IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF NORIEL H.

RODRIGUEZ, RODRIGUEZ vs. GMA et al G.R. No. 1 1!"# IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ, $ESUS VERSOZA et al vs. RODRIGUEZ, G.R. No. 1 %1&" Nove'(e) 1#, *"11 FA+TS, Noriel Rodriguez is a member of Alyansa Dagiti Mannalon Iti Cagayan (Kagimungan), a peasant organization affiliated wit Kilusang Magbubu!id ng "ilipinas (KM")# Rodriguez $laims t at on %ept &, '((), e was abdu$ted by military men and ta!en to se*eral pla$es in$luding t e mountains and a military $amp w ere e was repeatedly tortured and made to sign do$uments ($ontaining statements t at e was an N"A member, e was ne*er sub+e$ted to torture et$#)# ,' days later e was freed wit t e $oordination of t e C-R# Rodriguez filed before t is Court a "etition for t e .rit of Amparo and "etition for t e .rit of -abeas Data wit "rayers for "rote$tion /rders, Inspe$tion of "la$e, and "rodu$tion of Do$uments and "ersonal "roperties# 0 e petition was filed against former "resident Arroyo and "D1# 2erzosa, "3%%upt# %antos, 4rig# 1en# De 2era, ,st 5t# Matutina and 5t# Col# Mina, offi$ers of t e "N", among ot ers# In t eir Return, respondents t erein alleged t at Rodriguez ad surrendered to t e military after e ad been put under sur*eillan$e and identified as 6Ka "epito7 by former rebels# 8pon is *oluntary surrender, e a$ted as a double agent, returning to t e N"A to gat er information# -owe*er, e feared t at is N"A $omrades were beginning to suspe$t im of being an infiltrator# 0 us, wit is !nowledge and $onsent, t e soldiers planned to stage a s am abdu$tion to erase any suspi$ion about im being a double agent# -en$e, t e abdu$tion sub+e$t of t e instant petition was $ondu$ted# ISSUES,

1. Is t e issuan$e of t e interim relief of "rote$tion /rder ne$essary9 2. Can former "resident Arroyo use t e presidential immunity from suit to s ield erself
from +udi$ial s$rutiny t at would assess w et er s e was responsible or a$$ountable for t e abdu$tion of Rodriguez#

3. Can t e do$trine of Command Responsibility be applied in Amparo $ases9 4. Can t e president, as $ommander:in:$ ief of t e military, $an be eld responsible or

a$$ountable for e;tra+udi$ial !illings and enfor$ed disappearan$es9

5. .as Rodriguez able to pro*e t roug substantial e*iden$e t at former "resident Arroyo
is responsible or a$$ountable for is abdu$tion9

6. .ere t e responsibility or a$$ountability of respondents in 1#R# No# ,),<(= pro*en9

HELD, At t e outset, it must be emp asized t at t e writs of amparo and abeas data were promulgated to ensure t e prote$tion of t e people>s rig ts to life, liberty and se$urity# 0 e rules on t ese writs were issued in lig t of t e alarming pre*alen$e of e;tra+udi$ial !illings and enfor$ed disappearan$es# Also, it bears stressing t at sin$e t ere is no determination of administrati*e, $i*il or $riminal liability in amparo and abeas data pro$eedings, $ourts $an only go as far as as$ertaining responsibility or a$$ountability for t e enfor$ed disappearan$e or e;tra+udi$ial !illing#

1.

NO? In t e petition in 1#R# No# ,),<(=, Rodriguez prays for t e issuan$e of a temporary prote$tion order (0"/)# It must be unders$ored t at t is interim relief is only a*ailable (e-o)e final +udgment# In any $ase, it must be unders$ored t at t e pri*ilege of t e writ of amparo, on$e granted, .e/essa)0l1 e.ta0ls t e prote$tion of t e aggrie*ed party# 0 us, sin$e we grant petitioner t e pri*ilege of t e writ of amparo, t ere is no need to issue a 0"/ independently of t e former# 0 e order restri$ting respondents from going near Rodriguez is subsumed under t e pri*ilege of t e writ#

2.

