Lawyerly

GR No. 178497

2014-02-04

EDITA T. BURGOS v. GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON

BRION, J.

We note and conclude, based on the developments highlighted above, that the beneficial purpose of the Writ of Amparo has been served in the present case. As we held in Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis,[23] the writ merely embodies the Court's

GR No. 183711

2014-02-04

EDITA T. BURGOS v. GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON

BRION, J.

We note and conclude, based on the developments highlighted above, that the beneficial purpose of the Writ of Amparo has been served in the present case. As we held in Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis,[23] the writ merely embodies the Court's directives to police agencies to undertake specified courses of action to address the enforced disappearance of an individual. The Writ of Amparo serves both a preventive and a curative role. It is curative as it facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators through the investigation and remedial action that it directs.[24] The focus is on procedural curative remedies rather than on the tracking of a specific criminal or the resolution of administrative liabilities. The unique nature of Amparo proceedings has led us to define terms or concepts specific to what the proceedings seek to achieve. In Razon Jr., v. Tagitis,[25] we defined what the terms "responsibility" and "accountability" signify in an Amparo case. We said:Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have been established by substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way, by action or omission, in an enforced disappearance, as a measure of the remedies this Court shall craft, among them, the directive to file the appropriate criminal and civil cases against the responsible parties in the proper courts. Accountability, on the other hand, refers to the measure of remedies that should be addressed to those who exhibited involvement in the enforced disappearance without bringing the level of their complicity to the level of responsibility defined above; or who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure; or those who carry, but have failed to discharge, the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance.[26] In the present case, while Jonas remains missing, the series of calculated directives issued by the Court outlined above and the extraordinary diligence the CHR demonstrated in its investigations resulted in the criminal prosecution of Lt. Baliaga. We take judicial notice of the fact that the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 216, has already found probable cause for arbitrary detention against Lt. Baliaga and has ordered his arrest in connection with Jonas' disappearance.[27]

GR No. 191805

2013-04-16

IN MATTER OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF AMPARO v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

SERENO, C.J.

The fair and proper rule, to our mind, is to consider all the pieces of evidence adduced in their totality, and to consider any evidence otherwise inadmissible under our usual rules to be admissible if it is consistent with the admissible evidence adduced. In other words, we reduce our rules to the most basic test of reason i.e., to the relevance of the evidence to the issue at hand and its consistency with all other pieces of adduced evidence. Thus, even hearsay evidence can be admitted if it satisfies this basic minimum test.[6] (Emphasis supplied.)

GR No. 189689

2012-11-13

IN MATTER OF PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF AMPARO IN FAVOR OF LILIBETH O. LADAGA: LILIBETH O. LADAGA v. MAJ. GEN. REYNALDO MAPAGU

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is more than a mere imputation of wrongdoing or violation that would warrant a finding of liability against the person charged.[40] The summary nature of amparo proceedings, as well as, the use of substantial evidence as standard of proof shows the intent of the framers of the rule to address situations of enforced disappearance and extrajudicial killings, or threats thereof, with what is akin to administrative proceedings.[41]

GR No. 183533

2012-09-25

IN MATTER OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO

REYES, J.

In the present case, the Court notes that the petition for the issuance of the privilege of the writs of amparo and habeas data is sufficient as to its contents. The petitioner made specific allegations relative to his personal circumstances and those of the respondents. The petitioner likewise indicated particular acts, which are allegedly violative of his rights and the participation of some of the respondents in their commission. As to the pre-requisite conduct and result of an investigation prior to the filing of the petition, it was explained that the petitioner expected no relief from the military, which he perceived as his oppressors, hence, his request for assistance from a human rights organization, then a direct resort to the court. Anent the documents sought to be the subject of the writ of habeas data prayed for, the Court finds the requirement of specificity to have been satisfied. The documents subject of the petition include the order of battle, those linking the petitioner to the CPP and those he signed involuntarily, and military intelligence reports making references to him. Although the exact locations and the custodians of the documents were not identified, this does not render the petition insufficient. Section 6(d) of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data is clear that the requirement of specificity arises only when the exact locations and identities of the custodians are known. The Amparo Rule was not promulgated with the intent to make it a token gesture of concern for constitutional rights.[19] Thus, despite the lack of certain contents, which the Rules on the Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data generally require, for as long as their absence under exceptional circumstances can be reasonably justified, a petition should not be susceptible to outright dismissal.

