Professional Documents
Culture Documents
7. After the hearing, the court will render the judgment 3. Spouses Nerio and Soledad Pador adn Rey
within ten (10) days from the time the petition is Pador vs.Barangay Captain Bernabe Arcayan,
submitted for decision. If the allegations are proven with et al.
substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege
G.R. No. 183460 March 12, 2013
of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and
appropriate. The judgment should contain detailed No Digest
measures which the judge views as essential for the
continued protection of the petitioner in the Amparo This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assails the
Resolution2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 17,
case. These measures must be detailed enough so that
Cebu City, in Spec. Proc. No. 16061-CEB. The RTC
the judge may be able to verify and monitor the actions
Resolution denied the Petition for a Writ of Amparo filed
taken by the respondents. It is this judgment that could
by petitioner-spouses Nerio and Soledad Pador and Rey
be subject to appeal to the Supreme Court via Rule 45.
Pador against respondents - Barangay Captain Bernabe
After the measures have served their purpose, the
Arcayan, Barangay Tanod Chief Romeo Pador, and
judgment will be satisfied. In Amparo cases, judgment
Barangay Tanods Alberto Alivio, Carmela Revales,
is satisfied when: (1) the threats to the petitioner’s life,
Roberto Alimorin, Winelo Arcayan, Christopher Alivio
liberty and security cease to exist as evaluated by the
and Bienvenido Arcayan.
court that renders the judgment; and (2) through
consolidation should a subsequent case be filed – either On 22 March 2008, petitioners filed with the RTC a
criminal or civil. Until the full satisfaction of the Verified Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo.3
judgment, the extraordinary remedy of Amparo allows
Petitioners alleged that in February 2008, rumors
vigilant judicial monitoring to ensure the protection of
circulated that petitioner Nerio Pador was a marijuana
constitutional rights. IF THE RESPONDENTS ARE
planter in Barangay Tabunan, Cebu City.4 On 17 March
PUBLIC OFFICIALS OF EMPLOYEES hey are also
2008, respondents Alberto Alivio, Carmelo Revales and
required to state the actions they had taken to: (i) verify
Roberto Alimorin raided their ampalaya farm to search
the identity of the aggrieved party; (ii) recover and
for marijuana plants, but found none.5 After the raid,
preserve evidence related to the death or disappearance
petitioners Nerio and Rey Pador received invitation
of the person identified in the petition; (iii) identify
letters for a conference from respondent Barangay
witnesses and obtain statements concerning the death
Captain Arcayan.6 They referred the invitation letters to
or disappearance; (iv) determine the cause, manner,
their counsel, who advised them not to attend and,
location, and time of death or disappearance as well as
instead, send a letter-reply to Barangay Captain
any pattern or practice that may have brought about the
Arcayan. When the latter received the letter-reply, he
death or disappearance; and (vi) bring the suspected
allegedly read its contents, got one copy, and refused to
offenders before a competent court. Clearly these
sign a receipt of the document.7 Petitioners then
matters are important to the judge so that s/he can
concluded that the conduct of the raid, the sending of
calibrate the means and methods that will be required to
the invitation letters, the refusal of respondent
further the protections, if any, that will be due to the
barangay captain to receive their letter-reply – as well as
petitioner.
the possibility of more harassment cases, false
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF AMPARO VS THE WRIT OF accusations, and possible violence from respondents –
AMPARO gravely threatened their right to life, liberty and security
and necessitated the issuance of a writ of amparo.8
PRIVILEGE: includes availment of the entire procedure
outlined in A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, the Rule on the Writ of After examining the contents of the petition and the
Amparo. WRIT: After examining the petition and its affidavits attached to it, the RTC issued the Writ and
attached affidavits, the Return and the evidence directed respondents to make a verified return.9
In compliance with the RTC’s directive, respondents signed a copy of petitioners’ letter-reply, as he had
filed their Verified Return and/or Comment.10 In their already been given a copy of it.21
counter-statement of facts, they alleged that on 16
The RTC then heard the Petition. On 3 July 2008, it
March 2008, respondent Winelo Arcayan received a
issued the assailed Resolution22 finding that
report regarding the alleged existence of a marijuana
petitioners’ claims were based merely on hearsay,
plantation in a place called Sitio Gining in Barangay
speculations, surmises and conjectures, and that
Tabunan.11 He then referred the matter to Barangay
respondents had sufficiently explained the reason
Tanod Chief Romeo Pador and Barangay Captain
behind the issuance of the letters of invitation. It
Arcayan, who commenced to organize a patrol.12
thereafter proceeded to deny petitioners the privilege of
On the morning of 17 March 2008, while the barangay the writ of amparo.23
tanods were having a final briefing, Carmelo Revales left
Dissatisfied with the ruling of the RTC, petitioners filed
the place to take his breakfast.13 While he was taking his
the instant Petition for Review24 before this Court,
breakfast, Nerio Pador, who was riding a motorcycle,
ascribing grave and serious error on the part of the trial
stopped and accused the former of uprooting the
court.25
marijuana plants.14 Carmelo denied any knowledge
about the incident, and Nerio thereafter threatened to The Court’s Ruling
have him killed. Carmelo promptly reported this threat
to the other barangay tanods.15 We uphold the RTC’s Resolution and deny the instant
Petition.
Respondents recounted that, notwithstanding Nerio’s
actions, they proceeded to patrol the area.16 When they Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo26 provides
passed by the house of Nerio, he angrily uttered in for the grounds that may be relied upon in a petition
Cebuano, "If I will be informed who reported the matter therefor, as follows:
to the police, I will attack the informant." Carmelo then SEC. 1. Petition. – The petition for a writ of amparo is a
asked him, "Who reported to you?" Nerio replied, "I will remedy available to any person whose right to life,
tell you later once I will be captured by police authorities. liberty and security is violated or threatened with
All of us will be dead this afternoon. I want a shoot violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public
out!"17 official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.
Respondents thereafter commenced their patrol of a The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced
place owned by a certain David Quintana, but their disappearances or threats thereof.
rounds yielded a negative result.18
Thus, to be entitled to the privilege of the writ,
Later that evening, while respondent Alberto Alivio was petitioners must prove by substantial evidence27 that
passing by the house of Nerio, the latter threatened to their rights to life, liberty and security are being violated
kill him, saying, "I want to kill now!"19 Alberto then or threatened by an unlawful act or omission.
asked him, "Who reported to you so that the truth will
come out?" Nerio then punched the door of his house A closer look at the instant Petition shows that it is
and said, "I will tell you later when I will be captured by anchored on the following allegations: first, that
the police authorities!" Alberto then left the place and respondents conducted a raid on the property of
reported the matter to respondent Barangay Captain petitioner based on information that the latter were
Arcayan.20 cultivators of marijuana; second, that respondent
barangay captain sent them invitation letters without
In response to the reports, Barangay Captain Arcayan stating the purpose of the invitation; third, that
stated that he ordered his secretary to prepare invitation respondent barangay captain refused to receive
letters for petitioners Nerio and Rey Pador, as the petitioners’ letter-reply; and fourth, that petitioners
allegations of threats and intimidation made by Nerio anticipate the possibility of more harassment cases,
against some of the barangay tanods were serious. false accusations, and potential violence from
Barangay Captain Arcayan explained that he no longer respondents.
All these allegations are insufficient bases for a grant of We therefore rule that the alleged intrusion upon
the privilege of the writ. petitioners’ ampalaya farm is an insufficient ground to
grant the privilege of the writ of amparo.
On the first allegation, we find that the supposed raid on
petitioners’ ampalaya farm was sufficiently On petitioners’ second and third allegations, we find
controverted by respondents. that the barangay captain’s act of sending invitation
letters to petitioners and failure to sign the receiving
Respondents alleged, and the trial court found, that a
copy of their letter-reply did not violate or threaten their
roving patrol was conducted, not on the ampalaya farm
constitutional right to life, liberty or security. The
of Nerio Pador, but on an area locally called Sitio Gining,
records show that Barangay Captain Arcayan
which was beside the lot possessed by David
sufficiently explained the factual basis for his actions.
Quintana.28
Moreover, the records are bereft of any evidence that
Assuming, however, that respondents had in fact petitioners were coerced to attend the conference
entered the ampalaya farm, petitioner Rey Pador through the use of force or intimidation. On the
himself admitted that they had done so with his contrary, they had full freedom to refuse to attend the
permission, as stated in his affidavit: conference, as they have in fact done in this
case.1âwphi1
5. Around 8:00 a.m., I saw Tabunan barangay tanod
Roberto Alimorin. I greeted him good morning. He told The fourth allegation of petitioner – that, following
me that there are reports that marijuana plants were these events, they can anticipate more harassment
grown at our ampalaya farm and that there is already a cases, false accusations and possible violence from
raid. respondents – is baseless, unfounded, and grounded
merely on pure speculations and conjectures. As such,
6. Being innocent and nothing to hide, I allowed Mr. this allegation does not warrant the consideration of this
Alimorin to search the ampalaya farm for marijuana Court.
plants.29
On a final note, we reiterate that the privilege of the writ
Finally, even assuming that the entry was done without of amparo is an extraordinary remedy adopted to
petitioners’ permission, we cannot grant the privilege of address the special concerns of extra-legal killings and
the writ of amparo based upon a trespass on their enforced disappearances. "Accordingly, the remedy
ampalaya farm. Granting that the intrusion occurred, it ought to be resorted to and granted judiciously, lest the
was merely a violation of petitioners’ property rights. In ideal sought by the Amparo Rule be diluted and
Tapuz v. Del Rosario,30 we ruled that the writ of amparo undermined by the indiscriminate filing of amparo
does not envisage the protection of concerns that are petitions for purposes less than the desire to secure
purely property or commercial in nature, as follows: amparo reliefs and protection and/or on the basis of
The writ of amparo was originally conceived as a unsubstantiated allegations."32
response to the extraordinary rise in the number of WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition
killings and enforced disappearances, and to the for Review is DENIED. The 3 July 2008 Resolution of the
perceived lack of available and effective remedies to Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Cebu City, in Spec. Proc.
address these extraordinary concerns. It is intended to No. 16061-CEB is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.
address violations of or threats to the rights to life,
liberty or security, as an extraordinary and independent 4. Daniel Masangka y Tapuz, et al. vs. Hon.
remedy beyond those available under the prevailing Judge Elmo del Rosario, et al.