NO? In @strada *# Desierto, we $larified t e do$trine t at a non:sitting "resident does not en+oy immunity from suit, e*en for a$ts $ommitted during t e latter>s tenure# .e emp asize our ruling t erein t at $ourts s ould loo! wit disfa*or upon t e presidential pri*ilege of immunity, espe$ially w en it impedes t e sear$ for trut or impairs t e *indi$ation of a rig t Applying t e foregoing rationale to t e $ase at bar, it is $lear t at former "resident Arroyo $annot use t e presidential immunity from suit to s ield erself from +udi$ial s$rutiny t at would assess w et er, wit in t e $onte;t of amparo pro$eedings, s e was responsible or a$$ountable for t e abdu$tion of Rodriguez#

3.

2ES? $ommand responsibility may be loosely applied in amparo $ases in order to identify t ose a$$ountable indi*iduals t at a*e t e power to effe$ti*ely implement w ate*er pro$esses an amparo $ourt would issue# In su$ appli$ation, t e amparo $ourt does .ot impute $riminal responsibility but merely pinpoint t e superiors it $onsiders to be in t e best position to prote$t t e rig ts of t e aggrie*ed party# %u$ identifi$ation of t e responsible and a$$ountable superiors may well be a preliminary determination of $riminal liability w i$ , of $ourse, is still sub+e$t to furt er in*estigation by t e appropriate go*ernment agen$y A4oa$ *# CadapanB

4.

2ES? -a*ing establis ed t e appli$ability of t e do$trine of $ommand responsibility in amparo pro$eedings, it must now be resol*ed w et er t e president, as $ommander:in:$ ief of t e military, $an be eld responsible or a$$ountable for e;tra+udi$ial !illings and enfor$ed disappearan$es# .e rule in t e affirmati*e# 0o old someone liable under t e do$trine of $ommand responsibility, t e following elements must obtainC a# t e e;isten$e of a superior:subordinate relations ip between t e a$$used as superior and t e perpetrator of t e $rime as is subordinate? b# t e superior !new or ad reason to !now t at t e $rime was about to be or ad been $ommitted? and $# t e superior failed to ta!e t e ne$essary and reasonable measures to pre*ent t e $riminal a$ts or punis t e perpetrators t ereof#A<DB 0 e president, being t e $ommander:in:$ ief of all armed for$es, ne$essarily possesses $ontrol o*er t e military t at Eualifies im as a superior wit in t e pur*iew of t e $ommand responsibility do$trine#

5.

NO? Aside from Rodriguez>s general a*erments, t ere is no pie$e of e*iden$e t at $ould establis er responsibility or a$$ountability for is abdu$tion# Neit er was t ere e*en a $lear attempt to s ow t at s e s ould a*e !nown about t e *iolation of is rig t to life, liberty or se$urity, or t at s e ad failed to in*estigate, punis or pre*ent it#

6.

2ES? 0 e do$trine of totality of e*iden$e in amparo $ases was first laid down in t is Court>s ruling in Razon, to witC
0 e fair and proper rule, to our mind, is to $onsider all t e pie$es of e*iden$e addu$ed in t eir totality, and to $onsider any e*iden$e ot erwise inadmissible under our usual rules to be admissible if it is $onsistent wit t e admissible e*iden$e addu$ed# In ot er words, we redu$e our rules to t e most basi$ test of reason F i#e#, to t e rele*an$e of t e e*iden$e to t e issue at and and its $onsisten$y wit all ot er pie$es of addu$ed e*iden$e# 0 us, e*en earsay e*iden$e $an be admitted if it satisfies t is basi$ minimum test#

In t e $ase at bar, we find no reason to depart from t e fa$tual findings of t e CA, t e same being supported by substantial e*iden$e# A $areful e;amination of t e re$ords of t is $ase re*eals t at t e totality of t e e*iden$e addu$ed by Rodriguez ( is sinumpaang salaysay, $orroborated by t e testimony of anot er witness, t e medi$al $ertifi$ate issued w i$ $onfirmed t at t e in+uries suffered by t e latter were infli$ted t roug torture, and t e in$onsistent allegations of respondents) indubitably pro*e t e responsibility and a$$ountability of some respondents in 1#R# No# ,),<(= for *iolating is rig t to life, liberty and se$urity