the grant of the rit of habeas
corpus, the restraint of liberty must be in the nature of an illegal and involuntary deprivation
of freedom of action.
&n general, the purpose of the rit of habeas corpus is to determine hether or not a particular
person is legally held. ) prime specification of an application for a rit of habeas corpus, in
fact, is an actual and effective, and not merely nominal or moral, illegal restraint of liberty.
The rit of habeas corpus as devised and e"ists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve
persons from unlaful restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of personal
freedom. """ The essential object and purpose of the rit of habeas corpus is to in+uire into
all manner of involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and to relieve a person
therefrom if such restraint is illegal. )ny restraint hich ill preclude freedom of action is
sufficient.
&n passing upon a petition for habeas corpus, a court or judge must first in+uire into hether
the petitioner is being restrained of his liberty. &f he is not, the rit ill be refused. &n+uiry
into the cause of detention ill proceed only here such restraint e"ists. &f the alleged cause
is thereafter found to be unlaful, then the rit should be granted and the petitioner
discharged. <eedless to state, if otherise, again the rit ill be refused.
0hile habeas corpus is a rit of right, it ill not issue as a matter of course or as a mere
perfunctory operation on the filing of the petition. Audicial discretion is called for in its
issuance and it must be clear to the judge to hom the petition is presented that, prima facie,
the petitioner is entitled to the rit. &t is only if the court is satisfied that a person is being
unlafully restrained of his liberty ill the petition for habeas corpus be granted. &f the
respondents are not detaining or restraining the applicant of the person in hose behalf the
petition is filed, the petition should be dismissed.

8
G.R. No%. 184471872" 184499" 1871#9 | M): ;1" 2#11 | 'T. CO'. ROGE'IO
BOAC" !0 )3. $. ER'INDA T. CADAPAN" !0 )3. | J. C),<5o Mo,)3!%
DOCTRINE.
T2ere i& no nee% to 3ie a motion 3or e,ecution 3or an amparo or 2a"ea& corpu&
%eci&ion. Since t2e rig2t to i3e, i"ert* an% &ecurit* o3 a per&on i& at &ta8e, t2e procee%ing&
&2ou% not "e %ea*e% an% e,ecution o3 an* %eci&ion t2ereon mu&t "e e,pe%ite% a& &oon a&
po&&i"e &ince an* 3orm o3 %ea*, even 3or a %a*, ma* 6eopar%i-e t2e ver* rig2t& t2at t2e&e
7rit& &ee8 to imme%iate* protect.
FACTS.
Folloing the abduction of #herlyn 6adapan, 8aren ;mpeFo and 9anuel 9erino by armed
men from a house in #an 9iguel, 2agonoy, @ulacan, spouses )sher and ;rlinda 6adapan
and 6oncepcion ;mpeFo filed a petition for 2a"ea& corpu& before the 6ourt, impleading then
=enerals /omeo Tolentino and Aovito 5alparan, ?t. 6ol. /ogelio @oac , )rnel ;nri+ue% and
?t. Francis 9irabelle #amson as respondents. @y /esolution of the 6ourt, a rit of 2a"ea&
corpu& as issued, returnable to the 5residing Austice of the 6ourt of )ppeals.

@y /eturn of the 0rit, the respondents in the 2a"ea& corpu& petition denied that #herlyn,
8aren and 9erino are in the custody of the military. To the /eturn ere attached affidavits
from the respondents, e"cept ;nri+ue%, ho all attested that they do not $no #herlyn, 8aren
and 9erino* that they had in+uired from their subordinates about the reported abduction and
disappearance of the three but their in+uiry yielded nothing.
The 6ourt of )ppeals dismissed the 2a"ea& corpu& petition there being no strong evidence
that the missing persons are in the custody of the respondents. 5etitioners moved for a
reconsideration of the appellate courts decision.
ISSUE.

0hether or not there is a need to file a motion for e"ecution in a 2abeas 6orpus decision or
in an )mparo case to cause the release of the aggrieved parties.
HE'D.
There is no need to file a motion for exe!tion for an am"aro or ha#eas or"!s deision$
6ontrary to the ruling of the appellate court, there is no need to file a motion for e"ecution for
an amparo or 2a"ea& corpu& decision. #ince the right to life, liberty and security of a person
is at sta$e, the proceedings should not be delayed and e"ecution of any decision thereon must
be e"pedited as soon as possible since any form of delay, even for a day, may jeopardi%e the
very rights that these rits see$ to immediately protect.

9

The #olicitor =enerals argument that the /ules of 6ourt supplement the /ule on the 0rit of
)mparo is misplaced. The /ules of 6ourt only find suppletory application in
an amparo proceeding if the /ules strengthen, rather than ea$en, the procedural efficacy of
the rit. )s it is, the /ule dispenses ith dilatory motions in vie of the urgency in
securing the life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party. #uffice it to state that a motion for
e"ecution is inconsistent ith the e"traordinary and e"peditious remedy being offered by
an amparo proceeding.

&n fine, the appellate court erred in ruling that its directive to imme%iate* release #herlyn,
8aren and 9erino as not automatically e"ecutory. For that ould defeat the very purpose
of having summary proceedings in amparo petitions. #ummary proceedings, it bears
emphasis, are immediately e"ecutory ithout prejudice to further appeals that may be ta$en
there from.

10
WRIT OF AMPARO
G.R. No. 189199 | S!<0!=1!, #7" 2#1# | IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR
THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA IN FA&OR OF
ME'ISSA C. RO>AS $%. G'ORIA MACAPAGA'8ARROYO | J. P!,!-
DOCTRINE.
9n amparo procee%ing&, t2e 7eig2t t2at ma* "e accor%e% to parae circum&tance& a&
evi%ence o3 miitar* invovement %epen%& arge* on t2e avaia"iit* or non(avaia"iit* o3
ot2er piece& o3 evi%ence t2at 2a& t2e potentia o3 %irect* proving t2e i%entit* an% a33iiation
o3 t2e perpetrator&. .irect evi%ence o3 i%entit*, 72en o"taina"e, mu&t "e pre3erre% over
mere circum&tantia evi%ence "a&e% on pattern& an% &imiarit*, "ecau&e t2e 3ormer
in%u"ita"* o33er& greater certaint* a& to t2e true i%entit* an% a33iiation o3 t2e perpetrator&.
FACTS.
9elissa /o"as, an )merican citi%en of Filipino descent, hile in the >nited #tates, enrolled
in an e"posure program to the 5hilippines ith the group @agong )lyansang 9a$abayan'
>nited #tates of )merica (@)G)<' >#)) of hich she is a member. 7n 1C 9ay 2::C, after
doing survey or$ in Tarlac, /o"as and her companions rested in the house of 9r. Aesus
5aolo in #itio @agong #i$at. 0hile /o"as and her companions ere resting, 11 heavily
armed men in civilian clothes forcibly entered the house and dragged them inside a van.
0hen they alighted from the van, she as informed that she is being detained for being a
member of 6ommunist 5arty of the 5hilippines'<e 5eoples )rmy (655'<5)). #he as
then separated from her companions and as brought to a room, from here she could hear
sounds of gunfire, noise of planes ta$ing off and landing, and some construction bustle. #he
as interrogated and tortured for 1 straight days to convince her to abandon her communist
beliefs. #he as informed by a person named H/6I that those ho tortured her came from
the H#pecial 7perations =roupI and that she as abducted because her name is included in
the H7rder of @attle.I
7n 21 9ay 2::C, /o"as as finally released and as given a cellular phone ith a sim card.
#he as sternly arned not to report the incident to the group 8arapatan or something
untoard ill happen to her and her family. )fter her release, /o"as continued to receive
calls from /6 thru the cell phone given to her. 7ut of apprehension, she thre the phone and
the sim card. #upreme 6ourt issued the rits and referred the case to the 6ourt of )ppeals for
hearing, reception of evidence and appropriate action. The 6ourt of )ppeals granted the
privilege of rits of amparo and habeas data. 2oever, the court a +uo absolved the
respondents because it as not convinced that the respondents ere responsible for the
abduction and torture of /o"as. )ggrieved, /o"as filed an appeal ith the #upreme 6ourt.