GR No. 184467

2012-06-19

EDGARDO NAVIA v. VIRGINIA PARDICO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

While Section 1 provides A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC's coverage, said Rules does not, however, define extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. This omission was intentional as the Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court which drafted A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC chose to allow it to evolve through time and jurisprudence and through substantive laws as may be promulgated by Congress.[45] Then, the budding jurisprudence on amparo blossomed in Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis[46] when this Court defined enforced disappearances. The Court in that case applied the generally accepted principles of international law and adopted the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance's definition of enforced disappearances, as "the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law."[47]

GR Nos. 184379-80

2012-04-24

RODOLFO NOEL LOZADA v. PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO

SERENO, J.

Sections 17 and 18 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo requires the parties to establish their claims by substantial evidence,[75] or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[76] The use of this evidentiary threshold reveals the clear intent of the framers of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo to have the equivalent of an administrative proceeding, albeit judicially conducted, in addressing amparo situations.[77]

GR Nos. 184379-80

2012-04-24

RODOLFO NOEL LOZADA v. PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO

SERENO, J.

Sections 17 and 18 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo requires the parties to establish their claims by substantial evidence,[75] or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[76] The use of this evidentiary threshold reveals the clear intent of the framers of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo to have the equivalent of an administrative proceeding, albeit judicially conducted, in addressing amparo situations.[77]

GR No. 186050

2011-12-13

ARTHUR BALAO v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

On October 9, 2008, the Writ of Amparo[6] was issued directing respondents to file their verified return together with their supporting affidavit within five days from receipt of the writ.

GR No. 191805

2011-11-15

IN MATTER OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF AMPARO v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

SERENO, J.

It bears stressing that since there is no determination of administrative, civil or criminal liability in amparo and habeas data proceedings, courts can only go as far as ascertaining responsibility or accountability for the enforced disappearance or extrajudicial killing. As we held in Razon v. Tagitis:[69]

GR Nos. 184461-62

2011-05-31

LT. COL. ROGELIO BOAC v. ERLINDA T. CADAPAN

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Thus Razon Jr. v. Tagitis [48] enlightens: [An amparo proceeding] does nor determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the disappearance [threats thereof or extrajudicial killings]; it determines responsibility, or at least accountability, for the enforced disappearance...for purposes of imposing the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance...[49] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

GR No. 189155

2010-09-07

IN MATTER OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF AMPARO v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

PEREZ, J.

The writ of amparo is a protective remedy aimed at providing judicial relief consisting of the appropriate remedial measures and directives that may be crafted by the court, in order to address specific violations or threats of violation of the constitutional rights to life, liberty or security.[106] While the principal objective of its proceedings is the initial determination of whether an enforced disappearance, extralegal killing or threats thereof had transpired--the writ does not, by so doing, fix liability for such disappearance, killing or threats, whether that may be criminal, civil or administrative under the applicable substantive law.[107] The rationale underpinning this peculiar nature of an amparo writ has been, in turn, clearly set forth in the landmark case of The Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo:[108]

GR No. 183871

2010-02-18

LOURDES D. RUBRICO v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

VELASCO JR., J.

As the law now stands, extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances in this jurisdiction are not crimes penalized separately from the component criminal acts undertaken to carry out these killings and enforced disappearances and are now penalized under the Revised Penal Code and special laws. The simple reason is that the Legislature has not spoken on the matter; the determination of what acts are criminal x x x are matters of substantive law that only the Legislature has the power to enact.[24] x x x

GR No. 183871

2010-02-18

LOURDES D. RUBRICO v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

VELASCO JR., J.

The doctrine has recently been codified in the Rome Statute[17] of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to which the Philippines is signatory. Sec. 28 of the Statute imposes individual responsibility on military commanders for crimes committed by forces under their control. The country is, however, not yet formally bound by the terms and provisions embodied in this treaty-statute, since the Senate has yet to extend concurrence in its ratification.[18]

GR No. 186640

2010-02-11

GEN. ALEXANDER B. YANO v. CLEOFAS SANCHEZ

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Meanwhile, the requirement for a government official or employee to observe extraordinary diligence in the performance of duty stresses the extraordinary measures expected to be taken in safeguarding every citizen's constitutional rights as well as in the investigation of cases of extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances.[31]

