B. Acts of State- HARVEY V. COMM.

6/28/88;
The case "In the Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of: Andrew
Harvey, John Sherman, and Adriaan Van Del Elshout" involves a
petition for habeas corpus filed by three individuals, Andrew Harvey
and John Sherman (American nationals), and Adriaan Van Elshout (a
Dutch citizen), who were apprehended by agents of the Commission
on Immigration and Deportation (CID) in the Philippines. The case
raises several issues, including the validity of their arrest, detention,
and deportation proceedings. Justice Melencio-Herrera authored the
decision, upholding the legality of their arrest and detention.

Facts:

1. Andrew Harvey and John Sherman were American nationals,

while Adriaan Van Elshout was a Dutch citizen, all residing in
Pagsanjan, Laguna, Philippines.
2. The petitioners were apprehended on February 27, 1988, by CID
agents based on Mission Orders issued by Commissioner
Miriam Defensor Santiago of the CID.
3. They were among 22 suspected alien pedophiles who were
under close surveillance by CID agents for three months.
4. Seventeen of the 22 arrested aliens chose self-deportation, one
was released for lack of evidence, and one was charged with a
different offense. Only the three petitioners chose to face
deportation.
5. Items related to child prostitution, such as photo negatives,
photos, posters, and literature, were seized during their
apprehension.
6. The "Operation Report" mentioned that Andrew Harvey was
found with two young boys, and John Sherman was found with
two naked boys in his room. Adriaan Van Elshout was noted to
have two children ages 14 and 16 in his care.

Issues:
 1. The validity of the arrest and detention: The petitioners argued
that there was no legal basis for their arrest and detention by the
Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation.
2. Violation of constitutional rights: The petitioners claimed that
their rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, as
guaranteed by the Philippine Constitution, were violated
because CID agents did not have valid warrants of arrest, search,
and seizure.
3. Grounds for arrest: The petitioners contended that mere
confidential information and suspicion were insufficient grounds
for their arrest and detention, as being a pedophile is not a crime
under Philippine law.
4. The right to bail: The petitioners challenged the denial of their
request for bail.

Court's Reasoning and Ruling:

1. The court upheld the legality of the arrest and detention, as it

was based on probable cause determined after three months of
close surveillance of the petitioners' activities. The existence of
probable cause justified the arrest and seizure of evidence
without a warrant.
2. The court held that deportation proceedings are administrative in
nature, not criminal, and do not require the same strict
adherence to warrant procedures. The arrest warrants, in this
case, were issued as a preliminary step to possible deportation.
3. The court argued that even if the arrest was initially invalid, the
subsequent formal deportation charges made the restraint
against the petitioners legal. The court cited the principle that a
writ of habeas corpus will not be granted when confinement has
become legal, even if it was initially illegal.
4. The court asserted that the arrest of the petitioners, even if they
were not "caught in the act," was legal because they were found
in compromising situations with young boys. The court
acknowledged that pedophilia is not a crime under the Revised
Penal Code but noted that it is behavior offensive to public
morals and contrary to the state's policy of protecting the well-
being of youth.
 5. The court emphasized that deportation proceedings are
administrative actions, not criminal cases. Thus, the right to bail
is a matter of discretion on the part of the Commissioner of
Immigration and Deportation, and it is not a guaranteed right for
aliens in deportation proceedings.

Acts of State: The concept of "acts of state" is not explicitly

addressed in this case. However, the court's decision emphasizes the
administrative nature of deportation proceedings and the state's
inherent authority to exclude or deport aliens when their presence is
deemed injurious to the public good and domestic tranquility. In this
context, the actions taken by the Commissioner of Immigration and
Deportation are considered acts of state, reflecting the state's
sovereign power to protect its interests and maintain public order. The
court's decision underscores the state's prerogative to control its
borders and regulate the stay of aliens within its territory, even in the
absence of specific criminal charges.