11
ISSUES.
(1) 0hether or not the totality of evidence presented by petitioner is a reasonable conclusion
of the identities of her abductors.
(2) 0hat is the evidence re+uired in amparo proceedingsJ
HE'D.
(1) <o. The totality of the evidence presented by the petitioner does not inspire reasonable
conclusion that her abductors ere military or police personnel and that she as detained at
Fort 9agsaysay. The similarity beteen the circumstances attending a particular case of
abduction ith those surrounding previous instances of enforced disappearances does not,
necessarily, carry sufficient eight to prove that the government orchestrated such abduction.
0e opine that insofar as the present case is concerned, the perceived similarity cannot stand
as substantial evidence of the involvement of the government.
(2) &n amparo proceedings, the eight 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. (irect evidence of identity, hen 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. )n amparo
court cannot simply leave to remote and ha%y inference hat it could otherise clearly and
directly ascertain.
&n the case at bench, petitioner as, in fact, able to include in her 7ffer of ;"hibits, the
cartographic s$etches of several of her abductors hose faces she managed to see. To the
mind of this 6ourt, these cartographic s$etches have the undeniable potential of giving the
greatest certainty as to the true identity and affiliation of petitioners abductors. >nfortunately
for the petitioner, this potential has not been reali%ed in vie of the fact that the faces
described in such s$etches remain unidentified, much less have been shon to be that of any
military or police personnel. @luntly stated, the abductors ere not proven to be part of either
the military or the police chain of command.

12
WRIT OF AMPARO
G.R. No. 1918#9 | No$!=1!, 19" 2#11 | IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR
THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA IN FA&OR OF NORIE' H.
RODRIGUE(" !0 )3. $%. G'ORIA MACAPAGA'8ARROYO" !0 )3.| C.J. S!,!o
DOCTRINE.
9n t2e conte,t o3 amparo procee%ing&, re&pon&i"iit* ma* re3er to t2e participation o3 t2e
re&pon%ent&, "* action or omi&&ion, in en3orce% %i&appearance. Accounta"iit*, on t2e ot2er
2an%, ma* attac2 to re&pon%ent& 72o are impute% 7it2 8no7e%ge reating to t2e en3orce%
%i&appearance an% 72o carr* t2e "ur%en o3 %i&co&ure: or t2o&e 72o carr*, "ut 2ave 3aie% to
%i&c2arge, t2e "ur%en o3 e,traor%inar* %iigence in t2e inve&tigation o3 t2e en3orce%
%i&appearance.
FACTS.
/odrigue% claims that the military tagged 895 as an enemy of the #tate under the 7plan
@antay ?aya, ma$ing its members targets of e"trajudicial $illings and enforced
disappearances. 7n 4 #eptember 2::C, at 1K:: p.m., four men forcibly too$ him /odrigue%
and forced him into a car. The men tied the hands of /odrigue%, ordered him to lie on his
stomach, sat on his bac$ and started punching him. (uring the drive, the men forced
/odrigue% to confess to being a member of the <e 5eoples )rmy (<5)), but he remained
silent. Thereafter, he as brought to a military camp belonging to the 1-
th
&nfantry @attalion
of the 5hilippine )rmy here he as forced to sign documents saying that he surrendered
and as never beaten up. (ays after, his family came escorted by soldiers and brought them
to the 62/ here they ere as$ed to e"ecute an affidavit stating that he as never abducted
nor tortured. )fter this, they ere freed but ere hoever still folloed by the vehicles of the
same soldiers. ) fe days after, a group of soldiers again arrived at their home to ta$e videos
and photos to sho that /odrigue% arrived home safely despite the resistance of /odrigue%.
They only left, !: minutes after.

7n - (ecember 2::C, /odrigue% filed before this 6ourt a 5etition for the 0rit of
Amparo and 5etition for the 0rit of ;a"ea& .ata ith 5rayers for 5rotection 7rders,
&nspection of 5lace, and 5roduction of (ocuments and 5ersonal 5roperties. The petition
prayed for the folloing reliefsK
a. The issuance of the rit of amparo ordering respondents to desist from violating
/odrigue%s right to life, liberty and security.
b. The issuance of an order to enjoin respondents from doing harm to or
approaching /odrigue%, his family and his itnesses.
c. )lloing the inspection of the detention areas of the 2ead+uarters of @ravo 6o.,
1
th
&nfantry (ivision, 9aguing, =on%aga, 6agayan and another place near here
/odrigue% as brought.
d. 7rdering respondents to produce documents submitted to them regarding any
report on /odrigue%, including operation reports and provost marshall reports of the

13
1
th
&nfantry (ivision, the #pecial 7perations =roup of the )rmed Forces of the
5hilippines ()F5), prior to, on and subse+uent to 4 #eptember 2::C.
e. 7rdering records pertinent or in any ay connected to /odrigue%, hich are in
the custody of respondents, to be e"punged, disabused, and forever barred from
being used.
ISSUE.
0hether or not there as a failure to conduct a fair and effective investigation amounting to
violation of or threat to /odrigue%s rights to life, liberty and security.
H!3*.

Ges. The /ule on the 0rit of Amparo e"plicitly states that the violation of or threat to the
right to life, liberty and security may be caused by either an act or an omi&&ion of a public
official. 9oreover, in the conte"t of amparo proceedings, responsibility may refer to the
participation of the respondents, by action or omi&&ion, in enforced disappearance.
)ccountability, on the other hand, may attach to respondents ho are impute% 7it2
8no7e%ge relating to the enforced disappearance and ho carr* t2e "ur%en o3 %i&co&ure* or
those ho carr*, "ut 2ave 3aie% to %i&c2arge, t2e "ur%en o3 e,traor%inar* %iigence in t2e
inve&tigation of the enforced disappearance.
&n the instant case, this 6ourt rules that respondents in =./. <o. 1C1.:1 are responsible or
accountable for the violation of /odrigue%s right to life, liberty and security on account of
their abject failure to conduct a fair and effective official investigation of his ordeal in the
hands of the military. /espondents =en. &brado, 5(=. Eer%osa, ?t. =en. @angit, 9aj. =en.
7choa, 6ol. (e Eera and ?t. 6ol. 9ina only conducted a perfunctory investigation, e"erting
no efforts to ta$e /amire%s account of the events into consideration. /ather, these
respondents solely relied on the reports and narration of the military.
6learly, the absence of a fair and effective official investigation into the claims of /odrigue%
violated his right to security, for hich respondents in =./. <o. 1C1.:1 must be held
responsible or accountable.
From all the foregoing, e rule that /odrigue% as successful in proving through substantial
evidence that respondents =en. &brado, 5(=. Eer%osa, ?t. =en. @angit, 9aj. =en. 7choa,
@rig. =en. (e Eera, 1
st
?t. 9atutina, and ?t. 6ol. 9ina ere responsible and accountable for
the violation of /odrigue%s rights to life, liberty and security on the basis of (a) his
abduction, detention and torture from 4 #eptember to 1- #eptember 2::C, and (b) the lac$ of
any fair and effective official investigation as to his allegations. Thus, the privilege of the
rits of amparo and 2a"ea& %ata must be granted in his favor. )s a result, there is no longer
any need to issue a temporary protection order, as the privilege of these rits already has the
effect of enjoining respondents in =./. <o. 1C1.:1 from violating his rights to life, liberty
and security.