	GR No. 178497 2014-02-04	EDITA T. BURGOS v. GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON BRION, J.
We note and conclude, based on the developments highlighted above, that the beneficial purpose of the Writ of Amparo has been served in the present case. As we held in Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis,[23] the writ merely embodies the Court's
	GR No. 183711 2014-02-04	EDITA T. BURGOS v. GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON BRION, J.
We note and conclude, based on the developments highlighted above, that the beneficial purpose of the Writ of Amparo has been served in the present case. As we held in Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis,[23] the writ merely embodies the Court's directives to police agencies to undertake specified courses of action to address the enforced disappearance of an individual. The Writ of Amparo serves both a preventive and a curative role. It is curative as it facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators through the investigation and remedial action that it directs.[24] The focus is on procedural curative remedies rather than on the tracking of a specific criminal or the resolution of administrative liabilities. The unique nature of Amparo proceedings has led us to define terms or concepts specific to what the proceedings seek to achieve. In Razon Jr., v. Tagitis,[25] we defined what the terms "responsibility" and "accountability" signify in an Amparo case. We said:Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have been established by substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way, by action or omission, in an enforced disappearance, as a measure of the remedies this Court shall craft, among them, the directive to file the appropriate criminal and civil cases against the responsible parties in the proper courts. Accountability, on the other hand, refers to the measure of remedies that should be addressed to those who exhibited involvement in the enforced disappearance without bringing the level of their complicity to the level of responsibility defined above; or who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure; or those who carry, but have failed to discharge, the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance.[26] In the present case, while Jonas remains missing, the series of calculated directives issued by the Court outlined above and the extraordinary diligence the CHR demonstrated in its investigations resulted in the criminal prosecution of Lt. Baliaga. We take judicial notice of the fact that the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 216, has already found probable cause for arbitrary detention against Lt. Baliaga and has ordered his arrest in connection with Jonas' disappearance.[27]
	GR No. 191805 2013-04-16	IN MATTER OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF AMPARO v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO SERENO, C.J.
The fair and proper rule, to our mind, is to consider all the pieces of evidence adduced in their totality, and to consider any evidence otherwise inadmissible under our usual rules to be admissible if it is consistent with the admissible evidence adduced. In other words, we reduce our rules to the most basic test of reason i.e., to the relevance of the evidence to the issue at hand and its consistency with all other pieces of adduced evidence. Thus, even hearsay evidence can be admitted if it satisfies this basic minimum test.[6] (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 189689 2012-11-13	IN MATTER OF PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF AMPARO IN FAVOR OF LILIBETH O. LADAGA: LILIBETH O. LADAGA v. MAJ. GEN. REYNALDO MAPAGU PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is more than a mere imputation of wrongdoing or violation that would warrant a finding of liability against the person charged.[40] The summary nature of amparo proceedings, as well as, the use of substantial evidence as standard of proof shows the intent of the framers of the rule to address situations of enforced disappearance and extrajudicial killings, or threats thereof, with what is akin to administrative proceedings.[41]
	GR No. 183533 2012-09-25	IN MATTER OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO REYES, J.
In the present case, the Court notes that the petition for the issuance of the privilege of the writs of amparo and habeas data is sufficient as to its contents. The petitioner made specific allegations relative to his personal circumstances and those of the respondents. The petitioner likewise indicated particular acts, which are allegedly violative of his rights and the participation of some of the respondents in their commission. As to the pre-requisite conduct and result of an investigation prior to the filing of the petition, it was explained that the petitioner expected no relief from the military, which he perceived as his oppressors, hence, his request for assistance from a human rights organization, then a direct resort to the court. Anent the documents sought to be the subject of the writ of habeas data prayed for, the Court finds the requirement of specificity to have been satisfied. The documents subject of the petition include the order of battle, those linking the petitioner to the CPP and those he signed involuntarily, and military intelligence reports making references to him. Although the exact locations and the custodians of the documents were not identified, this does not render the petition insufficient. Section 6(d) of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data is clear that the requirement of specificity arises only when the exact locations and identities of the custodians are known. The Amparo Rule was not promulgated with the intent to make it a token gesture of concern for constitutional rights.[19] Thus, despite the lack of certain contents, which the Rules on the Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data generally require, for as long as their absence under exceptional circumstances can be reasonably justified, a petition should not be susceptible to outright dismissal.