Rules, or as a remedy supplemental to these Rules. What
G.R. No. 182484 June 17, 2008
it is not, is a writ to protect concerns that are purely
property or commercial. Neither is it a writ that we shall FACTS:
issue on amorphous and uncertain grounds.31 x x x.
Private respondents, Sps. Sanson filed a complaint for
(Emphasis in the original)
forcible entry and damages with prayer for issuance of a
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against
petitioners, Tapuz et. al. and other John Does totaling to for Certiorari with prayer for Writs of Amparo and
120 persons before Aklan MCTC. Habeas Data.
MCTC decided in private respondents’ favor, finding In this case, what is involved is a property issues rooted
prior possession through the construction of perimeter from physical possession disputed by the parties. No
fence in 1993. issues relating to life or liberty can hardly be discerned
except to the extent that the occurrence of the past
Such was appealed by petitioners to RTC. violence has been alleged. Right to security, on the other
hand, is alleged only to the extent of threats and
On appeal, Judge Marin granted private respondents’
harassment implied from the presence of “armed men
motion for issuance of writ of preliminary mandatory
bare to the waist” and the alleged pointing and firing of
injunction upon posting of a bond but the writ
weapons, however, none of the supporting affidavits
authorizing the immediate implementation of the
compellingly show that the threat to the right to life,
MCTC decision was actually issued by public respondent
liberty and security of the petitioners is imminent or
Judge Del Rosario after private respondents had
continuing.
complied with the imposed condition. Petitioners
moved for reconsideration, while private respondents (2) On the Writ of Habeas Data – there are no concrete
filed a motion for demolition. allegations of unjustified or unlawful violation of the
right to privacy related to the petitioner’s right to life,
Public respondent judge denied petitioners’ motion for
liberty and security.
reconsideration to defer enforcement of preliminary
mandatory injunction. In this case, petitioners failed to allege, much less,
demonstrate, any need for information under the
Meanwhile, petitioners opposed the motion for
control of the police authorities other than those already
demolition, but public respondent judge nevertheless,
set forth as integral annexes. The necessity or
issued a special order – a Writ of Demolition to be
justification for the issuance of the writ, based on
implemented within 15 days after the Sheriff’s notice to
insufficiency of efforts made to secure information has
the petitioners to voluntarily demolish their houses to
not also been shown. In sum, the prayer for the issuance
allow private respondents to effectively take actual
of the Writ of Habeas Data is nothing more than a
possession of the land.
“fishing expedition” that the SC, in drafting the Rule on
Petitioners filed a Petition for Review of the Permanent Habeas Data, had in mind in defining what the purpose
Mandatory Injunction and the Order of Demolition of a writ of habeas data is not.
before the CA.
FACTS:
Meanwhile, Sheriff issued a Notice to Vacate and for
Demolition; hence, petitioners filed before SC a petition 1. The private respondents spouses Sanson filed with the
Aklan MCTC a complaint for forcible entry and damages
with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary house/s to allow the private respondents to effectively
mandatory injunction against the petitioners and other take actual possession of the land.
John Does numbering about 120.
9. The petitioners thereafter filed a Petition for Review
2. The private respondents alleged in their complaint of the Permanent Mandatory Injunction and Order of
that: (1) they are the registered owners of the disputed Demolition in CA.
land; (2) they were the disputed land’s prior possessors
10. Meanwhile, respondent Sheriff issued the Notice to
when the petitioners – armed with bolos and carrying
Vacate and for Demolition. Hence, the present petition
suspected firearms and together with unidentified
for certiorari with writs of amparo and habeas data.
persons – entered the disputed land by force and
intimidation, without the private respondents’ ISSUE:
permission and against the objections of the private
respondents’ security men, and built thereon a nipa and W/N petition for certiorari with writ of amparo and
bamboo structure. habeas data is proper
On the whole, what is clear from these statements – Several cases were filed by both parties to enforce their
both sworn and unsworn – is the overriding involvement rights over the property. The pertinent case among the
of property issues as the petition traces its roots to filed cases was the issuance by the MTC an alias Writ of
questions of physical possession of the property Demolition in favor of the Province. Respondents filed a
disputed by the private parties. If at all, issues relating to motion for TRO in the RTC, which was granted.
the right to life or to liberty can hardly be discerned However, the demolition was already implemented
except to the extent that the occurrence of past violence before the TRO issuance.
has been alleged. The right to security, on the other
On February 21, 2008, petitioners Police Superintendent
hand, is alleged only to the extent of the threats and
Felixberto Castillo et al., who were deployed by the City
harassments implied from the presence of “armed men
Mayor in compliance with a memorandum issued by
bare to the waist” and the alleged pointing and firing of
Governor Joselito R. Mendoza instructing him to
weapons. Notably, none of the supporting affidavits
“protect, secure and maintain the possession of the
compellingly show that the threat to the rights to life,
property,” entered the property.
liberty and security of the petitioners is imminent or is
continuing. Amanda and her co-respondents refused to turn over
the property, however. Insisting that the RTC Order of
These allegations obviously lack what the Rule on Writ
Permanent Injunction enjoined the Province from
of Habeas Data requires as a minimum, thus rendering
repossessing it, they shoved petitioners, forcing the
the petition fatally deficient. Specifically, we see no
latter to arrest them and cause their indictment for
concrete allegations of unjustified or unlawful violation
direct assault, trespassing and other forms of light
of the right to privacy related to the right to life, liberty
threats.
or security. The petition likewise has not alleged, much
less demonstrated, any need for information under the Thus, respondents filed a Motion for Writ of Amparo and
control of police authorities other than those it has Habeas Data.
already set forth as integral annexes. The necessity or
justification for the issuance of the writ, based on the ISSUE:
insufficiency of previous efforts made to secure WON Amparo and Habeas Data is proper to property
information, has not also been shown. In sum, the prayer rights; and, WON Amparo and Habeas Data is proper
for the issuance of a writ of habeas data is nothing more when there is a criminal case already filed.
than the “fishing expedition” that this Court – in the
course of drafting the Rule on habeas data – had in mind HELD:
in defining what the purpose of a writ of habeas data is On the 1st issue:
not. In these lights, the outright denial of the petition for
the issuance of the writ of habeas data is fully in order. Section 1 of the Rules of Writ of Amparo and Habeas
PETITION DENIED. Data provides that the coverage of the writs is limited to
the protection of rights to life, liberty and security, and
5. P/Supt. Felixberto Castillo, Police Officers the writs cover not only actual but also threats of
Romeo Bagtas, et al. vs. Dr. Amanda T. Cruz, unlawful acts or omissions.
Nixon T. Cruz and Ferdinand T. Cruz
Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo teaches: “As
G.R. No. 182165 November 25, 2009 the Amparo Rule was intended to address the
FACTS: intractable problem of “extralegal killings” and
“enforced disappearances.” Tapuz v. Del Rosario also
Respondent Amanda Cruz (Amanda) who, along with teaches: “What it is not is a writ to protect concerns that
her husband Francisco G. Cruz (Spouses Cruz), leased a are purely property or commercial. Neither is it a writ
parcel of land situated at Barrio Guinhawa, Malolos (the that we shall issue on amorphous and uncertain
property), refused to vacate the property, despite grounds.”
demands by the lessor Provincial Government of
To thus be covered by the privilege of the writs, By Memorandum, petitioner Alexander Deyto, Head of
respondents must meet the threshold requirement that MERALCO’s Human Resource Staffing, directed the
their right to life, liberty and security is violated or transfer of respondent to MERALCO’s Alabang Sector in
threatened with an unlawful act or omission. Evidently, Muntinlupa as “A/F OTMS Clerk,” in light of the receipt
the present controversy arose out of a property dispute of “… reports that there were accusations and threats
between the Provincial Government and respondents. directed against [her] from unknown individuals and
Absent any considerable nexus between the acts which could possibly compromise [her] safety and
complained of and its effect on respondents’ right to life, security.”
liberty and security, the Court will not delve on the
Respondent questions the propriety of MERALCO’s
propriety of petitioners’ entry into the property.
action in a letter as “highly suspicious…” and being
It bears emphasis that respondents’ petition did not “punitive”, but the latter never responded. Respondent
show any actual violation, imminent or continuing filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data
threat to their life, liberty and security. Bare allegations against petitioners before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of petitioners will not suffice to prove entitlement to the of Bulacan. Additionally, respondent prayed for the
remedy of the writ of amparo. No undue confinement or issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
detention was present. In fact, respondents were even enjoining petitioners from effecting her transfer to the
able to post bail for the offenses a day after their arrest. MERALCO Alabang Sector.