14
&t is also clear from the above discussion that despite (a) maintaining former 5resident )rroyo
in the list of respondents in =./. <o. 1C1.:1, and (b) alloing the application of the
command responsibility doctrine to amparo and 2a"ea& %ata proceedings, /odrigue% failed
to prove through substantial evidence that former 5resident )rroyo as responsible or
accountable for the violation of his rights to life, liberty and property. 2e li$eise failed to
prove through substantial evidence the accountability or responsibility of respondents 9aj.
=en. 7choa, 6ru%, 5asicolan and 6allagan.

15
WRIT OF AMPARO
G.R. No. 187#9# | D!/!=1!, 1;" 2#11L ARTHUR BA'AO" !0 )3.
$%. G'ORIA MACAPAGA'8ARROYO" !0 )3. | J. &533),)=)" J,.
DOCTRINE.
An in&pection or%er i& an interim reie3 %e&igne% to give &upport or &trengt2en t2e caim o3 a
petitioner in an amparo petition, in or%er to ai% t2e court "e3ore ma8ing a %eci&ion. A "a&ic
re<uirement "e3ore an amparo court ma* grant an in&pection or%er i& t2at t2e pace to "e
in&pecte% i& rea&ona"* %etermina"e 3rom t2e aegation& o3 t2e part* &ee8ing t2e or%er.
FACTSK
The petitioners filed before the /T6 of ?a Trinidad, @enguet a 5etition for the &ssuance of a
0rit of )mparo in favor of Aames @alao ho as abducted #eptember 1-, 2::. by
unidentified armed men ho, according to itnesses, said that they ere policemen and that
they ere arresting the petitioner Aames @alao by reason of a drug case and as thereafter
made to ride the van they ere using.
The judgment of the /T6 as the &ssuance of the 0rit of )mparo ordering the respondents
toK (a) disclose here Aames @alao is detained or confined, (b) release Aames considering his
unlaful detention since his abduction, and (c) cease and desist from further inflicting harm
upon his person.
ISSUESK
(1) 0hether or not the totality of evidence satisfies the degree of proof re+uired by the
)mparo /ule to establish an enforced disappearance.
(2) 0hether or not the issuance of inspection order as properly denied.
HE'DK
(1) <o. The /ule on the 0rit of )mparo as promulgated on 7ctober 2,, 2::- amidst rising
incidence of He"tralegal $illingsI and Henforced disappearances.I &t as formulated in the
e"ercise of this 6ourts e"panded rule'ma$ing poer for the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights enshrined in the 1C.- 6onstitution, albeit limited to these to situations.
H;"tralegal $illingsI refer to $illings committed ithout due process of la, i.e., ithout
legal safeguards or judicial proceedings. 7n the other hand, Henforced disappearancesI are
attended by the folloing characteristicsK an arrest, detention, or abduction of a person by a
government official or organi%ed groups or private individuals acting ith the direct or
indirect ac+uiescence of the government* the refusal of the #tate to disclose the fate or
hereabouts of the person concerned or a refusal to ac$noledge the deprivation of liberty
hich places such person outside the protection of la.

16
The trial court gave considerable eight to the discussion in the petition of briefing papers
supposedly obtained from the )F5 indicating that the anti'insurgency campaign of the
military under the administration of 5resident )rroyo included targeting of identified legal
organi%ations under the <(F, hich included the 65), and their members, as Henemies of
the state.
0e hold that such documented practice of targeting activists in the militarys counter'
insurgency program by itself does not fulfill the evidentiary standard provided in the )mparo
/ule to establish an enforced disappearance.
&n the case of /o"as v. 9acapagal')rroyo, the 6ourt noted that the similarity beteen the
circumstances attending a particular case of abduction ith those surrounding previous
instances of enforced disappearances does not, necessarily, carry sufficient eight to prove
that the government orchestrated such abduction. )ccordingly, the trial court in this case
cannot simply infer government involvement in the abduction of Aames from past similar
incidents in hich the victims also or$ed or affiliated ith the 65) and other left'leaning
groups.
The petition further premised government complicity in the abduction of Aames on the very
positions held by the respondents. The 6ourt in /ubrico v. 9acapagal')rroyo had the
occasion to e"pound on the doctrine of command responsibility and hy it has little bearing,
if at all, in amparo proceedings.
&t may plausibly be contended that command responsibility, as legal basis to hold
militaryBpolice commanders liable for e"tra'legal $illings, enforced disappearances, or
threats, may be made applicable to this jurisdiction on the theory that the command
responsibility doctrine no constitutes a principle of international la or customary
international la in accordance ith the incorporation clause of the 6onstitution. #till, it
ould be inappropriate to apply to these proceedings the doctrine of command responsibility,
as the 6) seemed to have done, as a form of criminal complicity through omission, for
individual respondents criminal liability, if there be any, is beyond the reach of amparo. &n
other ords, the 6ourt does not rule in such proceedings on any issue of criminal culpability,
even if incidentally a crime or an infraction of an administrative rule may have been
committed. )s the 6ourt stressed in #ecretary of <ational (efense v. 9analo (9analo), the
rit of amparo as conceived to provide e"peditious and effective procedural relief against
violations or threats of violation of the basic rights to life, liberty, and security of persons* the
corresponding amparo suit, hoever, His not an action to determine criminal guilt re+uiring
proof beyond reasonable doubt " "" or administrative liability re+uiring substantial evidence
that ill re+uire full and e"haustive proceedings.I 7f the same tenor, and by ay of
e"pounding on the nature and role of amparo, is hat the 6ourt said in /a%on v. TagitisK
&t does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the disappearance Mthreats
thereof or e"trajudicial $illingsN* it determines responsibility, or at least accountability, for the
enforced disappearance Mthreats thereof or e"trajudicial $illingsN for purposes of imposing the

17
appropriate remedies to address the disappearance Mor e"trajudicial $illingsN.
)ssessing the evidence on record, e find that the participation in any manner of military and
police authorities in the abduction of Aames has not been ade+uately proven. The identities of
the abductors have not been established, much less their lin$ to any military or police unit.
There is li$eise no concrete evidence indicating that Aames is being held or detained upon
orders of or ith ac+uiescence of government agents. 6onse+uently, the trial court erred in
granting amparo reliefs. #uch pronouncement of responsibility on the part of public
respondents cannot be made given the insufficiency of evidence. 2oever, e agree ith the
trial court in finding that the actions ta$en by respondent officials are Hvery limited,
superficial and one'sided.I &ts candid and forthright observations on the efforts e"erted by the
respondents are borne by the evidence on record.
(2) )n inspection order is an interim relief designed to give support or strengthen the claim of
a petitioner in an amparo petition, in order to aid the court before ma$ing a decision. ) basic
re+uirement before an amparo court may grant an inspection order is that the place to be
inspected is reasonably determinable from the allegations of the party see$ing the order. &n
this case, the issuance of inspection order as properly denied since the petitioners specified
several military and police establishments based merely on the allegation that the testimonies
of victims and itnesses in previous incidents of similar abductions involving activists
disclosed that those premises ere used as detention centers. &n the same vein, the prayer for
issuance of a production order as predicated on petitioners bare allegation that it obtained
confidential information from an unidentified military source, that the name of Aames as
included in the so'called 7rder of @attle. &ndeed, the trial court could not have sanctioned any
Hfishing e"peditionI by precipitate issuance of inspection and production orders on the basis
of insufficient claims of one party.

