Sie sind auf Seite 1von 48

Same; same:

1. Please check this for the NUMBER ASSIGNMENTS:


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1t4Qqm_Rqek20V3w62_8HxKjSrfgnSXDJ
a4DSeoEMKrs/edit?usp=sharing

2. Please check this for the TEMPLATE / INSTRUCTIONS WE AGREED UPON:


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hLi1mi2iBmwIdxyBr9xB_Le6uGebZ8SbMoz
rNG84O4s/edit?usp=sharing

3. Please start pasting your digests in the NEXT PAGE. THANKS!!


144. RAZON JR. vs. TAGITIS

(Catchy phrase for the facts): (Relevant doctrine/s)

FACTS:

● Engr. Tagitis, a Muslim, was a consultant for the World Bank and the Senior Honorary
Counselor for the Islamic Development Bank Scholarship Programme. He was said to
have disappeared in Jolo, Sulu. It was said that he was abducted by so called burly men
who were suspected to be police officers.
○ It was said that he was abducted and questioned due to his involvement with
some terrorist groups.
● Kunnong, Tagitis’ companion at the time, asked the aid of the police agencies in Jolo,
Sulu.
○ The police only responded that he may have been kidnapped by the Abu Sayyaf.
○ Kunnong informed the wife of Tagitis (Respondent, and person who filed for
Amparo in this case), and together they asked the help of different police
agencies in the Mindanao, and even the help of the ARMM Governor.
○ The inquiries were fruitless as they were only given flip-flopping statements as to
the causes of his disappearance.
● Thereafter, after the petition was filed with the CA, the CA directed the police to form
Task Force Tagitis to investigate on the whereabouts of Tagitis.
○ This was a sham task force as it failed to satisfy the extraordinary diligence
standard. For instance, this task force was looking for Tagitis in their records and
elsewhere even when they have not yet have verified what he looks like in the
first place.
○ There was only a verification after the first hearing before the CA.
● The CA granted the writ of amparo after due hearing.
● Petitioners [the police and the government] allege that the petition for writ of amparo
failed to specify the details as obligated under Section 5 (c), (d), and (e).

ISSUE: Whether specificity in details is required in a petition for the writ of amparo.

HELD: NO.

● What is required only is that the pleader must state the ultimate facts constituting the
cause of action, omitting the evidentiary details.
● SECTION 5(c). The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or
threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of the respondent, and how such
threat or violation is committed with the attendant circumstances detailed in supporting
affidavits.
○ In an Amparo petition, however, this requirement must be read in light of the
nature and purpose of the proceeding, which addresses a situation of
uncertainty; the petitioner may not be able to describe with certainty how the

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 1


victim exactly disappeared, or who actually acted to kidnap, abduct or arrest him
or her, or where the victim is detained, because these pieces of information may
purposely be hidden or covered up by those who caused the disappearance. In
this type of situation, to require the level of specificity, detail and precision that
the petitioners apparently want to read into the Amparo Rule is to defeat the spirit
of this rule.
● SECTION 5(d). The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal
circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authority or individuals, as well as the
manner and conduct of the investigation, together with any report.
○ That the petition did not state the manner and results of the investigation that the
Amparo Rule requires, but rather generally stated the inaction of the police, their
failure to perform their duty to investigate, or at the very least, their reported
failed efforts, should not be a reflection on the completeness of the petition. To
require the respondent to elaborately specify the names, personal
circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authority, as well the manner
and conduct of the investigation is an overly strict interpretation of Section 5(d),
given the respondents frustrations in securing an investigation with meaningful
results.
○ [Evidentiary details, may be skipped] The records show that section 5(d) was
proven with substantial evidence. The petition specifies in its that Kunnong and
his companions immediately reported Tagitis disappearance to the police
authorities in Jolo, Sulu as soon as they were relatively certain that he indeed
had disappeared. The police, however, gave them the ready answer that Tagitis
could have been abducted by the Abu Sayyaf group or other anti-government
groups.
● The respondent also alleged that she filed a complaint with the PNP Police Station in
Cotabato and in Jolo, but she was told of an intriguing tale by the police that her
husband was having a good time with another woman. The disappearance was alleged
to have been reported, too, to no less than the Governor of the ARMM, followed by the
respondents personal inquiries that yielded the factual bases for her petition.
○ SECTION 5(e). The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine
the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of the person
responsible for the threat, act or omission.
○ As alleged in the petition, the respondent has exhausted all administrative
avenues and remedies but to no avail, and under the circumstances, respondent
has no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy to protect and get the release
of subject Engr. Morced Tagitis from the illegal clutches of [the petitioners], their
intelligence operatives and the like which are in total violation of the subjects
human and constitutional rights, except the issuance of a writ of amparo.

NOTES:

● As the law now stands, extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances in this
jurisdiction are not crimes penalized separately from the component criminal acts

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 2


undertaken to carry out these killings and enforced disappearances and are now
penalized under the Revised Penal Code and special laws.
● [Why substantial evidence is the standard] These characteristics namely, of being
summary and the use of substantial evidence as the required level of proof (in contrast
to the usual preponderance of evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt in court
proceedings) reveal the clear intent of the framers of the Amparo Rule to have the
equivalent of an administrative proceeding, albeit judicially conducted, in addressing
Amparo situations. The standard of diligence required the duty of public officials and
employees to observe extraordinary diligence point, too, to the extraordinary measures
expected in the protection of constitutional rights and in the consequent handling and
investigation of extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearance cases.
● [Inadmissible evidence may be considered in writ of amparo] To give full meaning to our
Constitution and the rights it protects, we hold that, we should at least take a close look
at the available evidence to determine the correct import of every piece of evidence even
of those usually considered inadmissible under the general rules of evidence taking into
account the surrounding circumstances and the test of reason that we can use as basic
minimum admissibility requirement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

145. NAVIA vs. PARDICO

For the protective writ of amparo to issue in enforced disappearance cases, allegation and proof
that the persons subject thereof are missing are not enough. It must also be shown by the
required quantum of proof that their disappearance was carried out by, "or with the
authorization, support or acquiescence of, [the government] or a political organization, followed
by a refusal to acknowledge [the same or] give information on the fate or whereabouts of [said
missing] persons."

FACTS:
● On March 31, 2008, at around 8pm, two uniformed guards of Asian Land Strategies
Corporation went to the house of Lolita Lapore (Lolita), and asked Enrique Lapore
(Bong) and Benhur Padrico (Ben), who were then staying with Lolita, to come with the
guards to their security office because a complaint was lodged against Bong and Ben for
electric wires and lamps in the subdivision owned by Asian Land
● Bong and Ben went with the guards to the security office of Asian Land. Petitioner Navia,
supervisor of the guards, also arrived thereat. As to what transpired next, the parties'
versions differ
Petitioner's (Navia) Version:
● Since no complaint was filed, Navia ordered the release of Bong and Ben.
● Bong left with Lolita. Ben, on the other hand, was left behind because Navia was still
talking to him about those who might be involved with the theft of the wires. After a brief
discussion, though, Ben was allowed to leave
Respondent's (Virgina Padrico, wife of Ben) Version:

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 3


● According to respondent, Bong and Ben were not merely invited. They were unlawfully
arrested, shoved into the Asian Land vehicle and brought to the security of􀀽office for
investigation.
● Upon seeing Ben at the security of􀀽ooce, Navia lividly grumbled "Ikaw na naman?" and
slapped him while he was still seated. Ben begged for mercy, but his pleas were met
with a flurry of punches coming from Navia hitting him on different parts of his body.
Navia then took hold of his gun, looked at Bong, and said, "Wala kang nakita at wala
kang narinig, papatayin ko na si Ben."
● When Lolita left with Bong, Ben grabbed Bong and pleaded not to be left alone.
However, since they were afraid of Navia, Lolita and Bong left the security office at once
leaving Ben behind.
● The following morning, Virginia went to the Asian Land security office to visit her
husband, Ben, but only to be told that petitioners had already released him together with
Bong the night before. She then looked for Ben, asked around, and went to the
barangay. Since she could not still find her husband, Virginia reported the matter to the
police.
● Exasperated with the mysterious disappearance of her husband, Virginia filed a Petition
for a Writ of Amparo before the RTC of Malolos City
● RTC - granted the petition

ISSUE
● WON Ben's disappearance as alleged in Virginia's petition and proved during the
summary proceedings conducted before the court a quo, falls within the ambit of A.M.
No. 07-9-12-SC and relevant laws.

HELD
● NO
● The following are the elements of an enforced disappearance:
(a) that there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty;
(b) that it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of,
the State or a political organization;
(c) that it be followed by the State or political organization's refusal to acknowledge or
give information on the fate or whereabouts of the person subject of the amparo petition;
and,
(d) that the intention for such refusal is to remove subject person from the protection of
the law for a prolonged period of time.
● The petitioner, in an amparo case, has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the
indispensable element of government participation
● In this case, the petition does not contain any allegation of State complicity, and none of
the evidence presented tend to show that the government or any of its agents
orchestrated Ben's disappearance.
● While it is true that a writ of amparo may lie against a private individual or entity, still,
government involvement in the disappearance remains an indispensable element.

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 4


● Here, petitioners are mere security guards at Grand Royale Subdivision in Brgy. Lugam,
Malolos City and their principal, the Asian Land, is a private entity.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

146. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE vs. MANALO

FACTS:
● The brothers Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo, farmers from Bulacan who were
suspected of being members of the New People’s Army, were forcibly taken from their
home, detained in various locations, and tortured by CAFGU and military units.
● After several days in captivity, the brothers Raymond and Reynaldo recognized their
abductors as members of the armed forces led by General Jovito Palparan.
● They also learned that they were being held in place for their brother, Bestre, a
suspected leader of the communist insurgents.
● While in captivity, they met other desaperacidos (including the still-missing UP students
Karen Empeno and Sherlyn Cadapan) who were also suspected of being communist
insurgents and members of the NPA.
● After eighteen months of restrained liberty, torture and other dehumanizing acts, the
brothers were able to escape.
● Respondent brothers filed a petition for prohibition, injunction, and temporary restraining
order against petitioners.
● In the meantime and while the petition was pending, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo was
promulgated.
● The Court then resolved to treat the petition as a Petition for a Writ of Amparo.
● Herein petitioners presented a lone witness in the summary hearings, Lt. Col. Jimenez.
● Lt. Col. Jimenez was directed to investigate the alleged abduction of the respondents by
CAFGU auxiliaries under his unit.
● Jimenez found that the participation of the petitioners in the abduction and
disappearance of the Manolo brothers were unsubstantiated.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondents are entitled to the privilege of the writ of Amparo

HELD: YES.
● The Court promulgated in 2007 the Amparo Rule in light of the prevalence of extralegal
killing and enforced disappearances.
● It was an exercise for the first time of the Courts expanded power to promulgate rules to
protect our peoples’ constitutional rights, which made its maiden appearance in the 1987
Constitution in response to the Filipino experience of the martial law regime.
● As the Amparo Rule was intended to address the intractable problem of extralegal
killings and enforced disappearances, its coverage, in its present form, is confined to
these two instances or to threats thereof.

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 5


● Extralegal killings are killings committed without due process of law, i.e., without legal
safeguards or judicial proceedings.
● On the other hand, enforced disappearances are attended by the following
characteristics:
○ an arrest, detention or abduction of a person by a government official or
organized groups or private individuals acting with the direct or indirect
acquiescence of the government;
○ the refusal of the State to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person
concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which places
such persons outside the protection of law
● The writ of amparo serves both preventive and curative roles in addressing the
problem of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.
● It is preventive in that it breaks the expectation of impunity in the commission of these
offenses; it is curative in that it facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators as
it will inevitably yield leads to subsequent investigation and action.
● In the long run, the goal of both the preventive and curative roles is to deter the further
commission of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.

● In the case at bar, respondents initially filed an action for Prohibition, Injunction, and
Temporary Restraining Order to stop petitioners and/or their officers and agents from
depriving the respondents of their right to liberty and other basic rights on August 23,
2007, prior to the promulgation of the Amparo Rule.
● They also sought ancillary remedies including Protective Custody Orders, Appointment
of Commissioner, Inspection and Access Orders and other legal and equitable remedies
under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution and Rule 135, Section 6 of the
Rules of Court.
● When the Amparo Rule came into effect on October 24, 2007, they moved to have their
petition treated as an amparo petition as it would be more effective and suitable to the
circumstances of the Manalo brothers enforced disappearance. The Court granted their
motion.

