MLkALCC, Deyto, Sap|tu|a vs.

kosar|o L|m
Doctr|ne: 1he wrlL of !"#$"% '"(" ls a remedy avallable Lo any person whose rlghL Lo
prlvacy ln llfe, llberLy or securlLy ls vlolaLed or LhreaLened by an unlawful acL or omlsslon
of a publlc offlclal or employee or of a prlvaLe lndlvldual or enLlLy engaged ln Lhe
gaLherlng, collecLlng or sLorlng of daLa or lnformaLlon regardlng Lhe person, famlly,
home and correspondence of Lhe aggrleved parLy.
Iacts:
8osarlo Llm (Cherry) ls an admln clerk of ML8ALCC. Cn !une 4, 2008, an anonymous
leLLer was posLed aL Lhe door of Lhe MeLerlng Cfflce of Lhe Admln 8ldg. where Cherry
was asslgned, as well as ln lockers, wlLh lmpuLaLlons agalnsL her.
1he conLenL of sald leLLer are as follows:
Cherry Llm:
MA1ACS MCnC LAMunln LAPA1 nC 8l?A?A nC ML8ALCC, nCA?Cn nAMAn A?
CuS1C MCnC ALAMCn AnC 8uCnC kuMAn?A SA MCA 8uWA?A nC CC8?L8nC.
kAAL nC MukPA MC, LuMA?AS kA 8l1C, WALAnC u1AnC nA LCC8."
Cherry lmmedlaLely reporLed Lhls Lo Lhe n Lhe followlng day. A monLh afLer (!uly 4),
P8 SLafflng head ueyLo lssued a Memorandum Lransferrlng Cherry Lo Alabang secLor
due Lo sald reporLs wlLh LhreaLs and accusaLlons as lL may compromlse her safeLy.
Cn !uly 10, 2008, Cherry wroLe Lo SaplLula, v & P8 admln head appeallng her Lransfer
and asklng LhaL she be allowed Lo volce her concerns, clalmlng LhaL Lhe punlLlve naLure
of Lhe Lransfer amounLed Lo a denlal of due process. She furLher clalmed LhaL Lhe
gruellng Lravel from her ampanga resldence Lo Alabang amounLed Lo a LhreaL on her
[ob securlLy whlch vlolaLed Lhelr C8A.
Per reply conLalned Lhe ff:
l feel LhaL lL would have been beLLer . . . lf you could have lnLlmaLed Lo me Lhe naLure
of Lhe alleged accusaLlons and LhreaLs so LhaL aL leasL l could have found ouL lf Lhese are
credlble or even serlous. 8uL as you sLaLed, Lhese came from unknown lndlvlduals and
Lhe way Lhey were handled, lL appears LhaL Lhe veraclLy of Lhese accusaLlons and LhreaLs
Lo be [slc] hlghly susplclous, doubLful or are [usL mere [okes lf Lhey exlsLed aL all.
Assumlng for Lhe sake of argumenL only, LhaL Lhe alleged LhreaLs exlsL as Lhe
managemenL apparenLly belleve, Lhen my Lransfer Lo an unfamlllar place and
envlronmenL whlch wlll make me a slLLlng duck so Lo speak, seems Lo beLray Lhe real
lnLenL of managemenL whlch ls conLrary Lo lLs expressed concern on my securlLy and
safeLy . . . 1hus, lL made me Lhlnk Lwlce on Lhe raLlonale for managemenL's lnlLlaLed
Lransfer. 8eflecLlng furLher, lL appears Lo me LhaL lnsLead of Lhe managemenL
supposedly exLendlng favor Lo me, Lhe neL resulL and effecL of managemenL acLlon
would be a punlLlve one."
She requesLed LhaL lL be deferred buL afLer recelvlng no response from ML8ALCC, she
flled a peLlLlon for lssuance of a wrlL of habeas daLa ln Lhe 81C of 8ulacan. She alleged
LhaL Lhelr conLlnued fallure and refusal Lo provlde her wlLh deLalls or lnformaLlon abouL
Lhe alleged reporL whlch ML8ALCC purporLedly recelved concernlng LhreaLs Lo her
safeLy and securlLy amounL Lo a vlolaLlon of her rlghL Lo prlvacy ln llfe, llberLy and
securlLy, correcLlble by habeas daLa. She prayed for a 18C on her Lransfer and a W8l1
commandlng peLlLloners Lo flle a wrlLLen reLurn conLalnlng Lhe followlng:
a) a full dlsclosure of Lhe daLa or lnformaLlon abouL respondenL ln relaLlon Lo Lhe
reporL purporLedly recelved by peLlLloners on Lhe alleged LhreaL Lo her safeLy
and securlLy, Lhe naLure of such daLa and Lhe purpose for lLs collecLlon,
b) the measures taken by petitioners to ensure the confidentiality of such data
or information; and
c) the currency and accuracy of such data or information obtained.
TRO was granted and both parties were ordered to file their verified written return.
Petitioners alleged lack of jurisdiction of the RTC and for the dismissal of petition for
writ and recall of the TRO. But RTC ruled in favor of Lim by declaring that a writ of
habeas data should extend not only to victims of extra-legal killings and political activists
but also to ordinary citizens, whose rights to life and security are jeopardized by refusal
to provide her with information or data on the reported threats to her person.
Petition for review to the SC was filed.
Issues:
1. WON RTC had jurisdiction? NO! Its within the jurisdiction of the NLRC and LA.
2. WON issuance of the writ was outside the parameters of a writ of Habeas Data?
YES!
ne|d:
eLlLlon ls C8An1Lu and Lhe Speclal roceedlng ls ulSMlSSLu. 81C declslon ln favor of
Llm ls hereby 8LvL8SLu and SL1 ASluL.
kat|o:
RTC has no jurisdiction since it is clearly a labor dispute, ingeniously crafted as a petition
for habeas data. Transfer is a management prerogative. Further, OCA- Circular No. 79-
200312 expressly prohibits the issuance of TROs or injunctive writs in labor-related
cases.
Writ of Habeas Data directs the issuance of the writ only against public officials or
employees, or private individuals or entities engaged in the gathering, collecting or
storing of data or information regarding an aggrieved partys person, family or home; and
that MERALCO (or its officers) is clearly not engaged in such activities.
Cherrys plea from exemption of the transfer under Lhe gulse of a quesL for lnformaLlon
or daLa allegedly ln possesslon of peLlLloners, ls noL covered by a wrlL of habeas daLa.
Sect|on 1 of Lhe 8ule on Lhe Wr|t of nabeas Data provldes:
SecLlon 1. Pabeas uaLa: 8emedy avallable Lo any person whose rlghL Lo prlvacy ln
llfe, llberLy or securlLy ls vlolaLed or LhreaLened by an unlawful acL or omlsslon of a
publlc offlclal or employee or of a prlvaLe lndlvldual or enLlLy engaged ln Lhe gaLherlng,
collecLlng or sLorlng of daLa or lnformaLlon regardlng Lhe person, famlly, home and
correspondence of Lhe aggrleved parLy.
1he habeas daLa rule, ln general, ls deslgned Lo proLecL by means of [udlclal complalnL
Lhe lmage, prlvacy, honor, lnformaLlon, and freedom of lnformaLlon of an lndlvldual. lL ls
meanL Lo provlde a forum Lo enforce one's rlghL Lo Lhe LruLh and Lo lnformaLlonal
prlvacy, Lhus safeguardlng Lhe consLlLuLlonal guaranLees of a persons rlghL Lo llfe, llberLy
and securlLy agalnsL abuse ln Lhls age of lnformaLlon Lechnology.
lL was concelved as a response, glven Lhe lack of effecLlve and avallable remedles, Lo
address Lhe exLraordlnary rlse ln Lhe number of kllllngs and enforced dlsappearances. lLs
lnLenL ls Lo address vlolaLlons of or LhreaLs Lo Lhe rlghLs Lo llfe, llberLy or securlLy as a
remedy lndependenLly from Lhose provlded under prevalllng 8ules.
WrlLs of amparo and habeas daLa wlll nC1 lssue Lo proLecL purely properLy or
commerclal concerns nor when Lhe grounds are vague or doubLful. LmploymenL ls a
properLy rlghL under due process clause. lL ls evldenL LhaL ML8ALCC's reservaLlons on
Lhe real reasons for her Lransfer are whaL prompLed her Lo peLlLlon for habeas daLa.
!urlsdlcLlon should have been wlLh Lhe nL8C and LA.
1here ls no showlng on Lhe parL of ML8ALCC, eL al, commlLLed any unlawful vlolaLlon of
Cherry's !"#$% %' (!")*+, )"--!- vls Lhe rlghL Lo llfe, llberLy or securlLy. Cherry's clalms are
speculaLlve. Cherry ln facL Lrlvlallzes Lhese LhreaLs and accusaLlons from unknown
lndlvlduals ln her !uly 10, 2008 leLLer. And she even suspecLs LhaL her Lransfer Lo
anoLher place of work ls a punlLlve move by Lhe managemenL. Per own words caughL
her because lL clearly shows Lhe lssue Lo be labor-relaLed.