18
WRIT OF AMPARO
G.R. No%. 184;7988# | A<,53 24" 2#12 L RODO'FO NOE' 'O(ADA" JR." &IO'ETA
'O(ADA )* ARTURO 'O(ADA vs. PRESIDENT G'ORIA MACAPAGA'
ARROYO" EDUARDO ERMITA" A&E'INO RA(ON" ANGE' ATUTUBO
)* SPO4 ROGER &A'EROSO | J. S!,!o
DOCTRINE.
Section& 17 an% 18 o3 t2e Rue on t2e =rit o3 Amparo re<uire& t2e partie& to e&ta"i&2 t2eir
caim& "* &u"&tantia evi%ence, or &uc2 reevant evi%ence a& a rea&ona"e min% mig2t accept
a& a%e<uate to &upport a concu&ion. 9n ca&e& 72ere t2e vioation o3 t2e rig2t to i3e, i"ert*
or &ecurit* 2a& area%* cea&e%, it i& nece&&ar* 3or t2e petitioner in an amparo action to prove
t2e e,i&tence o3 a continuing t2reat.
FACTS.
?o%ada as issued a subpoena directing him to appear and testify on !: Aanuary 2::.. 7n
that date, instead of appearing before the @lue /ibbon 6ommittee, ?o%ada left the country for
a purported official trip to ?ondon, as announced by then (;</ #ecretary ?ito )tien%a. &n
the 5etition, ?o%ada alleged that his failure to appear at the scheduled hearing as upon the
instructions of then ;"ecutive )ssistant >ndersecretary 9anuel =aite. 6onse+uently, the
#enate issued an 7rder dated !: Aanuary 2::.K (a) citing ?o%ada for contempt* (b) ordering
his arrest and detention* and (c) directing the #enate #ergeant'at')rms to implement the
7rder and ma$e a return thereon.
0hile overseas, ?o%ada as$ed #ec. )tien%a hether the former could be alloed to go bac$
to the 5hilippines. >pon the approval of #ec. )tien%a, ?o%ada informed his family that he
as returning from 2ong 8ong on 1 February 2::. on board 6athay 5acific Flight <o. C1C,
bound to arrive in 9anila at ,K,: p.m. on the same day.
&n the 5etition, ?o%ada claims that, upon disembar$ing from the aircraft, several men held his
arms and too$ his bag. )lthough he allegedly insisted on meeting ith his family, he later
reali%ed that it as iser to just follo them, especially hen he overheard from their
handheld radioK 3;7ag 8a*ong %umaan %i*an &ir nan%*an ang mga taga &ena%o.3
ISSUE.
0hether petitioners should be granted the privilege of the rit of amparo.
HE'D.
<o. The privilege of the rit of amparo is envisioned basically to protect and guarantee the
rights to life, liberty, and security of persons, free from fears and threats that vitiate the
+uality of this life. &t is an e"traordinary rit conceptuali%ed and adopted in light of and in
response to the prevalence of e"tra'legal $illings and enforced disappearances. )ccordingly,

19
the remedy ought to be resorted to and granted judiciously, lest the ideal sought by the
)mparo /ule be diluted and undermined by the indiscriminate filing of amparo petitions for
purposes less than the desire to secure amparo reliefs and protection andBor on the basis of
unsubstantiated allegations.
#ections 1- and 1. of the /ule on the 0rit of )mparo re+uires the parties to establish their
claims by substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as ade+uate to support a conclusion. The use of this evidentiary threshold reveals the clear
intent of the framers of the /ule on the 0rit of )mparo to have the e+uivalent of an
administrative proceeding, albeit judicially conducted, in addressing amparo situations.
&n cases here the violation of the right to life, liberty or security has already ceased, it is
necessary for the petitioner in an amparo action to prove the e"istence of a continuing threat.
Thus, this 6ourt held in its /esolution in /a%on v. TagitisK
9analo is different from Tagitis in terms of their factual settings, as enforced disappearance
as no longer a problem in that case. The enforced disappearance of the brothers /aymond
and /eynaldo 9analo effectively ended hen they escaped from captivity and surfaced,
hile Tagitis is still nohere to be found and remains missing more than to years after his
reported disappearance. )n )mparo situation subsisted in 9analo, hoever, because of the
continuing threat to the brothers right to security* the brothers claimed that since the persons
responsible for their enforced disappearance ere still at large and had not been held
accountable, the former ere still under the threat of being once again abducted, $ept captive
or even $illed, hich threat constituted a direct violation of their right to security of person.
&n the present case, the totality of the evidence adduced by petitioners failed to meet the
threshold of substantial evidence. #ifting through all the evidence and allegations presented,
the cru" of the case boils don to assessing the veracity and credibility of the parties
diverging claims as to hat actually transpired on 1'4 February 2::.. &n this regard, this
6ourt is in agreement ith the factual findings of the 6) to the e"tent that ?o%ada as not
illegally deprived of his liberty from the point hen he disembar$ed from the aircraft up to
the time he as led to the departure area of the airport, as he voluntarily submitted himself to
the custody of respondents.

20
WRIT OF AMPARO
G.R. No. 184477 | Ju! 19" 2#12 | EDGARDO NA&IA" RUBEN DIO"
)* ANDREW BUISING $%. &IRGINIA PARDICO" 4o, )* 5 1!2)34
)* 5 ,!<,!%!0)05o o4 BENHUR &. PARDICO | J. D!3 C)%0533o
DOCTRINE.
9n an amparo petition, proo3 o3 %i&appearance aone i& not enoug2. 9t i& i8e7i&e e&&entia to
e&ta"i&2 t2at &uc2 %i&appearance 7a& carrie% out 7it2 t2e %irect or in%irect aut2ori-ation,
&upport or ac<uie&cence o3 t2e government.
FACTS.
@ong and @en ere suspects in stealing the street lamp. @ong then signed a statement to the
effect that the guards released him ithout inflicting any harm or injury to him. 2is mother
?olita also signed the logboo$ belo an entry hich states that she ill never again harbor or
entertain @en in her house. Thereafter, ?olita and @ong left the security office leaving @en
behind.
The folloing morning, Eirginia, @ens ife, ent to the )sian ?and security office to visit
her husband @en, but only to be told that petitioners had already released him together ith
@ong the night before. #he then loo$ed for @en, as$ed around, and ent to the barangay.
#ince she could not still find her husband, Eirginia reported the matter to the police. The last
time @en as seen as ?olita and @ong left him in petitioners custody at the security office.
;"asperated ith the mysterious disappearance of her husband, Eirginia filed a 5etition for
0rit of )mparo before the /T6 of 9alolos 6ity. Finding the petition sufficient in form and
substance, the amparo court issued an 7rder dated Aune 24, 2::. directing, among others, the
issuance of a rit of amparo and the production of the body of @en before it on Aune !:,
2::..
ISSUE.
0hether or not the rit of amparo may be issued against the )sian ?and security officers.
HE'D.
@ut lest it be overloo$ed, in an amparo petition, proof of disappearance alone is not enough.
&t is li$eise essential to establish that such disappearance as carried out ith the direct or
indirect authori%ation, support or ac+uiescence of the government. This indispensable
element of #tate participation is not present in this case.
The petition does not contain any allegation of #tate complicity, and none of the evidence
presented tend to sho that the government or any of its agents orchestrated @ens

21
disappearance. &n fact, none of its agents, officials, or employees ere impleaded or
implicated in Eirginias amparo petition hether as responsible or accountable persons.
Thus, in the absence of an allegation or proof that the government or its agents had a hand in
@ens disappearance or that they failed to e"ercise e"traordinary diligence in investigating his
case, the 6ourt ill definitely not hold the government or its agents either as responsible or
accountable persons.
0e are aare that under #ection 1 of ).9. <o. :-'C'12'#6 a rit of amparo may lie against
a private individual or entity. @ut even if the person sought to be held accountable or
responsible in an amparo petition is a private individual or entity, still, government
involvement in the disappearance remains an indispensable element.
2ere, petitioners are mere security guards at =rand /oyale #ubdivision in @rgy. ?ugam,
9alolos 6ity and their principal, the )sian ?and, is a private entity. They do not or$ for the
government and nothing has been presented that ould lin$ or connect them to some covert
police, military or governmental operation. )s discussed above, to fall ithin the ambit of
).9. <o. :-'C'12'#6 in relation to /) <o. C.11, the disappearance must be attended by
some governmental involvement. This hallmar$ of #tate participation differentiates an
enforced disappearance case from an ordinary case of a missing person.