On the 2nd issue: The trial court granted the prayers of respondent
including the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
Respondents’ filing of the petitions for writs of amparo
directing petitioners to desist from implementing
and habeas data should have been barred, for criminal
respondent’s transfer until such time that petitioners
proceedings against them had commenced after they
comply with the disclosures required.
were arrested in flagrante delicto and proceeded against
in accordance with Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of ISSUES:
Court. Validity of the arrest or the proceedings
[1] Whether the RTC lacked jurisdiction to over the
conducted thereafter is a defense that may be set up by
case and cannot restrain MERALCO’s prerogative as
respondents during trial and not before a petition for
employer to transfer the place of work of its
writs of amparo and habeas data.
employees.
6. Manila Electric Company, Alexander S. Deyto
[2] Is the issuance of the writ outside the parameters
and Ruben A. Sapitula vs. Rosario Gopez Lim
expressly set forth in the Rule on the Writ of Habeas
G.R. No. 184769 October 5, 2010 Data?
FACTS: HELD:
A vehicle of Asian Land Strategies Corporation (Asian CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: writ of amparo
Land) arrived at the house of Lolita M. Lapore. The
A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC or The Rule on the Writ of Amparo
arrival of the vehicle awakened Lolitas son, Enrique
was promulgated to arrest the rampant extralegal
Lapore (Bong), and Benhur Pardico (Ben), who were
killings and enforced disappearances in the country. Its
then both staying in her house. When Lolita went out to
purpose is to provide an expeditious and effective relief
investigate, she saw two uniformed guards
“to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is
disembarking from the vehicle. One of them
violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act
immediately asked Lolita where they could find her son
or omission of a public official or employee, or of a
Bong. Before Lolita could answer, the guard saw Bong
private individual or entity.”
and told him that he and Ben should go with them to the
security office of Asian Land because a complaint was Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and
lodged against them for theft of electric wires and lamps Political Rights recognizes every human beings inherent
in the subdivision. Shortly thereafter, Bong, Lolita and right to life, while Article 9 thereof ordains that everyone
Ben were in the office of the security department of has the right to liberty and security. The right to life must
Asian Land also located in Grand Royale Subdivision. be protected by law while the right to liberty and
security cannot be impaired except on grounds provided
Exasperated with the mysterious disappearance of her
by and in accordance with law. This overarching
husband, Virginia filed a Petition for Writ of
command against deprivation of life, liberty and security
Amparobefore the RTC of Malolos City. A Writ of
without due process of law is also embodied in our
Amparo was accordingly issued and served on the
fundamental law.
petitioners. The trial court issued the challenged
Decision granting the petition. Petitioners filed a Motion The budding jurisprudence on amparo blossomed in
for Reconsideration which was denied by the trial court. Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis when this Court defined enforced
disappearances. The Court in that case applied the
Petitioners essentially assail the sufficiency of the
generally accepted principles of international law and
amparo petition. They contend that the writ of amparo
adopted the International Convention for the Protection
is available only in cases where the factual and legal
of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances definition
bases of the violation or threatened violation of the
of enforced disappearances, as “the arrest, detention,
aggrieved partys right to life, liberty and security are
abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by
clear. Petitioners assert that in the case at bench,
agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons
Virginia miserably failed to establish all these. First, the
acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence
petition is wanting on its face as it failed to state with
of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the
some degree of specificity the alleged unlawful act or
deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or
omission of the petitioners constituting a violation of or
whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place
a threat to Bens right to life, liberty and security. And
such a person outside the protection of the law.”
second, it cannot be deduced from the evidence Virginia
adduced that Ben is missing; or that petitioners had a From the statutory definition of enforced
hand in his alleged disappearance. On the other hand, disappearance, thus, we can derive the following
the entries in the logbook which bear the signatures of elements that constitute it:
Ben and Lolita are eloquent proof that petitioners
released Ben on March 31, 2008 at around 10:30 p.m. (a) that there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any
Petitioners thus posit that the trial court erred in issuing form of deprivation of liberty;
the writ and in holding them responsible for Bens (b) that it be carried out by, or with the authorization,
disappearance. support or acquiescence of, the State or a political
ISSUE: organization;
Whether or not the issuance of A Writ of Amparo is (c) that it be followed by the State or political
proper? organizations refusal to acknowledge or give
information on the fate or whereabouts of the person is a private entity. They do not work for the government
subject of the amparo petition; and, and nothing has been presented that would link or
connect them to some covert police, military or
(d) that the intention for such refusal is to remove
governmental operation. As discussed above, to fall
subject person from the protection of the law for a
within the ambit of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC in relation to RA
prolonged period of time.
No. 9851, the disappearance must be attended by some
As thus dissected, it is now clear that for the protective governmental involvement. This hallmark of State
writ of amparo to issue, allegation and proof that the participation differentiates an enforced disappearance
persons subject thereof are missing are not enough. It case from an ordinary case of a missing person.
must also be shown and proved by substantial evidence DISMISSED
that the disappearance was carried out by, or with the
8. Gen. Avelino I. Razon, Jr., chief, Philippine
authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or a
National Police (PNP), et al. vs. Mary Jean B. Tagitis,
political organization, followed by a refusal to
herein represented by Atty. Felipe P. Arcilla, Jr.
acknowledge the same or give information on the fate
attorney-in-fact
or whereabouts of said missing persons, with the
intention of removing them from the protection of the G.R. No. 182498 December 3, 2009
law for a prolonged period of time. Simply put, the
FACTS:
petitioner in an amparo case has the burden of proving
by substantial evidence the indispensable element of The established facts show that Tagitis, a consultant for
government participation. the World Bank and the Senior Honorary Counselor for
the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) Scholarship
But lest it be overlooked, in an amparo petition, proof of
Programme, was last seen in Jolo, Sulu. Together with
disappearance alone is not enough. It is likewise
Arsimin Kunnong (Kunnong), an IDB scholar, Tagitis
essential to establish that such disappearance was
arrived in Jolo by boat in the early morning of October
carried out with the direct or indirect authorization,
31, 2007 from a seminar in Zamboanga City. They
support or acquiescence of the government. This
immediately checked-in at ASY Pension House. Tagitis
indispensable element of State participation is not
asked Kunnong to buy him a boat ticket for his return
present in this case. The petition does not contain any
trip the following day to Zamboanga. When Kunnong
allegation of State complicity, and none of the evidence
returned from this errand, Tagitis was no longer
presented tend to show that the government or any of
around. The receptionist related that Tagitis went out to
its agents orchestrated Bens disappearance. In fact,
buy food at around 12:30 in the afternoon and even left
none of its agents, officials, or employees were
his room key with the desk. Kunnong looked for Tagitis
impleaded or implicated in Virginia’s amparo petition
and even sent a text message to the latter’s Manila-
whether as responsible or accountable persons.51 Thus,
based secretary who did not know of Tagitis’
in the absence of an allegation or proof that the
whereabouts and activities either; she advised Kunnong
government or its agents had a hand in Bens
to simply wait.
disappearance or that they failed to exercise
extraordinary diligence in investigating his case, the On November 4, 2007, Kunnong and Muhammad
Court will definitely not hold the government or its Abdulnazeir N. Matli, a UP professor of Muslim studies
agents either as responsible or accountable persons. and Tagitis’ fellow student counselor at the IDB,
reported Tagitis’ disappearance to the Jolo Police
We are aware that under Section 1 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-
Station. On November 7, 2007, Kunnong executed a
SC a writ of amparo may lie against a private individual
sworn affidavit attesting to what he knew of the
or entity. But even if the person sought to be held
circumstances surrounding Tagitis’ disappearance.
accountable or responsible in an amparo petition is a
private individual or entity, still, government More than a month later (on December 28, 2007), Mary
involvement in the disappearance remains an Jean Tagitis filed a Petition for the Writ of Amparo
indispensable element. Here, petitioners are mere (petition) with the CA through her Attorney-in-Fact,
security guards at Grand Royale Subdivision in Brgy. Atty. Felipe P. Arcilla.The petition was directed against
Lugam, Malolos City and their principal, the Asian Land, Lt. Gen. Alexander Yano, Commanding General,
Philippine Army; Gen. Avelino I. Razon, Chief, Philippine
National Police (PNP); Gen. Edgardo M. Doromal, Chief,
On the same day the petition was filed, the CA
Criminal Investigation and Detention Group (CIDG); Sr.
immediately issued the Writ of Amparo, set the case for
Supt. Leonardo A. Espina, Chief, Police Anti-Crime and
hearing on January 7, 2008, and directed the petitioners
Emergency Response; Gen. Joel Goltiao, Regional
to file their verified return within seventy-two (72) hours
Director, ARMM-PNP; and Gen. Ruben Rafael, Chief,
from service of the writ.
Anti-Terror Task Force Comet.