Gamboa v. Chan, 38S SCkA 677

uCC18lnLS: 1he wrlL of habeas daLa ls an lndependenL and summary remedy deslgned
Lo proLecL Lhe lmage, prlvacy, honor, lnformaLlon, and freedom of lnformaLlon of an
lndlvldual, and Lo provlde a forum Lo enforce one's rlghL Lo Lhe LruLh and Lo
lnformaLlonal prlvacy. lL seeks Lo proLecL a person's rlghL Lo conLrol lnformaLlon
regardlng oneself, parLlcularly ln lnsLances ln whlch such lnformaLlon ls belng collecLed
Lhrough unlawful means ln order Lo achleve unlawful ends. lL musL be emphaslzed LhaL
ln order for Lhe prlvllege of Lhe wrlL Lo be granLed, Lhere musL exlsL a nexus beLween Lhe
rlghL Lo prlvacy on Lhe one hand, and Lhe rlghL Lo llfe, llberLy or securlLy on Lhe oLher.
8equlslLes under Lhe 8ule on Lhe WrlL of Pabeas uaLa: (a) Lhe manner ln whlch Lhe rlghL
Lo prlvacy was vlolaLed or LhreaLened wlLh vlolaLlon and how lL affecLed Lhe rlghL Lo llfe,
llberLy or securlLy of Lhe person, (b) Lhe acLlons and recourses such person Look Lo
secure Lhe daLa or lnformaLlon, and (c) Lhe locaLlon of Lhe flles, reglsLers or daLabases,
Lhe governmenL offlce, and Lhe person ln charge, ln possesslon or ln conLrol of Lhe daLa
or lnformaLlon.
lAC1S: lormer resldenL Clorla Macapagal-Arroyo lssued AC no. 273 CreaLlng an
lndependenL Commlsslon Lo Address LxlsLence of rlvaLe Armles ln Lhe CounLry" whlch
wlll be called Lhe Zenarosa Commlsslon. lLs goal ls Lo ellmlnaLe prlvaLe armles before
May 10, 2010 elecLlons.

1he sald commlsslon submlLLed Lo Lhe presldenL a reporL regardlng prlvaLe army groups
(AC), namlng also Lhe offlclals assoclaLed wlLh Lhem. Camboa, one of Lhose named ln
Lhe reporL and a mayor of ulngras llocos norLe, Lhen alleged LhaL Lhe n - llocos norLe
conducLed survelllance operaLlons agalnsL her and her aldes and classlfled her as
someone who keeps AC wlLhouL Lhe beneflL of daLa-verlflcaLlon. 1he sald lnformaLlon
was Lhen submlLLed by n Lo Lhe Zenarosa Commlsslon, Lhereby causlng her lncluslon
ln Lhe reporL conLalnlng a llsL of persons wlLh prlvaLe armles. 1hen on !uly 6 and 7, 2010,
A8S C8n broadcasLed on lLs evenlng news program Lhe porLlon of Lhe reporL namlng
Camboa as one of Lhe pollLlclans alleged Lo be malnLalnlng a AC.

