You are on page 1of 33

Page 1 of 33



-versus- Case No. ________________
For: Mandamus


Petitioner, by counsel, respectfully states:

The Philippines has obligations under international law owed not only to the
international community but also to individuals. Such is the evolution of customary
international law where natural persons now possess certain rights and obligations as
do states and international organizations. As a party to the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Philippines has expressly assumed certain of
these obligations.

However the Philippines is yet to translate some of these obligations into
concrete action. In particular, with respect to the Petitioner Mr. Albert Wilson, the
Philippines has not complied with its obligations to provide redress for the human
rights violations he has suffered under the countrys penal system. The United
Page 2 of 33
Nations Human Rights Committee found that the Philippines is in breach of its
obligations as a State Party to the ICCPR. In particular, there was a breach of the
right to dignity of all detained persons, a violation of Petitioners right to be treated in
accordance with his status as a detainee prisoner prior to his conviction, his right not
to be subjected to torture, and a violation of his due process rights during the time of
his arrest. Indeed, the prohibition against torture is recognized as non-derogable, and
no reservations are allowed to be made regarding the same under the ICCPR. The
nature of this norm prohibiting torture is also widely recognized as erga omnes, owed
to both individuals and to the community of nations, including the parties to the
ICCPR. Because this is a recognized principle of international law, it is therefore a
part of the law of the land under the incorporation clause of the 1987 Constitution,
and even much more so since such is also treaty law duly ratified by the Philippine

The Philippines must take steps to enforce its treaty obligations and make
reparations for the breach of these obligations, as evidenced by the Human Rights
Committees views and in doing so comply with its treaty obligations under the
ICCPR, and its Optional Protocol, also signed and duly ratified by the Philippines, if
it is to move forward in protecting these cherished rights that are essential to
democracy, progress and the basic values of humanity. Not only are these obligations
owed to other state parties to the Covenant, it is owed to all human beings whether
foreigners or citizens. It is an obligation of international law, and an obligation of
municipal law as well.

Despite being party to the ICCPR, there has been no implementing legislation
on the part of the Philippines towards enforcing the views of the Human Rights
Committee. Furthermore, despite the claims/response of the diplomatic arm of the
Philippine government, the Commission on Human Rights does not actually offer a
speedy and adequate remedy. Not only is it a paper tiger with merely the power to
investigate, even the findings of fact resulting from the exercise of its power to
investigate are not conclusive on any judicial or quasi-judicial body but are merely
recommendatory in nature.

Page 3 of 33
Even an action under the Civil Code filed before the Regional Trial Court is
not an appropriate remedy because such does not pertain to an international
obligation and will require a level of proof incompatible with the standards of
international human rights law as found by the Human Rights Committee.
Furthermore Petitioner cannot hope to meet the local standards of evidence and
proof given the time elapsed, his lack of access to funds, and his location in the
United Kingdom.

Given that neither statute nor other forms of law provide for a speedy,
adequate and effective remedy to enforce a finding of a breach of an ICCPR treaty
obligation as found by the Human Rights Committee, Mandamus under Rule 65 is
the proper and only remedy available to the Petitioner. Under Section 3 of Rule 65
when any officer unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, and there is no other plain,
adequate and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved
thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent,
immediately or at some other time to be specified by the court, to do the act required
to be done and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the
wrongful acts of the respondent.

In MMDA vs. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay,
a landmark case in
environmental law promulgated recently by the Supreme Court, it was held that the
nature of a continuing mandamus will lie to compel the respondents to take steps
to carry out their ministerial duty under the law.

This petition is filed within the reglementary period provided for under the
Rules of Court, i.e., sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution
or notice of the denial of a motion for reconsideration of such judgment, order or
The UN Human Rights Committee communicated its views on October
30, 2003. However Respondents have continuously refused, and are still refusing to

G.R. Nos. 171947-47, Promulgated December 18, 2008 [hereinafter the Manila Bay Case].
RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, Section 4.

Page 4 of 33
comply with its ICCPR obligations and obligations under the Optional Protocol up
to the present date. These actions constitute persistent and pervasive violations of
the Constitution and continuing breaches of domestic and international obligations,
thereby providing Petitioners cause of action to seek redress from this Honorable
Court. Despite diligent and persistent efforts to follow up with the State its
obligations to Petitioner, the State has done nothing more than make promises to
act. For this reason every day that passes with no action is a breach of the
international obligation to provide reparation. Therefore the Petition is timely.
Petitioner is mindful that Rule 65, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, sets a 60-
day period from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution within which to file
the instant petition. This Honorable Court has generally held this period to be
inextendible, on the rationale that [t]he period was specifically set to avoid any
unreasonable delay that would violate the constitutional rights of parties to a speedy
disposition of their case.
However, it should be stressed that the judicial policy
underlying the sixty-day reglementary period to file petitions under Rule 65 is not
sacrosanct, particularly when weighed against the urgent and continuing deprivation
of Petitioners right to redress and compensation for torture and other inhuman acts
he suffered under detention. It cannot be said that there has been a violation of the
right to speedy disposition of the case of either the Petitioners or the Respondents
in this instance as this is the first time that the continuing omission and inaction of
the Respondents regarding this matter is being assailed. The right to a speedy
disposition of a case is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by
vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of
the trial are asked for and secured; or when without cause or justifiable motive, a long
period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.
there has been no actual violation of the right to speedy disposition of a case, the
purpose of the rigid implementation of sixty-day reglementary period under Rule 65,
Section 4 of the Rules of Court does not exist.
Juxtaposing the absence of the rationale for the reglementary period with the
Respondents ongoing breach of Petitioners right to compensation and redress, there
is likewise a greater impetus for this Honorable Court to exercise its discretion to
liberally give due course to the instant petition and resolve the same on the merits.
This Honorable Court has not been precluded from taking cognizance of petitions

Balayan v. Acorda, G.R. No. 153537, May 5, 2006, 489 SCRA 637, at 643.
Cabarles v. Maceda et al., G.R. No. 161330, February 20, 2007, 516 SCRA 303, at 319.