In their verified Return filed during the hearing of
Mary Jean said in her statement that she approached
January 27, 2008, the petitioners denied any
some of her co-employees with the Land Bank in Digos
involvement in or knowledge of Tagitis’ alleged
branch, Digos City, Davao del Sur who likewise sought
abduction. They argued that the allegations of the
help from some of their friends in the military who could
petition were incomplete and did not constitute a cause
help them find/locate the whereabouts of her husband.
of action against them; were baseless, or at best
All of her efforts did not produce any positive results
speculative; and were merely based on hearsay
except the information from persons in the military who
evidence. In addition, they all claimed that they
do not want to be identified that Engr. Tagitis is in the
exhausted all means, particularly taking pro-active
hands of the uniformed men. According to reliable
measures to investigate, search and locate Tagitis and to
information she received, subject Engr. Tagitis is in the
apprehend the persons responsible for his
custody of police intelligence operatives, specifically
disappearance.
with the CIDG, PNP Zamboanga City, being held against
his will in an earnest attempt of the police to involve and THE CA RULING
connect Engr. Tagitis with the different terrorist groups
particularly the Jemaah Islamiyah or JI. On March 7, 2008, the CA issued its decision confirming
that the disappearance of Tagitis was an "enforced
She then filed her complaint with the PNP Police Station disappearance" under the United Nations (UN)
in the ARMM in Cotobato and in Jolo, seeking their help Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from
to find her husband, but was told of an intriguing tale by Enforced Disappearances. The CA held that "raw
the police that her husband was not missing but was reports" from an "asset" carried "great weight" in the
with another woman having good time somewhere, intelligence world. It also labeled as "suspect" Col.
which is a clear indication of the refusal of the PNP to Kasim’s subsequent and belated retraction of his
help and provide police assistance in locating her statement that the military, the police, or the CIDG was
missing husband. involved in the abduction of Tagitis.
Heeding an advise of one police officer, she went to the The CA characterized as "too farfetched and
different police headquarters namely Police unbelievable" and "a bedlam of speculation" police
Headquarters in Cotabato City, Davao City, Zamboanga theories painting the disappearance as "intentional" on
City and eventually in the National Headquarters in the part of Tagitis. He had no previous brushes with the
Camp Crame in Quezon City but her efforts produced no law or any record of overstepping the bounds of any
positive results. These trips exhausted all of her trust regarding money entrusted to him; no student of
resources which pressed her to ask for financial help the IDB scholarship program ever came forward to
from friends and relatives. complain that he or she did not get his or her stipend.
The CA also found no basis for the police theory that
She has exhausted all administrative avenues and
Tagitis was "trying to escape from the clutches of his
remedies but to no avail, and under the circumstances,
second wife," on the basis of the respondent’s testimony
she has no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy to
that Tagitis was a Muslim who could have many wives
protect and get the release of her husband, Engr.
under the Muslim faith, and that there was "no issue" at
Morced Tagitis, from the illegal clutches of his captors,
all when the latter divorced his first wife in order to
their intelligence operatives and the like which are in
marry the second. Finally, the CA also ruled out
total violation of the subject’s human and constitutional
kidnapping for ransom by the Abu Sayyaf or by the
rights, except the issuance of a WRIT OF AMPARO.
ARMM paramilitary as the cause for Tagitis’
disappearance, since the respondent, the police and the (c) followed by a refusal to acknowledge the detention,
military noted that there was no acknowledgement of or a concealment of the fate of the disappeared person;
Tagitis’ abduction or demand for payment of ransom –
(d) placement of the disappeared person outside the
the usual modus operandi of these terrorist groups.
protection of the law.
Based on these considerations, the CA thus extended
There was no direct evidence indicating how the victim
the privilege of the writ to Tagitis and his family, and
actually disappeared. The direct evidence at hand only
directed the CIDG Chief, Col. Jose Volpane Pante, PNP
shows that Tagitis went out of the ASY Pension House
Chief Avelino I. Razon, Task Force Tagitis heads Gen.
after depositing his room key with the hotel desk and
Joel Goltiao and Col. Ahiron Ajirim, and PACER Chief Sr.
was never seen nor heard of again. The undisputed
Supt. Leonardo A. Espina to exert extraordinary
conclusion, however, from all concerned – the
diligence and efforts to protect the life, liberty and
petitioner, Tagitis’ colleagues and even the police
security of Tagitis, with the obligation to provide
authorities – is that Tagistis disappeared under
monthly reports of their actions to the CA. At the same
mysterious circumstances and was never seen again.
time, the CA dismissed the petition against the then
respondents from the military, Lt. Gen Alexander Yano A petition for the Writ of Amparo shall be signed and
and Gen. Ruben Rafael, based on the finding that it was verified and shall allege, among others (in terms of the
PNP-CIDG, not the military, that was involved. portions the petitioners cite):
On March 31, 2008, the petitioners moved to reconsider (c) The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved
the CA decision, but the CA denied the motion in its party violated or threatened with violation by an
Resolution of April 9, 2008. unlawful act or omission of the respondent, and how
such threat or violation is committed with the attendant
ISSUE:
circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits;
Whether or not the privilege of the Writ of Amparo
(d) The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the
should be extended to Engr. Morced Tagitis.
names, personal circumstances, and addresses of the
RULING: investigating authority or individuals, as well as the
manner and conduct of the investigation, together with
The disappearance of Engr. Morced Tagitis is classified
any report;(e) The actions and recourses taken by the
as an enforced disappearance, thus the privilege of the
petitioner to determine the fate or whereabouts of the
Writ of Amparo applies.
aggrieved party and the identity of the person
Under the UN Declaration enforced disappearance as responsible for the threat, act or omission.
"the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of
The framers of the Amparo Rule never intended Section
deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by
5(c) to be complete in every detail in stating the
persons or groups of persons acting with the
threatened or actual violation of a victim’s rights. As in
authorization, support or acquiescence of the State,
any other initiatory pleading, the pleader must of course
followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of
state the ultimate facts constituting the cause of action,
liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of
omitting the evidentiary details.76 In an Amparo
the disappeared person, which place such a person
petition, however, this requirement must be read in light
outside the protection of the law." Under this definition,
of the nature and purpose of the proceeding, which
the elements that constitute enforced disappearance
addresses a situation of uncertainty; the petitioner may
are essentially fourfold:
not be able to describe with certainty how the victim
(a) arrest, detention, abduction or any form of exactly disappeared, or who actually acted to kidnap,
deprivation of liberty; abduct or arrest him or her, or where the victim is
detained, because these information may purposely be
(b) carried out by agents of the State or persons or hidden or covered up by those who caused the
groups of persons acting with the authorization, support disappearance. In this type of situation, to require the
or acquiescence of the State; level of specificity, detail and precision that the
petitioners apparently want to read into the Amparo
Rule is to make this Rule a token gesture of judicial Nact und Nebel Erlass or Night and Fog Decree of
concern for violations of the constitutional rights to life, December 7, 1941. The Third Reich’s Night and Fog
liberty and security. Program, a State policy, was directed at persons in
occupied territories "endangering German security";
To read the Rules of Court requirement on pleadings
they were transported secretly to Germany where they
while addressing the unique Amparo situation, the test
disappeared without a trace. In order to maximize the
in reading the petition should be to determine whether
desired intimidating effect, the policy prohibited
it contains the details available to the petitioner under
government officials from providing information about
the circumstances, while presenting a cause of action
the fate of these targeted persons.
showing a violation of the victim’s rights to life, liberty
and security through State or private party action. The In the Philippines, enforced disappearances generally
petition should likewise be read in its totality, rather fall within the first two categories, and 855 cases were
than in terms of its isolated component parts, to recorded during the period of martial law from 1972 until
determine if the required elements – namely, of the 1986. Of this number, 595 remained missing, 132
disappearance, the State or private action, and the surfaced alive and 127 were found dead. During former
actual or threatened violations of the rights to life, President Corazon C. Aquino’s term, 820 people were
liberty or security – are present. reported to have disappeared and of these, 612 cases
were documented. Of this number, 407 remain missing,
The properly pleaded ultimate facts within the pleader’s
108 surfaced alive and 97 were found dead. The number
knowledge about Tagitis’ disappearance, the
of enforced disappearances dropped during former
participation by agents of the State in this
President Fidel V. Ramos’ term when only 87 cases were
disappearance, the failure of the State to release Tagitis
reported, while the three-year term of former President
or to provide sufficient information about his
Joseph E. Estrada yielded 58 reported cases.
whereabouts, as well as the actual violation of his right
KARAPATAN, a local non-governmental organization,
to liberty. Thus, the petition cannot be faulted for any
reports that as of March 31, 2008, the records show that
failure in its statement of a cause of action.
there were a total of 193 victims of enforced
If a defect can at all be attributed to the petition, this disappearance under incumbent President Gloria M.
defect is its lack of supporting affidavit, as required by Arroyo’s administration. The Commission on Human
Section 5(c) of the Amparo Rule. Owing to the summary Rights’ records show a total of 636 verified cases of
nature of the proceedings for the writ and to facilitate enforced disappearances from 1985 to 1993. Of this
the resolution of the petition, the Amparo Rule number, 406 remained missing, 92 surfaced alive, 62
incorporated the requirement for supporting affidavits, were found dead, and 76 still have undetermined
with the annotation that these can be used as the status.Currently, the United Nations Working Group on
affiant’s direct testimony. This requirement, however, Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance reports 619
should not be read as an absolute one that necessarily outstanding cases of enforced or involuntary
leads to the dismissal of the petition if not strictly disappearances covering the period December 1, 2007
followed. Where, as in this case, the petitioner has to November 30, 2008.
substantially complied with the requirement by
Under Philippine Law
submitting a verified petition sufficiently detailing the
facts relied upon, the strict need for the sworn The Amparo Rule expressly provides that the "writ shall
statement that an affidavit represents is essentially cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or
fulfilled. We note that the failure to attach the required threats thereof."We note that although the writ
affidavits was fully cured when the respondent and her specifically covers "enforced disappearances," this
witness (Mrs. Talbin) personally testified in the CA concept is neither defined nor penalized in this
hearings held on January 7 and 17 and February 18, 2008 jurisdiction. The records of the Supreme Court
to swear to and flesh out the allegations of the petition. Committee on the Revision of Rules (Committee) reveal
Thus, even on this point, the petition cannot be faulted. that the drafters of the Amparo Rule initially considered
providing an elemental definition of the concept of
The phenomenon of enforced disappearance arising
enforced disappearance:
from State action first attracted notice in Adolf Hitler’s
followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of
liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of
Justice Puno stated that, “as the law now stands, extra-
the disappeared person, which place such a person
judicial killings and enforced disappearances in this
outside the protection of the law.
jurisdiction are not crimes penalized separately from the
component criminal acts undertaken to carry out these
killings and enforced disappearances and are now
In the recent case of Pharmaceutical and Health Care
penalized under the Revised Penal Code and special
Association of the Philippines v. Duque III, we held that:
laws.”
Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can
Although the Court’s power is strictly procedural and as
become part of the sphere of domestic law either
such does not diminish, increase or modify substantive
by transformation or incorporation. The transformation
rights, the legal protection that the Court can provide
method requires that an international law be
can be very meaningful through the procedures it sets in
transformed into a domestic law through a
addressing extrajudicial killings and enforced
constitutional mechanism such as local legislation. The
disappearances. The Court, through its procedural rules,
incorporation method applies when, by mere
can set the procedural standards and thereby directly
constitutional declaration, international law is deemed
compel the public authorities to act on actual or
to have the force of domestic law.
threatened violations of constitutional rights. To state
the obvious, judicial intervention can make a difference The right to security of person in this third sense is a
– even if only procedurally – in a situation when the very corollary of the policy that the State "guarantees full
same investigating public authorities may have had a respect for human rights" under Article II, Section 11 of
hand in the threatened or actual violations of the 1987 Constitution. As the government is the chief
constitutional rights. guarantor of order and security, the Constitutional
guarantee of the rights to life, liberty and security of
The burden for the public authorities to discharge in
person is rendered ineffective if government does not
these situations, under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo,
afford protection to these rights especially when they
is twofold. The first is to ensure that all efforts at
are under threat.
disclosure and investigation are undertaken under pain
of indirect contempt from this Court when Protection includes conducting effective investigations,
governmental efforts are less than what the individual organization of the government apparatus to extend
situations require. The second is to address the protection to victims of extralegal killings or enforced
disappearance, so that the life of the victim is preserved disappearances (or threats thereof) and/or their
and his or her liberty and security restored. In these families, and bringing offenders to the bar of justice. The
senses, our orders and directives relative to the writ are duty to investigate must be undertaken in a serious
continuing efforts that are not truly terminated until the manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be
extrajudicial killing or enforced disappearance is fully ineffective.
addressed by the complete determination of the fate
and the whereabouts of the victim, by the production of Evidentiary Difficulties Posed by the Unique Nature of
the disappeared person and the restoration of his or her an Enforced Disappearance
liberty and security, and, in the proper case, by the The unique evidentiary difficulties presented by
commencement of criminal action against the guilty enforced disappearance cases; these difficulties form
parties. part of the setting that the implementation of the
During the International Convention for the Protection Amparo Rule shall encounter. These difficulties largely
of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (in Paris, arise because the State itself – the party whose
France on February 6, 2007, "enforced disappearance" is involvement is alleged – investigates enforced
considered to be the arrest, detention, abduction or any disappearances. Past experiences in other jurisdictions
other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the show that the evidentiary difficulties are generally
State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the threefold.
authorization, support or acquiescence of the State,
First, there may be a deliberate concealment of the and its officials engage in their chorus of concealment if
identities of the direct perpetrators. In addition, there the intent had not been to deny what they already knew
are usually no witnesses to the crime; if there are, these of the disappearance? Would not an in-depth and
witnesses are usually afraid to speak out publicly or to thorough investigation that at least credibly determined
testify on the disappearance out of fear for their own the fate of Tagitis be a feather in the government’s cap
lives. under the circumstances of the disappearance? From
this perspective, the evidence and developments,
Second, deliberate concealment of pertinent evidence
particularly the Kasim evidence, already establish a
of the disappearance is a distinct possibility; the central
concrete case of enforced disappearance that the
piece of evidence in an enforced disappearance
Amparo Rule covers. From the prism of the UN
Third is the element of denial; in many cases, the State Declaration, heretofore cited and quoted, evidence at
authorities deliberately deny that the enforced hand and the developments in this case confirm the fact
disappearance ever occurred. "Deniability" is central to of the enforced disappearance and government
the policy of enforced disappearances, as the absence of complicity, under a background of consistent and
any proven disappearance makes it easier to escape the unfounded government denials and haphazard
application of legal standards ensuring the victim’s handling. The disappearance as well effectively placed
human rights. Tagitis outside the protection of the law – a situation
that will subsist unless this Court acts.
Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It
means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind Given their mandates, the PNP and PNP-CIDG officials
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. and members were the ones who were remiss in their
duties when the government completely failed to
The remedy of the writ of amparo provides rapid judicial exercise the extral.'
relief as it partakes of a summary proceeding that
requires only substantial evidence to make the To fully enforce the Amparo remedy, we refer this case
appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner; it is not an back to the CA for appropriate proceedings directed at
action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof the monitoring of the PNP and the PNP-CIDG
beyond reasonable doubt, or liability for damages investigations and actions, and the validation of their
requiring preponderance of evidence, or administrative results through hearings the CA may deem appropriate
responsibility requiring substantial evidence that will to conduct.
require full and exhaustive proceedings.
9. In the Matter of the Petition for the Writ of
We note in this regard that the use of flexibility in the Amparo and the Writ of Habeas Data in Favor of
consideration of evidence is not at all novel in the Melissa C. Roxas Case Digest
Philippine legal system. In child abuse cases, Section 28 Melissa C. Roxas vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al.
of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness is
expressly recognized as an exception to the hearsay G. R. No. 189155, September 7, 2010
rule. This Rule allows the admission of the hearsay FACTS:
testimony of a child describing any act or attempted act
of sexual abuse in any criminal or non-criminal Roxas is an American citizen of Filipino descent. While in
proceeding, subject to certain prerequisites and the the United States, she is enrolled in an exposure
right of cross-examination by the adverse party. program to the Philippines with the group Bagong
Alyansang Makabayan- United States of America
CONCLUSIONS AND THE AMPARO REMEDY (BAYAN-USA) of which she is a member. During the
course of her immersion, Roxas toured various provinces
Based on these considerations, we conclude that Col.
Kasim’s disclosure, made in an unguarded moment, and towns in Central Luzon and, in April of 2009, she
volunteered to join members of BAYAN-Tarlac in
unequivocally point to some government complicity in
conducting an initial health survey in La Paz, Tarlac for a
the disappearance. The consistent but unfounded
denials and the haphazard investigations cannot but future medical mission.
point to this conclusion. For why would the government
After doing survey work on 19 May 2009, Roxas and her implicate the high-ranking civilian and military
companions, Carabeo amd Jandoc, decided to rest in the authorities.
house of Mr. Paolo in Sitio Bagong Sikat, Barangay
ISSUES:
Kapanikian, La Paz, Tarlac. At around 1:30 in the
afternoon, however, Roxas, her companions and Mr. 1. Whether or not the principle of command
Paolo were startled by the loud sounds of someone responsibility shall apply in writ of amparo?
banging at the front door and a voice demanding that 2. Whether or not the respondents are liable in her
they open-up. Suddenly 15 heavily armed men forcibly abduction and torture?
opened the door, banged inside, tied and blindfolded 3. Whether or not her prayer for the return of her
Roxas and her companions, Carabeo and Jandoc, then personal belongings be granted?
dragged them inside a van parked outside the house. 4. Whether or not her prayer for inspection order
be granted?
The armed men were all in civilian clothes and were
5. Whether or not the grant of writ of habeas data
wearing bonnets to conceal their faces.
is proper?