● There is no quarrel that the enforced disappearance of both respondents Raymond and
Reynaldo Manalo has now passed as they have escaped from captivity and surfaced.
● But while respondents admit that they are no longer in detention and are physically free,
they assert that they are not free in every sense of the word as their movements
continue to be restricted for fear that people they have named in their Judicial Affidavits
and testified against (in the case of Raymond) are still at large and have not been held
accountable in any way.
● These people are directly connected to the Armed Forces of the Philippines and are,
thus, in a position to threaten respondents rights to life, liberty and security.
● Respondents claim that they are under threat of being once again abducted, kept
captive or even killed, which constitute a direct violation of their right to security of
person.

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 6


● Respondents assert that their cause of action consists in the threat to their right to life
and liberty, and a violation of their right to security.
● A closer look at the right to security of person would yield various permutations of the
exercise of this right.
● First, the right to security of person is freedom from fear.
○ In its whereas clauses, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
enunciates that a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech
and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest
aspiration of the common people.
● Second, the right to security of person is a guarantee of bodily and psychological
integrity or security.
○ Article III, Section II of the 1987 Constitution guarantees that, as a general rule,
ones body cannot be searched or invaded without a search warrant.
● Third, the right to security of person is a guarantee of protection of ones rights by the
government.
○ In the context of the writ of amparo, this right is built into the guarantees of the
right to life and liberty under Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution and the
right to security of person (as freedom from threat and guarantee of bodily and
psychological integrity) under Article III, Section 2.
● Applying the foregoing concept of the right to security of person to the case at bar, we
now determine whether there is a continuing violation of respondents right to security.
● First, the violation of the right to security as freedom from threat to respondents life,
liberty and security.
○ While respondents were detained, they were threatened that if they escaped,
their families, including them, would be killed. In Raymond’s narration, he was
tortured and poured with gasoline after he was caught the first time he attempted
to escape from Fort Magsaysay.
○ Understandably, since their escape, respondents have been under concealment
and protection by private citizens because of the threat to their life, liberty and
security.
○ The threat vitiates their free will as they are forced to limit their movements or
activities.
○ The circumstances of respondents’ abduction, detention, torture and escape
reasonably support a conclusion that there is an apparent threat that they will
again be abducted, tortured, and this time, even executed.
○ These constitute threats to their liberty, security, and life, actionable through a
petition for a writ of amparo.
● Next, the violation of the right to security as protection by the government. Apart from the
failure of military elements to provide protection to respondents by themselves
perpetrating the abduction, detention, and torture, they also miserably failed in
conducting an effective investigation of respondents abduction as revealed by the
testimony and investigation report of petitioners own witness, Lt. Col. Ruben Jimenez,
Provost Marshall of the 7th Infantry Division.

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 7


○ The one-day investigation conducted by Jimenez was very limited, superficial,
and one-sided.
○ He merely relied on the Sworn Statements of the six implicated members of the
CAFGU and civilians whom he met in the investigation for the first time.
○ He was present at the investigation when his subordinate Lingad was taking the
sworn statements, but he did not propound a single question to ascertain the
veracity of their statements or their credibility.
○ He did not call for other witnesses to test the alibis given by the six implicated
persons nor for the family or neighbors of the respondents.
● Under these circumstances, there is substantial evidence to warrant the conclusion that
there is a violation of respondents right to security as a guarantee of protection by the
government.
● The Court concludes that respondents’ right to security as freedom from threat is
violated by the apparent threat to their life, liberty and security of person.
● Their right to security as a guarantee of protection by the government is likewise violated
by the ineffective investigation and protection on the part of the military.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

147. RODRIGUEZ vs. MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

FACTS:
● Rodriguez claims that the military tagged Kilusang Mambubukid ng Pilipinas an an
enemy of the State under the Oplan Bantay laya, making its members targets of
extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.
● Rodriguez was abducted and tortured to force him to confess to be an NPA and disclose
NPA location.
● When he was brought to a military camp, he was forced to sign documents purportedly
making him a military asset and that he was never beaten up.
● Subsequently, an examination of a doctor shows that Rodriguez was a victim of torture.
It was also alleged that he was being followed by suspicious looking men.

ISSUES:
1. Was there a need to issue a temporary protection order even if the privilege of the writ of
amparo was already granted?
2. Is President Arroyo immune from a petition for writ of amparo?
3. Does the doctrine of command responsibility apply to the President in amparo
proceedings?
4. Was the failure for the Government to investigate the disappearance a violation of
Rodriguez rights?

HELD:
1. NO. The privilege of the writ of amparo, once granted, necessarily entails the protection
of the aggrieved party. There is no need to issue a temporary protection order

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 8


independently of the former. The order restricting respondents from going near
Rodriguez is subsumed under the privilege of the writ.
2. NO. Since there is no determination of administrative, civil, or criminal liability, courts can
only go as far as ascertaining responsibility or accountability for the enforced
disappearance or extrajudicial killing. Former President Arroyo cannot use the
presidential immunity from suit 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. Presidential immunity is limited only to her incumbency.
3. YES. The doctrine of command responsibility may be used to determine whether
respondents are accountable for and have the duty to address the abduction of
Rodriguez in order to enable the courts to devise remedial measures to protect his
rights. The President can be held responsible for extrajudicial killings or enforced
disappearances provided the following requisites are present:
(a) The existence of a superior-subordinate relationship between the accused as
superior and the perpetrator of the crime as his subordinate;
(b) The superior knew or had reason to know that the crime was about to be or had
been committed; and
(c) The superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent
the criminal acts or punish the perpetrators.
The President as Commander in Chief necessarily possesses control over the armed
forces that qualifies him as a superior within the command responsibility.
As regards knowledge, a more liberal is adopted in the Philippines wherein superiors
may be charged with constructive knowledge. Under E.O. No. 226, a government official may
be held liable for neglect of duty if he has knowledge that a crime or offense shall be committed,
is being committed, or has been committed by his subordinates, or by others within his area of
responsibility and despite such knowledge, he did not take preventive or corrective action either
before, during, or immediately after its commission. Knowledge is presumed when, to wit:
(a) Acts are widespread within the government officials area of jurisdiction
(b) The acts have been repeatedly or regularly committed within his area of responsibility
(c) Members of his immediate staff or office personnel are involved.

4. YES. The right to security of a person includes the positive obligation of the Government to
ensure the observance of the duty to investigate. In this case, the respondents are responsible
or accountable for violation of Rodriguez’s rights on account of their abject failure to conduct a
fair and effective official investigation. Respondents only conducted perfunctory investigation,
exerting no efforts to take Ramirez’s account of the events into consideration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

148. TAPUZ vs. DEL ROSARIO

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 9


Armed men bare to the waist: - Specifically, we see no concrete allegations of unjustified or
unlawful violation of the right to privacy related to the right to life, liberty, or security. (Habeas
Data)
- What it is not, is a writ to protect concerns that are purely property or commercial in
nature. Neither is it a writ that we shall issue on amorphous and uncertain grounds.
(Amparo)

FACTS:

● This is a case for forcible entry and damages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction against the petitioners Daniel Masangkay Tapuz,
Aurora Tapuz-Madriaga, Liberty M. Asuncion, Ladylyn Bamos Madriaga, Everly Tapuz
Madriaga, Excel Tapuz, Ivan Tapuz and Marian Timbas (the "petitioners") and other
John Does numbering about 120.
● The private respondents alleged in their complaint that:

○ (1) they are the registered owners under TCT No. 35813 of a 1.0093-hectare
parcel of land located at Sitio Pinaungon, Balabag, Boracay, Malay, Aklan (the
"disputed land"); (2) they were the disputed land's prior possessors when the
petitioners - armed with bolos and carrying suspected firearms and together with
unidentified persons numbering 120 - entered the disputed land by force and
intimidation and built thereon a nipa and bamboo structure.

● The petitioners denied the complaint. They essentially claimed that: (1) they are the
actual and prior possessors of the disputed land; (2) the private respondents are the
intruders; and (3) the private respondents' certificate of title to the disputed property is
spurious.
● The MCTC rendered a decision in the private respondents' favor. The petitioners
appealed the MCTC decision to the Regional Trial Court.
● On appeal, Judge Marin granted the private respondents' motion for the issuance of a
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction through an Order dated 26 February 2007, with
the issuance conditioned on the private respondents' posting of a bond.
● The petitioners moved to reconsider the issuance of the writ; the private respondents, on
the other hand, filed a motion for demolition.
● The respondent Judge subsequently denied the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration
and to Defer Enforcement of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction in an Order dated 17 May
2007. Meanwhile, the petitioners opposed the motion for demolition.
● The respondent Judge nevertheless issued via a Special Order a writ of demolition to be
implemented fifteen (15) days after the Sheriff's written notice to the petitioners to
voluntarily demolish their house/s.
● The petitioners thereafter filed on 2 August 2007 with the Court of Appeals, Cebu City, a
Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure of the Permanent
Mandatory Injunction and Order of Demolition of the RTC of Kalibo.

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 10


● Meanwhile, respondent Sheriff Nelson R. dela Cruz issued the Notice to Vacate and for
Demolition on 19 March 2008.
● It was against this factual backdrop that the petitioners filed the present petition.
○ The petition contains and prays for three remedies, namely: a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court; the issuance of a writ of
habeas data under the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data; and finally, the issuance
of the writ of amparo under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.
○ To support the petition and the remedies prayed for the petitioners maintain their
claims of prior possession of the disputed land and of intrusion into this land by
the private respondents.
■ The material factual allegations of the petition read:

● On April 29, 2006 at about 9:20 a.m. armed men sporting 12


gauge shotguns intruded into the property of the defendants.

The armed men torched two houses of the defendants reducing


them to ashes.

These acts of TERRORISM and (heinous crime) of ARSON were


reported by one of the HEIRS OF ANTONIO TAPUZ. The
terrorists trained their shotguns and fired at minors namely IVAN
GAJISAN and MICHAEL MAGBANUA, who resisted their
intrusion. Their act is a blatant violation of the law penalizing Acts
of Violence against women and children, which is aggravated by
the use of high-powered weapons.

ISSUE:

● W/N the writs of Amparo and Habeas Data should be granted

HELD:

● We find the petitions for certiorari and issuance of a writ of habeas data fatally defective,
both in substance and in form. The petition for the issuance of the writ of amparo, on the
other hand, is fatally defective with respect to content and substance.

The Writ of Amparo

● The writ of amparo was originally conceived as a response to the extraordinary rise in
the number of killings and enforced disappearances and to the perceived lack of
available and effective remedies to address these extraordinary concerns.

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 11


○ What it is not, is a writ to protect concerns that are purely property or commercial
in nature. Neither is it a writ that we shall issue on amorphous and uncertain
grounds.
○ The rules require that every petition for the issuance of the writ must be
supported by justifying allegations of fact:

(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner;

(b) The name and personal circumstances of the respondent responsible for the threat,
act or omission, or, if the name is unknown or uncertain, the respondent may be
described by an assumed appellation;

(c) The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or omission of the respondent, and how such threat or
violation is committed with the attendant circumstances detailed in supporting... affidavits;

(d) The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal circumstances,
and addresses of the investigating authority or individuals, as well as the manner and
conduct of the investigation, together with any report;

(e) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the fate or
whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of the person responsible for the
threat, act or omission; and

(f) The relief prayed for.

● The writ shall issue if the Court is preliminarily satisfied with the prima facie existence of
the ultimate facts that detail the circumstances of how and to what extent a threat to or
violation of the rights to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party was or is being
committed.
● The issuance of the writ of amparo in the present case is anchored on the factual
allegations that are essentially repeated in paragraph 54 of the petition. These
allegations are supported by the following documents:

Certification issued by Police Officer Christopher R. Mendoza, narrating that a house


owned by Josiel Tapuz, Jr., rented by a certain Jorge Buenavente, was accidentally
burned by a fire;

...