Page 5 of 33
involving issues of transcendental significance, and may thus brush aside
technicalities of procedure
where the issues raised are of paramount importance to
the public.
With the Respondents continuing omission against Petitioners request and
demands for compensation, Petitioners is thus constrained to invoke this Honorable
Courts supervisory power under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners do not
have any appeal, or other plain, adequate, or speedy remedy in the ordinary course of
law. This Honorable Court has declared that a remedy is plain, speedy and adequate
if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of that judgment
and the acts of the tribunal or inferior court.
There is no such available remedy (capable of affording prompt redress for
the ongoing refusal to provide compensation for the violation of Petitioners
fundamental rights) against the Respondents continuing omission, inaction and

See Yoche v. Yoche, G.R. No. 143337, April 2, 2007;

In fine, the Court of Appeals should not have dismissed the petition for
certiorari on the ground of technicality. After all, the rules of procedure should not
be applied in a very rigid, technical sense, their only purpose being to help secure
substantial justice to the parties.

See Tamargo et al. v. Court of Appeals et al., G.R. No. 85044, June 3, 1992, 209 SCRA 518,
at 522; Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000, 338
SCRA 81, at 101; People v. Lucio Tan et al., G.R. No. 144707, July 13, 2004, 434 SCRA 234,
at 254. See also Spouses Ley v. Union Bank of the Philippines et al., G.R. No. 167961, April
3, 2007, (no SCRA available yet); Jaworski v. PAGCOR et al., G.R. No. 144463, January 14,
2004, 419 SCRA 317, at 323-324:

Granting arguendo that the present action cannot be properly treated as a
petition for prohibition, the transcendental importance of the issues involved in this
case warrants that we set aside the technical defects and take primary jurisdiction
over the petition at barThis is in accordance with the well-entrenched principle
that rules of procedure are not inflexible tools designed to hinder or delay, but to
facilitate and promote the administration of justice. Their strict and rigid application,
which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate, rather than promote
substantial justice, must always be eschewed.

Tan et al. v. Court of Appeals et al., G.R. No. 164966, June 8, 2007.

Page 6 of 33
1.0 Petitioner, Albert Wilson is a British national with residence in the
United Kingdom. He may be served with papers and court processes at the
address of counsel at 1901 Antel Corporate Center, 121 Valero Street, Salcedo
Village, Makati City, Philippines;

1.1 Public Respondent Honorable Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita
has office address at 2
Floor, Mabini Hall, Malacaang, J.P. Laurel St., San
Miguel, Manila, where he may be served with summons and other court

1.2 Public Respondent Secretary of Foreign Affairs Alberto Romulo has
office address at with office address at 2330 Roxas Blvd., Pasay City, where
she may be served with summons and other court processes;

1.3 Public Respondent Secretary of Justice Raul Gonzalez has office
address at DOJ Bldg., Padre Faura St., Manila, where she may be served with
summons and other court processes;

1.4 Public Respondent the Board of Claims of the Department of Justice
has office address at DOJ Bldg., Padre Faura St., Manila, where she may be
served with summons and other court processes;

1.5 Public Respondent the Bureau of Immigration Commissioner
Marcelino Libanan with office address at 2nd Floor Bureau of Immigration
Bldg., Magallanes Drive, Intramuros, Manila where he may be served with
summons and other court processes;
1.6 Public Respondent Bureau of Corrections under the Department of
Justice has office address at DOJ Bldg., Padre Faura St., Manila, where it may
be served with summons and other court processes;

1.7 Public Respondent Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera has office
address at 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City where he may be
served with summons and other court processes.
Page 7 of 33

2.1 The Philippines is a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights [hereinafter the Covenant], having ratified the Covenant
on February 28, 1986 and such entering into force on January 23, 1987.

2.2 The Philippines also ratified the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on
August 22, 1989 and such entered into force on November 22, 1989.

2.3 On September 16, 1996 Petitioner was arrested without a warrant as a
result of a complaint for the alleged rape of his step-daughter.

2.4 He was tried for the crime from November 6, 1996 to July 15, 1998
and the trial took place amid much publicity. On September 30, 1998, he was
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of rape by the Regional
Trial Court of Valenzuela mainly on the stepdaughters inconsistent and
contradictory testimony.

2.5 Petitioner was then placed on death row at the National Penitentiary in
Muntinlupa during which he suffered financial extortion, torture, inhuman
living conditions, and untold psychological trauma inflicted by the prison
guards and by the inmates of the detention facility with the concurrence and
sometimes, even with the participation or cooperation, of the prison guards.

2.6 On December 21, 1999, on automatic review to the Supreme Court,
the conviction was set aside
for lack of credible evidence. The High Court
ruled that the guilt of Petitioner was not shown beyond reasonable doubt, the
Ruling mainly relying on physical evidence to the contrary. The Solicitor
General itself recommended the acquittal to the Supreme Court.
2.7 The very next day, upon Petitioners release, the Bureau of
Immigration issued a hold-departure order FOR PETITIONERS

People of the Philippines vs. Albert Ernest Wilson, G.R. No. 135915, December 21, 1999.

Page 8 of 33
OVERSTAYING of his tourist visa and fined him P22, 740.00.The ruling was
affirmed despite an appeal by the British Ambassador to the Philippines.

2.8 Upon his return to the United Kingdom Petitioner sought
compensation pursuant to Republic Act 7309 under the Board of Claims
which awarded him P14, 000.00 but required that he claim it in person. He
asked for reconsideration, both for the requirement to claim it in person and
for the insufficient amount awarded, but was told that such claims were
subject to availability of funds. He has never received any amount.

