Lozada v.

Macapagal-Arroyo
G.R. No. 184379-80 April 24, 2012 Sereno, J. Tan de Guzman
Petitioners:
RODOLFO NOEL LOZADA, JR., VIOLETA LOZADA and ARTURO LOZADA
Respondents:
PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, EDUARDO ERMITA, AVELINO RAZON,
ANGEL ATUTUBO and SPO4 ROGER VALEROSO

FACTS:

The instant Petition stems from the alleged corruption scandal precipitated by a transaction
between the Philippine government, represented by the National Broadband Network (NBN),
and ZTE Corporation, a Chinese manufacturer of telecommunications equipment. Former
NEDA Secretary Neri sought the services of Lozada as an unofficial consultant in the ZTE-NBN
deal. The latter avers that during the course of his engagement, he discovered several
anomalies in the said transaction involving certain public officials. These events impelled the
Senate of the Philippines Blue Ribbon Committee to conduct an investigation thereon, for which
it issued a subpoena directing Lozada to appear and testify on 30 January 2008. Lozada did not
appear at the Blue Ribbon Committee. DENR Sec. Atienza announced that Lozada was in an
official trip to London. Because of this, Senate issued an order (1) citing Lozada in contempt; (2)
ordering his arrest and detention; (3) directing the sergeant-at-arms to implement such order
and make a return. Lozada asked Sec. Atienza if he can go back to the Philippines. Upon
approval, he informed his family that he would be arriving in Manila, Feb 5 at 4 pm. In his
petition, Lozada claims that upon disembarking, several men held his arms and took his bag. He
allegedly insisted on joining his family but realized that it would be wiser to go with the men
when he heard them say in their handheld radio “Huwag kayong dumaan diyan sir nandyan ang
mga taga senado.” Lozada asked to go to the comfort room and while there, called his brother,
Arturo and informed him of his situation. He observed that there were several cars tailing their
car. Sec. Atienza called him and assured him that he was with government people and that Sec.
Atienza would confer with ES and Ma’m. Lozada surmised them to be ES Ermita and the
President. He was also told to pacify his wife, Violeta, who was making public statements asking
for her husband’s return. Along the way, the men asked Lozada to draft an antedated letter
requesting police protection. Lozada asked to be brought to his home in Pasig, but was refused
due to security risks. They stopped at Outback restaurant to meet with Atty. Antonio Bautista
and Col. Mascarinas, Lozada claimed that he was made to fill in the blanks of an affidavit. He
was then brought to LSGH per his request. He observed that policemen, purportedly restraining
his liberty and threatening the security of his, his family and the LS brothers, guarded the
perimeter of LSGH. On Feb 6, Col. Mascarinas supposedly brought Lozada to the office of Atty.
Bautista to finalize and sign an affidavit. On the same day his wife petitioned for Habeas Corpus
and his brother petitioned for a Writ of Amparo with the Supreme Court, and prayed for the
issuance of (a) the writ of amparo; (b) a Temporary Protection Order (TPO); and (c) Inspection
and Production Orders as regards documents related to the authority ordering custody over
Lozada, as well as any other document that would show responsibility for his alleged abduction.
Lozada alleged that he was made to sign a letter requesting police protection. On 7 February
2008, Lozada decided to hold a press conference and contact the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms,
who served the warrant of arrest on him. He claimed that after his press conference and
testimony in the Senate, he and his family were since then harassed, stalked and threatened.

ISSUE:

1. Whether circumstances are adequately alleged and proven by petitioner Lozada to

entitle him to the protection of the writ of amparo?

HELD:

NO. In cases where the violation of the right to life, liberty or security has already ceased, it is
necessary for the petitioner in an amparo action to prove the existence of a continuing threat. In
the present case, the totality of the evidence adduced by petitioners failed to meet the threshold
of substantial evidence.

Writ of Amparo Denied,

In cases where the violation of the right to life, liberty or security has already ceased, it is
necessary for the petitioner in an amparo action to prove the existence of a continuing threat.

In this regard, this Court is in agreement with the factual findings of the CA to the extent that
Lozada was not illegally deprived of his liberty from the point when he disembarked from the
aircraft up to the time he was led to the departure area of the airport, as he voluntarily submitted
himself to the custody of respondents.
 He was able to go to the men’s bathroom and call his brother
 He was avoiding the people from the Office of the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms, detour appears
to explain why they did not get out at the arrival area, where [Lozada] could have passed
through immigration so that his passport

 He was able to go to the men’s

bathroom and call his brother
 He was avoiding the people from
the Office of the Senate Sergeant-
at-Arms, detour appears to explain
why