● Issues relating to the right to life or to liberty can hardly be discerned except to the extent
that the occurrence of past violence has been alleged. The right to security, on the other
hand, is alleged only to the extent of the threats and harassments implied from the
presence of "armed men bare to the waist" and the alleged pointing and firing of

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 12


weapons. Notably, none of the supporting affidavits compellingly show that the threat to
the rights to life, liberty and security of the petitioners is imminent or is continuing.
● We preliminarily examine these conflicting factual positions under the backdrop of a
dispute (with incidents giving rise to allegations of violence or threat thereof) that was
brought to and ruled upon by the MCTC; subsequently brought to the RTC on an appeal
that is still pending; still much later brought to the appellate court without conclusive
results; and then brought to us on interlocutory incidents involving a plea for the
issuance of the writ of amparo that if decided may render the pending RTC appeal moot.
● Rather than acts of terrorism that pose a continuing threat to the persons of the
petitioners, the violent incidents alleged appear to us to be purely property-related and
focused on the disputed land. Thus, the remedy may lie more in the realm of ordinary
criminal prosecution rather than on the use of the extraordinary remedy of the writ of
amparo.
● When recourse in the ordinary courts of law fail because of deficient legal representation
or the use of improper remedial measures, neither the writ of certiorari nor that of
amparo - extraordinary though they may be - will suffice to serve as a curative substitute.

○ The writ of amparo, should not issue when applied for as a substitute for the
appeal or certiorari process, or when it will inordinately interfere with these
processes - the situation obtaining in the present case.
○ There is an ongoing civil process dealing directly with the possessory dispute
and the reported acts of violence and harassment so we see no point in
separately and directly intervening through a writ of amparo in the absence of
any clear prima facie showing that the right to life, liberty or security - the
personal concern that the writ is intended to protect - is immediately in danger or
threatened, or that the danger or threat is continuing.

The Writ of Habeas Data

● Section 6 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data requires the following material
allegations of ultimate facts in a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data:

(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the respondent;

(b) The manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it affects the right to life,
liberty or security of the aggrieved party;

(c) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure the data or information;

(d) The location of the files, registers or databases, the government office, and the person in
charge, in possession or in control of the data or information, if known;

● Support for the habeas data aspect of the present petition only alleges that:

"1. ...Similarly, a petition for a WRIT OF HABEAS DATA is prayed for so that the PNP

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 13


may release the report on the burning of the homes of the petitioners and the acts of
violence employed against them by the private respondents, furnishing the Court and the
petitioners with copy of the same;
...
Petitioners apply for a WRIT OF HABEAS DATA commanding the Philippine National
Police [PNP] to produce the police report pertaining to the burning of the houses of the
petitioners in the land in dispute and likewise the investigation report if an investigation
was conducted by the PNP."

● These allegations obviously lack what the Rule on Writ of Habeas Data requires, thus
rendering the petition fatally deficient. Specifically, we see no concrete allegations of
unjustified or unlawful violation of the right to privacy related to the right to life, liberty, or
security.

○ The petition likewise has not alleged, much less demonstrated, any need for
information under the control of police authorities other than those it has already
set forth as integral annexes.
○ The necessity or justification for the issuance of the writ, based on the
insufficiency of previous efforts made to secure information, has not also been
shown. In sum, the prayer for the issuance of a writ of habeas data is nothing
more than a "fishing expedition."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

149. SAEZ vs. MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

Hindi ka special: Pursuant to the doctrine of command responsibility, the President, as the
Commander-in-Chief of the AFP, can be held liable for affront against the petitioner’s rights to
life, liberty and security as long as substantial evidence exist to show that he or she had
exhibited involvement in or can be imputed with knowledge of the violations, or had failed to
exercise necessary and reasonable diligence in conducting the necessary investigations
required under the rules.

FACTS:

● On March 6, 2008, the petitioner filed with the Court a petition to be granted the privilege
of the writs of amparo and habeas data with prayers for temporary protection order,
inspection of place and production of documents
○ In the petition, he expressed his fear of being abducted and killed; hence, he
sought that he be placed in a sanctuary appointed by the Court.
○ He likewise prayed for the military to cease from further conducting surveillance
and monitoring of his activities and for his name to be excluded from the order of
battle and other government records connecting him to the Communist Party of
the Philippines (CPP).

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 14


● During the hearings, the petitioner narrated that starting April 16, 2007, he noticed that
he was always being followed by a certain “Joel,” a former colleague at Bayan Muna.
“Joel” pretended peddling pandesal in the vicinity of the petitioner’s store.
○ Three days before the petitioner was apprehended, “Joel” approached and
informed him of his marital status and current job as a baker in Calapan, Mindoro
Oriental. “Joel” inquired if the petitioner was still involved with ANAKPAWIS.
● When asked by the CA justices during the hearing if the petitioner had gone home to
Calapan after having filed the petition, he answered in the negative explaining that he
was afraid of Pvt. Osio who was always at the pier.
● The CA rendered its Decision, denying on formal and substantial grounds the reliefs
prayed for in the petition and dropping former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
● On August 31, 2010, the Court issued the Resolution denying the
● petition for review
○ Hence this MR

ISSUE:
1. W/N the Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data petitions conform to the form required? -YES
2. W/N there is sufficient grounds to grant the petition? -NO
3. W/N PGMA should be dropped from the list of parties? -NO
4. W/N PGMA has any liability? -NO
HELD:

1. In the present case, the Court notes that the petition for the issuance of the privilege of
the writs of amparo and habeas data is sufficient as to its contents. The petitioner made
specific allegations relative to his personal circumstances and those of the respondents.
The petitioner likewise indicated particular acts, which are allegedly violative of his rights
and the participation of some of the respondents in their commission.
a. As to the prerequisite conduct and result of an investigation prior to the filing of
the petition, it was explained that the petitioner expected no relief from the
military, which he perceived as his oppressors, hence, his request for assistance
from a human rights organization, then a direct resort to the court.
2. In the hearing before the CA, it was claimed that “Joel” once inquired from the petitioner
if the latter was still involved with ANAKPAWIS. By itself, such claim cannot establish
with certainty that the petitioner was being monitored.
a. the petitioner stated that when he was invited and interrogated at the military
camp in Naujan, Oriental Mindoro, he brought with him his uncle Norberto Roxas,
Barangay Captain Mario Ilagan and two of his bodyguards, and Edwardo
Estabillo – five witnesses who can attest and easily corroborate his statement –
but curiously, the petitioner did not present any piece of evidence, whether
documentary or testimonial, to buttress such claim nor did he give any reason for
their non-presentation.

3. To hold someone liable under the doctrine of command responsibility, the following
elements must obtain: a. the existence of a superior-subordinate relationship between

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 15


the accused as superior and the perpetrator of the crime as his subordinate; b. the
superior knew or had reason to know that the crime was about to be or had been
committed; and c. the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to
prevent the criminal acts or punish the perpetrators thereof.
a. Under E.O. 226, a government official may be held liable for neglect of duty
under the doctrine of command responsibility
b. Knowledge of the commission of irregularities, crimes or offenses is presumed
when (a) the acts are widespread within the government official’s area of
jurisdiction; (b) the acts have been repeatedly or regularly committed within his
area of responsibility; or (c)members of his immediate staff or office personnel
are involved.
c. The Court also stresses that rule that the presidential immunity from suit exists
only in concurrence with the president’s incumbency.Conversely, this presidential
privilege of immunity cannot be invoked by a non-sitting president even for acts
committed during his or her tenure.Courts look with disfavor upon the presidential
privilege of immunity, especially when it impedes the search for truth or impairs
the vindication of a right
4. In the instant case, the petitioner merely included the President’s name as a party
respondent without any attempt at all to show the latter’s actual involvement in, or
knowledge of the alleged violations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

150. SALCEDO vs. BOLLOZOS

Writ of Amparo was issued by RTC judge, so adverse party chooses to file admin case
against judge--WRONG REMEDY: Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides that
the writ in its present form only applies to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances
or threats thereof. This present case involves concerns that are purely property and
commercial in nature, which according to jurisprudence are purely proprietary or commercial in
nature. | In this case, the propriety of the issuance of the Writ of Amparo cannot be raised as an
issue in the present administrative case. The proper recourse for the complainant should have
been to file an appeal, from the final judgment or order of the respondent judge, to this Court
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, pursuant to Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.

FACTS:
● CAST OF CHARACTERS, lol:
○ COMPLAINANT (FOR THIS ADMIN CASE): Ruben Salcedo
○ RESPONDENT JUDGE: Bollozos
○ DETAINEE / PERSON IN WHOSE BEHALF THE SPECPRO WAS FILED: Jose
Tanmalack, Jr.

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 16


● THIS CASE: Originates from an administrative letter-complaint filed by complainant
charging respondent judge of the RTC Branch 21 of Cagayan de Oro City with grave
misconduct and ignorance of the law in the handling of a SpecPro case.
● THE RELATED SPECPRO CASE: The SpecPro concerns a verified handwritten petition
for the Writ of Habeas Corpus and the Writ of Amparo
○ Filed by Jose Tanmalack Jr
○ Against certain police officers and an inspector
● THE COMPLAINT:
○ Alleges that Complainant is a co-owner of a parcel of land in CDO covered by an
OCT and registered under the name of Patricio Salcedo.
○ That while the complainant was supervising an on-going construction over the
disputed property, Tanmalack and heavily armed men arrived and forced
themselves inside the fenced premises of the disputed property
○ The complainant averred that Tanmalack and his companions harassed and
threatened to kill and to harm him and his workers, uttered defamatory
statements and accused him of land-grabbing; and occupied the property and
destroyed building materials.
○ The complainant then reported the incident to the nearby police station. The
police promptly responded and arrested Tanmalack and brought him in for
questioning.
○ That same afternoon at around 4:45 p.m., Tanmalack, represented by his
sister, Jocelyn Tanmalack Tan, filed the petition on his behalf while
Tanmalack was detained by the police for employing self-help in preventing
squatters from putting up improvements in their titled property.
● RESPONDENT JUDGE’S ACTION:
○ Based on the petition and answers to the clarificatory questions propounded to
Tanmalack’s representative and counsel, the respondent judge immediately,
on the day the petition was filed, issued a Writ of Amparo directing the police
officers or the inspector to release him immediately upon the receipt of the writ
but not later than 6PM of that day.
○ Around 5:30PM of the same day, the writ of amparo was served upon the PNP
chief investigator.
○ At 6PM of the same day, the police released Tanmalack to his attorney’s
custody.
● WHAT THIS COMPLAINT QUESTIONS: The issuance of the writ of amparo, which
complainant claims to have been unusually issued with haste. Complainant claims:
○ That the handwritten petition did not give any ground to warrant the issuance of
the writ;
○ that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion, bias, and obvious
partiality, and in grave disregard of the Rules and the rule of law when he acted
upon and granted the letter-petition for the issuance of the writ
○ FUN FACT: The complainant alleges that the respondent judge accommodated
the issuance of the writ because he and Tanmalack’s counsel are members of
the Masonic fraternity.

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 17


ISSUE:
1. Whether the respondent judge erred in the issuance of the Writ of Amparo? YES!
2. Whether the respondent judge should be held administratively liable for the error he
committed in the present case? NO!

HELD:

1. YES!
● Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides that the writ in its present form only
applies to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
● This present case involves concerns that are purely property and commercial in nature,
which according to jurisprudence are purely proprietary or commercial in nature.
● In the present case, the Writ of Amparo ought not to have been issued by the
respondent judge since Tanmalacks petition is fatally defective in substance and
content, as it does not allege that he is a victim of extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances or the threats thereof.
● The petition merely states
○ that he is under threat of deprivation of liberty with the police stating that he
is not arrested but merely in custody.
2. NO!
● Plainly, the errors attributed to respondent judge pertain to the exercise of his
adjudicative functions. As a matter of policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty, and
corruption, the acts of a judge in his official capacity are not subject to disciplinary action.
He cannot be subjected to liability civil, criminal, or administrative for any of his official
acts, no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. Only judicial errors
tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do an
injustice will be administratively sanctioned. Settled is the rule that errors committed by a
judge in the exercise of his adjudicative functions cannot be corrected through
administrative proceedings, but should instead be assailed through judicial remedies.
● In the present case, the propriety of the issuance of the Writ of Amparo cannot be raised
as an issue in the present administrative case. The proper recourse for the complainant
should have been to file an appeal, from the final judgment or order of the respondent
judge, to this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, pursuant to Section 19 of the
Rule on the Writ of Amparo.
○ In Bello III vs. Diaz, the SC reiterated that disciplinary proceedings against
judges do not complement, supplement, or substitute judicial remedies, whether
ordinary or extraordinary; an inquiry into their administrative liability arising from
judicial acts may be made only after other available remedies have been settled.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

151. PADOR vs. ACAYAN

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 18


Recit Ready:

The Petitioners in this case were subject of an investigation by the barangay. The
barangay received a report that the area where the ampalaya plantation of the petitioners was
really a marijuana plantation. Because of this report, the respondents conducted patrols and
they sent a letter-invitation to the petitioners. The petitioners refused to appear before the
barangay and instead sent a letter-reply. The barangay captain failed to sign the receiving copy
of the reply. Petitioners concluded that the raid, the sending of the invitation and refusal to
received amounted to a threat to their right to life, liberty and security and necessitated the
issuance of the writ of Amparo. RTC denied the petition. SC upheld the decision of the trial
court. The allegations of the petitioners are not sufficient bases to grant the privilege of the writ
of Amparo.

