MELISSA ROXAS v.

MACAPAGAL-ARROYO (2010)

Ang kasong ito ay patungkol sa American citizen na may lahing pinoy na si Melissa Roxas. Si Melissa at
miyembro at enrollee sa programa ng Bagong-Alyansang Makabayan-United Sates of America o BAYAN-
USA. Nagpunta noon si Melissa sa Tarlac kasama si Juanito Carabeo (Carabeo) and John Edward Jandoc
(Jandoc). Nanuluyan sila sa bahay ng dating kapitan na si Jesus Paolo sa Sitio Bagong Sikat. Isang araw,
habang nagpapahinga sila ay may labinlimang armadong tao ang pumasok sa bahay ni Jesus Paolo at
dinakip si Roxas, Carabeo, at Jandoc. Sinabi ng mga armadong tao na dinakip at idedetain sila dahil
kasapi raw sila sa CPP-NPA. Ininterrogate at tinorture siya ng limang araw.Sinabi ng isang alias RC na isa
sa mga armadong tao na dinakip siya dahil napasama siya sa Order of Battle o hitlist ng military. Sinabi
rin ni alias RC na ang dumakip sa kanya ay ang Special Operations Group. Kalaunan ay binalik din si
Mellissa sa kanyang pamilya, kung kaya’t nagfile siya ng petition for writ of amparo at habeas data.

Finile ni Melissa ang writ of habeas data dahil sa alleged na violation sa right to informational privacy
niya dahil sa alegasyon ng dating heneral na si Jovito Palaparan at Pastor Alcover na nagpaparatang na
myembro si Melissa ng CPP-NPA gamit ang isang video na nagpapakita ng mga rebelde. Kahit di
napatunayan na iyong nasa video ay si Melissa ay pinakalat na rin iyong video sa publiko while
iniinsinuate na siya ay isang rebelde. Dahil ditto, grinant ng Court of Appeals ang petisyon ni Melissa.

ISSUE:

1. Dapat bang igrant ang writ of habeas data?

Hindi. Sabi ng Korte ay ang act ng pagsheshare nung video habang pinaparatangan na rebelde si Melisa
ay violation sa kanyang right to informational privacy. Dahil din sa kanyang karanasan, may threat sa
buhay, kalayaan, at seguridad niya. Ang patuloy na paggamit ng video upang akusahan siya bilang
rebelde ay nagpapalala sa mga banta sa buhay at seguridad ni Melisa, kaya dapat lamang na igrant ang
writ of habeas data. Ngunit, walang ebidensya na nagsasabing may access talaga si Palparan at Alcover
sa mga video at na sila ang nagpapamahagi ng video na iyon. Kung kaya’t, walang basehan ang paggrant
ng Writ of Habeas Data.

2. May enough bang evidence upang panagutin ang militar?

Kulang ang ebidensya. Kagaya ng napag-usapan kanina, substantial evidence ang kailangan upan
panagutin ang isang tao sa isang actual or threatened violation of the right of privacy. Sa kasong ito,
bigong maipakita ni Roxas na may aktwal or banta ng paglabag sa kanyang karapatan. Hanggang sa
mapatunayan na ang mga respondents and nagtorture at dumakip kay Melissa, hindi maaaring
panagutin ang mga respondent. Bigo niyang maipakita na ang militar talaga ang gumawa ng mga
karumal-dumal na paglabag sa kanyang mga karapatan.
 Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo
G.R. No. 189155

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:
 Supreme Court: Petition for the issuance of Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data
 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 People’s 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.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the doctrine of command responsibility is applicable in an amparo petition. YES
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. IT
DEPENDS
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. YES
 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 responsibility—
but rather on the ground of their responsibility, or at least accountability.

2. EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN AMPARO PROCEEDINGS

In 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 petitioner’s 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: 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 petitioner’s
abduction and torture. 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 petitioner’s abduction and torture, subject to reasonable regulations
consistent with the Constitution and existing laws.

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.

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.