FACTS:

Melissa Roxas is an American citizen of Filipino descent.

While in the United States, Roxas enrolled in an exposure program to the Philippines
with the group Bagong Alyansang Makabayan-United States of America (BAYANUSA) of which she is a member.
During the course of her immersion, Roxas toured various provinces and towns of
Central Luzon and, in April of 2009, she volunteered to join members of BAYANTarlac in conducting an initial health survey in La Paz, Tarlac for a future medical
mission.
In pursuit of her volunteer work, Roxas brought her passport, wallet with Fifteen
Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) in cash, journal, digital camera with memory card,
laptop computer, external hard disk, IPOD, wristwatch, sphygmomanometer,
stethoscope and medicines (ITEMS).

May 19, 2009After doing survey work, Roxas and companions decided to rest in the
house of Jesus Paolo (Paolo). At 1:30pm, they were startled by people banging on the door,
demanding for them to open up. 15 armed men, with bonnets to conceal their faces
(except the leader), tied them up and blindfolded them. They were dragged into a van.

She was then blindfolded and told her story from what she remembered (while in a
blindfold)

detained for being a member of Communist Party of the Philippines-New Peoples Army
(CCP-NPA). She was separated from her companions and kept in a room with metal bars.
From the sound of gunfire, planes taking off and construction bustle, she inferred she was
in Fort Magsaysay.

She was subjected to 5 days straight of interrogation and torture to convince her to
abandon her communist beliefs and return to the fold. She had blindfolds on even while
she was sleeping and only got to take them off to take a bath and to occasionally sneak a
peek at her surroundings. She was able to learn the names of her 3 interrogators during
her stayDex, James and RC.

May 25, 2009Petitioner was released to her uncles house in QC. Her abductors gave her
a cellphone with a SIM card and an email address with a password, biscuits, books, the
handcuffs used on her, a blouse, and a pair of shoes. She was told not to report what she
went through to a group called Karapatan or something untoward will happen to her and
her family. She would receive calls on the phone occasionally. For fear for her and her
familys safety, she threw away the phone
Seeking sanctuary from all the threats, she filed with the SC a Petitioner for the Writs of
Amapro and Habeas Data against her interrogators and also impleading public officials,
police officers, and military men of the highest rank (check out the list of respondents)
because she believed that it was the government that was responsible for her abduction

She prayed:
that respondents be enjoined from harming or even approaching her family
an order be issued to inspect the detention areas in Fort Magsaysay

that respondents be ordered to produce documents relating to any reports about her case,
including intelligence reports and operations reports of the Special Operations Group of
the AFP
that respondents expunge from the records any documents pertinent to her name or any
name which sounds the same
that respondents be ordered to return her STUFF

SC issued the desired writs and referred the case to the CA for hearing and reception of evidence; SC
also directed the respondents to file their answer.

ISSUE(S): WON SHE WAS ENTITLED THE RELIEFS PRAYED FOR AND FOR THE
RETURN OF THE ITEMS TAKEN FROM HER.
HELD: REVERSED GRANT OF HABEAS DATA. DENIED PRAYER FOR RETURN OF
HER BELONGINGS.
RATIO:

Deny prayer for return of belongings

Deny prayer for inspection of detention areas in Fort Magsaysay
Reverse grant of privilege of habeas data, without prejudice to changes that might occur after
the investigation is completed
Modifying directive for further investigation:
o Appointing Commission on Human Rights (CHR) to be the lead agency in the
investigation
o Directing incumbent Chief of PNP or whoever succeeds him and the chief of staff of the
AFP to assist the CHR
o Directing PNP chief to furnish CA with copies of the investigation reports
o Directing CHR to furnish CA with copy of report and recommendations within 90 days
from receipt of this decision
Referring the case back to the CA for monitoring, determination if the abduction was indeed
performed by public respondents, and to submit the report to the SC within 10 days from the
receipt of the report from the CHR
Petitioner invokes doctrine of command responsibility in impleading the public respondents
o Incorrect. Rubrico v. Arroyo: Command responsibility refers to the responsibility of
commanders for crimes committed by their subordinate members or other persons
subject to their control in international wars or domestic conflict
o Since its application presupposes imputation of individual liability, it is invoked in
criminal cases, not amparo proceedingssee definition of writ of amapro in Sec. of
National Defense v. Manalo
However, they may be impleaded on the basis of responsibility or accountability
o Razon v. Tagitis: Responsibilityextent the actors have been established by substantial
evidence to have participated in whatever way in an enforced disappearance; the Court
may craft the directive to file an appropriate civil or criminal proceeding against them.
Accountabilitymeasure 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 or imputed with knowledge relating to the

disappearance or those who carry the burden of extraordinary diligence in the

investigation of enforced disappearances
Totality of evidence does not prove that respondents were her abductors or that she was
detained in Fort Magsaysay
o Direct evidence of identity (cartographic sketched of abductors, which Roxas was able
to describe) is accorded more weight than mere circumstantial evidence in amapro
proceedings (i.e. past abductions in Fort Magsaysay having similar circumstances as
hers)
o Given that the identities of the men in the cartographic sketches were not identified as
belonging to the military or public officials, they cannot be held liable
o Roxas is just a sojourner in the Philippines and not even a citizen, so the Court cant
rely on her inference that she was taken to Fort Magsaysay merely because the
distance from Mr. Paolos house to where they were taken felt like the distance
between the house and Fort Magsaysay
With regard prayer for the return of her belongings
o The order itself is a substantial relief that can only be granted once the liability of the
public respondents has been fixed in a full and exhaustive proceeding. Matters of
liability are not discusses in amparo cases.
Prayer for inspection of Fort Magsaysay
o Since it was not proven that Fort Magsaysay was indeed the palce where abductees
were taken, an order to inspect it would be tantamount to a fishing expedition for
evidence
o It is a rule in amapro that a place inspected must at least be identified with clarity and
precision and that allegations be sufficient in themselves to make a prima facie case
HABEAS DATA
o Conceptualized as a judicial remedy for enforcing a right to privacy, most especially the
right to informational privacy of individuals. It operates to protect a persons right to
control information regarding himself, particularly, in the instances where such
information is being collected through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful
ends
o The indispesable element is a showing, at least substantially, that a violation or
threatened violation of the right to privacy in lifem liberty or security has happened,
which the petitioner has failed to do
o There is no evidence that any of the public respondents have violated or threatened a
right to privacy of the petitioner. There wasnt even evidence that they had access to
the photos and videos
o The grant of habeas data by the CA has no legal basis
Extraordinary diligence was not exercised by the respodnents
o The reports of Task Group CAROJAN contained background checks of the abductees
but none about the abductors. They also blame the failure of their investigation on the
petitioners lack of participation. They could have used many other means, i.e. a
cartographic sketch of the unmasked abductor could have been obtained from the
testimony of Mr. Paolo