Comprehensive:

Facts:

● Petitioners allege that they were victims of a rumour that Nerio Pador was a marijuana
planter in Cebu. Respondents raided their papaya farm to search for marijuana plants,
but found none.
● After the raid, petitioners Nerio and Rey Pador received invitation letters for a
conference from respondent Barangay Captain Arcayan.
● They referred the invitation letters to their counsel, who advised them not to attend and,
instead, send a letter-reply to Barangay Captain Arcayan.
● When the latter received the letter-reply, he allegedly read its contents, got one copy,
and refused to sign a receipt of the document.
● Petitioners then concluded that the conduct of the raid, the sending of the invitation
letters, the refusal of respondent barangay captain to receive their letter-reply – as well
as the possibility of more harassment cases, false accusations, and possible violence
from respondents – gravely threatened their right to life, liberty and security and
necessitated the issuance of a writ of amparo
● RTC issued the Writ and directed respondents to make a verified return.
● Respondents filed their Verified Return/Comment.
● Respondents explained that they gave the letter invitations because of the report
regarding the existence of a marijuana plantation in the area of the petitioner. The
respondents did patrols around the area and yielded a negative result.
● They issued letter invitations to the petitioners and the Barangay Captain explained that
he no longer signed a copy of the letter reply because he had already been given a copy
of it.
● RTC issued the assailed Resolution finding that petitioners’ claims were based merely
on hearsay, speculations, surmises and conjectures and that respondents had
sufficiently explained the reason behind the issuance of the letter invitation.
● RTC denied the petition of the privilege of the writ of Amparo by the petitioners.

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 19


Issues: W/N the denial of the the privilege of the writ of Amparo was proper

Held:
● The SC upholds the RTC’s Resolution
● SEC. 1. Petition. – The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person
whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or
entity.
● The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof
● Thus, to be entitled to the privilege of the writ, petitioners must prove by substantial
evidence that their rights to life, liberty and security are being violated or threatened by
an unlawful act or omission.
● A closer look at the instant Petition shows that it is anchored on the following allegations:
first, that respondents conducted a raid on the property of petitioner based on
information that the latter were cultivators of marijuana; second, that respondent
barangay captain sent them invitation letters without stating the purpose of the invitation;
third, that respondent barangay captain refused to receive petitioners’ letter-reply; and
fourth, that petitioners anticipate the possibility of more harassment cases, false
accusations, and potential violence from respondents.
● All these allegations are insufficient bases for a grant of the privilege of the writ.
● The alleged intrusions upon the petitioner’s ampalaya farm is an insufficient ground to
grant the privilege of the writ of Amparo.
● Failure of the Brgy. Captain to sign the the receiving copy of the letter-reply did not
violate pr threaten their constitutional right to life, liberty or security.
● The fourth allegation of petitioner – that, following these events, they can anticipate more
harassment cases, false accusations and possible violence from respondents – is
baseless, unfounded, and grounded merely on pure speculations and conjectures.
● On a final note, we reiterate that the privilege of the writ of amparo is an
extraordinary remedy adopted to address the special concerns of extra-legal
killings and enforced disappearances. "Accordingly, the remedy ought to be
resorted to and granted judiciously, lest the ideal sought by the Amparo Rule be
diluted and undermined by the indiscriminate filing of amparo petitions for
purposes less than the desire to secure amparo reliefs and protection and/or on
the basis of unsubstantiated allegations."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

152. CANLAS vs. NAPICO HOMEOWNERS

Amparo Not For Squatters

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 20


FACTS:
- Petitioners are settlers in a certain parcel of land situated in Barangay Manggahan,
Pasig City.
- Their dwellings/houses have either been demolished as of the time of filing of the
petition, or is about to be demolished pursuant to a court judgment.
- Claiming that there are “unprincipled” Land Officials, who in cahoots with “squatting
syndicates” issued fraudulent and spurious land titles which are now in the hands of
the private respondents, petitioners prayed for the issuance of the Writ of Amparo and
seek that the officials be summoned to answer for their participation in the said activity.

ISSUE: WON the writ of amparo is the proper remedy.

HELD: NO
- The court noted that what the petition ultimately seeks is the reversal of this Court's
dismissal of petitions in G.R. Nos. 177448, 180768, 177701, 177038.
- Inherent in the powers of the Supreme Court of the Philippines is to
modify, reverse and set aside, even its own previous decision, that can
not be thwarted nor influenced by any one, but, only on the basis of
merits and evidence.
- This is the purpose of this petition for the Writ of Amparo.
- Petition dismissed.
- The threatened demolition of a dwelling by virtue of a final judgment of the court,
which in this case was affirmed with finality by this Court in G.R. Nos. 177448,
180768, 177701, 177038, is not included among the enumeration of rights as stated
in the above-quoted Section 1 for which the remedy of a writ of amparo is made
available. Their claim to their dwelling, assuming they still have any despite the final
and executory judgment adverse to them, does not constitute right to life, liberty and
security. There is, therefore, no legal basis for the issuance of the writ of amparo.
- No writ of amparo may be issued unless there is a clear allegation of the supposed
factual and legal basis of the right sought to be protected.
- This new remedy of writ of amparo which is made available by this Court is intended
for the protection of the highest possible rights of any person, which is his or her right
to life, liberty and security. The Court will not spare any time or effort on its part in
order to give priority to petitions of this nature. However, the Court will also not waste
its precious time and effort on matters not covered by the writ.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

153. LOZADA vs. MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

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, a Chinese manufacturer of telecommunications
equipment. Former NEDA Secretary Neri sought the services of Lozada as an unofficial
consultant in the ZTE-NBN deal. The latter avers that during the course of his
engagement, he discovered several anomalies in the said transaction involving certain
public officials.

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 21


● These events impelled the Senate of the Philippines Blue Ribbon Committee to
conduct an investigation thereon, for which it issued a subpoena directing Lozada to
appear and testify on 30 January 2008.
● Lozada did not appear at the Blue Ribbon Committee. DENR Sec. Atienza
announced that Lozada was in an official trip to London. Because of this, Senate issued
an order (1) citing Lozada in contempt; (2) ordering his arrest and detention; (3) directing
the sergeant-at-arms to implement such order and make a return.
● Lozada asked Sec. Atienza if he can go back to the Philippines. Upon approval,
he informed his family that he would be arriving in Manila, Feb 5 at 4 pm.
● In his petition, Lozada claims that upon disembarking, several men held his arms
and took his bag. He allegedly insisted on joining his family but realized that it would be
wiser to go with the men when he heard them say in their handheld radio ‘[H]wag
kayong dumaan diyan sir nandyan ang mga taga senado.’
● Lozada asked to go to the comfort room and while there, called his brother,
Arturo and informed him of his situation. He observed that there were several cars tailing
their car. Sec. Atienza called him and assured him that he was with government people
and that Sec. Atienza would confer with ES and Ma’m. Lozada surmised them to be ES
Ermita and the President. He was also told to pacify his wife, Violeta, who was making
public statements asking for her husband’s return. Along the way, the men asked
Lozada to draft an antedated letter requesting police protection. Lozada asked to be
brought to his home in Pasig, but was refused due to security risks. They stopped at
Outback restaurant to meet with Atty. Antonio Bautista and Col. Mascarinas, Lozada
claimed that he was made to fill in the blanks of an affidavit. He was then brought to
LSGH per his request. He observed that policemen, purportedly restraining his liberty
and threatening the security of his, his family and the LS brothers, guarded the perimeter
of LSGH.
● On Feb 6, Col. Mascarinas supposedly brought Lozada to the office of Atty.
Bautista to finalize and sign an affidavit. On the same day his wife petitioned for Habeas
Corpus and his brother petitioned for a Writ of Amparo with the Supreme Court, and
prayed for the issuance of (a) the writ of amparo; (b) a Temporary Protection Order
(TPO); and (c) Inspection and Production Orders as regards documents related to the
authority ordering custody over Lozada, as well as any other document that would show
responsibility for his alleged abduction.
● Lozada alleged that he was made to sign a letter requesting police protection. On
7 February 2008, Lozada decided to hold a press conference and contact the Senate
Sergeant-at-Arms, who served the warrant of arrest on him. He claimed that after his
press conference and testimony in the Senate, he and his family were since then
harassed, stalked and threatened.
● Respondents: Lozada had knowledge and control of what happened from the
time of his arrival, he voluntarily entrusted himself to their company and was never
deprived of his liberty and that since Feb 8, Lozada has been in the custody of the
Senate.

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 22


ISSUE: Whether circumstances are adequately alleged and proven by petitioner Lozada to
entitle him to the protection of the writ of amparo? NO.

HELD:

● In cases where 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 existence of a
continuing threat.
● In the present case, the totality of the evidence adduced by petitioners failed to
meet the threshold of substantial evidence. Sifting through all the evidence and
allegations presented, the crux of the case boils down to assessing the veracity and
credibility of the parties’ diverging claims as to what actually transpired on 5-6 February
2008. In this regard, this Court is in agreement with the 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.
○ He was able to go to the men’s bathroom and call his brother
○ He was avoiding the people from the Office of the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms,
detour appears to explain why they did not get out at the arrival area, where
[Lozada] could have passed through immigration so that his passport could be
properly stamped
○ No evidence on record that Lozada struggled or made an outcry for help
○ He testified that nobody held, shouted, or was hostile to him
○ He knew and agreed with the plan that he would be fetched at the airport
because at that time, it was his decision not to testify before the Senate
● It must be emphasized that if Lozada had in fact been illegally restrained, so much so
that his right to liberty and security had been violated, the acts that manifested this
restraint had already ceased and has consequently rendered the grant of the privilege of
the writ of amparo moot.
● The supposed announcement of General Razon over the radio that [Lozada] was in the
custody of the PNP can neither be construed as a threat to [Lozada’s] life, liberty and
security. Certainly, no person in his right mind would make that kind of media
announcement if his intent was indeed to threaten somebody’s life, liberty and security
● Presence of armed men riding in motorcycle passing outside the LSGH premises where
he and his family are staying and by alleged threats of armed men around him at places
where he went to. Again, these alleged threats were not proven by any evidence at all,
as having originated from any of the respondents
● Installation of the surveillance camera at the De La Salle and at St. Scholastica as
indirect threat to his right to life, liberty and security. He claims that these are spy
cameras. However, save for [Lozada’s] self-serving claim, he simply failed to prove that
they were installed or ordered installed by the respondents for the purpose of
threatening his right to life, liberty and security
● No evidence on record that the bomb threats were made by the respondents or done
upon their instigation.

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 23


● He did not ascertain from the Bureau of Immigration whether his name was actually in
the official watch list of the Bureau
● [Lozada] himself testified that he does not know whether the respondents or any of the
respondents ordered the filing of these ‘frivolous’ cases against him. In any event, said
purported cases are to be determined based on their own merits and are clearly beyond
the realm of the instant amparo petition filed against the respondents
● The failure to establish that the public official observed extraordinary diligence in the
performance of duty does not result in the automatic grant of the privilege of the amparo
writ. It does not relieve the petitioner from establishing his or her claim by substantial
evidence (Yano v. Sanchez)

Sec. 22 of the Amparo Rule proscribes the filing of an amparo petition should a
criminal action have, in the meanwhile, been commenced.

Sec. 23, on the other hand, provides that when the criminal suit is filed subsequent to
a petition for amparo, the petition shall be consolidated with the criminal action where
the Amparo Rule shall nonetheless govern the disposition of the relief under the Rule.