Camboa also averred LhaL her assoclaLlon wlLh AC also appeared ln prlnL medla and
LhaL she was publlcly Lagged as someone who malnLalns a AC of an unverlfled
lnformaLlon LhaL Lhe n llocos norLe gaLhered and forwarded Lo Lhe commlsslon. She
sald LhaL because of Lhe sald reporL and lLs dlsclosure, she ls sub[ecLed Lo posslble
harassmenL and pollce survelllance operaLlons. Camboa Lhen flled a wrlL for habeas
daLa, alleglng LhaL her rlghL Lo prlvacy was vlolaLed.

ln Lhe 8eLurn on Lhe WrlL flled by n, lL was alleged LhaL lL acLed wlLhln Lhe bounds of
Lhe mandaLe ln conducLlng Lhe lnvesLlgaLlon and survelllance of Camboa. 1he
lnformaLlon ln Lhelr daLabase also perLalned Lo several crlmlnal cases, more speclflcally,
murder and assaulL LhaL was charged agalnsL Camboa.

1he n llkewlse asserLed LhaL Lhe eLlLlon was lncompleLe for falllng Lo comply wlLh
Lhe followlng requlslLes under Lhe 8ule on Lhe WrlL of Pabeas uaLa: (a) Lhe manner ln
whlch Lhe rlghL Lo prlvacy was vlolaLed or LhreaLened wlLh vlolaLlon and how lL affecLed
Lhe rlghL Lo llfe, llberLy or securlLy of Camboa, (b) Lhe acLlons and recourses she Look Lo
secure Lhe daLa or lnformaLlon, and (c) Lhe locaLlon of Lhe flles, reglsLers or daLabases,
Lhe governmenL offlce, and Lhe person ln charge, ln possesslon or ln conLrol of Lhe daLa
or lnformaLlon. 1hey also conLend LhaL Lhe eLlLlon for Lhe WrlL of Pabeas uaLa, belng
llmlLed Lo cases of exLra[udlclal kllllngs and enforced dlsappearances, was noL Lhe
proper remedy Lo address Lhe alleged besmlrchlng of Lhe repuLaLlon of Camboa. 1he
81C dlsmlssed Lhe case.

lSSuL: WheLher Lhe WrlL of Pabeas uaLa should lssue.

8uLlnC: no.
1he wrlL of habeas daLa ls an lndependenL and summary remedy deslgned Lo proLecL
Lhe lmage, prlvacy, honor, lnformaLlon, and freedom of lnformaLlon of an lndlvldual, and
Lo provlde a forum Lo enforce ones rlghL Lo Lhe LruLh and Lo lnformaLlonal prlvacy. lL
seeks Lo proLecL a persons rlghL Lo conLrol lnformaLlon regardlng oneself, parLlcularly ln
lnsLances ln whlch such lnformaLlon ls belng collecLed Lhrough unlawful means ln order
Lo achleve unlawful ends. 8uL walL, Lhere's more. urum roll please. lL musL be
emphaslzed LhaL ln order for Lhe prlvllege of Lhe wrlL Lo be granLed, Lhere musL exlsL a
nexus beLween Lhe rlghL Lo prlvacy on Lhe one hand, and Lhe rlghL Lo llfe, llberLy or
securlLy on Lhe oLher.
ln a case declded ln Lhe Luropean CourL of Puman 8lghLs, lL was held LhaL Lhe lnLeresL of
Lhe respondenL SLaLe ln proLecLlng lLs naLlonal securlLy musL be balanced agalnsL Lhe
serlousness of Lhe lnLerference wlLh Lhe appllcanLs rlghL Lo respecL prlvaLe llfe. ln a
slmllar fashlon, Lhe deLermlnaLlon of wheLher Lhe prlvllege of Lhe wrlL of habeas daLa,
belng an exLraordlnary remedy, may be granLed ln Lhls case enLalls a dellcaLe balanclng
of Lhe alleged lnLruslon upon Lhe prlvaLe llfe of Camboa and Lhe relevanL sLaLe lnLeresL
lnvolved.
ln Lhls case, lL ls clear LhaL Lhe lssuance of A.C. 273 arLlculaLes a leglLlmaLe sLaLe alm,
whlch ls Lo lnvesLlgaLe Lhe exlsLence of ACs wlLh Lhe ulLlmaLe ob[ecLlve of dlsmanLllng
Lhem permanenLly. ursuanL Lo Lhe sLaLe lnLeresL of dlsmanLllng ACs, as well as Lhe
foregolng powers and funcLlons accorded Lo Lhe Zenarosa Commlsslon and Lhe n, Lhe
laLLer collecLed lnformaLlon on lndlvlduals suspecLed of malnLalnlng ACs, monlLored
Lhem and counLeracLed Lhelr acLlvlLles. ConLrary Lo Lhe rullng of Lhe Lrlal courL, however,
Lhe forwardlng of lnformaLlon by Lhe n Lo Lhe Zenarosa Commlsslon was noL an
unlawful acL LhaL vlolaLed or LhreaLened her rlghL Lo prlvacy ln llfe, llberLy or securlLy.
1he n was raLlonally expecLed Lo forward and share lnLelllgence regardlng ACs wlLh
Lhe body speclflcally creaLed for Lhe purpose of lnvesLlgaLlng Lhe exlsLence of Lhese
noLorlous groups. Moreover, Lhe Zenarosa Commlsslon was expllclLly auLhorlzed Lo
depuLlze Lhe pollce force ln Lhe fulflllmenL of Lhe formers mandaLe, and Lhus had Lhe
power Lo requesL asslsLance from Lhe laLLer.
Powever, Lo accord Lhe rlghL Lo prlvacy wlLh Lhe klnd of proLecLlon esLabllshed ln
exlsLlng law and [urlsprudence, Lhls CourL noneLheless deems lL necessary Lo cauLlon
Lhese lnvesLlgaLlng enLlLles LhaL lnformaLlon sharlng musL observe sLrlcL confldenLlallLy.
lnLelllgence gaLhered musL be released excluslvely Lo Lhe auLhorlLles empowered Lo
recelve Lhe relevanL lnformaLlon. ln Lhls case Lhe respondenLs admlLLed Lhe confldenLlal
naLure and Camboa also falled Lo prove LhaL Lhe lnformaLlon leaked Lo Lhe medla was
due Lo Lhe faulL of Lhe respondenL. ln any evenL, Lhere are oLher rellefs avallable Lo her
Lo address Lhe purporLed damage Lo her repuLaLlon, maklng a resorL Lo Lhe
exLraordlnary remedy of Lhe wrlL of habeas daLa unnecessary and lmproper. She also
falled Lo prove LhaL she wlll be sub[ecL Lo harassmenL and unnecessary pollce
survelllance because of Lhe reporL because Lhe lnvesLlgaLlons agalnsL her was for Lhe
oLher crlmes she was accused of.
lL ls clear from Lhe foregolng dlscusslon LhaL Lhe sLaLe lnLeresL of dlsmanLllng ACs far
ouLwelghs Lhe alleged lnLruslon on Lhe prlvaLe llfe of Camboa, especlally when Lhe
collecLlon and forwardlng by Lhe n of lnformaLlon agalnsL her was pursuanL Lo a
lawful mandaLe. 1herefore, Lhe prlvllege of Lhe wrlL of habeas daLa musL be denled. ?ou
sLarL Lhe spark ln my bonflre hearL.




