2.9 Petitioner sought to return to the Philippines because his family are
residents of the Philippines, but was informed by the Bureau of Immigration
that because he overstayed his tourist visa and was convicted of a crime of
moral turpitude of rape, he could not be granted a visa unless he was issued
travel certification from the Bureau of Immigration, a piece of paper that, in
all absurdity, he was required to procure in the Philippines.

2.10 After requiring the Philippines to answer the complaint and to
rebut the allegations, the Committee decided the case and released a
Communication on November 2003, finding the Philippines in breach of its
obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in
Case no. 868/1999.

As to the authors claims under articles 7 and 10 regarding his
treatment in detention and the conditions of detention The
Committee considers that the conditions of detention as
described, as well as the violent and abusive behavior both of
certain prison guards and of other inmates, as apparently
acquiesced in by the prison authorities, are seriously in violation
of the authors right, as a prisoner, to be treated with humanity
in and with respect for his inherent dignity, in violation of
article 10, paragraph 1. As at least some of the acts of violence
against the author were committed either by the prison guards,
upon their instigation or with their acquiescence, there was also
a violation of article 7. There is also a specific violation of article
10, paragraph 2, arising from the failure to segregate the author,
pre-trial, from convicted prisoners.

Attached is a copy of the Communication from the Human Rights Committee [hereinafter, The
Communication] attached as Annex A an official and accurate copy of which is also accessible
online at, par. 2.9.
Par. 7.3 of The Communication.
Page 9 of 33
As to the claims concerning the authors mental suffering and
anguish as a consequence of being sentenced to death In
view of these aggravating factors the Committee concludes
that the authors suffering under a sentence of death amounted
to an additional violation of article 7.

The Committee concludes that the author was not informed, at
the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and was not
promptly informed of the charges against him; that the author
was arrested without a warrant and hence in violation of
domestic law; and that after the arrest the author was not
promptly brought before a judge. Consequently, there was a
violation of article 9, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Covenant.

The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5 paragraph
4 of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts as found
by the Committee reveal violations by the Philippines of article
7, article 9, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, and article 10, paragraphs 1
and 2, of the Covenant
Par. 7.4 of The Communication.
Par. 7.5 of The Communication.
Par. 8 of The Communication.
Page 10 of 33


The Philippines has the obligation to protect
petitioner from violations of human rights as
a State Party to the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights.

3.1 Under the 1987 Constitution, the Philippines adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law which therefore form part of
the law of the land. It is also axiomatic that all treaties are binding on
the State party ratifying the same and must be performed by them in
good faith.

3.2 As a State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, the Philippines has bound itself to fulfill the obligations under
the Covenant. The relevant provision reads:

Article 2
1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to
respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and
subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present
Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour,
sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or
social origin, property, birth or other status.
2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other
measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes
to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional
processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to
adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give
effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as
herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy,

Article 26, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Article 2, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR].
Page 11 of 33
notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by
persons acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have
his right thereto determined by competent judicial,
administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other
competent authority provided for by the legal system of the
State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;
(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such
remedies when granted.

3.3 In particular, the Philippines bound itself to protect various human
rights under the Covenant, mainly:

Article 10
1. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated
with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity
of the human person.

(a) Accused persons shall, save in exceptional
circumstances, be segregated from convicted persons
and shall be subject to separate treatment appropriate to
their status as unconvicted persons
Article 7
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In
particular, no one shall be subjected without his free
consent to medical or scientific experimentation
Article 9
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of
person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or
detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except
on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure
as are established by law.
2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time
of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be
promptly informed of any charges against him.

Article 10 ICCPR.
Article 7 ICCPR.
Page 12 of 33
3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall
be brought promptly before a judge or other officer
authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be
entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It
shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial
shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject
to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the
judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for
execution of the judgement.

3.4 Treaties such as the Covenant become part of the law of the land
through transformation pursuant to the Constitution which provides
that no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective
unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the

3.5 The Covenant and the Optional Protocol is such a treaty as it has been
concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of Senate.
Therefore the duties and obligations found under the Covenant are
State obligations that form part of the law of the land. Therefore by
the force of the Constitution, both the Covenant and the Optional
Protocol to the Covenant are valid and effective under the
doctrine of transformation and form part of domestic law.

3.6 However even under the doctrine of incorporation these obligations
continue to be valid and subsisting, as they form part of customary
international law and even obligations erga omnes. As stated:

Generally accepted principles of international law, by
virtue of the incorporation clause of the Constitution, form
part of the laws of the land even if they do not derive from
treaty obligations. The classical formulation in international
law sees those customary rules accepted as binding result from
the combination [of] two elements: the established,
widespread, and consistent practice on the part of States; and
a psychological element known as the opinion juris sive
necessitates (opinion as to law or necessity). Implicit in the
latter element is a belief that the practice in question is

Article 9 ICCPR.
Article VII Section 21, 1987 Constitution.
Pharmaceutical Health Care Association vs. Health Secretary Duque et al., G.R. No. 173034,
October 9, 2007.
Page 13 of 33
rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring
it. (Emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
"Generally accepted principles of international law" refers to
norms of general or customary international law which are
binding on all states, i.e., renunciation of war as an instrument
of national policy, the principle of sovereign immunity, a
person's right to life, liberty and due process, and pacta sunt
servanda, among others. The concept of "generally accepted
principles of law" has also been depicted in this wise

3.7 The Philippines through the executive branch as the executor of the
law therefore has the obligation to carry out the obligations under the
Covenant as interpreted and decided by the Human Rights Committee,
itself an organ created under the Covenant which is a duly ratified

Compelling and persuasive evidence of a
breach of this international obligation is a
finding by the Human Rights Committee in
its publicized views that the Philippines
failed in its obligation not to torture and to
prevent torture.