● President Arroyo was not proven to be involved in the alleged violation of life, liberty and
security of Lozada
○ President Arroyo’s term as president has ended, therefore she no longer enjoys
immunity, but an examination of Petitioner’s evidence reveals their failure to
sufficiently establish any unlawful act or omission on her part that violated, or
threatened with violation, the right to life, liberty and security of Lozada. Except
for the bare claims that: (a) Sec. Atienza mentioned a certain “Ma’[a]m,” whom
Lozada speculated to have referred to her, and (b) Sec. Defensor told Lozada
that “the President was ‘hurting’ from all the media frenzy,” there is nothing in the
records that would sufficiently establish the link of former President Arroyo to the
events that transpired on 5-6 February 2010, as well as to the subsequent
threats that Lozada and his family purportedly received.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

154. DE LIMA vs. GATDULA

FACTS:
● Respondent Magtanggol B. Gatdula filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo
in the Regional Trial Court of Manila. The Amparo was directed against petitioners
Justice Secretary Leila M. De Lima, Director Nonnatus R. Rojas and Deputy Director
Reynaldo O. Esmeralda of the National Bureau of Investigation (DE LIMA, ET AL. for
brevity). Gatdula wanted De Lima, et al. "to cease and desist from framing up Petitioner
[Gatdula] for the fake ambush incident by filing bogus charges of Frustrated Murder
against Petitioner [Gatdula] in relation to the alleged ambush incident.
● Instead of deciding on whether to issue a Writ of Amparo, the judge issued summons
and ordered De Lima, et al. to file an Answer. He also set the case for hearing on 1

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 24


March 2012. The hearing was held allegedly for determining whether a temporary
protection order may be issued. During that hearing, counsel for De Lima, et al.
manifested that a Return, not an Answer, is appropriate for Amparo cases.
● Judge Pampilo insisted that "[s]ince no writ has been issued, return is not the required
pleading but answer". The judge noted that the Rules of Court apply suppletorily in
Amparo cases. He opined that the Revised Rules of Summary Procedure applied and
thus required an Answer.
● Judge Pampilo proceeded to conduct a hearing on the main cas. Even without a Return
nor an Answer, he ordered the parties to file their respective memoranda within five (5)
working days after that hearing.
● RTC rendered a "Decision" granting the issuance of the Writ of Amparo. The RTC also
granted the interim reliefs prayed for, namely: temporary protection, production and
inspection orders.
ISSUE: Whether a Petition For Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 is the proper remedy in the
present case

HELD:
● The “Decision” granting the writ of Amparo is not the judgment or final order
contemplated under this rule. Hence, a Petition for Review under Rule 45 may not
yet be the proper remedy at this time.|||
● The remedy of the Writ of Amparo is an equitable and extraordinary remedy to
safeguard the right of the people to life, liberty and security as enshrined in the 1987
Constitution. The Rule on the Writ of Amparo was issued as an exercise of the Supreme
Court's power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights. It aims to address concerns such as, among others, extrajudicial
killings and enforced disappearances.|||
● It is initiated through a petition to be filed in a Regional Trial Court, Sandiganbayan, the
Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court. The judge or justice then makes an
"immediate" evaluation of the facts as alleged in the petition and the affidavits submitted
"with the attendant circumstances detailed". After evaluation, the judge has the option to
issue the Writ of Amparo or immediately dismiss the case.
○ Dismissal is proper if the petition and the supporting affidavits do not show that
the petitioner's right to life, liberty or security is under threat or the acts
complained of are not unlawful.
○ On the other hand, the issuance of the writ itself sets in motion presumptive
judicial protection for the petitioner.
● Respondents are required to file a Return after the issuance of the writ through the clerk
of court. The Return serves as the responsive pleading to the petition. Unlike an Answer,
the Return has other purposes aside from identifying the issues in the case.
Respondents are also required to detail the actions they had taken to determine the fate
or whereabouts of the aggrieved party.|||
● There will be a summary hearing only after the Return is filed to determine the merits of
the petition and whether interim reliefs are warranted. If the Return is not filed, the
hearing will be done ex parte. After the hearing, the court will render the judgment

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 25


within ten (10) days from the time the petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations
are proven with substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and
such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate.
● The "Decision" dated 20 March 2012 assailed by the petitioners could not be the
judgment or final order that is appealable under Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of
Amparo.|||This is clear from the tenor of the dispositive portion of the "Decision", to wit:
○ The Branch Clerk of Court of Court [sic] is hereby DIRECTED to issue the
Writ of Amparo.
○ Likewise, the Branch Clerk of Court is hereby DIRECTED to effect the
service of the Writ of Amparo in an expeditious manner upon all
concerned, and for this purpose may call upon the assistance of any
military or civilian agency of the government.
● The "Decision" is thus an interlocutory order, as suggested by the fact that
temporary protection, production and inspection orders were given together with
the decision. The temporary protection, production and inspection orders are
interim reliefs that may be granted by the court upon filing of the petition but
before final judgment is rendered
● The privilege of the Writ of Amparo should be distinguished from the actual order
called the Writ of Amparo. The privilege includes availment of the entire procedure
outlined in A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. After examining the
petition and its attached affidavits, the Return and the evidence presented in the
summary hearing, the judgment should detail the required acts from the respondents
that will mitigate, if not totally eradicate, the violation of or the threat to the petitioner's
life, liberty or security.
● A judgment which simply grants "the privilege of the writ" cannot be executed. It is
tantamount to a failure of the judge to intervene and grant judicial succor to the
petitioner. Petitions filed to avail of the privilege of the Writ of Amparo arise out of very
real and concrete circumstances. Judicial responses cannot be as tragically symbolic or
ritualistic as "granting the privilege of the Writ of Amparo."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

155. BURGOS vs. ESPERON

The writ merely embodies the Court's directives to police agencies to undertake specified
courses of action to address the enforced disappearance of an individual. The Writ of Amparo
serves both preventive and curative role. Curative as it facilitates the subsequent punishment of
perpetrators though investigation and remedial action that it directs. The focus in on
procedural curative remedies rather than on the tracking of a specific criminal or the
resolution of administrative liabilities. Only seeks to identify responsibility and
accountability..

FACTS:
Court’s June 22, 2010 Resolution
● Referred the case of Jonas Burgos’ abduction to CHR

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 26


○ Necessary because PNP-CIDG’s investigation was incomplete
○ PNP-CIDG's failed to identify the cartographic sketches of two (one male and
one female) of the five abductors of Jonas
● Affirmed CA's dismissal of the petitions with respect to PGMA –immunity from suit

CHR’s March 11, 2011 Report (you can skip this, inidentify lang si Baliaga as abductor)
● Enforced disappearance of Jonas Joseph T. Burgos had transpired
○ Jeffrey and Elsa witnessed the abduction by 7 men and 1 woman
● Jeffrey’s Sinumpaang Salaysay
○ Clear recollection of the face of Lt. Baliaga, Jr. as one of the principal abductors
■ Also the 2 men in the cartographic sketches
● Daguman’s Sinumpaang Salaysay
○ Daguman was a detained former 56th IB Army trooper
○ Positively identified Lt. Baliaga as a company commander of 56th IB Army
● Rebel-Returnee Lozada Sinumpaang Salaysay
○ Lozada identified female in the cartographic sketches as Lt. Fernando
○ She and Lt. Fernando were part of counter-insurgency operations at 56th IB
● Documented the disappearance as After Mission Report dated August 13, 2008
● Most if not all the actual abductors would have been identified had it not been for
evidentiary difficulties shamelessly put up by some police and military elites
● TJAG Roa deliberately refused to provide the CHR with the requested documents
○ Defied the Supreme Court directive to the AFP
○ Disputable presumption that AFP personnel were responsible for the abduction
and superiors would be found accountable, if not responsible, for the crime
committed (Sec. 3, Rule 131)
● Eustaquio has claimed that the male abductor of Jonas was among the raiders who
abducted him known as the ERAP FIVE
● Positive identification of Lt. Baliaga as one of the principal abductors
○ Established by overwhelming evidence corroborated by Dag-uman

Court’s July 5, 2011 Resolution


● Issued anew a Writ of Habeas Corpus and referred the habeas corpus petition to CA
● Held ruling on the merits of Amparo aspect; referred back to CA
o Ordered Baliaga to be impleaded as a party to the Amparo Petition

(After 4 Resolutions, di ko na sinama kasi puro evidence and reports lang pinaguusapan)

March 18, 2013 CA Decision


● Pursuant to SC’s July 5, 2011 Resolution referring to Amparo and Habeas Corpus
● Petition for Habeas Corpus
○ Issue is not illegal detention or confinement, rather enforced disappearance
○ Present case is beyond the ambit of a petition for habeas corpus
● Petition for Writ of Amparo
○ Enforced disappearance within the ambit of Writ of Amparo

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 27


○ Totality of the evidence supports the allegation that the military was involved
● Lt. Baliaga was responsible and the AFP and the PNP were accountable

May 23, 2013 CA Resolution


● PNP failed to elicit leads and information from Jeffrey who witnessed abduction
○ Failed to exercise extraordinary diligence in the conduct of its investigation
● AFP is accountable since Baliaga is a Philippine Army
○ Coupled with lack of effort to conduct investigation
● Respondents have not appealed to this Court, as provided under Sec. 19, Rule on the
Writ of Amparo

Petitioner's April 1, 2013 Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela


● Prayed that:
○ Order persons named in the sealed documents/attachments to be impleaded
○ Issue writ of Amparo on the basis of newly discovered evidence (sealed
attachment to the motion)
○ Refer to CA for further hearing on newly discovered evidence
● Petitioner Edita Burgos alleged that she received from an anonymous source a
documentary evidence proving Philippine Army captured Jonas
○ After Apprehension Report
■ Planning and the objective of apprehending target communist leaders
■ One was alias "Ramon" who was captured at Ever Gotesco Mall
■ Listed the names of the military personnel belonging to task
organization 72 MICO and 56th IB who conducted the operation.
○ Psycho Social Processing Report
■ Details the abduction and “neutralization”
■ Results of interrogation and information gathered on his involvement with
CPP/NPA/NDF organization
○ Autobiography
■ Jonas started as a student activist, his recruitment and eventual ascent in
the CPP/NPA as an intelligence officer

Respondent’s Comments
● Documents submitted by the petitioner do not exist in the concerned military units'
respective records, nor are they in the custody or possession of their respective units
● None of the documents submitted by the petitioner were signed

ISSUE: W/N Writ of Amparo may be issued anew by means of newly discovered evidence.

HELD: NO. It would be redundant and superfluous (investigation is ongoing) and the full extent
of Remedies of Writ of Amparo has been served.

The unique nature of Amparo proceedings has led us to define terms or concepts specific to
what the proceedings seek to achieve:

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 28


Responsibility
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
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.

While Jonas remains missing, the series of calculated directives issued by the Court outlined
above and the extraordinary diligence the CHR demonstrated in its investigations resulted in the
criminal prosecution of Lt. Baliaga. Court took judicial notice of RTC’s finding probable cause for
arbitrary detention against Lt. Baliaga and has ordered his arrest in connection with Jonas'
disappearance. Also, CA (March 18 decision) already ruled with finality the entities responsible
and accountable for the enforced disappearance of Jonas – AFP and PNP.

The ROLE in a writ of Amparo proceeding is merely to determine whether an enforced


disappearance has taken place; to determine who is responsible or accountable; and to
define and impose appropriate remedies to address the disappearance. The beneficial
purpose of the Writ of Amparo has been served in the present case with CA's final
determination of persons responsible and accountable for the enforced disappearance of
Jonas and the commencement of criminal action against Lt. Baliaga. At this stage,
criminal, investigation and prosecution proceedings are already beyond the reach of the
Writ of Amparo.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

156. SANTIAGO vs. TULFO


Facts: Petitioners arrived at the NAIA 3) aboard a Cebu Pacific flight from vacation with family
and friends. They waited for the arrival of their baggage but were eventually informed that it was
offloaded and transferred to a different flight. They lodged a complaint before the Cebu Pacific
complaint desk. As they were complaining, they noticed a man taking photos of Claudine with
his cellular phone. Raymart approached the man and asked what he was doing. Suddenly, the
man, later identified as Ramon "Mon" Tulfo (Mon), allegedly punched and kicked Raymart,
forcing the latter to fight back. When Claudine saw the commotion, she approached Mon and
the latter likewise allegedly kicked and pushed her back against the counter. At that instance,
Raymart rushed to defend his wife, while one Edoardo Benjamin Atilano (Atilano) joined in the
brawl. Immediately thereafter, several airport security personnel came to stop the altercation
and brought them to the Airport Police Department for investigation.5

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 29


Days after the incident, respondents Raffy, Ben, and Erwin Tulfo (respondents), brothers of
Mon, aired on their TV program comments and expletives against petitioners, and threatened
that they will retaliate.6Terrified by the gravity of the threats hurled, petitioners filed a petition for
the issuance of a writ of amparo against respondents

RTC: Petition not a proper subject of a writ of Amparo since the rules were intended to apply
solely to cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.

b Whether or not the RTC's dismissal of petitioners' amparo petition was correct.