Saez v. Macapaga|-Arroyo

lacLs:

Saez flled a peLlLlon Lo be granLed Lhe prlvllege of Lhe wlrLs of amparo and habeas daLa, wlLh a
18C and an lnspecLlon and producLlon of documenLs. Pe alleged LhaL Lhe mlllLary was
conducLlng survelllance on hlm and monlLorlng hls acLlvlLles. ln parLlcular, he sald LhaL on Aprll
16, 2007, he noLlced LhaL he was always belng followed by !oel" who used Lo be hls colleague
aL 8ayan Muna. !oel preLended Lo be a pan de sal vendor and lolLered around Saez's sLore. !oel
had asked hlm lf he was sLlll lnvolved wlLh AnAkAWlS. 1hree days laLer, Saez was apprehended
by Lhe mlllLary and Laken Lo nau[an, Mlndoro. Pe broughL wlLh hlm Lwo bodyguards and hls
uncle. Pe was evenLually released aL 3pm of Lhe same day, buL dld noL reLurn Lo hls home ln
Calapan, Mlndoro, because he was afrald of a cerLaln vL. Cslo, who he clalmed was always aL
Lhe pler. Saez also alleged ln hls peLlLlon LhaL hls name appeared ln mlllLary documenLs such as
an order of baLLle and oLher governmenLal records whlch connecLed hlm Lo Lhe CommunlsL
arLy of Lhe hlllpplnes. Pe prayed Lo have hls name excluded from such documenLs. Pe clalmed
LhaL Lhe mlllLary had offered Lo Lake ouL hls name from Lhe llsL and clear hlm from oLher records
lf he would cooperaLe and become a mlllLary asseL, and he assenLed under duress.

1he SC lssued Lhe wrlL of Amparo and ordered Lhe respondenLs Lo make a reLurn. 1hey Lhen
referred Lhe case Lo Lhe CA. 1he reLurn of Lhe respondenLs sLaLed LhaL Lhe names and
descrlpLlons used ln Lhe peLlLlon were noL sufflcenL Lo properly ldenLlfy some of Lhe persons
soughL Lo be lncluded as respondenLs. Some oLher respondenLs however, submlLLed Lhelr
affldavlLs.

1he CA dlsmlssed Lhe case on Lhe followlng grounds
1. 1here was no subsLanLlal evldence Lo show how vL. Zaldy Cslo vlolaLed or LhreaLened
Lo vlolaLe hls rlghL Lo llfe, llberLy, and securlLy, slnce he dld noL even go home Lo
Calapan, where he clalmed Cslo was.
2. Aslde from Lhls he falled Lo even allege how Lhe supposed vlolaLlon or LhreaLes of
vlolaLlon were commlLLed.
3. 1he peLlLlon does noL conform wlLh Lhe 8ule on Lhe WrlL of Pabeas uaLa, parLlcularly,
Saez dld noL lnclude any allegaLlon as Lo how hls rlghL Lo prlvacy was vlolaLed, whaL
recourse he avalled of Lo obLaln Lhe documenLs, whaL speclflc documenLs he was Lalklng
abouL, and from whom he wlshed Lo obLaln Lhem.

Aslde from Lhls, Lhe CA also dropped resldenL CMA as respondenL because of lmmunlLy from
sulL. lL also dlsmlssed Lhe peLlLlon for lacklng proper verlflcaLlon.

Issues: WheLher
1. 1he peLlLlon and lLs allegaLlons conformed wlLh Lhe requlremenLs of Lhe 8ules on
Amparo and Pabeas uaLa.
2. Saez was able Lo prove wlLh subsLanLlal evldence hls rlghL Lo Lhe WrlLs prayed for.
3. WheLher Lhe resldenL was rlghLfully dropped as a respondenL.

ne|d]kat|o:
1. 1he peLlLlon and lLs allegaLlons conformed wlLh Lhe requlremenLs - 1he CourL found
LhaL Saez was able Lo make speclflc allegaLlons as Lo hls and respondenL's personal
clrcumsLances. Pe was also able Lo lndlcaLe parLlcular acLs whlch were vlolaLlve of hls
rlghLs (sorry guys, dl slnabl kung ano yung allegaLlons nlya aslde from whaL l already puL
ln Lhe facLs). 1he CourL also found LhaL as Lo Lhe remedles he had Lo exhausL before
avalllng of Lhe wrlLs, he was able Lo show LhaL he dld noL expecL help from Lhe mlllLary
because Lhey were Lhe oppressors, and already wenL Lo a human rlghLs organlzaLlon
before golng Lo courL. 1he CourL also found LhaL as Lo Lhe documenLs, he was able Lo
name Lhem speclflcally (order of baLLle, Lhose llnklng hlm Lo Lhe C, Lhose he slgned
under duress), and LhaL lL dld noL maLLer LhaL he dld noL allege from whom Lhe
documenLs were Lo be asked because Lhe requlremenL of speclflclLy only arlses lf Lhe
exacL locaLlons and ldenLlLles of Lhe cusLodlans are known.

