LOURDES D. RUBRICO, et. al.

, petitioners,
-versus-
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, et. al.,
respondents.
G.R. No. 183871
February 18, 2010
 FACTS

• On 03 April 2007, Lourdes Rubrico, chair of

Ugnayan ng Maralita para sa Gawa Adhikan,
was abducted by armed men belonging to the
301st Air Intelligence and Security Squadron
(AISS) based in Lipa City while attending a
Lenten pabasa in Dasmarinas, Cavite.
• She was brought to and detained at the air
base without charges.
 FACTS

• She was released a week after relentless

interrogation, but only after she signed a
statement that she would be a military asset.
• Despite her release, she was tailed on at least
2 occasions.
 FACTS

• Hence, Lourdes filed a complaint with the

Office of the Ombudsman a criminal complaint
for kidnapping and arbitrary detention and
grave misconduct against Cuaresma, Alfaro,
Santana, and Jonathan, but nothing has
happened.
 FACTS

• She likewise reported the threats and

harassment incidents to the Dasmarinas
municipal and Cavite provincial police stations,
but nothing eventful resulted from their
investigation.
 FACTS

• Meanwhile, the human rights group Karapatan

conducted an investigation which indicated
that men belonging to the Armed Forces of
the Philippines (AFP) led the abduction of
Lourdes.
• Based on such information, Rubrico filed a
petition for the writ of amparo with the
Supreme Court on 25 October 2007.
 FACTS

• The Supreme Court issued the desired writ

and then referred the petition to the Court of
Appeals (CA) for summary hearing and
appropriate action.
 FACTS

• At the hearing conducted on 20 November

2007, the CA granted petitioner’s motion that
the petition and writ be served on Darwin
Sy/Reyes, Jimmy Santana, Ruben Alfaro,
Capt. Angelo Cuaresma, and Jonathan. By a
separate resolution, the CA dropped the
President (President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo)
as respondent in the case.
 FACTS

• At the hearing conducted on 20 November

2007, the CA granted petitioner’s motion that
the petition and writ be served on Darwin
Sy/Reyes, Jimmy Santana, Ruben Alfaro,
Capt. Angelo Cuaresma, and Jonathan.
• By a separate resolution, the CA dropped the
President (President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo)
as respondent in the case.
 FACTS

• On 31 July 2008, after due proceedings, the

CA rendered its partial judgment, dismissing
the petition with respect to Gen. Hermogenes
Esperon, P/Dir. Gen. Avelino Razon, Supt.
Edgar B. Roquero, P/Sr. Insp. Arsenio C.
Gomez (ret.) and the Office of the
Ombudsman.
 FACTS

• Hence, the petitioners filed a Petition for

Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court.
 ISSUE

• Whether or not the doctrine of command

responsibility is applicable in an amparo
petition.
 RULING

• No. Thus, subject to modifications, the Court

affirms the partial judgment dated July 31,
2008 of the CA.
 RATIO

• It would be inappropriate to apply to writ of

amparo proceedings the Doctrine of
Command Responsibility as a form of criminal
complicity through omission, for individual
respondents’ criminal liability, if there be any,
is beyond the reach of amparo.
 RATIO
• If command responsibility is to be invoked and
applied to amparo proceedings, it should, at most,
be only to determine the author who, at the first
instance, is accountable for, and has the duty to
address, the disappearance and harassments
complained of, so as to enable the Court to devise
remedial measures that may be appropriate under
the premises to protect rights covered by the writ of
amparo.
 RATIO
• Doctrine of Command Responsibility has little, if at
all, bearing in amparo proceedings;
• There is no Philippine law that provides for criminal
liability under the Doctrine of Command
Responsibility;
 RATIO
• The seeming reluctance on the part of the Rubricos
or their witnesses to cooperate ought not to pose a
hindrance to the police in pursuing, on its own
initiative, the investigation in question to its natural
end;
• The remedy of amparo ought to be resorted to and
granted judiciously.