After about an hour of travelling, the van stopped. RULING:
Roxas, Carabeo and Jandoc were ordered to alight. After 1. It must be stated at the outset that the use by
she was informed that she was detained for being a the petitioner of the doctrine of command
member of the Communist Party of the Philippines – responsibility as the justification in impleading the
New People’s Army (CPP-NPA), Roxas was separated public respondents in her amparo petition, is legally
from her companions and was escorted to a room which inaccurate, if not incorrect. The doctrine of
she believed is a jail cell from the sound of the metal command responsibility is a rule of substantive law
that establishes liability and, by this account, cannot
doors. From there she could hear the sounds of gunfire,
be a proper legal basis to implead a party-
the noise of planes taking off and landing and some
respondent in an amparo petition. According to Fr.
construction bustle. Roxas inferred that she was taken Bernas, "command responsibility," in its simplest
to the military camp of Fort Magsaysay in Laur, Nueva terms, means the "responsibility of commanders for
Ecija. crimes committed by subordinate members of the
armed forces or other persons subject to their
On May 25, 2009, Roxas was finally released and
control in international wars or domestic conflict." In
returned to her uncle’s house in Quezon City. Before
this sense, command responsibility is properly a
being release, the abductors gave her a cellphone with a form of criminal complicity. Since the application of
sim card, a slip of paper cantaining an email address with command responsibility presupposes an imputation
password, a plastic bag containing biscuits and books, of individual liability, it is more aptly invoked in a full-
the handcuffs used on her, a blouse and a pair of shoes. blown criminal or administrative case rather than in
She was also sternly warned not to report the incident to a summary amparo proceeding. The obvious reason
the group Karapatan or else something bad will happen lies in the nature of the writ itself: The writ of
to her and her family. Sometime after her release, Roxas amparo is a protective remedy aimed at providing
continued to receive calls from one of her abductors via judicial relief consisting of the appropriate remedial
the cellular phone given to her. Out of apprehension that measures and directives that may be crafted by the
she was being monitored and also fearing for the safety court, in order to address specific violations or
of her family, Roxas threw away the cellphone. threats of violation of the constitutional rights to
life, liberty or security. While the principal objective
Roxas fied a petition for writ of amparo and writ of of its proceedings is the initial determination of
habeas data. whether an enforced disappearance, extralegal
killing or threats thereof had transpired—the writ
The Court of Appeals granted her petition for writ of does not, by so doing, fix liability for such
amparo and writ of habeas data. However, the appellate disappearance, killing or threats, whether that may
court absolved the respondents from the petition. Her be criminal, civil or administrative under the
prayer for the return of her personal belongings and for applicable substantive law. It must be clarified,
the inspection order and production order were denied. however, that the inapplicability of the doctrine of
Roxas invokes he doctrine of command responsibility to command responsibility in an amparo proceeding
does not, by any measure, preclude impleading
military or police commanders on the ground that support it, petitioner’s claim that she was taken to
the complained acts in the petition were committed Fort Magsaysay remains a mere speculation.
with their direct or indirect acquiescence. In which 3. In an order directing the public respondents to
case, commanders may be impleaded—not actually return the personal belongings of the petitioner is
on the basis of command responsibility—but rather already equivalent to a conclusive pronouncement
on the ground of their responsibility, or at least of liability. The order itself is a substantial relief that
accountability. can only be granted once the liability of the public
2. The totality of the evidence presented by the respondents has been fixed in a full and exhaustive
petitioner does not inspire reasonable conclusion proceeding. As already discussed above, matters of
that her abductors were military or police personnel liability are not determinable in a mere summary
and that she was detained at Fort Magsaysay. First. amparo proceeding. But perhaps the more
In amparo proceedings, the weight that may be fundamental reason in denying the prayer of the
accorded to parallel circumstances as evidence of petitioner, lies with the fact that a person’s right to
military involvement depends largely on the be restituted of his property is already subsumed
availability or non-availability of other pieces of under the general rubric of property rights—which
evidence that has the potential of directly proving are no longer protected by the writ of amparo.
the identity and affiliation of the perpetrators. Section 1 of the Amparo Rule, which defines the
Direct evidence of identity, when obtainable, must scope and extent of the writ, clearly excludes the
be preferred over mere circumstantial evidence protection of property rights.
based on patterns and similarity, because the 4. The prayer of Roxas for the grant of the
former indubitably offers greater certainty as to the inspection order is equivalent to sanctioning a
true identity and affiliation of the perpetrators. An "fishing expedition," which was never intended by
amparo court cannot simply leave to remote and the Amparo Rule in providing for the interim relief of
hazy inference what it could otherwise clearly and inspection order. An inspection order is an interim
directly ascertain. In the case at bench, petitioner relief designed to give support or strengthen the
was, in fact, able to include in her Offer of Exhibits, claim of a petitioner in an amparo petition, in order
the cartographic sketches of several of her to aid the court before making a decision. A basic
abductors whose faces she managed to see. To the requirement before an amparo court may grant an
mind of the Court, these cartographic sketches have inspection order is that the place to be inspected is
the undeniable potential of giving the greatest reasonably determinable from the allegations of the
certainty as to the true identity and affiliation of party seeking the order. While the Amparo Rule
petitioner’s abductors. Unfortunately for the does not require that the place to be inspected be
petitioner, this potential has not been realized in identified with clarity and precision, it is,
view of the fact that the faces described in such nevertheless, a minimum for the issuance of an
sketches remain unidentified, much less have been inspection order that the supporting allegations of a
shown to be that of any military or police personnel. party be sufficient in itself, so as to make a prima
Bluntly stated, the abductors were not proven to be facie case. This, as was shown above, petitioner
part of either the military or the police chain of failed to do. Since the very estimates and
command. Second. The claim of the petitioner that observations of the petitioner are not strong enough
she was taken to Fort Magsaysay was not to make out a prima facie case that she was detained
adequately established by her mere estimate of the in Fort Magsaysay, an inspection of the military
time it took to reach the place where she was camp cannot be ordered. An inspection order
detained and by the sounds that she heard while cannot issue on the basis of allegations that are, in
thereat. Like the Court of Appeals, the Supreme themselves, unreliable and doubtful.
Court are not inclined to take the estimate and
5. The writ of habeas data was conceptualized
observations of the petitioner as accurate on its
as a judicial remedy enforcing the right to privacy,
face—not only because they were made mostly
most especially the right to informational privacy of
while she was in blindfolds, but also in view of the
individuals. The writ operates to protect a person’s
fact that she was a mere sojourner in the Philippines,
right to control information regarding himself,
whose familiarity with Fort Magsaysay and the
particularly in the instances where such information
travel time required to reach it is in itself doubtful.
is being collected through unlawful means in order
With nothing else but obscure observations to
to achieve unlawful ends. Needless to state, an
indispensable requirement before the privilege of for which it issued a subpoena directing Lozada to
the writ may be extended is the showing, at least by appear and testify on 30 January 2008.
substantial evidence, of an actual or threatened
violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or Lozada did not appear at the Blue Ribbon Committee.
security of the victim. This, in the case at bench, the DENR Sec. Atienza announced that Lozada was in an
petitioner failed to do. The main problem behind the official trip to London. Because of this, Senate issued an
ruling of the Court of Appeals is that there is actually order (1) citing Lozada in contempt; (2) ordering his
no evidence on record that shows that any of the arrest and detention; (3) directing the sergeant-at-arms
public respondents had violated or threatened the to implement such order and make a return.
right to privacy of the petitioner. The act ascribed by
the Court of Appeals to the public respondents that Lozada asked Sec. Atienza if he can go back to the
would have violated or threatened the right to Philippines. Upon approval, he informed his family that
privacy of the petitioner, i.e., keeping records of he would be arriving in Manila, Feb 5 at 4 pm.
investigations and other reports about the
petitioner’s ties with the CPP-NPA, was not In his petition, Lozada claims that upon disembarking,
adequately proven—considering that the origin of several men held his arms and took his bag. He allegedly
such records were virtually unexplained and its insisted on joining his family but realized that it would be
existence, clearly, only inferred by the appellate wiser to go with the men when he heard them say in
court from the video and photograph released by their handheld radio ‘[H]wag kayong dumaan diyan sir
Representatives Palparan and Alcover in their press nandyan ang mga taga senado.’
conference. No evidence on record even shows that
any of the public respondents had access to such Lozada asked to go to the comfort room and while
video or photograph. In view of the above there, called his brother, Arturo and informed him of his
considerations, the directive by the Court of Appeals situation. He observed that there were several cars
enjoining the public respondents from "distributing tailing their car. Sec. Atienza called him and assured him
or causing the distribution to the public any records that he was with government people and that Sec.
in whatever form, reports, documents or similar Atienza would confer with ES and Ma’m. Lozada
papers" relative to the petitioner’s "alleged ties with surmised them to be ES Ermita and the President. He
the CPP-NPA," appears to be devoid of any legal was also told to pacify his wife, Violeta, who was making
basis. The public respondents cannot be ordered to public statements asking for her husband’s return. Along
refrain from distributing something that, in the first
the way, the men asked Lozada to draft an antedated
place, it was not proven to have.
letter requesting police protection. Lozada asked to be
brought to his home in Pasig, but was refused due to
10. Rodolfo Noel Lozada, Jr., et al. vs. Pres. Gloria security risks. They stopped at Outback restaurant to
Macapagal Arroyo, et al. meet with Atty. Antonio Bautista and Col. Mascarinas,
Lozada claimed that he was made to fill in the blanks of
G.R. Nos. 184379-80 April 24, 2012 an affidavit. He was then brought to LSGH per his
FACTS: request. He observed that policemen, purportedly
restraining his liberty and threatening the security of his,
The instant Petition stems from the alleged corruption his family and the LS brothers, guarded the perimeter of
scandal precipitated by a transaction between the LSGH.
Philippine government, represented by the National
Broadband Network (NBN), and ZTE Corporation, a On Feb 6, Col. Mascarinas supposedly brought Lozada
Chinese manufacturer of telecommunications to the office of Atty. Bautista to finalize and sign an
equipment. Former NEDA Secretary Neri sought the affidavit. On the same day his wife petitioned for Habeas
services of Lozada as an unofficial consultant in the ZTE- Corpus and his brother petitioned for a Writ of Amparo
NBN deal. The latter avers that during the course of his with the Supreme Court, and prayed for the issuance of
engagement, he discovered several anomalies in the (a) the writ of amparo; (b) a Temporary Protection Order
said transaction involving certain public officials. These (TPO); and (c) Inspection and Production Orders as
events impelled the Senate of the Philippines Blue regards documents related to the authority ordering
Ribbon Committee to conduct an investigation thereon,
custody over Lozada, as well as any other document that perpetrators by inevitably leading to subsequent
would show responsibility for his alleged abduction. investigation and action.