2. Saez was noL able Lo prove hls rlghL Lo Lhe WrlLs wlLh subsLanLlal evldence - Aslde from
Lhe one quesLlon !oel asked Saez abouL AnAkAWlS, Lhere was no oLher conLacL made
beLween Lhe Lwo, desplLe Saez's clalms LhaL !oel conLlnued Lo lolLer around hls sLore. no
reasonable LhreaL of vlolaLlon can be lnferred from Lhls. Also, afLer hls apprehenslon, he
clalms LhaL he was lnLerrogaLed and forced by Lhe mlllLary Lo sLay ln cerLaln places,
however, Lhe mlllLary clalm LhaL lL was he who volunLarlly wenL Lo places and offered
Lhem hls servlces as a mlllLary asseL, whlch Lhey re[ecLed. 1here belng confllcLlng clalms,
Saez falled Lo provlde subsLanLlal evldence Lo prove hls case. Also, he clalms LhaL durlng
hls apprehenslon and lnLerrogaLlon, he was allowed Lo brlng hls uncle, Lhe 8aranggay
CapLaln, and bodyguards, yeL none were broughL before Lhe courL Lo LesLlfy. lurLher,
respondenLs deny Lhe exlsLence of Lhe order of baLLle wlLh Saez's name on lL, and even
Lhe people Saez accuse Lo have been lnvolved ln hls apprehenslon were noL acLually
connecLed or asslgned Lo Lhe 2
nd
lnfanLry ulvlslon, whlch he clalms was responslble for
Lhe vlolaLlons Lo hls rlghL. llnally, Lhere was no resLralnL on hls llberLy, and Lhe mere
allegaLlon LhaL Cslo was always aL Lhe ler" cannoL be used Lo reasonably lnfer any
vlolaLlon Lo hls rlghLs or LhreaLs Lo vlolaLe Lhose rlghLs.

3. 1he resldenL cannoL be auLomaLlcally dropped as a respondenL - 1he resldenL can be
held llable under Lhe docLrlne of Command 8esponslblllLy, whlch has Lhree elemenLs:
a. 1he exlsLence of a superlor-subordlnaLe relaLlonshlp
b. Superlor knew or had reason Lo know LhaL Lhe crlme was abouL Lo be or had
been commlLLed
c. Superlor falled Lo Lake necessary and reasonable measures Lo prevenL crlmlnal
acLs or punlsh perpeLraLors Lhereof.
Slnce Lhe resldenL ls Lhe Commander ln Chlef of Lhe mlllLary, she necessarlly possesses
conLrol over Lhem whlch quallfles her as a superlor. ClrcumsLanLlal evldence can also be
used Lo lnfer knowledge. Powever, Lhe peLlLloner falled Lo presenL subsLanLlal evldence
Lo show her lnvolvemenL ln hls ordeal or her knowledge Lhereof. Also, Lhere was no
requesL or demand for lnvesLlgaLlon broughL before Lhe resldenL's offlce. 1he
eLlLloner falled Lo esLabllsh accounLablllLy.

CLher noLes: Cn Lhe non-verlflcaLlon of Lhe peLlLlon, compllance wlLh Lechnlcal rules of
procedure cannoL be accorded prlmacy ln Lhese klnds of cases, especlally when Lhe peLlLloner
hlmself LesLlfles ln courL Lo prove Lhe veraclLy of hls allegaLlons. 1he defecL was deemed cured.

!" $%& '($$&) *+ $%& ,&$-$-*" +*) $%& .)-$ *+ (',()* ("/ $%& .)-$ *+ %(0&(1 /($(
-" +(2*) *+ 3&4-11( 56 7*8(16

7*8(1 26 3(9(,(:(4;<))*=*

>-":&)?1 /-:&1$ +(9$1@ Roxas, an Ameiican citizen with Filipino uescent, joineu an
immeision tiip to Tailac. She biought with hei money, electionics, etc. Aftei uoing
woik on Nay 19 2uu9, she iesteu, along with hei companions, in the house of a
ceitain Ni. Paolo. Aiounu 1:Supm, Roxas anu hei companions weie abuucteu. The
companions weie ieleaseu, but Roxas wasn't. Roxas was subjecteu to haish
conuitions anu toituie while being uetaineu. She was allegeuly uetaineu foi being a
membei of the CPP-NPA. She was ieleaseu on Nay 2S 2uu9 anu was given only a
cellphone with a sim caiu, wheie one of the abuuctois continueu to contact hei. She
fileu Ampaio anu Babeas Bata ("BB"). She impleaueu the top goveinment
employees, fiom PuNA, to the Chief PNP anu Chief of AFP (CSAFP) etc. SC giants the
Ampaio anu BB (but is stiicken uown latei on). but aftei it is iefeiieu to CA,
absolves the iesponuents because Roxas cannot piove the liabilities of the officials.
Couit cannot also oiuei the iesponuents to ietuin Roxas' stuff because it woulu
amount to imputing liability on the iesponuents. But the iesponuents can still be
impleaueu if the petitionei can piove that they can be helu still unuei
"iesponsibility". Basically the case was iefeiieu to the CA anu CBR foi fuithei
investigation anu monitoiing. (Becision, iefei to the bottom pait of this case.)

A(9$1@
Petitionei is an Ameiican citizen of Filipino uescent. While in the 0niteu States,
petitionei eniolleu in an exposuie piogiam to the Philippines with the
gioup !"#$%# '()"%*"%# +","-")"%-0niteu States of Ameiica (!'.'/-0SA) of
which she is a membei. Buiing the couise of hei immeision, petitionei touieu
vaiious piovinces anu towns of Cential Luzon anu, in Apiil of 2uu9, she volunteeieu
to join membeis of !'.'/-Tailac in conuucting an initial health suivey in La Paz,
Tailac foi a futuie meuical mission.

In puisuit of hei volunteei woik, petitionei biought hei passpoit, wallet with
Fifteen Thousanu Pesos (P1S,uuu.uu) in cash, jouinal, uigital cameia with memoiy
caiu, laptop computei, exteinal haiu uisk, 0123, wiistwatch, sphygmomanometei,
stethoscope anu meuicines.

Aftei uoing suivey woik on 19 Nay 2uu9, petitionei anu hei companions,
}uanito Caiabeo (Caiabeo) anu }ohn Euwaiu }anuoc (}anuoc), ueciueu to iest in the
house of one Ni. }esus Paolo (Ni. Paolo) in 4565$ Bagong Sikat, !"7"%#") Kapanikian,
La Paz, Tailac. At aiounu 1:Su in the afteinoon, howevei, petitionei, hei companions
anu Ni. Paolo weie staitleu by the louu sounus of someone banging at the fiont
uooi anu a voice uemanuing that they open up.

Suuuenly, fifteen (1S) heavily aimeu men foicibly openeu the uooi, baigeu
insiue anu oiueieu petitionei anu hei companions to lie on the giounu face uown.
The aimeu men weie all in civilian clothes anu, with the exception of theii leauei,
weie also weaiing bonnets to conceal theii faces.