4.1 The Human Rights Committee in its publicized views on this case
has found that the Philippines failed in its obligations under the
Covenant, in particular:

a. Article 10 paragraph 1, 2;
b. Article 7;
c. Article 9 Paragraphs 1, 2, 3;

Mijares vs. Ranada, G.R. No. 139325, April 12, 2005, 455 SCRA 397.
See note 19.
Article 28 of the ICCPR.
See note 10 on the Views of the Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Communication No. 868/1999 (15 June 1999).
Page 14 of 33
4.2 The Philippines recognized that the Human Rights Committee is
competent to make such findings when it ratified the Optional
Protocol to the Covenant on August 22, 1989. Therefore like any
international instrument or treaty, this recognition is valid and effective
and constitutes even more reason to accord great weight and validity to
these findings of a breach of an international obligation under the

4.3 Under international law, torture is defined as any act by which severe
pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted
on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person
information or a confession, punishing him for an act he has
committed, or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or
coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on
discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by
or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public
official or other person acting in an official capacity.
Torture shall
also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended
to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or
mental capacity, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental
The prohibition against torture forms part of the body of
erga omnes obligations and part of the principles and rules concerning
the basic rights of the human person.

4.4 Everywhere in the world States have recognized that torture is
unlawful. In fact is has long been recognized by the international
community that torture is an offense to human dignity and is
condemned as a denial of the purposes of the Charter of the United
Nations and as a violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms
proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Universal Declaration on Human Rights has declared that No one

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
Article 1(1) [hereinafter the Torture Convention].
Article 2, the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.
Barcelona Traction Case, ICJ Reports, 1970, (p 3, 32).
Article 2, Resolution 3452 adopted by consensus on December 99, 1975, Universal Declaration on
Human Rights (UDHR)
Page 15 of 33
shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.

4.5 These declarations against torture have gained universal recognition,
and also evince that international community including states from all
parts of the civilized world now recognize that the prohibition on
torture as an obligation that permits no derogation
, a peremptory
norm or a jus cogens
norm defined as:

Article 53

Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general
international law(jus cogens) A treaty is void if, at the
time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory
norm of general International law. For the purposes of
the present Convention, a peremptory norm of
general international law is a norm accepted and
recognized by the international community of States
as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is
permitted and which can be modified only by a
subsequent norm of general international law
having the same character.
[emphasis supplied]

4.6 In fact, as the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia (ICTY), in a landmark decision, declared,

Because of the importance of the values [the
prohibition on torture] protects, this principle has
evolved into a peremptory norm of jus cogens, that is, a
norm that enjoys a higher rank in the international
hierarchy than treaty law and even ordinary customary
law rules. The most conspicuous consequence of this
higher rank is that the principle at issue cannot be
derogated from by States through international treaties

Article 5, UDHR.
UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Reports to General Assembly (2005, 38-39; 2004, 28;
and 2002, 32); American Convention on Human Rights (Article 5); African Charter on Human and
Peoples Rights (Article 5), Arab Charter on Human Rights (Article 13), UNCAT and European
Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment;
(The prohibition of torture and ill-treatment is specifically excluded from derogation provisions: see
Article 4(2) of the ICCPR; Articles 2(2) and 15 of the UNCAT; Article 27(2) of the American
Convention on Human Rights; Article 4(c) Arab Charter of Human Rights; Article 5 of the Inter-
American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; Articles 3 of the Declaration on the Protection
of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment).
Article 53, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Page 16 of 33
or local or special customs or even general customary
rules not endowed with the same normative force.
4.7 This is gives rise to an obligation erga omnes omnium, or obligations owed
to the international community in the general sense; Under the Torture
Convention it is an obligation for State Parties to take measures to
prevent torture and to ensure that acts of torture are legally punishable
in their jurisdiction. The Philippines has failed to observe that

The Philippines, being in breach of an
international obligation, is required to make
reparations and redress, paying damages to
compensate for the injury.

5.1 The failure of the Philippines to observe its obligations to prevent
torture and not to commit torture under the Covenant gives rise to the
commission of an internationally wrongful act which is a breach of
treaty. The acts of the prison officials in Muntinlupa and the prison
guards are considered acts of State, and acts of the Philippines, being
directly attributable under the doctrine of State organs.

5.2 Under customary international law, it has been stated that:

The conduct of any state organ shall be considered an act of
that State under international law, whether the organ exercises
legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever
position it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever
its character as an organ of the Central Government or
territorial unit of the State.

Additionally, it has also been stated that:

The conduct of an organ of a State or of a person or entity
empowered to exercise elements of governmental authority
shall be considered an act of the State under international law

Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzjia, Judgment, Trial chamber, 10 Dec. 1998.
Article 4(1) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts as adopted
by the International Law Commission.

Page 17 of 33
if the organ, person or entity acts in that capacity, even if it
exceeds its authority or contravenes instructions.
The embodiment of this principle of reparation is stated in the
following manner:

The responsible State is under an obligation to make full
reparation for the injury caused by the internationally
wrongful act.

5.3 The injury that requires reparation may also be moral damage suffered
by individuals such as individual pain and suffering.
Therefore in this
case this would be the suffering and pain inflicted on Albert Wilson
which will require reparation in the form of compensation.

5.4 Thus States are also responsible for acts committed within the apparent
or general scope of its authority. Additionally the State also bears
international responsibility by its officials or its organs which are
delictual according to international law, regardless of whether the
official organ has acted within the limits of his competency or has
exceeded those limits

5.5 As a consequence of the commission of an internationally wrongful
act, the Philippines is obliged to make reparation. Because restitution is
not possible, there may be compensation with respect to the damage.
The reparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences
of the illegal act

Article 7, Id..
Article 31(1) Articles on State Responsibility.
Article 31(2) Articles on State Responsibility.
Merlin Magallona, Fundamentals of Public International Law, p. 65 citing Brownlie, Principles of Public
International Law, 1980, p.437 citing the President of the Franco-Mexican Claims Commission;
Chorzow Factory Case, Permanent International Court of Justice (PCIJ) Series A, No. 17, 1928, p.
47; Broniowski v. Poland (Grand Chamber) (App no. 31443/96) ECHR 22 June 2004 [hereinafter
the Broniowski case], para. 189; Article 35 on the Articles of State Responsibility provides exceptions
to the obligation to provide restitution, that is, to the extent that it is not strictly possible, such as in
torture cases which the wrongful acts cannot be undone, such as in this case here- thus compensation
and satisfaction apply. See also Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation
for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International
Humanitarian Law, adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 60/147 of 16 December 2005.