Overall, the court's ruling in this case emphasizes the distinction

between criminal and administrative proceedings, particularly in the
context of deportation, and the discretionary nature of certain rights,
such as the right to bail, in deportation proceedings.
RUBRICO V. ARROYO, 2/18/10
Facts: The Alleged Abduction of Lourdes Rubrico: The case
revolves around Lourdes Rubrico and her family. Lourdes was
allegedly abducted, leading to concerns about her safety and the
safety of her daughters, Mary Joy and Janice. The petitioners, who are
relatives of Lourdes, claimed that military and police personnel were
involved in this abduction. In response to these allegations, the
petitioners filed a petition for the writ of amparo, a legal remedy
aimed at safeguarding the rights to life, liberty, and security of
individuals under threat of extrajudicial killings, enforced
disappearances, or similar violations. The petitioners requested that
the court order the respondents to desist from threatening their
security.
The respondents in the case included high-ranking government
officials such as President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, General
Hermogenes Esperon (then AFP Chief of Staff), and P/Dir. Gen.
Avelino Razon (then PNP Chief). It was alleged that these officials
were implicated under the principle of command responsibility. The
Role of P/Supt. Romero and P/Insp. Gomez: Two police officers,
P/Supt. Romero and P/Insp. Gomez, were also named as respondents.
While the court determined that they had no direct or indirect
involvement in the alleged enforced disappearance of Lourdes, it
found that they had a duty to thoroughly investigate the abduction,
which included identifying witnesses and obtaining statements.
The Role of the Office of the Ombudsman: Allegations were made
that the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) failed to act on the
complaint against those who allegedly abducted and illegally detained
Lourdes. The OMB had initiated both criminal and administrative
proceedings based on the complaint.
Issues: Whether the petitioners had provided sufficient evidence to
support their claims of threats, harassment, and enforced
disappearance.
Whether the military, police, and the Office of the Ombudsman had
taken appropriate actions in response to the allegations.
Whether the case should be dismissed based on the provisions of the
Amparo Rule.
Court's Reasoning and Ruling: The court emphasized the importance
of substantial evidence to prove the allegations in an amparo petition.
Substantial evidence is defined as the amount of relevant evidence
that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. The court noted that General Esperon and Director
General Razon had acted promptly upon receiving the order to make a
return on the writ. Investigations were ongoing, but no definitive
findings had been reached at the time.
The court found that P/Supt. Romero and P/Insp. Gomez, both police
officers, had no direct or indirect involvement in the alleged enforced
disappearance of Lourdes. However, they had a duty to thoroughly
investigate the abduction, which included identifying witnesses and
obtaining statements, but their investigation was hampered by a lack
of cooperation from the petitioners due to a lack of trust in
government agencies. The court emphasized that the right to security
includes conducting effective investigations of extrajudicial killings,
enforced disappearances, or threats. It stated that superficial and one-
sided investigations by the military or police could breach the right to
security.
The court found that Mary Joy's charge of harassment by P/Insp.
Gomez lacked concrete evidence and was based on her bare
allegations. The court also determined that the allegations about the
Office of the Ombudsman failing to act on the complaint were
unfounded, as the OMB had initiated both criminal and administrative
proceedings based on the complaint.
The court affirmed the dismissal of President Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo from the petition for the writ of amparo. The court issued
directives to the Chief of Staff of the AFP and the Director-General of
the PNP, directing them to ensure that ongoing investigations were
pursued diligently, and to identify the respondents implicated in the
abduction. The investigations were to be completed within six
months.
The court acknowledged that there was a criminal complaint related to
the same incidents before the OMB, and while the Amparo Rule
prohibits the filing of an amparo petition when a criminal action has
been initiated, it decided to adjust its application to address the
situation appropriately. It ordered the consolidation of the amparo and
criminal cases and allowed Lourdes to amend her criminal complaint
if needed.
Concept of Acts of State: In the case you provided, which appears to
involve a writ of amparo, the concept of "acts of state" may not be
directly applicable. The writ of amparo is a legal remedy used to
protect individuals' rights to life, liberty, and security from threats or
violations, particularly by government authorities or state actors. Acts
of state, as described earlier, typically involve actions taken by a
government in the exercise of its sovereign powers, and they are
generally immune from judicial review in foreign courts. The writ of
amparo, on the other hand, is a legal mechanism within a specific
country's legal system that allows its courts to review and potentially
remedy violations of individual rights, even if those violations involve
government authorities.