Petitionei tiieu to piotest the intiusion, but five (S) of the aimeu men gangeu
up on hei anu tieu hei hanus. At this junctuie, petitionei saw the othei aimeu men
heiuing Caiabeo anu }anuoc, alieauy blinufolueu anu tapeu at theii mouths, to a
neaiby blue van. Petitionei staiteu to shout hei name. Against hei vigoious
iesistance, the aimeu men uiaggeu petitionei towaius the vanbiuising hei aims,
legs anu knees. 0nce insiue the van, but befoie she can be blinufolueu, petitionei
was able to see the face of one of the aimeu men sitting besiue hei. The van then
speu away.

Aftei about an houi of tiaveling, the van stoppeu. Petitionei, Caiabeo anu
}anuoc weie oiueieu to alight. Aftei she was infoimeu that she is being uetaineu foi
being a membei of the Communist Paity of the Philippines-New People's Aimy
(CPP-NPA), petitionei was sepaiateu fiom hei companions anu was escoiteu to a
ioom that she believeu was a jail cell fiom the sounu of its metal uoois. Fiom theie,
she coulu heai the sounus of gunfiie, the noise of planes taking off anu lanuing anu
some constiuction bustle. She infeiieu that she was taken to the militaiy camp of
Foit Nagsaysay in Laui, Nueva Ecija.

What followeu was five (S) stiaight uays of inteiiogation coupleu with
toituie. The thiust of the inteiiogations was to convince petitionei to abanuon hei
communist beliefs in favoi of ietuining to "the folu." The toituie, on the othei hanu,
consisteu of taunting, choking, boxing anu suffocating the petitionei.

Thioughout the entiiety of hei oiueal, petitionei was maue to suffei in
blinufolus even in hei sleep. Petitionei was only ielieveu of hei blinufolus when she
was alloweu to take a bath, uuiing which she became acquainteu with a woman
nameu "Rose" who batheu hei. Theie weie also a few times when she cheateu hei
blinufolu anu was able to peek at hei suiiounuings.

Bespite being uepiiveu of sight, howevei, petitionei was still able to leain the
names of thiee of hei inteiiogatois who intiouuceu themselves to hei as "Bex,"
"}ames" anu "RC." "RC" even tolu petitionei that those who toituieu hei came fiom
the "489:5"( 2897"65$%* ;7$<8," anu that she was abuucteu because hei name is
incluueu in the "27=97 $> !"66(9."

0n 2S Nay 2uu9, petitionei was finally ieleaseu anu ietuineu to hei uncle's
house in Quezon City. Befoie being ieleaseu, howevei, the abuuctois gave petitionei
a cellulai phone with a SINcaiu, a slip of papei containing an e-mail auuiess with
passwoiu, a plastic bag containing biscuits anu books the hanucuffs useu on hei, a
blouse anu a paii of shoes. Petitionei was also steinly waineu not to iepoit the
inciuent to the gioup ?"7"8"6"% oi something untowaiu will happen to hei anu hei
family.

Sometime aftei hei ielease, petitionei continueu to ieceive calls fiom
RC @5" the cellulai phone given to hei. 0ut of appiehension that she was being
monitoieu anu also feaiing foi the safety of hei family, petitionei thiew away the
cellulai phone with a SIN caiu.

Seeking sanctuaiy against the thieat of futuie haim as well as the
suppiession of any existing goveinment files oi iecoius linking hei to the
communist movement, petitionei fileu a 196565$% >$7 6A9 B756* $> 'C8"7$ "%= D"-9"*
3"6" befoie this Couit on 1 }une 2uu9. Petitionei impleaueu public officials
occupying the uppeimost echelons of the militaiy anu police hieiaichy as
iesponuents, on the belief that it was goveinment agents who weie behinu hei
abuuction anu toituie. Petitionei likewise incluueu in hei suit "Rose," "Bex" anu
"RC".


!11B&1@
1. valiuity anu othei ciicumstances of the Wiit of Ampaio.
2. valiuity anu othei ciicumstances of the Wiit of Babeas Bata.
S. WN Roxas is entitleu to the ietuin of hei belongings.

C&4/@
>)-$ *+ <',()*
-She invokes commanu iesponsibility. But. It must be stateu at the outset that the
use by the petitionei of the =$:675%9 $> :$CC"%= 79*8$%*5-5(56) as the justification in
impleauing the public iesponuents in hei "C8"7$ petition, is legally inaccuiate, if
not incoiiect. The uoctiine of commanu iesponsibility is a iule of substantive law
that establishes liability anu, by this account, cannot be a piopei legal basis to
impleau a paity-iesponuent in an "C8"7$ petition.

Rubiico v. '77$)$ saiu:
"The evolution of the commanu iesponsibility uoctiine finus its context in
the uevelopment of laws of wai anu aimeu combats. Accoiuing to Fi.
Beinas, "commanu iesponsibility," in its simplest teims, means the
"iesponsibility of commanueis foi ciimes committeu by suboiuinate
membeis of the aimeu foices oi othei peisons subject to theii contiol in
inteinational wais oi uomestic conflict." In this sense, commanu
iesponsibility is piopeily a foim of ciiminal complicity. The Bague
Conventions of 19u7 auopteu the uoctiine of commanu iesponsibility,
foieshauowing the piesent-uay piecept of holuing a supeiioi accountable
foi the atiocities committeu by his suboiuinates shoulu he be iemiss in his
uuty of contiol ovei them. As then foimulateu, commanu iesponsibility is
"(" *'-11-*" '*/& *+ -"/-2-/B(4 9)-'-"(4 4-(0-4-$=," wheieby the
supeiioi is maue iesponsible foi 9)-'&1 9*''-$$&/ by his suboiuinates
foi failing to pievent oi punish the peipetiatois (as opposeu to ciimes he
oiueieu). (Emphasis in the oiginal, unueiscoiing supplieu)"

Since the application of commanu iesponsibility piesupposes an imputation of
inuiviuual liability, it is moie aptly invokeu in a full-blown ciiminal oi
auministiative case iathei than in a summaiy "C8"7$ pioceeuing.

In which case, commanueis may be impleaueunot actually on the basis of
commanu iesponsibilitybut iathei on the giounu of theii )&1,*"1-0-4-$=, oi at
least (99*B"$(0-4-$=.

E"F$% @G H"#565* saiu:

"x x x 7&1,*"1-0-4-$= iefeis to the extent the actois have been
establisheu by substantial eviuence to have paiticipateu in whatevei
way, by action oi omission, in an enfoiceu uisappeaiance, as a
measuie of the iemeuies this Couit shall ciaft, among them, the
uiiective to file the appiopiiate ciiminal anu civil cases against the
iesponsible paities in the piopei couits. <99*B"$(0-4-$=, on the othei
hanu, iefeis to the measuie of iemeuies that shoulu be auuiesseu to
those who exhibiteu involvement in the enfoiceu uisappeaiance
without biinging the level of theii complicity to the level of
iesponsibility uefineu above; oi who aie imputeu with knowleuge
ielating to the enfoiceu uisappeaiance anu who caiiy the buiuen of
uisclosuie; oi those who caiiy, but have faileu to uischaige, the
buiuen of extiaoiuinaiy uiligence in the investigation of the enfoiceu
uisappeaiance. "

Theie is no eviuence to impute to the iesponuents some iesponsibility. The totality
of the eviuence piesenteu by the petitionei uoes not inspiie ieasonable conclusion
that hei abuuctois weie militaiy oi police peisonnel anu that she was uetaineu at
Foit Nagsaysay. Basically she saiu that hei tiavel time was the basis to know that
she was uetaineu in Foit Nags, anu that she heaiu gunfiie, constiuction, anu
aiiplanes.

Biiect eviuence of iuentity, when obtainable, must be piefeiieu ovei meie
ciicumstantial eviuence baseu on patteins anu similaiity, because the foimei
inuubitably offeis gieatei ceitainty as to the tiue iuentity anu affiliation of the
peipetiatois. An "C8"7$ couit cannot simply leave to iemote anu hazy infeience
what it coulu otheiwise cleaily anu uiiectly asceitain.

D%&1& &2-/&"$-()= :(,1E -" $B)"E '(F& -$ 2-)$B(44= -',*11-04& $* /&$&)'-"&
.%&$%&) $%& (0/B9$-*" ("/ $*)$B)& *+ $%& ,&$-$-*"&) .(1 -" +(9$ 9*''-$$&/
.-$% $%& (9GB-&19&"9& *+ $%& ,B04-9 )&1,*"/&"$16 0n account of this insufficiency
in eviuence, a pionouncement of iesponsibility on the pait of the public
iesponuents, theiefoie, cannot be maue.


7&$B)" *+ $%& H&)1*"(4 I&4*":-":1

In the fiist place, an oiuei uiiecting the public iesponuents to ietuin the peisonal
belongings of the petitionei is alieauy equivalent to a conclusive pionouncement of
liability. The oiuei itself is a substantial ielief that can only be gianteu once the
liability of the public iesponuents has been fixeu in a full anu
exhaustive pioceeuing. As alieauy uiscusseu above, matteis of liability aie not
ueteiminable in a meie summaiy "C8"7$ pioceeuing.

!"1,&9$-*" *+ A*)$ 3(:1(=1(= ()&(

It woulu be equivalent to sanctioning a "fishing expeuition," which was nevei
intenueu by the 'C8"7$ Rule in pioviuing foi the inteiim ielief of inspection oiuei.

C(0&(1 J($(
CA saiu:
H&"/-": )&1*4B$-*" *+ $%-1 ,&$-$-*" ("/ 0&+*)& H&$-$-*"&) 9*B4/ $&1$-+=
0&+*)& K1E L8;()'= :&"&)(4 M*2-$* H(4(,()("E I("$(= ,()$=;4-1$E ("/
H(1$*) <49*2&) *+ $%& <44-("9& +*) N($-*"(4-1' ("/ J&'*9)(9= ,()$=;4-1$
%&4/ ( ,)&11 9*"+&)&"9& .%&)& $%&= )&2&(4&/ $%($ $%&= )&9&-2&/ ("
-"+*)'($-*" +)*' ( +&'(4& NH< )&0&4 .%* .("$&/ *B$ *+ $%&
*):("-O($-*"E $%($ H&$-$-*"&) .(1 ( 9*''B"-1$ )&0&46 <49*2&) 94(-'&/
$%($ 1(-/ -"+*)'($-*" )&(9%&/ $%&' $%)B ( 4&$$&) .-$% ,%*$* *+
H&$-$-*"&) %*4/-": +-)&()'1 ($ (" NH< $)(-"-": 9(', ("/ ( 2-/&* 5J *+
$%& $)(-"-": &8&)9-1&1.

54&()4=E ("/ "*$.-$%1$("/-": H&$-$-*"&)?1 /&"-(4 $%($ 1%& .(1 $%&
,&)1*" -" 1(-/ 2-/&*E $%&)& .&)& )&9*)/1 *+ *$%&) -"2&1$-:($-*"1 *"
3&4-11( 56 7*8(1 *) 3&4-11( 7*8(1 .%-9% 2-*4($& %&) )-:%$ $* ,)-2(9=.

The main pioblem behinu the iuling of the Couit of Appeals is that theie is actually
no eviuence on iecoiu that shows that any of the public iesponuents hau violateu oi
thieateneu the iight to piivacy of the petitionei. The act asciibeu by the Couit of
Appeals to the public iesponuents that woulu have violateu oi thieateneu the iight
to piivacy of the petitionei, 5G9GI keeping iecoius of investigations anu othei iepoits
about the petitionei's ties with the CPP-NPA, was not auequately pioven
consiueiing that the oiigin of such iecoius weie viitually unexplaineu anu its
existence, cleaily, only infeiieu by the appellate couit fiom the viueo anu
photogiaph ieleaseu by Repiesentatives Palpaian anu Alcovei in theii piess
confeience. No eviuence on iecoiu even shows that any of the public iesponuents
hau access to such viueo oi photogiaph.

