Roxas v.

Macapagal-Arroyo
G.R. No. 189155
07 September 2010
PONENTE: Perez, J.
PARTIES:
1. PETITIONER: MELISSA ROXAS
2. RESPONDENTS: PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GILBERT TEODORO,
GEN. VICTOR IBRADO, P/DIR. GEN. JESUS AME VERZOSA, LT. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT,
PC/SIPT/ LEON NILO DELA CRUZ, MAJ.GEN. RALPH VILLANUEVA, PS/SUPT. RUDY
GAMIDO LACADIN, DEX, RC, and ROSE
NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:
1. Supreme Court: Petition for the issuance of Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data
2. Court of Appeals: Upon order of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals summarily heard the
Original Action for Petition of Amparo. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals issued a judgment
which is the subject of the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.
FACTS:
Melissa Roxas, an American citizen of Filipino descent, while in the United States, enrolled in an
exposure program to the Philippines with the group Bagong Alyansang Makabayan-United States of
America (BAYAN- USA) of which she is a member.
On 19 May 2009, after doing survey work in Tarlac, Roxas and her companions rested in the house of Mr.
Jesus Paolo in Sitio Bagong Sikat. While Roxas and her companions were resting, 15 heavily armed men
in civilian clothes forcibly entered the house and dragged them inside a van. When they alighted from the
van, she was informed that she is being detained for being a member of Communist Party of the
Philippines-New Peoples Army (CPP-NPA). She was then separated from her companions and was
brought to a room, from where she could hear sounds of gunfire, noise of planes taking off and landing,
and some construction bustle.
She was interrogated and tortured for 5 straight days to convince her to abandon her communist beliefs.
She was informed by a person named RC that those who tortured her came from the Special
Operations Group and that she was abducted because her name is included in the Order of Battle.
On 25 May 2009, Roxas was finally released and was given a cellular phone with a sim card. She was
sternly warned not to report the incident to the group Karapatan or something untoward will happen to her
and her family. After her release, Roxas continued to receive calls from RC thru the cell phone given to
her. Out of apprehension, she threw the phone and the sim card.
Hence, on 01 June 2009, Roxas filed a petition for the issuance of Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data
before the Supreme Court, impleading the high-ranking officials of military and Philippine National
Police (PNP), on the belief that it was the government agents who were behind her abduction and torture.
On 09 June 2009, the Supreme Court issued the writs and referred the case to the Court of Appeals for
hearing, reception of evidence and appropriate action. The Court of Appeals granted the privilege of writs
of amparo and habeas data. However, the court a quo absolved the respondents because it was not
convinced that the respondents were responsible for the abduction and torture of Roxas.
Aggrieved, Roxas filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.
PERTINENT ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the doctrine of command responsibility is applicable in an amparo petition.
2. Whether or not circumstantial evidence with regard to the identity and affiliation of the
perpetrators is enough ground for the issuance of the privilege of the writ of amparo.
3. Whether or not substantial evidence to prove actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy
in life, liberty or security of the victim is necessary before the privilege of the writ may be
extended.
ANSWERS:
1. No.
2. It depends. Direct evidence of identity, when obtainable must be preferred over mere
circumstantial evidence.
3. Yes.
SUPREME COURT RULINGS:
1. DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY AND THE WRIT OF AMPARO
Command responsibility as justification in impleading respondents is legally inaccurate The use of
the doctrine of command responsibility as justification in impleading the respondents in her amparo
petition, is legally inaccurate, if not incorrect. Such doctrine is a rule of substantive law that establishes
liability and, by this account, cannot be a proper legal basis to implead a party-respondent in an amparo
petition.
The Writ of Amparo as a protective remedy As held in the case of Rubrico v. Arroyo, 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. It does not fix liability for such
disappearance, killing or threats, whether that may be criminal, civil or administrative under the
applicable substantive law. Since the application of command responsibility presupposes an imputation of
individual liability, it is more aptly invoked in a full-blown criminal or administrative case rather than in a
summary amparo proceeding. However, the inapplicability of the doctrine of command responsibility
does not preclude impleading military or police commanders on the ground that the complained acts in
the petition were committed with their direct or indirect acquiescence. In which case, commanders may
be impleaded not actually on the basis of command responsibilitybut rather on the ground of their
responsibility, or at least accountability.
2. EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN AMPARO PROCEEDINGS
I n amparo proceedings, direct evidence of identity must be preferred over mere circumstantial evidence
In amparo proceedings, the weight that may be accorded to parallel circumstances as evidence of
military involvement depends largely on the availability or non-availability of other pieces of evidence
that has the potential of directly proving the identity and affiliation of the perpetrators. Direct evidence of
identity, when obtainable, must be preferred over mere circumstantial evidence based on patterns and
similarity, because the former indubitably offers greater certainty as to the true identity and affiliation of
the perpetrators.
3. EVIDENCE REQURED IN HABEAS DATA PROCEEDINGS
Substantial evidence of an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or
security of the victim is an indispensable requirement before the privilege of the writ may be extended
An indispensable requirement before the privilege of the writ may be extended is the showing, at least by
substantial evidence, of an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security
of the victim. In the case at bar, Roxas failed to show that there is an actual or threatened violation of such
right. Hence, until such time that any of the respondents were found to be actually responsible for the
abduction and torture of Roxas, any inference regarding the existence of reports being kept in violation of
the petitioners right to privacy becomes farfetched, and premature. The Court must, at least in the
meantime, strike down the grant of the privilege of the writ of habeas data.
DISPOSITIVE:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. However, it modified the directive of
the Court of the Appeals for further investigation, as follows:
1. Appointing the CHR as the lead agency tasked with conducting further investigation regarding
the abduction and torture of the petitioner. Accordingly, the CHR shall, under the norm of
extraordinary diligence, take or continue to take the necessary steps: (a) to identify the persons
described in the cartographic sketches submitted by the petitioner, as well as their whereabouts;
and (b) to pursue any other leads relevant to petitioners abduction and torture.
2. Directing the incumbent Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP), or his successor, and the
incumbent Chief of Staff of the AFP, or his successor, to extend assistance to the ongoing
investigation of the CHR, including but not limited to furnishing the latter a copy of its personnel
records circa the time of the petitioners abduction and torture, subject to reasonable regulations
consistent with the Constitution and existing laws.
3. Further directing the incumbent Chief of the PNP, or his successor, to furnish to this Court, the
Court of Appeals, and the petitioner or her representative, a copy of the reports of its
investigations and their recommendations, other than those that are already part of the records of
this case, within ninety (90) days from receipt of this decision.
4. Further directing the CHR to (a) furnish to the Court of Appeals within ninety (90) days from
receipt of this decision, a copy of the reports on its investigation and its corresponding
recommendations; and to (b) provide or continue to provide protection to the petitioner during her
stay or visit to the Philippines, until such time as may hereinafter be determined by this Court.
The Supreme Court likewise referred the case back to the Court of Appeals, for the purposes of
monitoring compliance with the above directives and determining whether, in light of any recent reports
or recommendations, there would already be sufficient evidence to hold any of the public respondents
responsible or, at least, accountable. After making such determination, the Court of Appeals shall submit
its own report with recommendation to the Supreme Court for its consideration. It was declared that the
Court of Appeals will continue to have jurisdiction over this case in order to accomplish its tasks under
this decision.