	GR No. 184467 2012-06-19	EDGARDO NAVIA v. VIRGINIA PARDICO DEL CASTILLO, J.
While Section 1 provides A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC's coverage, said Rules does not, however, define extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. This omission was intentional as the Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court which drafted A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC chose to allow it to evolve through time and jurisprudence and through substantive laws as may be promulgated by Congress.[45] Then, the budding jurisprudence on amparo blossomed in Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis[46] when this Court defined enforced disappearances. The Court in that case applied the generally accepted principles of international law and adopted the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance's definition of enforced disappearances, as "the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law."[47]
	GR Nos. 184379-80 2012-04-24	RODOLFO NOEL LOZADA v. PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO SERENO, J.
Sections 17 and 18 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo requires the parties to establish their claims by substantial evidence,[75] or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[76] The use of this evidentiary threshold reveals the clear intent of the framers of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo to have the equivalent of an administrative proceeding, albeit judicially conducted, in addressing amparo situations.[77]
	GR Nos. 184379-80 2012-04-24	RODOLFO NOEL LOZADA v. PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO SERENO, J.
Sections 17 and 18 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo requires the parties to establish their claims by substantial evidence,[75] or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[76] The use of this evidentiary threshold reveals the clear intent of the framers of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo to have the equivalent of an administrative proceeding, albeit judicially conducted, in addressing amparo situations.[77]
	GR No. 186050 2011-12-13	ARTHUR BALAO v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
On October 9, 2008, the Writ of Amparo[6] was issued directing respondents to file their verified return together with their supporting affidavit within five days from receipt of the writ.
	GR No. 191805 2011-11-15	IN MATTER OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF AMPARO v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO SERENO, J.
It bears stressing that since there is no determination of administrative, civil or criminal liability in amparo and habeas data proceedings, courts can only go as far as ascertaining responsibility or accountability for the enforced disappearance or extrajudicial killing. As we held in Razon v. Tagitis:[69]
	GR Nos. 184461-62 2011-05-31	LT. COL. ROGELIO BOAC v. ERLINDA T. CADAPAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
Thus Razon Jr. v. Tagitis [48] enlightens: [An amparo proceeding] does nor determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the disappearance [threats thereof or extrajudicial killings]; it determines responsibility, or at least accountability, for the enforced disappearance...for purposes of imposing the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance...[49] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 189155 2010-09-07	IN MATTER OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF AMPARO v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO PEREZ, J.
The writ of amparo is a protective remedy aimed at providing judicial relief consisting of the appropriate remedial measures and directives that may be crafted by the court, in order to address specific violations or threats of violation of the constitutional rights to life, liberty or security.[106] While the principal objective of its proceedings is the initial determination of whether an enforced disappearance, extralegal killing or threats thereof had transpired--the writ does not, by so doing, fix liability for such disappearance, killing or threats, whether that may be criminal, civil or administrative under the applicable substantive law.[107] The rationale underpinning this peculiar nature of an amparo writ has been, in turn, clearly set forth in the landmark case of The Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo:[108]
	GR No. 183871 2010-02-18	LOURDES D. RUBRICO v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO VELASCO JR., J.
As the law now stands, extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances in this jurisdiction are not crimes penalized separately from the component criminal acts undertaken to carry out these killings and enforced disappearances and are now penalized under the Revised Penal Code and special laws. The simple reason is that the Legislature has not spoken on the matter; the determination of what acts are criminal x x x are matters of substantive law that only the Legislature has the power to enact.[24] x x x
	GR No. 183871 2010-02-18	LOURDES D. RUBRICO v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO VELASCO JR., J.
The doctrine has recently been codified in the Rome Statute[17] of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to which the Philippines is signatory. Sec. 28 of the Statute imposes individual responsibility on military commanders for crimes committed by forces under their control. The country is, however, not yet formally bound by the terms and provisions embodied in this treaty-statute, since the Senate has yet to extend concurrence in its ratification.[18]
	GR No. 186640 2010-02-11	GEN. ALEXANDER B. YANO v. CLEOFAS SANCHEZ CARPIO MORALES, J.
Meanwhile, the requirement for a government official or employee to observe extraordinary diligence in the performance of duty stresses the extraordinary measures expected to be taken in safeguarding every citizen's constitutional rights as well as in the investigation of cases of extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances.[31]

GEN. AVELINO I. RAZON v. MARY JEAN B. TAGITIS