HELD: NO. Writ of Amparo was intended to address and, thus, is presently confined to cases
involving extralegal killings and/or enforced disappearances, or threats

While amparo (which literally means "protection" in Spanish) has been regarded as a special
remedy provided for the enforcement of constitutional rights, the parameters of protection are
not the same in every jurisdiction.

In our jurisdiction, the contextual genesis, at least, for the present Amparo Rule has limited the
remedy as a response to extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, or threats thereof.
"Extrajudicial killings," according to case law, are generally characterized as "killings committed
without due process of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings," 27 while
"enforced disappearances," according to Section 3 (g) of Republic Act No. 9851,28 "means the
arrest, detention, or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence
of, a State or a political organization followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of
freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of
removing from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time."

In Navia v. Pardico,29 the Court held that it must be shown and proved by substantial evidence
that the disappearance was carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence
of, the State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the same or give
information on the fate or whereabouts of said missing persons, with the intention of removing
them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.

Simply put, the petitioner in an amparo case has the burden of proving by substantial evidence
the indispensable element of government participation.30 Notably, the same requirement of
government participation should also apply to extralegal killings, considering that the writ of
amparo was, according to then Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, who headed the Committee on
the Revision of the Rules of Court that drafted A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, intended to "hold public
authorities, those who took their oath to defend the constitution and enforce our laws, to a high
standard of official conduct and hold them accountable to our people.

In this case, it is undisputed that petitioners' amparo petition before the RTC does not allege
any case of extrajudicial killing and/or enforced disappearance, or any threats thereof, in the

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 30


senses above-described. Their petition is merely anchored on a broad invocation of
respondents' purported violation of their right to life and security, carried out by private
individuals without any showing of direct or indirect government participation. Thus, it is
apparent that their amparo petition falls outside the purview of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC and,
perforce, must fail.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

156. PAJE vs CASIÑO

FACTS:

In February 2006, Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), a government agency organized
and established under Republic Act No. (RA) 7227, 4 and Taiwan Cogeneration Corporation
(TCC) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) expressing their intention to build a
power plant in Subic Bay which would supply reliable and affordable power to Subic Bay
Industrial Park (SBIP).

● On July 28, 2006, SBMA and TCC entered into another MOU, whereby TCC undertook to
build and operate a coal-fired power plant. 6 In the said MOU, TCC identified 20 hectares of
land at Sitio Naglatore, Mt. Redondo, Subic Bay Freeport Zone (SBFZ) as the suitable area for
the project and another site of approximately 10 hectares to be used as an ash pond. 7 TCC
intends to lease the property from SBMA for a term of 50 years with rent fixed at $3.50 per
square meter, payable in 10 equal 5-year installments. 8

● On April 4, 2007, the SBMA Ecology Center issued SBFZ Environmental Compliance
Certificate (ECC) No.

EC-SBFZ-ECC-69-21-500 in favor of Taiwan Cogeneration International Corporation (TCIC), a


subsidiary of TCC, 9 for the construction, installation, and operation of 2x150-MW Circulating
Fluidized Bed (CFB) Coal-Fired Thermal Power Plant at Sitio Naglatore. 1

● On June 6, 2008, TCC assigned all its rights and interests under the MOU dated July 28,
2006 to Redondo Peninsula Energy, Inc. (RP Energy), 11 a corporation duly organized and
existing under the laws of the Philippines with the primary purpose of building, owning, and
operating power plants in the Philippines, among others. 12 Accordingly, an Addendum to the
said MOU was executed by SBMA and RP Energy. 1

● RP Energy then contracted GHD Pty, Ltd. (GHD) to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the proposed coal-fired power plant and to assist RP Energy in applying for
the issuance of an ECC from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 1

● On August 27, 2008, the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Olongapo City issued Resolution No.
131, Series of 2008, expressing the city government’s objection to the coal-fired power plant as

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 31


an energy source and urging the proponent to consider safer alternative sources of energy for
Subic Bay. 15

● On December 22, 2008, the DENR, through former Secretary Jose L. Atienza, Jr., issued an
ECC for the proposed 2x150-MW coal-fired power plant.

● Due to some change in the project plan, RP Energy requested the DENR Environmental
Management Bureau (DENR-EMB) to amend its ECC. 18 In support of its request, RP Energy
submitted to the DENR-EMB an Environmental Performance Report and Management Plan
(EPRMP), which was prepared by GHD.

● On June 8, 2010, RP Energy and SBMA entered into a Lease and Development Agreement
(LDA) over a 380,004.456-square meter parcel of land to be used for building and operating the
coal-fired power plant

● On July 8, 2010, the DENR-EMB issued an amended ECC (first amendment) allowing the
inclusion of additional components, among others.

● Several months later, RP Energy again requested the DENR-EMB to amend the ECC due to
another change In support of its request, RP Energy submitted a Project Description Report
(PDR) to the DENR-EMB.

● On May 26, 2011, the DENR-EMB granted the request and further amended the ECC (second
amendment).

● On August 1, 2011, the Sangguniang Panglalawigan of Zambales issued Resolution No.


2011-149, opposing the establishment of a coal-fired thermal power plant at Sitio Naglatore,
Brgy. Cawag, Subic, Zambales. 2

● On August 11, 2011, the Liga ng mga Barangay of Olongapo City issued Resolution No. 12,
Series of 2011, expressing its strong objection to the coal-fired power plant as an energy
source. 27

● On July 20, 2012, Hon. Teodoro A. Casiño,et al (Casiño Group) filed before this Court a
Petition for Writ of kalikasan against RP Energy, SBMA, and Hon. Ramon Jesus P. Paje, in his
capacity as Secretary of the DENR. 2

○ In the Petition, the Casiño Group alleged, among others, ■ that the power plant project would
cause grave environmental damage; 32

● (1) thermal pollution of coastal waters,

● (2) air pollution due to dust and combustion gases,

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 32


● (3) water pollution from toxic coal combustion waste, and ● (4) acid deposition in aquatic and
terrestrial ecosystems, which will adversely affect the residents of the Provinces of Bataan and
Zambales, particularly the Municipalities of Subic, Morong and Hermosa, and the City of
Olongapo.

that it would adversely affect the health of the residents of the municipalities of Subic,
Zambales, Morong, Hermosa, and the City of Olongapo; 33 that the ECC was issued and the
LDA entered into without the prior approval of the concerned sanggunians as required under
Sections 26 and 27 of the Local Government Code (LGC); 34 that the LDA was entered into
without securing a prior certification from the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples
(NCIP) as required under Section 59 of RA 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997
(IPRA Law); 35 that Section 8.3 of DENR Administrative Order No. 2003-30 (DAO 2003-30)
which allows amendments of ECCs is ultra vires because the DENR has no authority to decide
on requests for amendments of previously issued ECCs in the absence of a new EIS; 36 and ■
that due to the nullity of Section 8.3 of DAO 2003-30, all amendments to RP Energy’s ECC are
null and void. 37

While the case was pending, RP Energy applied for another amendment to its ECC (third
amendment) and submitted another EPRMP to the DENR-EMB,

Ruling of the Court of Appeals - denied the Writ of Kalikasan but invalidated the ECC for non-
compliance with the IPRA law and LGC and failure to affix signature in the sworn statement of
full responsibility

● On January 30, 2013, the CA rendered a Decision denying the privilege of the writ of
kalikasan and the application for an environment protection order due to the failure of the
Casiño Group to prove that its constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology was
violated or threatened. 53

● The CA likewise found no reason to nullify Section 8.3 of DAO No. 2003-30.

○ It said that the provision was not ultra vires, as the express power of the Secretary of the
DENR, the Director and Regional Directors of the EMB to issue an ECC impliedly includes the
incidental power to amend the same. 54

○ In any case, the CA ruled that the validity of the said section could not be collaterally attacked
in a petition for a writ of kalikasan.

● Nonetheless, the CA resolved to invalidate the ECC dated December 22, 2008 for ○ non-
compliance with Section 59 of the IPRA Law 56 and ○ Non-compliance with Sections 26 and 27
of the LGC 57 and ○ for failure of Luis Miguel Aboitiz (Mr. Aboitiz), Director of RP Energy, to
affix his signature in the Sworn Statement of Full Responsibility, which is an integral part of the
ECC. 58

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 33


○ ECC first amendment dated July 8, 2010 and the ECC second amendment dated May 26,
2011 in view of the failure of RP Energy to comply with the restrictions set forth in the ECC,
which specifically require that “any expansion of the project beyond the project description or
any change in the activity x x x shall be subject to a new Environmental Impact Assessment.” 59
oblesvirtualLawlibrary The CA also invalidated the LDA entered into by SBMA and RP Energy
because:

○ it was issued without the prior consultation and approval of all the sanggunians concerned as
required under Sections 26 and 27 of the LGC, 61 ○ and in violation of Section 59, Chapter VIII
of the IPRA Law, which enjoins all departments and other governmental agencies from granting
any lease without a prior certification that the area affected does not overlap with any ancestral
domain. 62

■ The CA noted that no CNO was secured from the NCIP prior to the execution of the LDA, 63
and that the CNO dated October 31, 2012 was secured during the pendency of the case and
was issued in connection with RP Energy’s application for a 2x300-MW coal-fired power plant.

The DENR and SBMA separately moved for reconsideration. 66

RP Energy filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, 67 attaching thereto a signed Statement of
Accountability. 68

The Casiño Group, on the other hand, filed Omnibus Motions for Clarification and
Reconsideration. 6

On May 22, 2013, the CA issued a Resolution 70 denying the aforesaid motions for lack of
merit.

○ SBMA’s contention that the stoppage of a project for non-compliance with Section 59 of the
IPRA Law may only be done by the indigenous cultural communities or indigenous peoples was
also brushed aside by the CA as the Casiño Group did not file a case under the IPRA Law but a
Petition for a Writ of kalikasan, which is available to all natural or juridical persons whose
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened to be violated.

As to RP Energy’s belated submission of a signed Statement of Accountability, the CA gave no


weight and credence to it as the belated submission of such document, long after the
presentation of evidence of the parties had been terminated, is not in accord with the rules of
fair play.

Neither was the CA swayed by the argument that the omitted signature of Luis Miguel Aboitiz is
a mere formal defect, which does not affect the validity of the entire document. 75

HENCE THIS APPEAL

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 34


The Casiño Group’s arguments

● it is entitled to a Writ of kalikasan as it was able to prove that the operation of the power plant
would cause environmental damage and pollution, and that this would adversely affect the
residents of the provinces of Bataan and Zambales, particularly the municipalities of Subic,
Morong, Hermosa, and the City of Olongapo.

○ It cites as basis RP Energy’s EIS, which allegedly admits that acid rain may occur in the
combustion of coal; 77 that the incidence of asthma attacks among residents in the vicinity of
the project site may increase due to exposure to suspended particles from plant operations; 78
○ it contends that the ECC third amendment should also be nullified for failure to comply with
the procedures and requirements for the issuance of the ECC.

The DENR’s arguments

● there is no reason to invalidate the ECC and its amendments as these were issued in
accordance with DAO No. 2003-30. 83

● The DENR also insists that contrary to the view of the CA, a new EIS was no longer
necessary since the first EIS was still within the validity period when the first amendment was
requested, and that this is precisely the reason RP Energy was only required to submit an
EPRMP in support of its application for the first amendment. 84 As to the second amendment,
the DENR-EMB only required RP Energy to submit documents to support the proposed revision
considering that the change in configuration of the power plant project was not substantial. 85

● Furthermore, the DENR argues that no permits, licenses, and/or clearances from other
government agencies are required in the processing and approval of the ECC. 86

○ Thus, non-compliance with Sections 26 and 27 of the LGC as well as Section 59 of the IPRA
Law is not a ground to invalidate the ECC and its amendments. 87

○ The DENR further posits that the ECC is not a concession, permit, or license but is a
document certifying that the proponent has complied with all the requirements of the EIS
System and has committed to implement the approved Environmental Management Plan. 88
The DENR invokes substantial justice so that the belatedly submitted certified true copy of the
ECC containing the signature of Mr. Aboitiz on the Statement of Accountability may be accepted
and accorded weight and credence.