Lozada alleged that he was made to sign a letter As it stands, the writ of amparo is confined only to cases
requesting police protection. On 7 February 2008, of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, or
Lozada decided to hold a press conference and contact to threats thereof. Considering that this remedy is
the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms, who served the warrant aimed at addressing these serious violations of or
of arrest on him. He claimed that after his press threats to the right to life, liberty and security, it cannot
conference and testimony in the Senate, he and his be issued on amorphous and uncertain grounds, or in
family were since then harassed, stalked and cases where the alleged threat has ceased and is no
threatened. longer imminent or continuing. Instead, it must be
granted judiciously so as not to dilute the extraordinary
Respondents: Lozada had knowledge and control of
and remedial character of the writ, thus: The privilege of
what happened from the time of his arrival, he
the writ of amparo is envisioned basically to protect and
voluntarily entrusted himself to their company and was
guarantee the rights to life, liberty, and security of
never deprived of his liberty and that since Feb 8, Lozada
persons, free from fears and threats that vitiate the
has been in the custody of the Senate.
quality of this life. It is an extraordinary writ
CA’s decisions: conceptualized and adopted in light of and in response
to the prevalence of extra-legal killings and enforced
1. Habeas Corpus case moot. disappearances. Accordingly, the remedy ought to be
2. Denied issuance of Subpoena Ad Testificandum and resorted to and granted judiciously, lest the ideal sought
Presentation of Hostile Witnesses and Adverse Parties – by the Amparo Rule be diluted and undermined by the
irrelevant to Amparo Case, to require them to testify indiscriminate filing of amparo petitions for purposes
would be a fishing expedition. less than the desire to secure amparo reliefs and
protection and/or on the basis of unsubstantiated
3. Dropped Pres. Arroyo as a respondent because she allegations.
enjoys immunity from suit as president.
Writ of Amparo Denied
4. Dismissed Writ of Amparo. – Petitioners unable to
prove through substantial evidence that respondents In cases where the violation of the right to life, liberty or
violated Lozada’s right to life, liberty and security. security has already ceased, it is necessary for the
petitioner in an amparo action to prove the existence of
ISSUE: a continuing threat.
Whether circumstances are adequately alleged and In the present case, the totality of the evidence adduced
proven by petitioner Lozada to entitle him to the by petitioners failed to meet the threshold of substantial
protection of the writ of amparo? NO. evidence. Sifting through all the evidence and
ratio allegations presented, the crux of the case boils down to
assessing the veracity and credibility of the parties’
Definition: Writ of Amparo (court’s lecture) diverging claims as to what actually transpired on 5-6
February 2008. In this regard, this Court is in agreement
The writ of amparo is an independent and summary
with the factual findings of the CA to the extent that
remedy that provides rapid judicial relief to protect the
Lozada was not illegally deprived of his liberty from the
people’s right to life, liberty and security. Having been
point when he disembarked from the aircraft up to the
originally intended as a response to the alarming cases
time he was led to the departure area of the airport, as
of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances in
he voluntarily submitted himself to the custody of
the country, it serves both preventive and curative roles
respondents.
to address the said human rights violations. It is
preventive in that it breaks the expectation of impunity He was able to go to the men’s bathroom and call his
in the commission of these offenses, and it is curative in brother
that it facilitates the subsequent punishment of
He was avoiding the people from the Office of the ordered the filing of these ‘frivolous’ cases against him.
Senate Sergeant-at-Arms, detour appears to explain In any event, said purported cases are to be determined
why they did not get out at the arrival area, where based on their own merits and are clearly beyond the
[Lozada] could have passed through immigration so that realm of the instant amparo petition filed against the
his passport could be properly stamped respondents
No evidence on record that Lozada struggled or made The failure to establish that the public official observed
an outcry for help extraordinary diligence in the performance of duty does
not result in the automatic grant of the privilege of the
He testified that nobody held, shouted, or was hostile to
amparo writ. It does not relieve the petitioner from
him
establishing his or her claim by substantial evidence
He knew and agreed with the plan that he would be (Yano v. Sanchez)
fetched at the airport because at that time, it was his
Sec. 22 of the Amparo Rule proscribes the filing of an
decision not to testify before the Senate
amparo petition should a criminal action have, in the
it must be emphasized that if Lozada had in fact been meanwhile, been commenced.
illegally restrained, so much so that his right to liberty
Sec. 23, on the other hand, provides that when the
and security had been violated, the acts that manifested
criminal suit is filed subsequent to a petition for amparo,
this restraint had already ceased and has consequently
the petition shall be consolidated with the criminal
rendered the grant of the privilege of the writ ofamparo
action where the Amparo Rule shall nonetheless govern
moot.
the disposition of the relief under the Rule.
The supposed announcement of General Razon over the
In Rubrico v. Arroyo the Court interprets the above
radio that [Lozada] was in the custody of the PNP can
sections as follows: (1) the consolidation of the probe
neither be construed as a threat to [Lozada’s] life, liberty
and fact-finding aspects of the instant petition with the
and security. Certainly, no person in his right mind would
investigation of the criminal complaint before the OMB;
make that kind of media announcement if his intent was
and (2) the incorporation in the same criminal complaint
indeed to threaten somebody’s life, liberty and security
of the allegations in this petition bearing on the threats
Presence of armed men riding in motorcycle passing to the right to security. Withal, the OMB should be
outside the LSGH premises where he and his family are furnished copies of the investigation reports to aid that
staying and by alleged threats of armed men around him body in its own investigation and eventual resolution of
at places where he went to. Again, these alleged threats OMB-P-C-O7-0602-E. Then, too, the OMB shall be given
were not proven by any evidence at all, as having easy access to all pertinent documents and evidence, if
originated from any of the respondents any, adduced before the CA. Necessarily, Lourdes, as
complainant in OMB-P-C-O7-0602-E, should be
Installation of the surveillance camera at the De La Salle allowed, if so minded, to amend her basic criminal
and at St. Scholastica as indirect threat to his right to complaint if the consolidation of cases is to be fully
life, liberty and security. He claims that these are spy effective.
cameras. However, save for [Lozada’s] self-serving
claim, he simply failed to prove that they were installed APPLIED: if the Complaint filed before the DOJ had
or ordered installed by the respondents for the purpose already progressed into a criminal case, then the latter
of threatening his right to life, liberty and security action can more adequately dispose of the allegations
made by petitioners. After all, one of the ultimate
No evidence on record that the bomb threats were made objectives of the writ of amparo as a curative remedy is
by the respondents or done upon their instigation. to facilitate the subsequent punishment of perpetrators.
He did not ascertain from the Bureau of Immigration On the other hand, if there is no actual criminal case
whether his name was actually in the official watch list lodged before the courts, then the denial of the Petition
of the Bureau is without prejudice to the filing of the appropriate
administrative, civil or criminal case, if applicable,
[Lozada] himself testified that he does not know
whether the respondents or any of the respondents
against those individuals whom Lozada deems to have 11. Rev. Father Robert P. Reyes vs. Court of Appeals,
unduly restrained his liberty. et al.
No basis for interim reliefs since writ of amparo denied G.R. No. 182161 December 3, 2009
President Arroyo was not proven to be involved in the No. The right to travel refers to the right to move from
alleged violation of life, liberty and security of Lozada one place to another. Here, the restriction on
petitioner’s right to travel as a consequence of the
President Arroyo’s term as president has ended, pendency of the criminal case filed against him was not
therefore she no longer enjoys immunity, but an unlawful. Petitioner has also failed to establish that his
examination of Petitioner’s evidence reveals their failure right to travel was impaired in the manner and to the
to sufficiently establish any unlawful act or omission on extent that it amounted to a serious violation of his right
her part that violated, or threatened with violation, the to life, liberty and security, for which there exists no
right to life, liberty and security of Lozada. Except for the readily available legal recourse or remedy.
bare claims that: (a) Sec. Atienza mentioned a certain
“Ma’[a]m,” whom Lozada speculated to have referred to The writ of amparo was originally conceived as a
her, and (b) Sec. Defensor told Lozada that “the response to the extraordinary rise in the number of
President was ‘hurting’ from all the media frenzy,” there killings and enforced disappearances, and to the
is nothing in the records that would sufficiently establish perceived lack of available and effective remedies to
the link of former President Arroyo to the events that address these extraordinary concerns. Where, as in this
transpired on 5-6 February 2010, as well as to the case, there is no clear showing that the right to life,
subsequent threats that Lozada and his family liberty or security of the petitioner is immediately in
purportedly received. danger or threatened, or that the danger or threat is
continuing. Petitioner’s apprehension is at best merely The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced
speculative. disappearance or threats thereof.
Petition is dismissed. Liberty has been defined as the right to exist and the
right to be free form arbitrary restraint or servitude. The
WRIT OF AMPARO DEFINITION: Is a remedy available
term cannot be dwarfed from arbitrary into mere
to any person whose right to life, liberty,or security is
freedom from physical restraint of the person of the
violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act
citizen, but is deemed to embrace the right of man to
or omission of a public official or employee, or of a
enjoy the facilities he has been endowed by his Creator.
private individual or entity.
Security is the freedom of persons from fear, freedom
FACTS: from threat.
