bucayon

G.R. No. 180906

October 7, 2008

Secretary of National Defense and Chief of Staff of Armed Forces of the Philippines; Petitioners

Vs.

RAYMOND MANALO and REYNALDO MANALO;

Respondents

FACTS:

The brothers Raymond and Reynald Manalo, farmers from Bulacan were abducted, detained in various locations, tortured by Citizen Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU) on the suspicion that they were members and supporters of the New People’s Army (NPA). After eighteen (18) months of restrained liberty, torture, and other dehumanizing acts, were able to escape. Ten days after their escape, they filed a Petition for Prohibition, Injunction, and Temporary Restraining Order before the Supreme Court to prevent military officers and agents from depriving them of their right to liberty and other basic rights. Existing petition was treated as Amparo petition. The Supreme Court granted the Writ of Amparo and ordered the Court of Appeals to conduct the summary hearing and decide the petition.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not statements from the victims is sufficient for amparo petitions.

2. Whether or not actual deprivation of liberty is necessary to invoke the right to security of a person

RULING:

1. Yes. Much of the information and evidence of the ordeal will come from the victims themselves, and the veracity of their account will depend on their credibility and candidness in their written and oral statements. Their statements can be corroborated by other evidence such as physical evidence left by the torture they suffered or landmarks they can identify in the places where they were detained.

2. Yes. Covered by the privilege of the writ, respondents must meet the threshold requirement that their right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with an unlawful act or omission. The right to security of person is “freedom from fear.” In The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that “a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.” Moreover, the right to security of person is a guarantee of protection of one’s rights by the government. As the government is the chief guarantor of order and security, the Constitutional guarantee of the rights to life, liberty and security of person is rendered ineffective if government does not afford protection to these rights especially when they are under threat.

G.R. No. 183871

February 18, 2010

Lourdes Rubrico, Jean Rubrico Apruebo, and Mary Joy Rubrico Ccarbonel; Petitioners

Vs.

President Macapagal-Arroyo, Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, P/Dir. Gen Avelino Razon, Maj. Darwin Sy, Jimmy Santana, Ruben Alfaro, Capt. Angelo Cuaresma, P/Supt. Edgar Roquero, Arsenio Gomez, and Office of the Ombudsman; Respondents

FACTS:

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. he was brought to and detained at the air base without charges. She was released a week after relentless interrogation, but only after she signed a statement that she would be a military asset. After her release, she was tailed on at least 2 occasions. Hence, Lourdes filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman a criminal complaint for kidnapping and arbitrary detention and grave misconduct. Rubrico filed a petition for the writ of amparo with the Supreme Court on 25 October 2007, praying that respondents be ordered to desist from performing any threatening act against the security of petitioners and for the Ombudsman to immediately file information for kidnapping qualified with the aggravating circumstance of gender of the offended party.  The Supreme Court issued the desired writ and then referred the petition to the Court of Appeals (CA) for summary hearing and appropriate action. At the hearing conducted on 20 November 2007, the CA granted petitioner’s motion that the petition and writ be served on Darwin Sy, Santana, Alfaro, Cuaresma, and Jonathan. By a separate resolution, the CA dropped the President as respondent in the case. By a separate resolution, the CA dropped the President as respondent in the case.

After due proceedings, the CA rendered its partial judgment, dismissing the petition with respect to Esperon, Razon, Roquero, Gomez, and Ombudsman. Hence, the petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the doctrine of command responsibility is applicable in an amparo petition.

2. Whether or not the CA committed reversible error in dismissing the said Petition and dropping President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as party respondent.

RULING:

1. No. The Doctrine of Command Responsibility has little bearing in amparo proceedings. There is no Philippine law that provides for criminal liability under the Doctrine of Command Responsibility. Hence, criminal liability, if there be any, is beyond the reach of amparo.

2. No. The presidential immunity from suit remains preserved under our system of government. Settled is the doctrine that the President, during his tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or law. It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the Head of State, if he can be dragged into court litigations while serving as such.

G.R. No. 182795

June 05, 2008

Armando Q. Canlas, Miguel D. Canlas, Marrieta Pia;

Petitioners

Vs.

Napico Homeowneres Association I-XIII, INC., Et al.;

 Respondents

FACTS:

Petitioners are settlers in a certain parcel of land situated in Barangay Manggahan, Pasig City. Their dwellings or houses have either been demolished as of the time of filing of the petition, or is about to be demolished pursuant to a court judgment. They claimed that they were deprived of their liberty, freedom and  rights to shelter enshrined and embodied in our Constitution. They are aware of the opinion that this present petition should not be treated as such motions for reconsideration.  Solely, this petition is only for the possible issuance of the writ of amparo.

The petition is dismissed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was a breach of life, liberty and security.

RULING:

No. The threatened demolition of a dwelling by virtue of a final judgment of the court, which in this case was affirmed with finality by this Court in G.R. Nos. 177448, 180768, 177701, 177038, is not included among the enumeration of rights as stated in the Section 1 for which the remedy of a writ of amparo is made available. Their claim to their dwelling, assuming they still have any despite the final and executory judgment adverse to them, does not constitute right to life, liberty and security. There is, therefore, no legal basis for the issuance of the writ of amparo.

No writ of amparo may be issued unless there is a clear allegation of the supposed factual and legal basis of the right sought to be protected.

This new remedy of writ of amparo which is made available by this Court is intended for the protection of the highest possible rights of any person, which is his or her right to life, liberty and security.  The Court will not spare any time or effort on its part in order to give priority to petitions of this nature.  However, the Court will also not waste its precious time and effort on matters not covered by the writ.