SBMA’s arguments

● since the CA did not issue a Writ of kalikasan, it should not have invalidated the LDA and that
in doing so, the CA acted beyond its powers. 90

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 35


● SBMA likewise puts in issue the legal capacity of the Casiño Group to impugn the validity of
the LDA 91 and its failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 92

● there is no legal basis to invalidate the LDA as prior consultation under Sections 26 and 27 of
the LGC is not required in this case considering that the area is within the SBFZ. 93 Under RA
7227, it is the SBMA which has exclusive jurisdiction over projects and leases within the SBFZ
and that in case of conflict between the LGC and RA 7227, it is the latter, a special law, which
must prevail. 94

● Moreover, the lack of prior certification from the NCIP is also not a ground to invalidate a
contract. 95 If at all, the only effect of non-compliance with the said requirement under Section
59 of the IPRA Law is the stoppage or suspension of the project. 96 Besides, the subsequent
issuance of a CNO has cured any legal defect found in the LDA. 97 chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
RP Energy’s arguments

● RP Energy questions the propriety of the reliefs granted by the CA considering that it did not
issue a writ of kalikasan in favor of the Casiño Group. 98 ● RP Energy is of the view that unless
a writ of kalikasan is issued, the CA has no power to grant the reliefs prayed for in the Petition.
99 And even if it does, the reliefs are limited to only to those of the same class or general nature
as the four other reliefs enumerated. 100

● As to the validity of the LDA, the ECC and its amendments, the arguments of RP Energy are
basically the same arguments interposed by SBMA and the DENR.

● RP Energy maintains that the ECC and its amendments were obtained in compliance with the
DENR rules and regulations; 101 that a CNO is not necessary in the execution of an LDA and in
the issuance of the ECC and its amendments; 102 and that prior approval of the local
governments, which may be affected by the project, are not required because under RA 7227,
the decision of the SBMA shall prevail in matters affecting the Subic Special Economic Zone
(SSEZ), except in matters involving defense and security. 103 RP Energy also raises the issue
of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies on the part of the Casiño Group. 104 ch

RULING OF SC:

Some discussions about the writ of Kalikasan

Section 1 of Rule 7 provides:c

Section 1. Nature of the writ. - The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person,
entity authorized by law, people’s organization, non-governmental organization, or any public
interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons
whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 36


entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or
property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

the following requisites must be present to avail of this extraordinary remedy:

(1) there is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology;

(2) the actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act or omission of a public official
or employee, or private individual or entity; and

(3) the actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an environmental damage of such
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces.

It is intended “to provide a stronger defense for environmental rights through judicial efforts
where institutional arrangements of enforcement, implementation and legislation have fallen
short” 110 and seeks “to address the potentially exponential nature of large-scale ecological
threats.”

If a Writ of Kalikasan is granted, the following are the results:

Section 15. Judgment. - Within sixty (60) days from the time the petition is submitted for
decision, the court shall render judgment granting or denying the privilege of the writ of
kalikasan.

The reliefs that may be granted under the writ are the following:

(a) Directing respondent to permanently cease and desist from committing acts or neglecting
the performance of a duty in violation of environmental laws resulting in environmental
destruction or damage;

(b) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, private person or entity to
protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore the environment;

(c) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, private person or entity to
monitor strict compliance with the decision and orders of the court;

(d) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, or private person or entity to
make periodic reports on the execution of the final judgment; and

(e) Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology
or to the protection, preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of the environment, except the
award of damages to individual petitioners. Prescinding from the above, the DENR, SBMA and

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 37


RP Energy are one in arguing that the reliefs granted by the appellate court, i.e. invalidating the
ECC and its amendments, are improper because it had denied the Petition for Writ of kalikasan
upon a finding that the Casiño Group failed to prove the alleged environmental damage, actual
or threatened, contemplated under the Rules.

Ordinarily, no reliefs could and should be granted. But the question may be asked, could not the
appellate court have granted the Petition for Writ of kalikasan on the ground of the invalidity of
the ECC for failure to comply with certain laws and rules?

An example of a defect or an irregularity in the issuance of an ECC, which could conceivably


warrant the granting of the extraordinary remedy of the writ of kalikasan, is a case where there
are serious and substantial misrepresentations or fraud in the application for the ECC, which, if
not immediately nullified, would cause actual negative environmental impacts of the magnitude
contemplated under the Rules, because the government agencies and LGUs, with the final
authority to implement the project, may subsequently rely on such substantially defective or
fraudulent ECC in approving the implementation of the project.

To repeat, in cases of defects or irregularities in the issuance of an ECC, it is not sufficient to


merely allege such defects or irregularities, but to show a causal link or reasonable connection
with the environmental damage of the magnitude contemplated under the Rules. In the case at
bar, no such causal link or reasonable connection was shown or even attempted relative to the
aforesaid second set of allegations. It is a mere listing of the perceived defects or irregularities
in the issuance of the ECC. This would have been sufficient reason to disallow the resolution of
such issues in a writ of kalikasan case.

As to the claims that the issuance of the ECC violated the IPRA Law and LGC and that the LDA,
likewise, violated the IPRA Law, we find the same not to be within the coverage of the writ of
kalikasan because, assuming there was non-compliance therewith, no reasonable connection
can be made to an actual or threatened violation of the right to a balanced and healthful ecology
of the magnitude contemplated under the Rules.

ISSUE: Whether the Casiño Group was able to prove that the construction and operation of the
power plant will cause grave environmental damage? NO.

The alleged thermal pollution of coastal waters, air pollution due to dust and combustion
gases, water pollution from toxic coal combustion waste, and acid deposition to aquatic
and terrestrial ecosystems that will be caused by the project.

The alleged negative environmental assessment of the project by experts in a report


generated during the social acceptability consultations.

The alleged admissions of grave environmental damage in the EIS itself of the project.

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 38


HELD: The appellate court correctly ruled that the Casiño Group failed to substantiate its claims
that the construction and operation of the power plant will cause environmental damage of the
magnitude contemplated under the writ of kalikasan. On the other hand, RP Energy presented
evidence to establish that the subject project will not cause grave environmental damage,
through its Environmental Management Plan, which will ensure that the project will operate
within the limits of existing environmental laws and standards.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

157. West Tower Condominium vs. First Philippine Industrial Corporation

FACTS
● Respondent FPIC operates two pipelines since 1969, viz.: (1) the White Oil Pipeline
(WOPL); (2) the Black Oil Pipeline (BOPL) System. These systems transport nearly 60%
of the petroleum requirements of Metro Manila and parts of the provinces of Bulacan,
Laguna, and Rizal.
● The two pipelines were supposedly designed to provide more than double the standard
safety allowance against leakage. However, in 2010, a leakage from one of the pipelines
was suspected after the residents of West Tower Condominium (West Tower) started to
smell gas within the condominium. A search made on July 10, 2010 within the
condominium premises led to the discovery of a fuel leak from the wall of its Basement
2.
● What started as a two-drum leak at the initial stages became a 15-20 drum a day affair.
Eventually, the sump pit of the condominium was ordered shut down by the City of
Makati to prevent the discharge of contaminated water into the drainage system of
Barangay Bangkal. Eventually, the fumes compelled the residents of West Tower to
abandon their respective units on July 23, 2010 and the condo's power was shut down.
● FPIC admitted that indeed the source of the fuel leak is the WOPL, which was already
closed since October 24, 2010, but denied liability by placing blame on the construction
activities on the roads surrounding West Tower.
● West Tower Condominium Corporation (West Tower Corp.) interposed the present
Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan on behalf of the residents of West Tower
and in representation of the surrounding communities in Barangay Bangkal, Makati City.
○ West Tower Corp. also alleged that it is joined by the civil society and several
people's organizations, non-governmental organizations and public interest
groups who have expressed their intent to join the suit because of the magnitude
of the environmental issues involved.
● In their petition, petitioners prayed that respondents FPIC and its board of directors and
officers, and First Gen Corporation (FGC) and its board of directors and officers be
directed to:
○ Permanently cease and desist from committing acts of negligence in the
performance of their functions as a common carrier;
○ Continue to check the structural integrity of the whole 117-kilometer pipeline and
to replace the same;

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 39


○ Rehabilitate and restore the environment, especially Barangay Bangkal and West
Tower, at least to what it was before the signs of the leak became manifest;
○ Open a special trust fund to answer for similar and future contingencies in the
future.
● On November 19, 2010, the Court issued the Writ of with a Temporary Environmental
Protection Kalikasan Order (TEPO) requiring respondents FPIC, FGC, and the members
of their Boards of Directors to file their respective verified returns.

Report and Recommendation by the CA (only listed down what’s important)


● Anent petitioners' June 28, 2011 Omnibus Motion assailing the reopening of the BOPL
System, the CA directed respondent FPIC to submit the appropriate certification from the
DOE as to the safe commercial operation of the BOPL; otherwise, the operation of the
BOPL must also be enjoined.

● On January 25, 2013, FPIC filed its Compliance (Re: Department of Energy Certification
on the Black Oil Pipeline) 20 and submitted the required DOE Certification 21 issued on
January 22, 2013 by DOE Secretary Carlos Jericho L. Petilla (Secretary Petilla).
● On October 2, 2013, petitioners, in a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion for
Clarification, emphasized that the CA found FPIC's tests and maintenance program to
be insufficient and inconclusive to establish the WOPL's structural integrity for continued
commercial operation. Furthermore, petitioners point out that the DOE is biased and
incapable of determining the WOPL's structural integrity.
● On August 5, 2014, Secretary Carlos Jericho L. Petilla of the DOE submitted a letter
recommending activities and timetable for the resumption of the WOPL operations,

ISSUES
1. Whether petitioner West Tower Corp. has the legal capacity to represent the other
petitioners and whether the other petitioners, apart from the residents of West Tower
and Barangay Bangkal, are real parties-in-interest;
2. Whether a Permanent Environmental Protection Order should be issued to direct the
respondents to perform or to desist from performing acts in order to protect, preserve,
and rehabilitate the affected environment
3. Whether a special trust fund should be opened by respondents to answer for future
similar contingencies; and
4. Whether FGC and the directors and officers of respondents FPIC and FGC may be held
liable under the environmental protection order.

HELD

I. Petitioners as Real Parties-in-Interest


A. Residents of West Tower and Barangay Bangkal
● As defined, a real-party-in-interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by
the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 40


● In the case at bar, there can be no quibble that the oil leak from the WOPL affected all
the condominium unit owners and residents of West Tower as, in fact, all had to
evacuate their units at the wee hours in the morning of July 23, 2010, when the
condominium's electrical power was shut down. Until now, the unit owners and residents
of West Tower could still not return to their condominium units. Thus, there is no
gainsaying that the residents of West Tower are real parties-in-interest.
● There can also be no denying that West Tower Corp. represents the common interest of
its unit owners and residents, and has the legal standing to file and pursue the instant
petition. While a condominium corporation has limited powers under RA 4726, otherwise
known as The Condominium Act, it is empowered to pursue actions in behalf of its
members. In the instant case, the condominium corporation is the management body of
West Tower and deals with everything that may affect some or all of the condominium
unit owners or users.
● It is of no moment that only five residents of West Tower signed their acquiescence to
the filing of the petition for the issuance of the Writ of Kalikasan, as the merits merits of
such petition is, as aptly put by the CA, not measured by the number of persons who
signified their assent thereto, but on the existence of a case of a massive prima facie
environmental disaster.

B. Organizations that indicated their intention to join the petition and submitted proof of
juridical personality
● This is so considering that the filing of a petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan
under Sec. 1, Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases does not
require that a petitioner be directly affected by an environmental disaster. The rule
clearly allows juridical persons to file the petition on behalf of persons whose
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened
with violation.
● Thus, as parties to the case, they are entitled to be furnished copies of all the
submissions to the Court, including the periodic reports of FPIC and the results of the
evaluations and tests conducted on the WOPL.