Page 18 of 33

5.6 Instead of attempting in good faith to comply with these obligations
the obligations and the findings of the Committee have been denied by
the officials concerned. Instead of taking an effort to provide redress
for the human rights violations committed against Albert Wilson, the
Philippines through its consular officials replied in such a manner as to
contest the findings of the Committees decision, re-raising issues
already raised, discussed and considered, matters which are clearly res
judicata. There were no steps taken to implement the views of the
Committee. Thus there is a breach of international law obligation to
provide redress and to make good faith efforts to comply with the
views of the Committee.

The Respondents have an obligation under
international law and municipal law via the
doctrine of transformation to take steps to
prevent a similar breach of such obligation
from occurring.

6.1 The respondents also have the obligation to ensure that the jails and
places of detention in the Philippines do not violate the human rights
of detainees as laid down in the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. Unfortunately the conditions in Philippine jails and
prisons do not conform to acceptable standards as laid down in human
rights laws.

6.2 The legal community is fully aware of the terms and conditions for the
regular inspection of jails by judges to ensure that certain standards and
prevention of overcrowding are met. However the system of
inspection and visits is either inadequately enforced, not followed, or
ineffective, since conditions existed that made it possible for Petitioner
to be tortured and to be subjected to torture with the consent,
acquiescence and even participation of elements of the State, the prison
guards in this case.

Page 19 of 33
6.3 This Petition for mandamus is thus appropriate to command the
Executive Branch to fulfill a duty under law and

6.4 In the case of Broniowski v. Poland
decided by the European Court of
Human Rights (ECHR), claimant Jerzy Broniowski could not get
compensation for property lost when his grandmother was repatriated
from one side of the Polish border to the other. The forced
repatriation deprived thousands of their property. In response to this
predicament, the Polish government in that case made compensation
theoretically available. However subsequent acts and omissions later
made it clear that complete and adequate compensation was not
forthcoming. This was attributable to the fact that the State did not
make it practical and feasible for claimants to obtain compensation,
and did not enact legislation to make it possible. In the words of the
Court The Polish authorities, by imposing successive limitations on
the exercise of the applicants right to credit, and by applying the
practices that made it unenforceable and unusable in practice, rendered
that right illusory and destroyed its very essence.
6.5 That is exactly the case here. Petitioner is entitled to the protection of
basic human rights under the ICCPR and the Philippines subsequent
ratification of the Optional Protocol reinforces its recognition of the
existence of any breach as found by the Human Rights Committee.

6.6 In Broniowski, the ECHR held that there was a violation due to the
malfunctioning of domestic legislation and practice, thus denying a
whole class of individuals of their human rights protected under treaty.
The Court found that there were shortcomings in the Polish legal order
and that a breach imposed upon the State a legal obligation to adopt
measures and put an end to the violations and redress so far as possible
the effects. The State was held to be free to choose the means by
which it will discharge its legal obligations provided that such means
are compatible with the conclusions of the Court in that case.

See the Broniowski case.
Page 20 of 33
6.7 As an organ of the State, this Honorable Supreme Court thus may take
measures in the form specific orders so that the right to compensation
is not rendered illusory. Mandamus is the only available remedy to
obtain such compensation given that the Philippines has not enacted
legislation (specific statutes) or administrative measures to ensure that
victims of human rights violations are redressed in the form of
compensation and that such are enforceable, effective and offer a
realistic chance of compensation.

6.8 In making these orders this Honorable Supreme Court will be
following a mandate of both treaty law and general principles of
customary international law; thus the norm undergoes both the process
of transformation and incorporation under our Constitution.

6.9 It is a matter of judicial notice that the conditions of our jails and
prisons are unacceptable under international human rights standards, as
will be discussed extensively below.

The Philippines recognizes the competence
of the Human Rights Committee to make
determinations of Philippine compliance with
its obligations under the ICCPR.

7.1 The Philippines is a party to and has ratified the Optional Protocol to
the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

7.2 By becoming a party to this Protocol, the Philippines recognizes the
competence of the Committee to determine whether or not there has
been a violation of its obligations under the Covenant
. The relevant
provision reads thus:
The States Parties to the present Protocol,
Considering that in order further to achieve the purposes
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(hereinafter referred to as the Covenant) and the
implementation of its provisions it would be appropriate

Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ratified by the Philippines on
August 22, 1989.

Page 21 of 33
to enable the Human Rights Committee set up in part IV
of the Covenant (hereinafter referred to as the Committee)
to receive and consider, as provided in the present
Protocol, communications from individuals claiming to be
victims of violations of any of the rights set forth in the
Have agreed as follows:
Article I
A State Party to the Covenant that becomes a Party to the
present Protocol recognizes the competence of the
Committee to receive and consider communications from
individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be
victims of a violation by that State Party of any of the
rights set forth in the Covenant. No communication shall
be received by the Committee if it concerns a State Party
to the Covenant which is not a Party to the present
[emphasis provided]

7.3 The Committee not only found that the Philippines committed
violations of its obligations under the provisions of the ICCPR, but it also
concluded that there thus existed the obligation to provide
compensation to Mr. Albert Wilson for these violation of Articles 7, 9 and
10 and additionally to refund the money paid by him for the imposition of
immigration fees and visa exclusion.

7.4 The rules and standards laid down in the ICCPR and the Optional
Protocol are indeed valid and effective because such was transformed by the
concurrence to both instruments by the Philippine Senate as required by
Article VII Section 21 of the Constitution.