22
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
G.R. No. 18;9;; | Au6u%0 ;1" 2#1# | IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION
FOR THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA IN FA&OR OF
FRANCIS SAE(" !0 )3. $%. G'ORIA MACAPAGA'8ARROYO
DOCTRINE.
T2e petitioner 3aie% to pre&ent &u"&tantia evi%ence t2at 2i& rig2t to i3e, i"ert* an% &ecurit*
7ere vioate%, or 2o7 2i& rig2t to privac* 7a& t2reatene% "* re&pon%ent&. ;e %i% not &peci3*
t2e particuar %ocument& to "e &ecure%, t2eir ocation or 72at particuar government o33ice
2a% cu&to%* t2ereo3, an% 72o 2a& po&&e&&ion or contro o3 t2e &ame.
FACTS.
7n Auly 21 2::-, petitioner Francis #ae%, a member of the )<)85)0&# party'list
organi%ation, as invited by 5vt. Oaldy 7sio and #gt. 6astillo of the &ntelligence >nit of the
2:,
th
&nfantry @rigade, 2nd (ivision of the 5hilippine )rmy, to their camp in @rgy.
5inagsabangan &&, <aujan, 7riental 9indoro. They as$ed him about his involvement ith the
665. 7ut of fear, he agreed to become an intelligence asset for the military. )t around 1K::
p.m., he as alloed to go home. #ometime in )ugust 2::-, petitioner claimed that he as
as$ed to retract his affidavit containing his eyeitness account of the abduction and murder
of ;den 9arcellana and ;ddie =umanoy, and to declare that 9ajor =eneral Aovito 5alparan
and his men had nothing to do ith the incident. 9ilitary officers made him sign a document
admitting that he as a surrenderee and a rebel returnee, and ordered him to infiltrate
=)@/&;?), 8)/)5)T)<, 5)9)<T&8, 8)#)9)'T8 and other activist group.
ISSUE.
0hether or not there is error in denying the petition of habeas corpus.
HE'D.
<one. ) careful perusal of the subject petition shos that the 6) correctly found that the
petition as bereft of any allegation as to hat particular acts or omission of respondents
violated or threatened petitionerPs right to life, liberty and security. 2is claim that he as
incommunicado lac$s credibility as he as given a cellular phone and alloed to go bac$ to
7riental 9indoro. The 6) also correctly held that petitioner failed to present substantial
evidence that his right to life, liberty and security ere violated, or ho his right to privacy
as threatened by respondents. 2e did not specify the particular documents to be secured,
their location or hat particular government office had custody thereof, and
ho has possession or control of the same. 2e merely prayed that respondents be ordered
3to produce any documents submitted to any of them in the matter of any report on the case
of Francis #ae%, including all military intelligence reports.

23
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
G.R. No. 189199 | S!<0!=1!, #7" 2#1# | IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR
THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA IN FA&OR OF
ME'ISSA C. RO>AS $%. G'ORIA MACAPAGA'8ARROYO | J. P!,!-
DOCTRINE.
Su"&tantia evi%ence o3 an actua or t2reatene% vioation o3 t2e rig2t to privac* in i3e, i"ert*
or &ecurit* o3 t2e victim i& an in%i&pen&a"e re<uirement "e3ore t2e priviege o3 t2e 7rit ma*
"e e,ten%e%. An in%i&pen&a"e re<uirement "e3ore t2e priviege o3 t2e 7rit ma* "e e,ten%e% i&
t2e &2o7ing, at ea&t "* &u"&tantia evi%ence, o3 an actua or t2reatene% vioation o3 t2e rig2t
to privac* in i3e, i"ert* or &ecurit* o3 t2e victim.
FACTS.
9elissa /o"as, an )merican citi%en of Filipino descent, hile in the >nited #tates, enrolled
in an e"posure program to the 5hilippines ith the group @agong )lyansang 9a$abayan'
>nited #tates of )merica (@)G)<' >#)) of hich she is a member. 7n 1C 9ay 2::C, after
doing survey or$ in Tarlac, /o"as and her companions rested in the house of 9r. Aesus
5aolo in #itio @agong #i$at. 0hile /o"as and her companions ere resting, 11 heavily
armed men in civilian clothes forcibly entered the house and dragged them inside a van.
0hen they alighted from the van, she as informed that she is being detained for being a
member of 6ommunist 5arty of the 5hilippines'<e 5eoples )rmy (655'<5)). #he as
then separated from her companions and as brought to a room, from here she could hear
sounds of gunfire, noise of planes ta$ing off and landing, and some construction bustle. #he
as interrogated and tortured for 1 straight days to convince her to abandon her communist
beliefs. #he as informed by a person named H/6I that those ho tortured her came from
the H#pecial 7perations =roupI and that she as abducted because her name is included in
the H7rder of @attle.I
7n 21 9ay 2::C, /o"as as finally released and as given a cellular phone ith a sim card.
#he as sternly arned not to report the incident to the group 8arapatan or something
untoard ill happen to her and her family. )fter her release, /o"as continued to receive
calls from /6 thru the cell phone given to her. 7ut of apprehension, she thre the phone and
the sim card. #upreme 6ourt issued the rits and referred the case to the 6ourt of )ppeals for
hearing, reception of evidence and appropriate action. The 6ourt of )ppeals granted the
privilege of rits of amparo and habeas data. 2oever, the court a +uo absolved the
respondents because it as not convinced that the respondents ere responsible for the
abduction and torture of /o"as. )ggrieved, /o"as filed an appeal ith the #upreme 6ourt.
ISSUE.
0hether or not there is sufficient evidence to grant petitioner the rit of habeas data.

24
HE'D.
<o. The rit of habeas data as conceptuali%ed as a judicial remedy enforcing the right to
privacy, most especially the right to informational privacy of individuals. The rit operates to
protect a persons right to control information regarding himself, particularly in the instances
here such information is being collected through unlaful means in order to achieve
unlaful ends.
<eedless to state, an indispensable re+uirement before the privilege of the rit may be
e"tended is the shoing, 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.
The main problem behind the ruling of the 6ourt of )ppeals is that there is actually no
evidence on record that shos that any of the public respondents had violated or threatened
the right to privacy of the petitioner. The act ascribed by the 6ourt of )ppeals to the public
respondents that ould have violated or threatened the right to privacy of the
petitioner, i.e., $eeping records of investigations and other reports about the petitioners ties
ith the 655'<5), as not ade+uately provenQconsidering that the origin of such records
ere virtually une"plained and its e"istence, clearly, only inferred by the appellate court from
the video and photograph released by /epresentatives 5alparan and )lcover in their press
conference. <o evidence on record even shos that any of the public respondents had access
to such video or photograph.
Eerily, until such time that any of the public respondents ere found to be actually
responsible for the abduction and torture of the petitioner, any inference regarding the
e"istence of reports being $ept in violation of the petitioners right to privacy becomes
farfetched, and premature. For these reasons, this 6ourt must, at least in the meantime, stri$e
don the grant of the privilege of the rit of habeas data.