In the 1700s and early 1800s, the word “abortion” Every public officer within 30 days after its approval or
referred only to the termination of a pregnancy after after his assumption of office “and within the month of
“quickening,” the time when the fetus first began to January of every year thereafter”, as well as upon
make noticeable movements. The induced ending of a termination of his position, shall prepare and file with
pregnancy before this point did not even have a name– the head of the office to which he belongs, “a true
but not because it was uncommon. Women in the 1700s detailed and sworn statement of assets and liabilities,
often took drugs to end their unwanted pregnancies. including a statement of the amounts and sources of his
income, the amounts of his personal and family
In 1827, though, Illinois passed a law that made the use
expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the
of abortion drugs punishable by up to three years’
next preceding calendar year”.
imprisonment. Although other states followed the
Illinois example, advertising for “Female Monthly Pills,” Plaintiff Morfe, a judge of a CFI, contends that the
as they were known, was still common through the periodical submission “within the month of January of
middle of the 19th century. every other year thereafter” of their sworn statement of
assets and liabilities (SAL) is violative of due process as
an oppressive exercise of police power and as an The power of sovereignty, the power to govern men and
unlawful invasion of the constitutional right to privacy things within the limits of its domain (Justice Taney,
implicit on the ban against unreasonable search and going beyond curtailment of rights)
seizure construed together with the prohibition against
Anyone with an alleged grievance regarding the
self-incrimination.
extension of police power to regulatory action affecting
Executive Secretary and DOJ Sec: persons in public or private life can invoke the protection
of due process.
Acceptance of public position = voluntary assumption of
obligation It has been held that due process may be relied upon by
public official to protect the security of tenure which in a
Merely seeks to adopt a reasonable measure of insuring
limited sense is analogous to property. Therefore he
the interest of general welfare in honest and clean public
could also use due process to strike down what he
service and is therefore a legitimate exercise of police
considers as an infringement of his liberty.
power.
Under the Constitution, the challenged provision is
CFI of Pangasinan held that the requirement exceeds
allowable as long as due process is observed.
the permissible limit of the police power and is thus
offensive to the due process clause The standard for due process is REASONABLENESS.
Test: Official action must not outrun the bounds of
ISSUE/s:
reason and result in sheer oppression.
Whether the periodical submission of SAL for public
“It would be to dwell in the realm of abstractions and to
officers is: 1. An oppressive exercise of police power; 2.
ignore the harsh and compelling realities of public
Violative of due process and an unlawful invasion of the
service with its ever-present temptation to heed the call
right to privacy implicit in the ban against unreasonable
of greed and avarice to condemn as arbitrary and
search and seizure construed together with the
oppressive a requirement as that imposed upon public
prohibition against self-incrimination; 3. An insult to the
officials and employees to file such sworn statement of
personal integrity and official dignity of public officials.
assets and liabilities every two years after having done
RULING: Decision reversed. so upon assuming office…There was therefore no
unconstitutional exercise of police power.”
Ratio:
Right to privacy
Presumption of validity
Right to be let alone
Plaintiff asserted that the submission of SAL was a
reasonable requirement for employment so a public “It cannot be said that the challenged statutory
officer can make of record his assets and liabilities upon provision calls for disclosure of information which
assumption of office. Plaintiff did not present evidence infringes on the right of a person to privacy. It cannot be
to rebut the presumption of validity. denied that the rational relationship such a requirement
possesses with the objective of a valid statute goes very
“If the liberty involved were freedom of the mind or the far in precluding assent to an objection of such
person, the standard for the validity of governmental character. This is not to say that a public officer, by virtue
acts is much more rigorous and exacting, but where the of position he holds, is bereft of constitutional
liberty curtailed affects the most rights of property, the protection; it is only to emphasize that in subjecting him
permissible scope of regulatory measure is wider.” to such a further compulsory revelation of his assets and
(Ermita-Malate Hotel v. Mayor of Manila) liabilities, including the statement of the amounts of
Exercise of Police power and the defense provided by personal and family expenses, and the amount of
the Due Process Clause income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar
year, there is no unconstitutional intrusion into what
“inherent and plenary power in the state which enables otherwise would be a private sphere.”
it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety and
welfare of society” (Justice Malcolm) Unreasonable Search and Seizure
The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable 2. the need to reduce, if not totally eradicate, fraudulent
search and seizure does not give freedom from transactions and misrepresentations by persons seeking
testimonial compulsion. basic services.
A.O. No. 308 was issued by President Fidel V. Ramos on G.R. No. 202666 September 29, 2014
December 12, 1996 for the Adoption of a National FACTS:
Computerized Identification Reference System. It was
published in four newspapers of general circulation on In January 2012, Angela Tan, a high school student at St.
January. Petitioner filed the instant petition against Theresa’s College (STC), uploaded on Facebook several
respondents, on the grounds that: pictures of her and her classmates (Nenita Daluz and
Julienne Suzara) wearing only their undergarments.
1. it is a usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate,
2. it impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry’s protected Thereafter, some of their classmates reported said
zone of privacy. photos to their teacher, Mylene Escudero. Escudero,
through her students, viewed and downloaded said
ISSUE: pictures. She showed the said pictures to STC’s
Whether there is a violation of the Right to Privacy as Discipline-in-Charge for appropriate action.
enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Later, STC found Tan et al to have violated the student’s
HELD: handbook and banned them from “marching” in their
graduation ceremonies scheduled in March 2012.
The essence of privacy is the “right to be left alone.” The
right to privacy as such is accorded recognition The issue went to court but despite a TRO (temporary
independently of its identification with liberty; in itself, restraining order) granted by the Cebu RTC enjoining
it is fully deserving of constitutional protection. the school from barring the students in the graduation
ceremonies, STC still barred said students.
The Court prescind from the premise that the right to
privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Subsequently, Rhonda Vivares, mother of Nenita, and
Constitution, hence, it is the burden of government to the other mothers filed a petition for the issuance of the
show that A.O. No. 308 is justified by some compelling writ of habeas data against the school. They argued,
state interest and that it is narrowly drawn. A.O. No. 308 among others, that:
is predicated on two considerations: 1. The privacy setting of their children’s Facebook
1. the need to provides our citizens and foreigners with accounts was set at “Friends Only.” They, thus, have a
the facility to conveniently transact business with basic reasonable expectation of privacy which must be
service and social security providers and other respected.
government instrumentalities and ;
2. The photos accessed belong to the girls and, thus, reasonable expectation of privacy (right to
cannot be used and reproduced without their consent. informational privacy, that is). Thus, such privacy must
Escudero, however, violated their rights by saving digital be respected and protected.
copies of the photos and by subsequently showing them
In this case, however, there is no showing that the
to STC’s officials. Thus, the Facebook accounts of the
students concerned made use of such privacy tools.
children were intruded upon;
Evidence would show that that their post (status) on
3. The intrusion into the Facebook accounts, as well as Facebook were published as “Public”.
the copying of information, data, and digital images
Facebook has the following settings to control as to who
happened at STC’s Computer Laboratory;
can view a user’s posts on his “wall” (profile page):
They prayed that STC be ordered to surrender and
(a) Public – the default setting; every Facebook user can
deposit with the court all soft and printed copies of the
view the photo;
subject data and have such data be declared illegally
obtained in violation of the children’s right to privacy. (b) Friends of Friends – only the user’s Facebook friends
and their friends can view the photo;
The Cebu RTC eventually denied the petition. Hence,
this appeal. (c) Friends – only the user’s Facebook friends can view
the photo;
ISSUE:
(d) Custom – the photo is made visible only to particular
Whether or not the petition for writ of habeas data is
friends and/or networks of the Facebook user; and
proper.
(e) Only Me – the digital image can be viewed only by the
HELD:
user.
YES, it is proper but in this case, it will not prosper.
The default setting is “Public” and if a user wants to have
Contrary to the arguments of STC, the Supreme Court some privacy, then he must choose any setting other
ruled that: than “Public”. If it is true that the students concerned did
set the posts subject of this case so much so that only
1. The petition for writ of habeas data can be availed of
five people can see them (as they claim), then how come
even if this is not a case of extralegal killing or enforced
most of their classmates were able to view them. This
disappearance; and
fact was not refuted by them. In fact, it was their
2. The writ of habeas data can be availed of against STC classmates who informed and showed their teacher,
even if it is not an entity engaged in the business of Escudero, of the said pictures. Therefore, it appears that
“gathering, collecting, or storing data or information Tan et al never use the privacy settings of Facebook
regarding the person, family, home and correspondence hence, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy
of the aggrieved party”. on the pictures of them scantily clad.
First, the Rule on Habeas Data does not state that it can STC did not violate the students’ right to privacy. The
be applied only in cases of extralegal killings or enforced manner which the school gathered the pictures cannot
disappearances. Second, nothing in the Rule would be considered illegal. As it appears, it was the classmates
suggest that the habeas data protection shall be of the students who showed the picture to their teacher
available only against abuses of a person or entity and the latter, being the recipient of said pictures,
engaged in the business of gathering, storing, and merely delivered them to the proper school authority
collecting of data. and it was for a legal purpose, that is, to discipline their
students according to the standards of the school (to
Right to Privacy on Social Media (Online Networking which the students and their parents agreed to in the
Sites) first place because of the fact that they enrolled their
The Supreme Court ruled that if an online networking children there).
site (ONS) like Facebook has privacy tools, and the user
makes use of such privacy tools, then he or she has a