LOZADA v.

ARROYO
G.R. NO. 184379-80
April 24, 2012

Facts:
The instant petition stems from the alleged corruption scandal precipitated by
a transaction between the Philippine Government, represented by the National
Broadband Network (NBN), and ZTE Corporation (ZTE), a Chinese manufacturer of
telecommunications equipment. Sec. Romulo Neri sought the services of Lozada as
an unofficial consultant in ZTE-NBN deal. Latter avers that during the course of his
engagement, several anomalies in the transaction involving certain public officials
were discovered. When Lozada was issued a subpoena directing him to appear and
testify, he left the country for a purported official trip to London. Lozada, upon
disembarking the aircraft in Manila, several men held his arms and took his bag.
Sec. Atienza phoned Lozada, assuring him that he was with people from the
government and that the former was going to confer with ES and Maam. Lozada
surmised that these individuals referred to ES Ermita and former Pres. Arroyo,
respectively. Sec. Atienza also instructed Lozada to pacify his wife. Violeta. Who was
making public statements asking for her husbands return. Along the way, he was
asked to draft an antedated letter requesting police protection. He requested to be
brought home to Pasig, but the men compelled to deny his request on account of
unidentified risks. They stopped Outback restaurant in Libis, QC where he was made
to fill in the blanks of a prepared affidavit. Violeta filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus,
Arturo likewise filed a Petition for Writ of Amparo. Lozada clainmed that after his
press conference and testimony in the Senate, he and his family were since then
harassed, stalked and threatened. Respondents filed before the CA a Manifestation
and Motion for the dismissal of the Habeas Corpus case as they asserted that
Lozada was never illegally deprived of his libert and was, at that time, no longer in
their custody. Habeas Corpus case was dismissed for being moot and academic. Ca
dropped Pres. Arroyo as a respondent on the ground that at the time of the Petition
in the Amparo case was filed, she was the incumbent Pres. Enjoying immunity from
suit. CA denied the privilege of the Writ of Amparo as the CA found that petitioners
were unable to prove through substantial evidence that respondents violated, or
threatened with violation, the right to life, libert and security of Lozada.
Issues:
1) Whether the CA committed an error in dropping former Pres. Arroyo as a
respondent in the Amparo case.
2) Whether petitioners should be granted the privilege of the writ of amparo.
Held:
No,CA did not commit an error in dropping former Pres. Arroyo as a respondent in
the Amparo case as the events that gave rise to the present action, as well as the

filing of the original petition and the issuance of the CA decision, occurred during the
incumbency of former Pres. Arroyo. In that respect. It was proper to drop her as a
respondent on account of her presidential immunity from suit.
No, petitioners should not be granted the privilege of the writ of Amparo. The totality
of evidence adduced by petitioners failed to meet the threshold of substantial
evidence. SC is in agreement with te factual findings of the CA to the extent that
Lozada was not illegally deprived of his liberty from the point when he disembarked
from the aircraft up to the time he was led to the departure area of the airport, as he
voluntarily submitted himself to the custody of respondents. That he was not
prevented from making a call to his brother Arturo. SC does not find any evidence on
record that Lozada struggled or made an outcry for help when he was allegedly
grabbed or abducted at the airport. He even testified that nobody held him, and
they were not hostile to him nor shouted at him. Foregoing statement show that
Lozada personally sought the help of Sec. Atienza to avoid the Senate personnel,
and thus knew that the men who met him at the airport were there to aid him in such
objective. The actions of Lozada evinced knowledge and voluntariness,
uncharacteristic of someone who claims to have been forcibly abducted.