25
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
G.R. No. 184779 | O/0o1!, #9" 2#1# | MERA'CO" A3!?)*!, D!:0o )*
Ru1! S)<50u3) $%. Ro%),5o Go<!- '5= | J. C),<5o Mo,)3!%
DOCTRINE.
;a"ea& %ata i& %e&ignate% to protect "* mean& o3 6u%icia compaint t2e image, privac*,
2onor, in3ormation an% 3ree%om o3 in3ormation o3 an in%ivi%ua. 9t i& meant to provi%e a
3orum to en3orce one4& rig2t to t2e trut2 an% to in3ormationa privac*, t2u& &a3eguar%ing t2e
con&titutiona guarantee& o3 a per&on4& rig2t to i3e, i"ert* an% &ecurit* again&t a"u&e in t2i&
age o3 in3ormation tec2noog*. T2e 7rit o3 2a"ea& %ata %irect& t2e i&&uance on*
again&t pu"ic o33icia& or empo*ee&, or private in%ivi%ua& or entitie& engage% in gat2ering,
coecting or &toring o3 %ata or in3ormation regar%ing an aggrieve% part*4& per&on, 3ami* or
2ome.
FACTS.
/osario ?im is an administrative cler$ at 9;/)?67, an anonymous letter as posted at the
door of her assigned office denouncing respondent. @y 9emorandum of )le"ander (head of
9;/)?67 2uman /esource #taffing), he directed the transfer of respondent to another
sector due to the accusations and threats against her from un$non individuals and hich
could possible compromise her safety and security.
?im then re+uested deferment of his transfer, but due to futility, she filed a T/7 for her
transfer and a petition for issuance of a rit of habeas data against 9;/)?67 commanding
9;/)?67, to itK
1. Full disclosure of a the data or information about respondent in relation to the
report purportedly received by petitioners on the alleged threat to her safety and
security*
2. The nature of such data and the purpose of its collection*
!. The measure ta$en by 9;/)?67 to ensure the confidentiality of such data or
information* and
,. The currency and accuracy of such data or information.
ISSUE.
0hether or not the rit of habeas data is proper and may be availed of in this case.
HE'D.
<o, the rit of habeas data is not proper in the case at bar. /espondents plea that she be
spared from complying ith 9;/)?67s 9emorandum directing her reassignment to the

26
)labang #ector, under the guise of a +uest for information or data allegedly in possession of
petitioners, does not fall ithin the province of a rit of 2a"ea& %ata.
The 2a"ea& %ata rule, in general, is designed to protect by means of judicial complaint the
image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of information of an individual. &t is meant
to provide a forum to enforce ones right to the truth and to informational privacy, thus
safeguarding the constitutional guarantees of a persons right to life, liberty and security
against abuse in this age of information technology.

&t bears reiteration that li$e the rit of amparo, 2a"ea& %ata as conceived as a response,
given the lac$ of effective and available remedies, to address the e"traordinary rise in the
number of $illings and enforced disappearances. &ts intent is to address violations of or
threats to the rights to life, liberty or security as a remedy independently from those provided
under prevailing /ules.

$a&tio v. $ru- underscores the emphasis laid don in Tapu- v. %e Ro&ario that the rits of
amparo and 2a"ea& %ata ill <7T issue to protect purely property or commercial concerns
nor hen the grounds invo$ed in support of the petitions therefore are vague or doubtful.
;mployment constitutes a property right under the conte"t of the due process clause of the
6onstitution. &t is evident that respondents reservations on the real reasons for her transfer a
legitimate concern respecting the terms and conditions of ones employment are hat
prompted her to adopt the e"traordinary remedy of 2a"ea& %ata. Aurisdiction over such
concerns is inarguably lodged by la ith the <?/6 and the ?abor )rbiters.

&n another vein, there is no shoing from the facts presented that petitioners committed
any unjustifiable or unlaful violation of respondents ,5620 0o <,5$)/: vi&(a(vi& the right to
life, liberty or security. To argue that petitioners refusal to disclose the contents of reports
allegedly received on the threats to respondents safety amounts to a violation of her right to
privacy is at best speculative. /espondent in fact triviali%es these threats and accusations
from un$non individuals in her earlier'+uoted portion of her Auly 1:, 2::. letter as Hhighly
suspicious, doubtful or are just mere jo$es if they e"isted at all.I )nd she even suspects that
her transfer to another place of or$ HbetrayMsN the real intent of managementNI and could be
a Hpunitive move.I 2er posture unittingly concedes that the issue is labor'related.

27
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
G.R. No. 1918#9 | No$!=1!, 19" 2#11 | IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR
THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA IN FA&OR OF NORIE' H.
RODRIGUE(" !0 )3. $%. G'ORIA MACAPAGA'8ARROYO" !0 )3.| J. S!,!o
DOCTRINE.
T2e %octrine o3 comman% re&pon&i"iit* pertain& to t2e >re&pon&i"iit* o3 comman%er& 3or
crime& committe% "* &u"or%inate mem"er& o3 t2e arme% 3orce& or ot2er per&on& &u"6ect to
t2eir contro in internationa 7ar& or %ome&tic con3ict.>

At2oug2 origina* u&e% 3or
a&certaining crimina compicit*, t2e comman% re&pon&i"iit* %octrine 2a& a&o 3oun%
appication in civi ca&e& 3or 2uman rig2t& a"u&e&.
FACTS.
5etitioner <oriel /odrigue% is a member of )lyansa(agiti9annalon&ti 6agayan
(8agimungan), a peasant organi%ation affiliated ith 8ilusang 9agbubu$id ng
5ilipinas (895). /odrigue% claims that the military tagged 895 as an enemy of the #tate
under the 7plan @antay ?aya, ma$ing its members targets of e"trajudicial $illings and
enforced disappearances.

?ater /odrigue% as freed under ceratin conditions here
/odrigue% as made to sign an affidavit stating that he as neither abducted nor tortured.
)fraid and desperate to return home, he as forced to sign the document. 6ru% advised him
not to file a case against his abductors because they had already freed him. The 62/
personnel then led him and his family to the 62/ Toyota Tamara FR service vehicle.
7n - (ecember 2::C, /odrigue% filed before this 6ourt a 5etition for the 0rit of )mparo
and 5etition for the 0rit of 2abeas (ata ith 5rayers for 5rotection 7rders, &nspection of
5lace, and 5roduction of (ocuments and 5ersonal 5roperties dated 2 (ecember 2::C against
respondents including former 5resident )rroyo. 7n 11 (ecember 2::C, the petition for the
issuance of the rits of amparo and habeas data ere granted after finding that the petition
sufficiently alleged that /odrigue% had been abducted, tortured and later released by
members of the 1-th &nfantry @attalion of the 5hilippine )rmy.
ISSUE.
0hether or not the doctrine of command responsibility can be used in amparo and habeas
data.
HE'D.
Ges. To attribute responsibility or accountability to former 5resident )rroyo, /odrigue%
contends that the doctrine of command responsibility may be applied. )s e e"plained in
/ubrico v. )rroyo, command responsibility pertains to the 3responsibility of commanders for
crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other persons subject to

28
their control in international ars or domestic conflict.3

)lthough originally used for
ascertaining criminal complicity, the command responsibility doctrine has also found
application in civil cases for human rights abuses. &n the >nited #tates, for e"ample,
command responsibility as used in 5or% v. Garcia and Romago-a v. Garcia S civil actions
filed under the )lien Tort 6laims )ct and the Torture Eictim 5rotection )ct. This
development in the use of command responsibility in civil proceedings shos that the
application of this doctrine has been liberally e"tended even to cases not criminal in nature.
Thus, it is our vie that command responsibility may li$eise find application in proceedings
see$ing the privilege of the rit of amparo and rit of habeas data.
)s e held in Ru"ricoK