II. Propriety of Converting the TEPO to PEPO or its Lifting in light of the DOE
Certification of the WOPL's Commercial Viability
● To recall, petitioners' persistent plea is for the conversion of the November 19, 2010
TEPO into a Permanent Environmental Protection Order (PEPO) pursuant to Sec. 3, 46
Rule 5 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. For its part, respondent FPIC
asserts that regular testing, as well as the measures that are already in place, will
sufficiently address any concern of oil leaks from the WOPL.
● The CA, however, observed that all of these tests and measures are inconclusive and
insufficient for purposes of leak detection and pipeline integrity maintenance. Hence,
considering the necessary caution and level of assurance required to ensure that the
WOPL system is free from leaks and is safe for commercial operation, the CA
recommended that FPIC obtain from the DOE a certification that the WOPL is already
safe for commercial operation.

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 41


● After a perusal of the recommendations of the DOE and the submissions of the parties,
the Court adopts the activities and measures prescribed in the DOE letter dated August
5, 2014 to be complied with by FPIC as conditions for the resumption of the commercial
operations of the WOPL. The DOE should, therefore, proceed with the implementation of
the tests proposed in the said August 5, 2014 letter.
○ Thereafter, if it is satisfied that the results warrant the immediate reopening of the
WOPL, the DOE shall issue an order allowing FPIC to resume the operation of
the WOPL.
○ On the other hand, should the probe result in a finding that the pipeline is no
longer safe for continued use and that its condition is irremediable, or that it
already exceeded its serviceable life, among others, the closure of the WOPL
may be ordered.

[Justice Leonen’s Dissent] (take note of precautionary principle)


● Justice Leonen, in his dissent, is of the view that the petition should be denied and the
TEPO immediately lifted in light of the DOE's issuance of a certification attesting to the
safety of the WOPL for continued commercial operations, thereby rendering the instant
petition moot and academic, seeking, as it does, the checking of the pipeline's structural
integrity.
● According to his dissent, the writ of kalikasan issued by the Court has already served its
functions and, therefore, is functus officio. Moreover, he argues that directing the DOE
and FPIC to repeat their previous procedures is tantamount to doubting the agency's
performance of its statutorily-mandated tasks, over which they have the necessary
expertise, and implies that said DOE certification is improper, a breach, allegedly, of the
principle of separation of powers.
● He also contends that the majority ordered the repetition of the procedures and tests
already conducted on the WOPL because of the fear and uncertainty on its safeness
despite the finding of the DOE in favor of its reopening, taking into consideration the
occurrence of numerous pipeline incidents worldwide. The dissent argues that the
precautionary principle should not be so strictly applied as to unjustifiably deprive the
public of the benefits of the activity to be inhibited, and to unduly create other risks.
[Court]
● The dissent's contentions that the case is already moot and academic, that the writ of
has already kalikasan served its function, and that the delay in the lifting of the TEPO
may do more harm than good are anchored on the mistaken premise that the
precautionary principle was applied in order to justify the order to the DOE and the FPIC
for the conduct of the various tests anew. The following reasons easily debunk these
arguments:
1. The precautionary principle is not applicable to the instant case;
2. The DOE certification is not an absolute attestation as to the WOPL's structural
integrity and in fact imposes several conditions for FPIC's compliance;
3. The DOE itself, in consultation with FPIC and the other concerned agencies,
proposed the activities to be conducted preparatory to the reopening of the
pipeline; and

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 42


4. There are no conclusive findings yet on the WOPL's structural integrity.
● The precautionary principle only applies when the link between the cause, that is the
human activity sought to be inhibited, and the effect, that is the damage to the
environment, cannot be established with full scientific certainty.
● Here, however, such absence of the link is not an issue. As a matter of fact, the
petroleum leak and the harm that it caused to the environment and to the residents of
the affected areas is not even questioned by FPIC.
● It must be stressed that what is in issue in the instant petition is the WOPL's compliance
with pipeline structure standards so as to make it fit for its purpose, a question of fact
that is to be determined on the basis of the evidence presented by the parties on the
WOPL's actual state.
● And it is only after an extensive determination by the DOE of the pipeline's actual
physical state through its proposed activities, and not merely through a short form
integrity audit, that the factual issue on the WOPL's viability can be settled.
● The dissent is correct in emphasizing that We defer to the findings of fact of
administrative agencies considering their specialized knowledge in their field.
○ And We, as a matter of fact, acceded to the DOE's conclusions on the necessity
of the conduct of the various activities and tests enumerated in Sec. Petilla's
letter to this Court dated August 5, 2014. Hence, Our directive for the DOE to
immediately commence the activities enumerated in said Letter, to determine the
pipeline's reliability, and to order its reopening should the DOE find that such is
proper.

III. Propriety of the Creation of a Special Trust Fund


● Anent petitioners' prayer for the creation of a special trust fund, We note that under Sec.
1, Rule 5 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, a trust fund is limited
solely for the purpose of rehabilitating or restoring the environment.
● Furthermore, Sec. 15 (e), Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
expressly prohibits the grant of damages to petitioners in a petition for the
issuance of a writ of kalikasan.
● A reading of the petition and the motion for partial reconsideration readily reveals that
the prayer is for the creation of a trust fund for similar future contingencies.
○ Hence, the Court affirms with concurrence the observation of the appellate court
that the prayer is but a claim for damages, which is prohibited by the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases.

IV. Liability of FPIC, FGC and their respective Directors and Officers
● The Court will refrain from ruling on the finding of the CA that the individual directors and
officers of FPIC and FGC are not liable due to the explicit rule in the Rules of Procedure
for Environmental cases that in a petition for a writ of kalikasan, the Court cannot grant
the award of damages to individual petitioners under Rule 7, Sec. 15 (e) of the Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases.
● As duly noted by the CA, the civil case and criminal complaint filed by petitioners against
respondents are the proper proceedings to ventilate and determine the individual liability

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 43


of respondents, if any, on their exercise of corporate powers and the management of
FPIC relative to the dire environmental impact of the dumping of petroleum products
stemming from the leak in the WOPL in Barangay Bangkal, Makati City.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

158. ALECHA vs. ATIENZA

Kahit nagfile ka na ng petition for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan, pwede ka pa rin mag file
ng separate civil, criminal, or administrative actions.

FACTS:
● Cebu Ore filed an application for the approval of the Mineral Production Sharing
Agreement in the municipalities of Midsalip and Bayog, Zamboanga del Sur.
○ Cebu Ore later on assigned to 168 FPMC its rights over the mining agreement.
○ Public respondent, then DENR Secretary, granted the mining agreement to 168
FPMC.
● Eight (8) months after, the petitioners filed a petition for cancellation of the subject
mining agreement with the DENR.
○ They alleged that 168 FPMC failed to secure the Free and Prior Informed
Consent (FPIC) of the Indigenous Peoples (IP) concerned for the approval of the
mining agreement.
○ They also alleged that the contract area under the mining agreement was located
in the volcanic cones of Mt. Sugarloaf Complex, a known key biodiversity area
and forest reserve, thus rendering it exempt from any mining application.
○ Lastly, they submitted that the proposed operation would destroy the lives of the
Zamboanga Peninsula residents.
● The DENR Secretary dismissed the petition for cancellation of the mining agreement.
○ The DENR Secretary concluded that 168 FPMC followed the legal process for
the approval of the assailed mining agreement and secured the free and prior
consent of the IPs concerned based on the available records.
○ The DENR Secretary also held that the Certification Precondition was the best
evidence that 168 FPMC complied with the FPIC process.
● OSG filed a manifestation stating that the petitioners engaged in forum shopping since
they also filed with this Court a petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan.
○ The writ of kalikasan petition and the present petition pray for the same relief -
the cancellation and revocation of the mineral agreement to prevent irreparable
damage and injury to the petitioners and the residents of Midsalip, Zamboanga
Del Sur, and the entire Zamboanga Peninsula.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners were guilty of forum shopping. -NO

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 44


HELD:
● The petitioners did not commit forum shopping.
● First, the petitions involved different causes of action.
○ In particular, a petition for the issuance of a writ kalikasan is initiated on behalf of
persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
violated, or threatened with violation, and involves environmental damage of
such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two
or more cities or provinces.
○ On the other hand, the present petition for certiorari involves the issues in wanton
disregard of due process and in the incidental violation of IP rights.
● Second, Rule 7, Section 17 of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases
expressly provides that the filing of a petition for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan
shall not preclude the filing of separate civil, criminal, or administrative actions.

(not relevant to specpro na pero main case is about certiorari, gadalej and exhaustion of admin
remedies before certiorari)

● In the present case, it would appear that the petitioners failed to exhaust all the remedies
available to it before resorting to the present certiorari petition.
○ We have consistently declared that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies is a cornerstone of our judicial system.
○ The principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies, however, is not an iron-
clad rule and is disregarded when any of the exceptions are present. The
petitioners failed to show that the present case falls under any of the exceptions.
● The petitioners' failure to exhaust all the available administrative remedies prevents
them from filing the present petition for certiorari.
● Even assuming arguendo that petitioners' direct resort to the Court was permissible, the
petition must still be dismissed because the DENR Secretary did not gravely abuse his
discretion in dismissing the petition for cancellation based on the records that the DENR
had previously received for 168 EPMC's application for the mining agreement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

159. BRAGA vs ABAYA

DOCTRINE: The bidding process is not equivalent to the implementation of the project. The
bidding process itself cannot conceivably cause any environmental damage.

FACTS:
● The Port of Davao is a seaport located in Mindanao.
● It is composed of several ports, all within the gulf of Davao, but its base port is the Sasa
Wharf located at Barangay Sasa, Davao City. In 2011, the Sasa Wharf was pegged for

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 45


privatization under the PPP scheme. The DOTC study served as one of the primary
considerations for current Sasa Wharf expansion project.
● On December 21, 2014, the Regional Development Council for Region XI (the Council)
endorsed the project through Resolution No. 118 subject to conditions. On April 10,
2015, the DOTC published an invitation to pre-qualify and bid for the Project.
● On March 15, 2016, the petitioners - all stakeholders from Davao City and Samal, Davao
del Norte - filed this Urgent Petition for a Writ of Continuing Mandamus and/or Writ of
Kalikasan. The petitioners seek to restrain the implementation of the Project - including
its bidding and award - until the respondents secure an ECC and comply with the LGC.
The respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argue that the
allegations do not warrant the issuance of a writ of kalikasan because the petitioners
failed to prove the threat of environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the
life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petition warrants the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan?

HELD: No.
● The Court cannot issue a writ of kalikasan based on the petition.
● The writ is a remedy to anyone whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is violated or threatened with violation by an lawful act or omission.
● However, the violation must involve environmental damage of such magnitude as to
prejudice the life, health, or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces
in order to arrant the issuance of the writ.[1]

[1] A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, Rule 7, Section 1. Nature of the writ. - The writ is a remedy available to a
natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, people's organization, non-governmental organization,
or any public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons
whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving
environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life; health or property of inhabitants in two or
more cities or provinces.

● The petitioners allege that the respondents have begun the process of transgressing
their right to health and a balanced ecology through the bidding process.[1] They cite
The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities: Synthesis Report[2] to identify the four major
negative impacts related to port operations: 1) environmental impacts, 2) land use
impacts, 3) traffic impacts, and 4) other impacts. The synthesis report claims that most of
these impacts affect the surrounding localities.
● However, these allegations are insufficient to warrant a writ of kalikasan.
● First, the petition failed to identify the particular threats from the Project itself. All it does
is cite the negative impacts of operating a port inside a city based on the Synthesis
Report. However, these impacts already exist because the Port of Davao has been
operating since 1900. The Project is not for the creation of a new port but the

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 46


modernization of an existing one. At best, the allegations in support of the application for
the writ of kalikasan are hazy and speculative.
● Second, the joint publication is titled Managing Impacts of Development in the Coastal
Zone for a reason; it identifies the potential environmental impacts and proposes
mitigation measures to protest the environment. The petition is misleading because it
only identified the risks but neglected to mention the existence and availability of
mitigating measures.[3]
● Further, we fail to see an environmental risk that threatens to prejudice the inhabitants of
two or more cities or municipalities if we do not estrain the conduct of the bidding
process. The bidding process is not equivalent to the implementation of the project. The
bidding process itself cannot conceivably cause any environmental damage.
● WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for its prematurity and lack of merit.

[1] Rollo, p. 12.


[2] Id.
[3] Managing Impacts of Development in the Coastal Zone, p. 45, available at
http://faspselib.dens.gov.ph/sites/default/files/publication%20files/crmgubook7.pdf

BATCH 9 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 47

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen