•FACTS: The siblings of James Balao, and Longid (petitioners), filed with the RTC of La

Trinidad, Benguet a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in favor of James Balao who
was abducted by unidentified armed men earlier. Named respondents in the petition were
then President GMA, Exec Sec Eduardo Ermita, Defense Sec Gilberto Teodoro, Jr., ILG
Secretary Ronaldo Puno, National Security Adviser (NSA) Norberto Gonzales, AFP Chief of

BALAO et
Staff Gen. Alexander . Yano, PNP Police Director General Jesus Verzosa, among others.

•James M. Balao is a Psychology and Economics graduate of the UP-Baguio. In 1984, he was
among those who founded the Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA), a coalition of NGOs working

al vs. GMA , for the cause of indigenous peoples in the Cordillera Region.
 
•According to witnesses’ testimony, James was abducted by unidentified men, saying they

G.R. No. were policemen and were arresting him for a drugs case and then made to ride a white van.

•Petitioners prayed for the issuance of a writ of amparo and likewise prayed for (1) an

186050, inspection order for the inspection of at least 11 military and police facilities which have
been previously reported as detention centers for activists abducted by military and police
operatives; (2) a production order for all documents that contain evidence relevant to the

December petition, particularly the Order of Battle List and any record or dossier respondents have on
James; and (3) a witness protection order.

13, 2011
•The RTC issued the assailed judgment, disposing as follows:

•ISSUE a Writ of Amparo Ordering the respondents to (a) disclose where James is detained or
confined, (b) to release James considering his unlawful detention since his abduction and (c)
to cease and desist from further inflicting harm upon his person; and
 
•DENY the issuance of INSPECTION ORDER, PRODUCTION ORDER and WITNESS PROTECTION
ORDER for failure of herein Petitioners to comply with the stringent provisions on the Rule on
the Writ of Amparo and substantiate the same.
 •HELD: NO. The Rule on the Writ of Amparo was promulgated on
October 24, 2007 amidst rising incidence of “extralegal killings” and
“enforced disappearances.” It was formulated in the exercise of this
ISSUE: Whether the Court’s expanded rule-making power for the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights enshrined in the 1987

totality of evidence Constitution, albeit limited to these two situations. “Extralegal

killings” refer to killings committed without due process of law, i.e.,
without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings. On the other hand,
satisfies the degree “enforced disappearances” are attended by the following
characteristics: an arrest, detention, or abduction of a person by a

of proof required by government official or organized groups or private individuals acting

with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the government; the
refusal of the State to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person
the Amparo Rule to concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty
which places such person outside the protection of law.
establish an  
•The trial court gave considerable weight to the discussion in the
enforced petition of briefing papers supposedly obtained from the AFP
indicating that the anti-insurgency campaign of the military under the
disappearance. administration of President Arroyo included targeting of identified
legal organizations under the NDF, which included the CPA, and their
members, as “enemies of the state.

•We hold that such documented practice of targeting activists in the

military’s counter-insurgency program by itself does not fulfill the
evidentiary standard provided in the Amparo Rule to establish an
enforced disappearance.
The petition further premised government complicity in the abduction of James on the very positions held by the
respondents. The Court in Rubrico v. Macapagal-Arroyo had the occasion to expound on the doctrine of command
responsibility and why it has little bearing, if at all, in amparo proceedings.
 
It may plausibly be contended that command responsibility, as legal basis to hold military/police commanders
liable for extra-legal killings, enforced disappearances, or threats, may be made applicable to this jurisdiction on
the theory that the command responsibility doctrine now constitutes a principle of international law or customary
international law in accordance with the incorporation clause of the Constitution. Still, it would be inappropriate to
apply to these proceedings the doctrine of command responsibility, as the CA seemed to have done, as a form of
criminal complicity through omission, for individual respondents’ criminal liability, if there be any, is beyond the
reach of amparo. In other words, the Court does not rule in such proceedings on any issue of criminal culpability,
even if incidentally a crime or an infraction of an administrative rule may have been committed. As the Court
stressed in Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo (Manalo), the writ of amparo was conceived to provide
expeditious and effective procedural relief against violations or threats of violation of the basic rights to life, liberty,
and security of persons; the corresponding amparo suit, however, “is not an action to determine criminal guilt
requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt or administrative liability requiring substantial evidence that will require
full and exhaustive proceedings.”