&t may plausibly be contended that command responsibility, as legal
basis to hold militaryBpolice commanders liable for e"tra'legal $illings,
enforced disappearances, or threats, may be made applicable to this
jurisdiction on the theory that t2e comman% re&pon&i"iit* %octrine no7
con&titute& a principe o3 internationa a7 or cu&tomar* internationa a7 in
accor%ance 7it2 t2e incorporation cau&e o3 t2e $on&titution.
T T T

&f command responsibility ere to be invo$ed and applied to these
proceedings, it &2ou%, at mo&t, "e on* to %etermine t2e aut2or 72o, at t2e
3ir&t in&tance, i& accounta"e 3or, an% 2a& t2e %ut* to a%%re&&, t2e
%i&appearance an% 2ara&&ment& compaine% o3, &o a& to ena"e t2e $ourt to
%evi&e reme%ia mea&ure& t2at ma* "e appropriate un%er t2e premi&e& to
protect rig2t& covere% "* t2e 7rit o3 amparo. )s intimated earlier, hoever,
the determination should not be pursued to fi" criminal liability on
respondents preparatory to criminal prosecution, or as a prelude to
administrative disciplinary proceedings under e"isting administrative
issuances, if there be any.
5recisely in the case at bar, the doctrine of command responsibility may be used to
determine hether respondents are accountable for and have the duty to address the
abduction of /odrigue% in order to enable the courts to devise remedial measures to protect
his rights. 6learly, nothing precludes this 6ourt from applying the doctrine of command
responsibility in amparo proceedings to ascertain responsibility and accountability in
e"trajudicial $illings and enforced disappearances.

29
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
G.R. No. 19;7;7 | Ju3: 24" 2#12 | MARYNETTE R. GAMBOA $%. P@SSUPT. MAR'OU
C. CHAN" 5 25% /)<)/50: )% 02! PNP8P,o$5/5) 3D5,!/0o, o4 I3o/o% No,0!" )* P@SUPT.
WI''IAM #. FANG" 5 25% /)<)/50: )% C25!4 I0!3356!/! D5$5%5o" PNP
P,o$5/5)3 O445/!" I3o/o% No,0!" R!%<o*!0%. | J. S!,!o
DOCTRINE.
T2e 7rit o3 2a"ea& %ata i& an in%epen%ent an% &ummar* reme%* %e&igne% to protect t2e
image, privac*, 2onor, in3ormation, an% 3ree%om o3 in3ormation o3 an in%ivi%ua, an% to
provi%e a 3orum to en3orce one4& rig2t to t2e trut2 an% to in3ormationa privac*. 9t &ee8& to
protect a per&on4& rig2t to contro in3ormation regar%ing one&e3, particuar* in in&tance& in
72ic2 &uc2 in3ormation i& "eing coecte% t2roug2 una73u mean& in or%er to ac2ieve
una73u en%&. 9t mu&t "e emp2a&i-e% t2at in or%er 3or t2e priviege o3 t2e 7rit to "e grante%,
t2ere mu&t e,i&t a ne,u& "et7een t2e rig2t to privac* on t2e one 2an%, an% t2e rig2t to i3e,
i"ert* or &ecurit* on t2e ot2er.
FACTS.
Former 5resident =loria 9acapagal )rroyo issued )dmin <o. 2-1 creating OeFarosa
6ommission hich as formed to investigate the e"istence of private army groups in the
country in vie of eliminating and dismantling them permanently in the future. >pon
conclusion of its investigation, the 6ommission submitted a confidential report to the office
of the 5resident.
9arynette =amboa as the 9ayor of (ingras, &locos <orte. =amboa alleged that the
5hilippine <ational 5olice &locos <orte conducted surveillance operation against her and her
aides and classified her as 5)= coddler. 5urportedly ithout the benefit of data verification,
5<5 forarded in the /eports enumeration of individual maintaining 5)=s.
=amboas association ith 5)= as published and released in the different forms of media,
publicly tagging her as a 5)= coddler. )lleging that her right to privacy as violated,
=amboa filed a petition before the /T6 for the issuance of rit of habeas data to destroy the
unverified reports from the 5<5 data base and restrain 5<5 from forarding baseless reports
against her. The /T6 ruled that the inclusion of =amboa in the report violates her right to
privacy. 2oever, the /T6 dismissed =amboas petition for rit of habeas data saying that
=amboa failed to establish the source of the information.
ISSUES.
(1) 0hether or not the forarding or information or intelligence report by the 5<5 to the
6ommission as an unlaful act that violated petitioners right to privacy.

30
(2) 0hether or not resort to petition for rit of habeas data as proper.
HE'D.
A1B Fo,C),*56 o4 54o,=)05o o, 50!3356!/! ,!<o,0 6)02!,!* 1: 02! PNP 0o 02!
Co==5%%5o 5% NOT ) 50,u%5o o4 <!0505o!,D% ,5620 0o <,5$)/:
&t is clear that the issuance of )7 2-1 articulates a legitimate aim hich is to investigate the
e"istence of 5)=s ith the ultimate objective of dismantling them permanently. 5ursuant to
the state interest of dismantling 5)=s, as ell as the poers and functions accorded to the
6ommission and the 5<5, the latter collected information on individuals suspected of
maintaining 5)=s, monitored them and counteracted their activities. 7ne of those individuals
is herein petitioner =amboa.
This court holds that =amboa as able to sufficiently establish that the data contained in the
report listing her as a 5)= coddler came from the 5<5 contrary to the ruling of the trial
court, hoever, the forarding of information by the 5<5 to the 6ommission as not
unlaful act that violated or threatened her right to privacy in life, liberty or security. The
5<5 as rationally e"pected to forard and share intelligence regarding 5)=s ith the body
specifically created for the purpose of investigating the e"istence of these notorious group.
9oreover, the 6ommission as e"plicitly authori%ed to deputi%e the police force in the
fulfillment of the formers mandate, and thus had the poer to re+uest assistance from the
latter.
A2B P!0505o 4o, C,50 o4 2)1!)% *)0) 5% NOT PROPER
The rit of 2a"ea& %ata is an independent and summary remedy designed to protect the
image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of information of an individual, and to
provide a forum to enforce ones right to the truth and to informational privacy. &t see$s to
protect a persons right to control information regarding oneself, particularly in instances in
hich such information is being collected through unlaful means in order to achieve
unlaful ends. &t must be emphasi%ed that in order for the privilege of the rit to be granted,
there must e"ist a ne"us beteen the right to privacy on the one hand, and the right to life,
liberty or security on the other. #ection 1 of the /ule on the 0rit of ;a"ea& .ata readsK
Ha#eas data$ ? The rit of 2a"ea& %ata is a remedy available to any person hose
right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlaful act
or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity
engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data information regarding the
person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.

