In re Petition for Melissa Roxas (2010)

J. Perez
Facts:
Melissa Roxas was a Filipino-American activist who was abducted by alleged soldiers
under the presumption that she was an NPA member. She was a member of Bayan
and was in Tarlac for a Medical mission.
Together with two companions, she was in the house of one Mr. Paolo when 15
armed men banged at the door and seized her. They blindfolded her.
She believed she was being taken to Ft. Magsaysay in Nueva Ecija after estimating
the travel time. She saw the faces of her captors. She was tortured under the
premise of making her renounce her communist beliefs. She was released. The
abductors still did surveillance on her.
In her petition of writ of amparo and habeas data in the supreme court, against
certain govt officials, she asked:
1. respondent government officials be enjoined from harming her family
2.inspection of detention area conditions in ft Magsaysay, nueva ecija
3. disclosure of documents regarding the spec ops group of the afp
4. expunge the docs regarding Roxas
5. return the belongings taken from her.
The case was brought to the court of appeals. To dismiss the petition, the
respondents averred:
1. the abduction was done with the petitioners consent (stage-managed to smear
the govt.)
2. the petitioners medical certificate showed only abrasions on her knees and
wrists.
3. The president was immune from suit
4. no specific allegation that the government officials in question committed these
atrocities
The CA was convinced that she was abducted. They gave credence to her MC. They
court also acknowledged the abductors acts of monitoring her and called for the
amparo as a duty for the respondents to protect her. They also noted a breach of
informational privacy committed by Palparan when her showed videos of her in a

training camp for guerillas and told the court about insider infor about Roxas joining
the NPA. They werent convinced that the military was behind the abduction,
though.
Hence she petitioned the SC.
Issues:
1. Did the court of Appeals err in absolving the govt officials in the amparo
proceeding?
2. Can her belongings be returned?
3. Can Ft. Magsaysay be inspected?
4. Can Habeas Data be used as a remedy?
Held: No to all four. Petition dismissed.
1. Petitioner- there was sufficient evidence of her abduction by govt due to the
sound of guns and airplanes. She impleaded generals, the president, and the DND
chief due to the doctrine of command responsibility.
Court- incorrect due to being substantive law that established liability in an amparo
proceeding.
Hague Conventions As then formulated, command responsibility is "an omission
mode of individual criminal liability," whereby the superior is made responsible for
crimes committed by his subordinates for failing to prevent or punish the
perpetrators
C.R. is more aptly invoked in a criminal or administrative proceeding than one in
amparo.
Amparo is part of remedial measures and directives that may be crafted by the
court, in order to address specific violations or threats of violation of the
constitutional rights to life, liberty or security.
It is an action for relief available to the petitioner, not used to determine proof
beyond reasonable doubt.
The commanders may be impleaded on accountability or responsibility
From the case:
Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have been established by substantial
evidence to have participated in whatever way, by action or omission, in an
enforced disappearance, as a measure of the remedies this Court shall craft, among

them, the directive to file the appropriate criminal and civil cases against the
responsible parties in the proper courts.
Accountability, on the other hand, refers to the measure of remedies that should
be addressed to those who exhibited involvement in the enforced disappearance
without bringing the level of their complicity to the level of responsibility defined
above; or who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance
and who carry the burden of disclosure; or those who carry, but have failed to
discharge, the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced
disappearance.
On responsibility, the court said that the petitioner alleged that the generals had in
one way condoned her abduction due to her assertion that govt agents were behind
her torture and capture, the inclusion of the military base, etc. However, the
evidence doesnt warrant the conclusion that they were really military. One, the
similarity with her abduction to older cases of abduction dont really point that the
government orchestrated that.
In amparo proceedings, the weight that may be accorded to parallel circumstances
as evidence of military involvement depends largely on the availability or nonavailability of other pieces of evidence that has the potential of directly proving the
identity and affiliation of the perpetrators.
There was no direct evidence as regard the affiliation of the abductors.
With regard to ft Magsaysay, the claim that she was taken there cant be tenable
due to her status as a traveller and her blindfolded state.
2. An order directing respondents to return belongings is a conclusive
pronouncement of liability which can be done in a full proceeding. Also, a writ of
amparo cant be used to protect property rights.
3. A fishing expedition for evidence cant be sanctioned by a writ of amparo.
An 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 making a
decision. The place msut be reasonably determinable from the partys allegations.
Her estimates were unreliable.
4. The writ of habeas data was conceptualized as a judicial remedy enforcing the
right to privacy, most especially the right to informational privacy of individuals. It
protects a persons right to control information regarding himself, especially when
the info is being collected through unlawful means for unlawful ends.
To issue the writ there must be showing of an actual or threatened violation of the
right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim, which she failed to do.

The court turned the investigation to the CHR. Habeas data was reversed.