Foi these ieasons, this Couit must, at least in the meantime, 1$)-F& /*." $%& :)("$
*+ $%& ,)-2-4&:& *+ $%& .)-$ *+ !"#$"% '"("6

J-1,*1-$-*"

Bence, We mouify the uiiective of the Couit of the Appeals foi fuithei
investigation, as follows

1.) Appointing the CBR as the leau agency taskeu with conuucting fuithei
investigation iegaiuing the abuuction anu toituie of the
petitionei. Accoiuingly, the CBR shall, unuei the noim of extiaoiuinaiy
uiligence, take oi continue to take the necessaiy steps: (a) to iuentify the
peisons uesciibeu in the caitogiaphic sketches submitteu by the petitionei,
as well as theii wheieabouts; anu (b) to puisue any othei leaus ielevant to
petitionei's abuuction anu toituie.

2.) Biiecting the incumbent Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP), oi
his successoi, anu the incumbent Chief of Staff of the AFP, oi his successoi, to
extenu assistance to the ongoing investigation of the CBR, incluuing but not
limiteu to fuinishing the lattei a copy of its peisonnel iecoius :57:" the time
of the petitionei's abuuction anu toituie, subject to ieasonable iegulations
consistent with the Constitution anu existing laws.

S.) Fuithei uiiecting the incumbent Chief of the PNP, oi his successoi, to
fuinish to this Couit, the Couit of Appeals, anu the petitionei oi hei
iepiesentative, a copy of the iepoits of its investigations anu theii
iecommenuations, othei than those that aie alieauy pait of the iecoius of
this case, within ninety (9u) uays fiom ieceipt of this uecision.

4.) Fuithei uiiecting the CBR to (a) fuinish to the Couit of Appeals within
ninety (9u) uays fiom ieceipt of this uecision, a copy of the iepoits on its
investigation anu its coiiesponuing iecommenuations; anu to (b) pioviue oi
continue to pioviue piotection to the petitionei uuiing hei stay oi visit to the
Philippines, until such time as may heieinaftei be ueteimineu by this Couit.

Accoiuingly, this case must be iefeiieu back to the Couit of Appeals, foi the
puiposes of monitoiing compliance with the above uiiectives anu ueteimining
whethei, in light of any iecent iepoits oi iecommenuations, theie woulu alieauy be
sufficient eviuence to holu any of the public iesponuents iesponsible oi, at least,
accountable. Aftei making such ueteimination, the Couit of Appeals shall submit its
own iepoit with iecommenuation to this Couit foi final action. The Couit of
Appeals will continue to have juiisuiction ovei this case in oiuei to accomplish its
tasks unuei this uecision.

>CL7LAP7LE the instant petition is H<7D!<QQR 3L7!DP7!PKS. We
heieby ienuei a uecision:

1.) <AA!73!NT the uenial of the petitionei's piayei foi the ietuin of hei
peisonal belongings;

2.) <AA!73!NT the uenial of the petitionei's piayei foi an inspection of the
uetention aieas of Foit Nagsaysay.

S.) 7LUL7S!NT the giant of the piivilege of A"-9"* ="6", without piejuuice,
howevei, to any mouification that this Couit may make on the basis of the
investigation iepoits anu iecommenuations submitteu to it unuei this
uecision.

4.) 3PJ!AR!NT the uiiective that fuithei investigation must be unueitaken,
as follows

a. <HHP!ND!NT the Commission on Buman Rights as the leau agency
taskeu with conuucting fuithei investigation iegaiuing the abuuction
anu toituie of the petitionei. Accoiuingly, the Commission on Buman
Rights shall, unuei the noim of extiaoiuinaiy uiligence, take oi
continue to take the necessaiy steps: (a) to iuentify the peisons
uesciibeu in the caitogiaphic sketches submitteu by the petitionei, as
well as theii wheieabouts; anu (b) to puisue any othei leaus ielevant
to petitionei's abuuction anu toituie.

b. J!7L5D!NT the incumbent Chief of the Philippine National Police, oi
his successoi, anu the incumbent Chief of Staff of the Aimeu Foices of
the Philippines, oi his successoi, to extenu assistance to the ongoing
investigation of the Commission on Buman Rights, incluuing but not
limiteu to fuinishing the lattei a copy of its peisonnel
iecoius :57:" the time of the petitionei's abuuction anu toituie,
subject to ieasonable iegulations consistent with the Constitution anu
existing laws.

c. Fuithei J!7L5D!NT the incumbent Chief of the Philippine National
Police, oi his successoi, to fuinish to this Couit, the Couit of Appeals,
anu the petitionei oi hei iepiesentative, a copy of the iepoits of its
investigations anu theii iecommenuations, othei than those that aie
alieauy pait of the iecoius of this case, within ninety (9u) uays fiom
ieceipt of this uecision.

u. Fuithei J!7L5D!NT the Commission on Buman Rights (a) to fuinish
to the Couit of Appeals within ninety (9u) uays fiom ieceipt of this
uecision, a copy of the iepoits on its investigation anu its
coiiesponuing iecommenuations; anu (b) to pioviue oi continue to
pioviue piotection to the petitionei uuiing hei stay oi visit to the
Philippines, until such time as may heieinaftei be ueteimineu by this
Couit.

S.) 7LAL77!NT I<5V the instant case to the Couit of Appeals foi the
following puiposes:

a. To 3PN!DP7 the investigations anu actions taken by the PNP, AFP,
anu the CBR;

b. To JLDL73!NL whethei, in light of the iepoits anu
iecommenuations of the CBR, the abuuction anu toituie of the
petitionei was committeu by peisons acting unuei any of the public
iesponuents; anu on the basis of this ueteimination

c. To SKI3!D to this Couit within ten (1u) uays fiom ieceipt of the
iepoit anu iecommenuation of the Commission on Buman Rightsits
own iepoit, which shall incluue a iecommenuation eithei foi
the J!S3!SS<Q of the petition as against the public iesponuents who
weie founu not iesponsible anuoi accountable, $7 foi
the <HH7PH7!<DL 7L3LJ!<Q 3L<SK7LSE <S 3<R IL <QQP>LJ
IR DCL <3H<7P <NJ C<IL<S J<D< 7KQLSE DP IL
KNJL7D<VLN as against those founu iesponsible anuoi
accountable.

Accoiuingly, the public iesponuents shall iemain peisonally impleaueu in
this petition to answei foi any iesponsibilities anuoi accountabilities they may
have incuiieu uuiing theii incumbencies.

0thei finuings of the Couit of Appeals in its Becision uateu 26 August 2uu9
in CA-u.R. SP No. uuuS6-WRA that aie not contiaiy to this uecision aie<AA!73LJ.

SP P7JL7LJ.