7.5 Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution:

Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an
instrument of national policy, adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of
the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace,
equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity with all
nations. (Emphasis supplied)

Article II, Section 2, 1987 Constitution.
Page 22 of 33
7.6 One of the generally accepted principles of international law is pacta
sunt servanda
. State parties must comply with their treaty obligations in good
faith. The Philippines has to comply with its treaty obligations in good faith,
and at least take steps to fulfill these obligations. Under the doctrine of
incorporation, the principle of pacta sunt servanda thus forms part of
municipal law.

7.7 After recognizing the Committees competence in matters regarding
the obligations under the Covenant, the Philippines therefore has the
obligation to exert reasonable efforts to fulfill obligations under the Covenant,
part and parcel of which is Philippine compliance with the views of the

7.8 Therefore the Views of the Committee form part of the law of the
land, and the Philippines has an obligation to grant reparation to Mr. Albert
Wilson for the violations of Article 7, 9 and 10 of the Covenant.

The Philippines neither complied with the
views of the Human Rights Committee nor
taken steps to comply with its obligation to
provide redress to Petitioner Mr. Albert
Wilson under the Committee views

8.1 Despite several communications made by both the Petitioner and the
Committee, the Philippines has not taken steps to comply with its
obligation to provide redress to Mr. Albert Wilson. Attached to this
Petition are the demand letters written by Mr. Wilsons counsel to the
office of the Executive Branch, including the Office of the President,
and letters written by The Redress Trust to the Philippine Embassy
and the responsible officers in the Department of Foreign Affairs.
These are attached as Annexes B to F.

8.2 As far back as August 10, 2005, the Views of the Committee were
referred by the Philippines to the Department of Justice and the
Department of Interior and Local Government. However, to date, no

Tanada v. Angara, 338 Phil. 546, 592.

Page 23 of 33
effort has been taken by any of these agencies to comply with the said

8.3 The obligation of the Philippines to provide an effective remedy is set
out in Article 2 paragraph 3 (a) of the ICCPR.

8.4 The Committee made findings that the compensation under the
domestic laws of the Philippines are not directed against violations of
these rights under the ICCPR. The Board of Claims only compensates
for unjust imprisonment, and not for the torture and other violations
committed during such imprisonment. The letters to the Executive
Branch demanding redress have yet to be acted upon.

8.5 Instead of providing redress, through its letter-responses to several
follow-ups by the Committee and The Redress Trust, the Philippines
re-raised several factual and legal issues, the issue of admissibility,
claiming that Albert Wilson failed to exhaust administrative remedies
by failing to go to the Commission on Human Rights. They also claim
that he should have instituted civil and criminal suits in Philippine
Courts. Afterwards, the Philippines claimed that the complainant failed
to discharge the burden of proof laid on him. In all, the Committee has
found the response of the State Party, the Philippines, unsatisfactory.

8.6 Furthermore in proceedings before the Committee, as laid down in
several Committee decisions, it is the State party (the Philippines in this
case) that has the unique burden of proof in such human rights cases.
This is because of the absence of direct proof in torture cases, so that if
a person is found in good condition before he was taken into custody
but injured at the time of release, a presumption of responsibility

8.7 More importantly, it has been stated that in torture cases, the burden
of proof cannot rest alone with the author of a communication,
especially considering that the author and the state party do not always

See paragraph 3.2.
Tomasi v. France, Judgment 27 August 1992, par. 108-111, European Court of Human Rights;
Ribitsch v. Austria, Judgment 04 December 1995, par. 34., 21 E.H.R.R. 573 at par. 111.
Page 24 of 33
have equal access to the evidence and that frequently the state party
alone has access to the relevant information.
The Special Rapporteur
on Torture stated that the burden of proving that a person was
subjected to torture should not fall wholly on the alleged victim. The
officials involved or their superiors should also be obliged to provide
evidence to the contrary.

8.8 Although the Office of the President has subsequently referred the
matter to the Department of Justice, the government has continued to
do nothing and has taken no action to provide compensation to the

8.9 The Philippines in its evasion of its obligations further states that there
was failure to exhaust local remedies by Petitioners failure to bring his
case before the Commission on Human Rights. Resort to the
Commission on Human Right is not the proper venue for Petitioners
cause, as its powers are purely investigative and recommendatory in

The most that may be conceded to the Commission in
the way of adjudicative power is that it may investigate, i.e.,
receive evidence and make findings of fact as regards
claimed human rights violations involving civil and political
rights. But fact finding is not adjudication, and cannot be
likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or even
a quasi-judicial agency or official.

xxx xxx xxx

But it cannot try and decide cases (or hear and determine
causes) as courts of justice, or even quasi-judicial bodies do.
To investigate is not to adjudicate or adjudge. Whether in
the popular or the technical sense, these terms have well
understood and quite distinct meanings.

xxx xxx xxx

Investigate, commonly understood, means to examine,
explore, inquire or delve or probe into, research on, study.

Mukong v. Cameroon, HRC Communication No. 458/1991, 21 July 1994.
Question on the Human Rights of all Persons Subjected to Any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment, In Particular, Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, Report of the Special Rapporteur Nigel Rodley, pursuant to Commission on Human
Rights Resolution 1997/37.
Page 25 of 33
The dictionary definition of investigate is to observe or
study closely: inquire into systematically, to search or
inquire into to subject to an official probe to conduct
an official inquiry. The purpose of investigation, of course,
is to discover, to find out, to learn, obtain information.
Nowhere included or intimated is the notion of settling,
deciding or resolving a controversy involved in the facts
inquired into by application of the law to the facts
established by inquiry.

xxx xxx xxx

Hence it is that the Commission on Human Rights, having
merely the power to investigate, cannot and should not try
and resolve on the merits the matters involved

xxx xxx xxx

The only thing the Commission can do is to refer the
matter to the appropriate Government agency or tribunal
for assistance;

xxx xxx xxx

8.10 What the Philippine government attempted to do is to require
Petitioner to seek an inefficacious remedy. In fact, international law
jurisprudence states that the State which contests the exhaustion of
administrative remedies must prove that those remedies are effective.

The European Court of Human Rights has stated that in the case of
exhaustion of remedies it is incumbent on the Government claiming
non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective
one available in theory and in practice that is to say, that it was
accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect
of the applicants complaints and offered reasonable prospects for

Carino vs. CHR, G.R. No. 96681, December 2, 1991.
Velasquez v. Rodriguez, Judgment 29 July 1988, par. 134, Inter-American Court of Human Rights;
See Mukong v. Cameroon, at note 50, Human Rights Committee.
Admissibility Case of Akdivar v. Turkey, Judgment 16 September 1996, European Court of
Human Rights [ECHR]; Markovic v. Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 11 April 1997, ECHR;
See also Decision on the Admissibility of Case No. CH/96/21 Krstan CEGAR vs. Federation of
Bosnia and Herzegovina, The Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia and Herzegovina; The African
Commission on Human and Peoples Rights, Information Sheet No. 3: Communication Procedure
(stating that complainants need only present a prima facie case then the burden shifts to the State
to submit specific responses and evidence refuting assertions contained in complainants pleadings).

Page 26 of 33
8.11 The Human Rights Committee was the only appropriate, accessible,
fair and impartial body from which Mr. Wilson could seek legal
remedies and redress for a breach of the Philippines international
obligations. To require Mr. Wilson to go to Philippine Courts and
commence a lawsuit to re-litigate and re-raise the claims would be to
ask an impossibly difficult task and to effectively doom his claim to
failure. Mr. Albert Wilson has never at any point had access to
evidence and to witnesses who will testify in his behalf regarding the
torture and inhumane conditions he suffered while incarcerated in
Philippine detention centers. As a foreigner, he does not have the
resources to pursue his claims in the Philippines. He is only able to do
so now in this Petition because of the helpful intervention and
assistance of a non-governmental organization based in London, The
Redress Trust.

Mandamus lies to compel the Respondents
who have failed to ensure that conditions of
detention and imprisonment comply with
standards laid down in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

9.1 The conditions of detention in Philippine jails are not compliant with the
treaty obligations assumed by the Philippine government under the ICCPR. In
particular, the conditions prevalent in Philippine centers of detention are
indicative of a failure to protect a persons physical integrity and are the
equivalent of torture. That these conditions exist are so established it has
become the subject of judicial notice in several criminal cases decided by the
Supreme Court.

9.2 Supporting this is the decision in People v. Dahil
, where the Court stated:

The Court, taking note of appellant's said manifestation, recalls
that in several cases in the past it has called attention to the
"incredible overcrowding of prison cells" that lead inevitably to the
formation of wolf packs, and confine prisoners "under
circumstances that strangle all sense of decency, reduce
convicts to the level of animals, and convert a prison term into
PROLONGED TORTURE and slow death. [emphasis added]

G.R. No. L-30271, June 15, 1979.

Page 27 of 33

9.3 Also in the De los Santos case,
these conditions were relied on as mitigating
circumstances to reduce the penalty imposed by law. The Court stated:
It is evident that the incredible overcrowding of the prison cells, that
taxed facilities beyond measure and the starvation allowance of ten
centavos per meal for each prisoner, must have rubbed raw the
nerves and dispositions of the unfortunate inmates, and
predisposed them to all sorts of violence to seize from their owners
the meager supplies from outside in order to eke out their miserable
All this led inevitably to the formation of gangs that preyed like
wolf packs on the weak, and ultimately to pitiless gang rivalry for
the control of the prisoners, abetted by the inability of the
outnumbered guards to enforce discipline, and which culminated in
violent riots. The government cannot evade responsibility for
keeping prisoners under such sub-human and Dantesque

9.4 There are numerous other instances
where the Supreme Court has decried
the sub-human conditions in Philippine jails that give rise to murders and riots
of detention prisoners whose cases are under appeal and which violate the
Philippines obligations under the ICCPR.

9.5 This Honorable Court thus has the opportunity in this case to bring attention
to this festering problem and to direct the Office of the President which
supervises and controls the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Jails to
take steps to protect the human rights of prisoners in the National
Penitentiary and other jails and detention centers. This is only proper given
that as the officials carrying out the execution of the penalties imposed by law,
they are also tasked to ensure that the basic human rights to life, dignity, and
the right not to be tortured are accorded all prisoners.

9.6 Certainly it will be up to the officials concerned to come up with the necessary
and specific steps to bring about this result in accordance with the ruling laid
down in the recently decided case of MMDA et al. vs. Concerned

People v. Delos Santos, 14 SCRA 4702.
G.R. No. L-46397; People vs. Garcia, 96 SCRA 497; G.R. No. L-38755.
Page 28 of 33
Residents of Manila Bay et al.
which directed the responsible executive
officials to:

A perusal of other petitioners respective charters or like
enabling statutes and pertinent laws would yield this conclusion:
these government agencies are enjoined, as a matter of statutory
obligation, to perform certain functions relating directly or
indirectly to the cleanup, rehabilitation, protection, and
preservation of the Manila Bay. They are precluded from
choosing not to perform these duties.

9.7 And even under international law as a member of an international
organization, the respondents in the said case were required to fulfill the
obligations assumed under such treaty.

Lastly, as a member of the International Marine Organization
and a signatory to the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships, as amended by MARPOL
73/78, the Philippines, through the PPA, must ensure the
provision of adequate reception facilities at ports and terminals
for the reception of sewage from the ships docking in Philippine

9.8 In the same case, the propriety of mandamus was thus set in this manner:

Under what other judicial discipline describes as continuing
the Court may, under extraordinary circumstances,
issue directives with the end in view of ensuring that its decision
would not be set to naught by administrative inaction or
indifference. In India, the doctrine of continuing mandamus was
used to enforce directives of the court to clean up the length of
the Ganges River from industrial and municipal pollution.

9.9 Therefore:

The era of delays, procrastination, and ad hoc measures is over.
Petitioners must transcend their limitations, real or
imaginary, and buckle down to work before the problem at
hand becomes unmanageable. Thus, we must reiterate that
different government agencies and instrumentalities cannot shirk
from their mandates; they must perform their basic functions in
cleaning up and rehabilitating the Manila Bay. [emphasis added]
9.10 And in a portion of the dispositive part of the decision:

The heads of petitioners-agencies MMDA, DENR, DepEd,
DOH, DA, DPWH, DBM, PCG, PNP Maritime Group, DILG,
and also of MWSS, LWUA, and PPA, in line with the principle of
continuing mandamus, shall, from finality of this

G.R. Nos. 171947-47, Promulgated December 18, 2008.

Page 29 of 33
Decision, each submit to the Court a quarterly progressive
report of the activities undertaken in accordance with this
Decision. [emphasis added]

9.11 Similarly situated to the Petitioners in the previously cited Broniowski case, a
whole class of individuals to which the petitioner in this case belongs is
deprived of the right, not only to compensation for torture suffered under
prison detention, but also for the individuals who continue to remain in such
inhuman, degrading tortuous conditions as recognized by the Supreme Court
itself. They are also entitled to relief.

Petitioner has established the requisites for
the issuance of a writ of mandamus

10.1 Under the Rules of Court, when an officer or person unlawfully
neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as
a duty, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, the person may file a verified petition alleging
the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
commanding the respondent, to do the act required to be done.

10.2 Petitioner sent demand letters
on June 19, 2008 and October 20,
2008 to the Chief Executives Office, the Office of the President,
asking that action be taken by the government to comply with its treaty
obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and its Optional Protocol as expressed by the Human Rights

10.3 On November 07, 2008 undersigned counsel received a letter from the
Office of the Executive Secretary
stating that it is referring the matter
to the Department of Justice.

10.4 However despite these efforts and several other communications and
efforts in the past, the Philippine Government through the Executive

See Rule 65, Section 3, Rules of Court.
See the copies of the demand letters which are attached as Annex B and C.
A copy of the Letter is attached as Annex G.
Page 30 of 33
Branch and its offices have either contested the existence of the breach
and the findings of the Human Rights Committee long after they have
attained finality, or have taken no action at all. Thus even if there is no
outright denial by the Executive Branch, the long standing lack of
action amounts to a denial thereof and a denial of Petitioners right to a
speedy and adequate remedy.

10.5 Thus in a last effort to obtain the relief he seeks, Petitioner is thus
constrained to file this petition for mandamus under Rule 65.


WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that this Court
issue a writ of mandamus and order that:

1. Respondents take steps to ensure that Albert Wilson is paid and given
reparation in the amount sufficient to compensate him for the torture
and abuse he suffered under the penal system of the Philippines, in
compliance with Philippine treaty obligations in the ICCPR as
embodied in the Communication of the Human Rights Committee in
Case no. 868/1999 in keeping with international law on reparations.

2. Respondents undertake continual efforts and steps to ensure that no
torture and inhuman and degrading treatment are suffered by prisoners
in the National Penitentiary and other places of detention and
imprisonment in the Philippines, in the manner laid down in the Manila
Bay case.
Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Makati City for Manila, __________, 2009.

Page 31 of 33

Counsel for Petitioner
1904 Antel Corporate Center
121 Valero Street, Salcedo Village
Makati City
Tel Nos. 750-3847 to 48/887-3893 to 94
Fax No. 887-3893

Roll No. 36976
PTR No. 1573586, 1.08.09/Makati
IBP No. 499912/ Lifetime
MCLE Exemption No. II-002169

PTR No. 1573588, 1.08.09/Makati
IBP No. 500459, Lifetime
Roll No. 36911
MCLE Compliance No.0000571

PTR No.1580064, 1.14.09/Makati
IBP No. 775414, 1.12.09, Socsargen
MCLE Compliance No. II 0015132
Roll No. 49518

PTR No. 1580066, 1.14.09/Makati
IBP No. 775416, 1.12.09/Makati
Admitted to the Bar 2008
Roll No.55681

Page 32 of 33

Copy Furnished:

Eduardo Ermita
Executive Secretary
Office of the President

Alberto Romulo
Secretary of Foreign Affairs
Department of Foreign Affairs
2330 Roxas Boulevard,
Pasay City 1300

Raul Gonzalez
Secretary of Justice
Department of Justice
Padre Faura Street, Ermita
Manila 1000

Bureau of Jail Management and Penology
144 Juco Building
Mindanao Avenue, Quezon City

Commissioner Marcelino Libanan
Bureau of Immigration
Bureau of Immigration Building, Magallanes Drive,
Intramuros, Manila

Board of Claims
Department of Justice
Padre Faura Street, Ermita
Manila 1000

Agnes Devanadera
Solicitor General
134 Amorsolo Street
Legaspi Village, Makati City


Due to the distance and lack of time, resources and available personnel, copies of
this Petition were served and filed through registered mail instead of personal service.
Page 33 of 33

I, Mr. Albert Wilson, a British national, of legal age, with address at
________________________________________________, hereby depose and
state that:

1. I am the Petitioner in the above captioned case;

2. I caused the preparation of the Petition, have read the same and certify
that the allegations therein are true and correct based on my personal
knowledge and based on authentic records.

3. I certify that I have not theretofore commenced any other action
involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or
different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; and if I should
thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending
before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions
thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to promptly inform the
aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days

Mr. Albert Wilson
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this
___________________2009, by affiant _______________, is the same person
who executed the foregoing Verification/Certification Against Forum Shopping
and appearing before me personally and exhibiting to me his ______________,
issued on _________________, at ____________________.

Doc. No. ____________
Page No. ____________
Book No. ____________
Series of 2009.