IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND

4. Whether Rodriguez has proven through substantial evidence that

WRIT OF HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ

former President Arroyo is responsible or accountable for his

G.R. NO. 191805

abduction.

NOVEMBER 15, 2011

Facts:

Held:

1. No. It bears stressing that since there is no determination of

Petitioner Noriel Rodriguez is a member of Alyansa Dagiti Mannalon

administrative, civil or criminal liability in amparo and habeas

Iti Cagayan (Kagimungan), a peasant organization affiliated with Kilusang

data proceedings, courts can only go as far as ascertaining

Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP). He claims that the military tagged KMP as

responsibility or accountability for the enforced disappearance or

an enemy of the State under the Oplan Bantay Laya, making its members

extrajudicial killing.

targets of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.

As was held in the case of Estrada v Desierto, a non-sitting
Rodriguez was abducted by military men and was tortured

President does not enjoy immunity from suit, even for acts committed during

repeatedly when he refused to confess to his membership in the NPA. When

the latters tenure; that courts should look with disfavor upon the presidential

released, he filed a Petition for the Writ of Amparo and and Petition for the

privilege of immunity, especially when it impedes the search for truth or

Writ of Habeas Data with Prayers for Protection Orders, Inspection of Place,

impairs the vindication of a right. The deliberations of the Constitutional

and Production of Documents and Personal Properties. The petition was filed

Commission also reveal that the intent of the framers is clear that presidential

against former Pres. Arroyo, et al. The writs were granted but the CA

immunity from suit is concurrent only with his tenure and not his term. (The

dropped Pres Arroyo as party-respondent, as she may not be sued in any

term means the time during which the officer may claim to hold the office as

case during her tenure of office or actual incumbency.

of right, and fixes the interval after which the several incumbents shall
succeed one another. The tenure represents the term during which the

Issue:

incumbent actually holds office. The tenure may be shorter than the term for

1. Whether former Pres GMA should be dropped as respondent on the

basis of presidential immunity from suit
2. Whether the doctrine of command responsibility can be used in
amparo and habeas data cases.

reasons within or beyond the power of the incumbent.) Therefore, former

Pres. GMA cannot use such immunity to shield herself from judicial scrutiny
that would assess whether, within the context of amparo proceedings, she
was responsible or accountable for the abduction of Rodriguez.

3. Whether the president, as commander-in-chief of the military, can be

held responsible or accountable for extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearances.

2. Yes. As we explained in Rubrico v. Arroyo, command responsibility

pertains to the "responsibility of commanders for crimes committed
by subordinate members of the armed forces or other persons
subject

to

their

control

in

international

wars

or

domestic

conflict." Although originally used for ascertaining criminal complicity,

the command responsibility doctrine has also found application in

3. Yes.

civil cases for human rights abuses. This development in the use of

To hold someone liable under the doctrine of command responsibility, the

command responsibility in civil proceedings shows that the

following elements must obtain:

application of this doctrine has been liberally extended even to cases

a. the existence of a superior-subordinate relationship between the

not criminal in nature. Thus, it is our view that command

accused as superior and the perpetrator of the crime as his

responsibility may likewise find application in proceedings seeking

subordinate;

the privilege of the writ of amparo.

b. the superior knew or had reason to know that the crime was about
to be or had been committed; and

Precisely in the case at bar, the doctrine of command responsibility may

c. the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable

be used to determine whether respondents are accountable for and have the

measures to prevent the criminal acts or punish the perpetrators

duty to address the abduction of Rodriguez in order to enable the courts to

thereof.84

devise remedial measures to protect his rights. Clearly, nothing precludes

this Court from applying the doctrine of command responsibility in amparo

The president, being the commander-in-chief of all armed forces, necessarily

proceedings to ascertain responsibility and accountability in extrajudicial

possesses control over the military that qualifies him as a superior within the

killings and enforced disappearances.

purview of the command responsibility doctrine.

In other words, command responsibility may be loosely applied in

4. No. Rodriguez anchors his argument on a general allegation that on

amparo cases in order to identify those accountable individuals that have the

the basis of the "Melo Commission" and the "Alston Report,"

power to effectively implement whatever processes an amparo court would

respondents in G.R. No. 191805 already had knowledge of and

issue. In such application, the amparo court does not impute criminal

information on, and should have known that a climate of enforced

responsibility but merely pinpoint the superiors it considers to be in the best

disappearances had been perpetrated on members of the NPA.

position to protect the rights of the aggrieved party. Such identification of the

Without even attaching, or at the very least, quoting these reports,

responsible and accountable superiors may well be a preliminary

Rodriguez contends that the Melo Report points to rogue military

determination of criminal liability which, of course, is still subject to further

men as the perpetrators. While the Alston Report states that there is

investigation by the appropriate government agency.

a policy allowing enforced disappearances and pins the blame on the

President, we do not automatically impute responsibility to former

Thus, although there is no determination of criminal, civil or

President Arroyo for each and every count of forcible disappearance.

administrative liabilities, the doctrine of command responsibility may

Aside from Rodriguezs general averments, there is no piece of

nevertheless be applied to ascertain responsibility and accountability within

evidence that could establish her responsibility or accountability for

these foregoing definitions.

his abduction. Neither was there even a clear attempt to show that

she should have known about the violation of his right to life, liberty

tenure; that courts should look with disfavor upon the presidential privilege of

or security, or that she had failed to investigate, punish or prevent it.

immunity, especially when it impedes the search for truth or impairs the
vindication of a right. The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission also
reveal that the intent of the framers is clear that presidential immunity from

Doctrine:

suit is concurrent only with his tenure and not his term. Therefore, former

The presidential immunity from suit exists only in concurrence with the

Pres. GMA cannot use such immunity to shield herself from judicial scrutiny

presidents incumbency but not beyond.

that would assess whether, within the context of amparo proceedings, she
was responsible or accountable for the abduction of Rodriguez

Facts:
Petitioner Noriel Rodriguez is a member of Alyansa Dagiti Mannalon Iti
Cagayan (Kagimungan), a peasant organization affiliated with Kilusang
Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP). He claims that the military tagged KMP as
an enemy of the State under the Oplan Bantay Laya, making its members
targets of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.

Rodriguez was abducted by military men and was tortured repeatedly when
he refused to confess to his membership in the NPA. When released, he filed
a Petition for the Writ of Amparo and and Petition for the Writ of Habeas
Datawith Prayers for Protection Orders, Inspection of Place, and Production
of Documents and Personal Properties. The petition was filed against former
Pres. Arroyo, et al. The writs were granted but the CA dropped Pres Arroyo
as party-respondent, as she may not be sued in any case during her tenure
of office or actual incumbency.

Issue:
Whether former Pres GMA should be dropped as respondent on the basis of
presidential immunity from suit

Held:
No. As was held in the case of Estrada v Desierto, a non-sitting President
does not enjoy immunity from suit, even for acts committed during the latters