The notion of informational privacy is still developing in 5hilippine la and jurisprudence.
6onsidering that even the ?atin )merican 2a"ea& %ata, on hich our on /ule on the 0rit
of ;a"ea& .ata is rooted, finds its origins from the ;uropean tradition of data protection, this
6ourt can be guided by cases on the protection of personal data decided by the ;uropean
6ourt of 2uman /ights (;62/). 7f particular note is /ean%er v. S7e%en, in hich the

31
;62/ balanced the right of citi%ens to be free from interference in their private affairs ith
the right of the state to protect its national security. &n this case, Torsten ?eander, a #edish
citi%en, or$ed as a temporary replacement museum technician at the <aval 9useum, hich
as adjacent to a restricted military security %one. 2e as refused employment hen the
re+uisite personnel control resulted in an unfavorable outcome on the basis of information in
the secret police register,hich as $ept in accordance ith the 5ersonnel 6ontrol 7rdinance
and to hich he as prevented access. 2e claimed, among others, that this procedure of
security control violated )rticle . of the ;uropean 6onvention of 2uman /ights on the right
to privacy, as nothing in his personal or political bac$ground ould arrant his classification
in the register as a security ris$.
/ean%er illustrates ho the right to informational privacy, as a specific component of the
right to privacy, may yield to an overriding legitimate state interest. &n similar fashion, the
determination of hether the privilege of the rit of 2a"ea& %ata, being an e"traordinary
remedy, may be granted in this case entails a delicate balancing of the alleged intrusion upon
the private life of =amboa and the relevant state interest involved.
&n this case, 6han and Fang admitted the e"istence of report, but emphasi%ed its confidential
nature. That it as lea$ed to third parties and the media as regrettable, even arranting
reproach. @ut it must be stressed that =amboa failed to establish that 5<5 as responsible for
his unintended disclosure. &n any event, there are other reliefs available to her to address the
purported damage to her reputation, ma$ing a resort to the e"traordinary remedy of the rit
of habeas data unnecessary and improper.
=amboa failed to prove through substantial evidence that her inclusion in the list of
individuals made her and her supporters susceptible to harassment and to increased police
surveillance. )s public officials, they enjoy presumption of regularity, hich she failed to
overcome. Therefore, the privilege of the rit of habeas data must be denied.

32
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
G.R. No. 18;9;; | S!<0!=1!, 29" 2#12 | IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION
FOR THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA IN FA&OR OF
FRANCIS SAE(" !0 )3. $%. G'ORIA MACAPAGA'8ARROYO
DOCTRINE.
0ur&uant to t2e %octrine o3 comman% re&pon&i"iit*, t2e 0re&i%ent, a& t2e $omman%er(in(
$2ie3 o3 t2e A50, can "e 2e% ia"e 3or a33ront again&t t2e petitioner4& rig2t& to i3e, i"ert*
an% &ecurit* a& ong a& &u"&tantia evi%ence e,i&t to &2o7 t2at 2e or &2e 2a% e,2i"ite%
invovement in or can "e impute% 7it2 8no7e%ge o3 t2e vioation&, or 2a% 3aie% to e,erci&e
nece&&ar* an% rea&ona"e %iigence in con%ucting t2e nece&&ar* inve&tigation& re<uire%
un%er t2e rue&.
FACTSK
7n 9arch 4, 2::., the petitioner filed ith the 6ourt a petition to be granted the privilege of
the rits of amparo and habeas data ith prayers for temporary protection order, inspection
of place and production of documents. &n the petition, he e"pressed his fear of being abducted
and $illed. 2e li$eise prayed for the military to cease from further conducting surveillance
and monitoring of his activities and for his name to be e"cluded from the order of battle and
other government records connecting him to the 6ommunist 5arty of the 5hilippines (655).
(uring the hearings, the petitioner narrated that starting )pril 14, 2::-, he noticed that he
as alays being folloed by a certain 3Aoel,3 a former colleague at @ayan 9una. 3Aoel3
pretended peddling pandesal in the vicinity of the petitioners store. Three days before the
petitioner as apprehended, 3Aoel3 approached and informed him of his marital status and
current job as a ba$er in 6alapan, 9indoro 7riental. 3Aoel3 in+uired if the petitioner as still
involved ith )<)85)0&#. 0hen as$ed by the 6) justices during the hearing if the
petitioner had gone home to 6alapan after having filed the petition, he ansered in the
negative e"plaining that he as afraid of 5vt. 7sio ho as alays at the pier. The 6) ruled
that the petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to substantiate his petition for habeas
data and rit of amparo. The 6) li$eise dropped as respondent, for 5res. =9) on the
ground of her immunity from suit.
ISSUEK
0hether or not the 5resident should be immediately dropped as respondent on the ground of
her immunity from suit in a petition for the privilege of the rits of amparo and habeas data.
HE'DK

33
<o. The 5resident cannot be automatically dropped as arespondent pursuant to the doctrineof
command responsibility. To hold someone liable under the doctrine of command
responsibility, the folloing elements must obtainK
a. the e"istence of a superior'subordinate relationship beteen the accused as superior
and the perpetrator of the crime as his subordinate*
b. the superior $ne or had reason to $no that the crime as about to be or had been
committed* and
c. the superior failed to ta$e the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the
criminal acts or punish the perpetrators thereof.
The president, being the commander'in'chief of all armed forces, necessarily possesses
control over the military that +ualifies him as a superior ithin the purvie of the command
responsibility doctrine.
7n the issue of $noledge, it must be pointed out that although international tribunals apply a
strict standard of $noledge, i.e., actual $noledge, such may nonetheless be established
through circumstantial evidence. &n the 5hilippines, a more liberal vie is adopted and
superiors may be charged ith constructive $noledge. This vie is buttressed by the
enactment of ;"ecutive 7rder <o. 224, otherise $non as the &nstitutionali%ation of the
(octrine of U6ommand /esponsibility in all =overnment 7ffices, particularly at all ?evels
of 6ommand in the 5hilippine <ational 5olice and other ?a ;nforcement )gencies (;.7.
224).
>nder ;.7. 224, a government official may be held liable for neglect of duty under the
doctrine of command responsibility if he has $noledge that a crime or offense shall be
committed, is being committed, or has been committed by his subordinates, or by others
ithin his area of responsibility and, despite such $noledge, he did not ta$e preventive or
corrective action either before, during, or immediately after its commission. 8noledge of
the commission of irregularities, crimes or offenses is presumed hen (a) the acts are
idespread ithin the government officials area of jurisdiction* (b) the acts have been
repeatedly or regularly committed ithin his area of responsibility* or (c) members of his
immediate staff or office personnel are involved.
5ursuant to the doctrine of command responsibility, the 5resident, as the 6ommander'in'
6hief of the )F5, can be held liable for affront against the petitioners rights to life, liberty
and security as long as substantial evidence e"ist to sho that he or she had e"hibited
involvement in or can be imputed ith $noledge of the violations, or had failed to e"ercise
necessary and reasonable diligence in conducting the necessary investigations re+uired under
the rules.
The 6ourt also stresses that rule that the presidential immunity from suit e"ists only in
concurrence ith the presidents incumbency. 6onversely, this presidential privilege of
immunity cannot be invo$ed by a non'sitting president even for acts committed during his or

34
her tenure. 6ourts loo$ ith disfavor upon the presidential privilege of immunity, especially
hen it impedes the search for truth or impairs the vindication of a right.
The petitioner, hoever, is not e"empted from the burden of proving by substantial evidence
his allegations against the 5resident to ma$e the latter liable for either acts or omissions
violative of rights against life, liberty and security. &n the instant case, the petitioner merely
included the 5residents name as a party respondent ithout any attempt at all to sho the
latters actual involvement in, or $noledge of the alleged violations. Further, prior to the
filing of the petition, there as no re+uest or demand for any investigation that as brought
to the 5residents attention. Thus, hile the 5resident cannot be completely dropped as a
respondent in a petition for the privilege of the rits of amparo and habeas data merely on the
basis of the presidential immunity from suit, the petitioner in this case failed to establish
accountability of the 5resident, as commander'in'chief, under the doctrine of command
responsibility.

SpecPro Case Digests

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SpecPro Case Digests

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Special Proceedings Case Digests

2010 - 2012 Jurisprudence

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen