Rodriguez v.
GMA show that she should have known about the violation of his right to life, liberty or security, or
Facts:
Rodriguez claims that the military tagged the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas as an
enemy of the State under the Oplan Bantay Laya, making its members targets of extrajudicial
killings and enforced disappearances. He further claims that the soldiers of the 17th Infantry
Battalion, 5th Infantry Division of the military abducted him on September 6, 2009 and detained
and tortured him until September 17, 2009 and forced him to confess to being a member of
the NPA.
Rodriguez filed before the SC a Petition for the Writ of Amparo and Petition for the
Writ of Habeas Data with Prayers for Protection Orders, Inspection of Place, and Production of
Documents and Personal Properties. The SC granted the respective writs after finding that the
petition sufficiently alleged that Rodriguez was abducted, tortured, and later released by
members of the 17th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army and directed the CA to hear the
petition and decide on the case.
Respondents, on the other hand, allege that Rodriguez had surrendered to the
military because he wanted to get out of the NPA and offered to help the military in exchange
for protection. They allege that Rodriguez then voluntarily returned to the NPA as a double-
agent and has become a military asset.
The CA rendered its decision partially in favor of Rodriguez. It granted the prayers of
Rodriguez save for the command responsibility of GMA on account of her presidential
immunity from suit.
Issue:
W/N the doctrine of command responsibility can be used in amparo and habeas data
cases.
Held:
Yes. Command responsibility pertains to the responsibility of commanders for crimes
committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other persons subject to their
control in international wars or domestic conflict. Although originally used for ascertaining
criminal complicity, the command responsibility doctrine has also found application in civil
cases for human rights abuses. Precisely in the case at bar, the doctrine of command
responsibility may be used to determine whether respondents are accountable for and have
the duty to address the abduction of Rodriguez in order to enable the courts to devise remedial
measures to protect his rights. Clearly, nothing precludes this Court from applying the doctrine
of command responsibility in amparo proceedings to ascertain responsibility and
accountability in extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.
In her separate opinion in Rubrico, Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales pointed out that,
protection includes conducting effective investigations, organization of the government
apparatus to extend protection to victims of extralegal killings or enforced disappearances, or
threats thereof, and/or their families, and bringing offenders to the bar of justice.
But as to the responsibility of GMA, the Court ruled that aside from general
averments, Rodriguez has not presented any piece of evidence that could establish her
responsibility or accountability for his abduction. Neither was there even a clear attempt to
that she had failed to investigate, punish or prevent it.
Important Bits:
Writs of amparo and habeas data were promulgated to ensure the protection of the
peoples rights to life, liberty, and security. The rules on these writs were issued in
light of the alarming prevalence of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.
Writ of amparo an extraordinary remedy that provides rapid judicial relief, as it
partakes of a summary proceeding that requires only substantial evidence to make
the appropriate interim and permanent reliefs available to the petitioner. It serves
both preventive and curative roles in addressing the problem of extrajudicial killings
and enforced disappearances. It is preventive in that it breaks the expectation of
impunity in the commission of these offenses, and it is curative in that it facilitates
the subsequent punishment of perpetrators by inevitably leading to subsequent
investigation and action.
Writ of habeas data provides a judicial remedy to protect a persons right to control
information regarding oneself, particularly in instances where such information is
being collected through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends. As an
independent and summary remedy to protect the right to privacy, especially the
right to informational privacy, the proceedings for the issuance of the writ of habeas
data does not entail any finding of criminal, civil or administrative culpability. If the
allegations in the petition are proven through substantial evidence, then the Court
may (a) grant access to the database or information; (b) enjoin the act complained
of; or (c) in case the database or information contains erroneous data or information,
order its deletion, destruction or rectification.
To hold someone liable under the doctrine of command responsibility, the following
elements must obtain:
a) the existence of a superior-subordinate relationship between the accused
as superior and the perpetrator of the crime as his subordinate;
b) the superior knew or had reason to know that the crime was about to be
or had been committed; and
c) the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to
prevent the criminal acts or punish the perpetrators thereof.