View full case

LOURDES D. RUBRICO v. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

FACTS:

Lourdes D. Rubrico and her daughters filed a petition for the writ of amparo, claiming that Lourdes was abducted and detained by armed men. The respondents denied the allegations and interposed affirmative defenses. Gen. Esperon ordered an investigation into Lourdes' disappearance and pledged to provide the results to the Court of Appeals.

The petitioners alleged that Lourdes was abducted by armed men and suspected the involvement of certain military personnel, including President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. The respondents, including Gen. Esperon, P/Dir. Gen. Razon, P/Supt. Roquero, P/Insp. Gomez, and the Office of the Ombudsman, denied the allegations and reported ongoing investigations into Lourdes' abduction. Cases were also filed against those believed to be involved in the kidnapping.

The petitioners requested to present evidence ex parte against certain respondents and to serve notice of the petition through publication. The Court of Appeals granted the motion for service by the court's process server on certain respondents but denied the motion for a temporary protection order. President Arroyo was dropped as a respondent, and the motion for notice by publication was effectively denied.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition in relation to certain respondents but directed the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police to ensure diligent investigations. The petitioners appealed, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in dropping President Arroyo as a respondent.

The petitioners filed a petition for the writ of amparo, alleging that the respondent generals were responsible for the abduction and harassment. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition against the individual respondents, stating that there was no evidence connecting them to the alleged unlawful acts. The doctrine of command responsibility was argued, but the court held that it does not have much bearing in amparo proceedings. The petitioners filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Relatives of missing individuals filed a petition for the writ of amparo, claiming their relatives were abducted by the military and paramilitary groups. The respondents denied involvement and argued that the writ of amparo should not be applied in this case. The Supreme Court discussed the nature and scope of the writ and its applicability in cases involving human rights violations.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the doctrine of command responsibility can be applied in Philippine jurisdiction.

  2. Whether command responsibility can be used as a basis to hold military/police commanders liable for extra-legal killings, enforced disappearances, or threats.

  3. Whether the petitioners have provided sufficient evidence to support their claims under the Amparo Rule.

  4. Whether P/Supt. Romero and P/Insp. Gomez have a direct or indirect hand in the alleged enforced disappearance of Lourdes and the threats against her daughters.

  5. Whether the police should pursue the investigation despite the seeming reluctance of the Rubricos and their witnesses to cooperate.

  6. Whether there is concrete evidence to support the charge of harassment against respondent P/Insp. Gomez.

  7. Whether there is a basis for petitioners' allegations about the OMB failing to act on their complaint against the alleged abductors and illegal detainers of Lourdes.

  8. Whether the correct addresses of the non-answering respondents were provided.

  9. Whether the petition alleges ultimate facts that link the OMB to the violation or threat of violation of the petitioners' rights.

  10. Whether the threshold substantive evidence was presented to support the allegations of harassment and threats against the responding respondents.

  11. Whether the Court of Appeals' directives, as formulated, adequately address the need for a definitive time frame for the completion of the investigation and reportorial requirements

  12. Whether the Court of Appeals failed to consider the imminent retirement of Gen. Esperon and P/Dir. Gen. Razon in formulating its directives

  13. Whether the petition for amparo should be dismissed due to the filing of a criminal complaint for kidnapping and arbitrary detention

  14. Whether the petition for amparo should be consolidated with the criminal action

  15. Whether or not the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in partially granting the petition for the issuance of the Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data.

  16. Whether or not the CA erred in referring the case back to them for the purpose of monitoring the investigations and actions of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP).

RULING:

  1. The Court held that while there are pending bills on command responsibility, there is still no Philippine law that provides for criminal liability under that doctrine.

  2. The Court stated that it would be inappropriate to apply the doctrine of command responsibility in proceedings under the writ of amparo as a form of criminal complicity through omission. The writ of amparo is not an action to determine criminal guilt or administrative liability. The purpose of the writ is to determine responsibility or accountability for the violations or threats of violations of basic rights, and to impose appropriate remedies. The Court also emphasized that extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances are not separate crimes penalized separately, but are considered component criminal acts under existing laws.

  3. The petitioners have not provided substantial evidence to support their claims under the Amparo Rule. The burden of proof is on the petitioners to establish their claims, and they have not satisfied the evidentiary bar required under the Rule.

  4. P/Supt. Romero and P/Insp. Gomez have no direct or indirect hand in the alleged enforced disappearance of Lourdes and the threats against her daughters.

  5. The police should pursue the investigation despite the seeming reluctance of the Rubricos and their witnesses to cooperate. The duty to investigate is a guarantee of the protection of one's rights by the government, and it includes conducting effective investigations of extra-legal killings, enforced disappearances, or threats of the same kind.

  6. There is no concrete evidence to support the charge of harassment against respondent P/Insp. Gomez.

  7. There is a basis for petitioners' allegations about the OMB failing to act on their complaint as the OMB has commenced criminal and administrative proceedings against the alleged abductors and illegal detainers of Lourdes.

  8. The correct addresses of the non-answering respondents were not provided.

  9. The petition does not allege ultimate facts that link the OMB to the violation or threat of violation of the petitioners' rights.

  10. The threshold substantive evidence was not presented to support the allegations of harassment and threats against the responding respondents.

  11. The Court partially grants the petition and provides clearer directives. The Court adjusts the literal application of the Amparo Rule to address the situation effectively. The directives are given to and shall be enforceable against the commanding general of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP).

  12. The Court affirms the dropping of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from the petition and dismisses the petition against Gen. Hermogenes Esperon and P/Dir. Gen. Avelino Razon in their capacities as AFP Chief of Staff and PNP Chief, respectively. The dismissal is based on the lack of accountability and responsibility under the command responsibility principle.

  13. The dismissal of the petition with respect to the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) is affirmed due to the failure of the petition to allege ultimate facts against the OMB for the enforced disappearance of Lourdes and the subsequent threats and harassment.

  14. The incumbent Chief of Staff, AFP, or his successor, and the incumbent Director-General of the PNP, or his successor, are directed to ensure the pursuit of investigations on the alleged abduction and harassment with extraordinary diligence.

  15. The Court affirmed the partial judgment of the CA, thereby upholding its decision to partially grant the petition for the issuance of the Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data.

  16. The Court also agreed with the CA's decision to refer the case back to them for the purpose of monitoring the investigations and actions of the AFP and the PNP.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Command responsibility is an omission mode of individual criminal liability where the superior is responsible for crimes committed by subordinates for failing to prevent or punish the perpetrators.

  • The doctrine of command responsibility has been codified in the Rome Statute of the ICC, but the Philippines is not yet formally bound by its terms and provisions.

  • The writ of amparo is not an action to determine criminal guilt or administrative liability, but rather to determine responsibility or accountability and impose appropriate remedies.

  • Extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances are not separate crimes penalized separately, but are considered component criminal acts under existing laws.

  • The Amparo Rule requires substantial evidence to support a cause of action (Sec. 17).

  • Substantial evidence is more than a mere imputation of wrongdoing, but the amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

  • The right to security includes conducting effective investigations of extra-legal killings, enforced disappearances, or threats of the same kind.

  • The duty to investigate must be undertaken in a serious manner as a legal duty of the State, not relying solely on private interests or the initiative of the victim or their family.

  • The privilege of the writ of amparo is a remedy available to victims of extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances or threats of similar nature, regardless of whether the perpetrator is a public official or employee or a private individual.

  • The privilege of the writ of amparo is intended to protect and guarantee the rights to life, liberty, and security of persons, free from fears and threats that vitiate the quality of life.

  • The remedy of the writ of amparo should be resorted to and granted judiciously, and should not be used for purposes less than the desire to secure amparo reliefs and protection and/or on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations.

  • The need for a definitive time frame for the completion of investigations and reportorial requirements

  • Consideration of imminent retirement in formulating directives

  • Prohibition on filing an amparo petition if a criminal action has already been commenced

  • Consolidation of amparo petition with criminal action when the criminal suit is filed subsequent to the petition

  • Command responsibility principle in determining accountability and responsibility for alleged human rights violations

  • Writ of Amparo - This is a legal remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security is violated or threatened. It seeks to address extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, among others.

  • Writ of Habeas Data - This is a legal remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty, or security is violated or threatened. It allows individuals to access and correct personal information collected and stored in databases by government entities.

  • Monitoring of Investigations - In cases involving the Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data, the court may refer the case back to the lower court or tribunal for monitoring of the investigations and actions taken by the government authorities, such as the AFP and the PNP.