Burgos vs Esperon GR No. 178497, February 04, 2014

Doctrine:

The Court emphasize that the Court’s role in a writ of Amparo proceeding is merely to determine whether an enforced disappearance has taken place; to determine who is responsible or accountable; and to define and impose the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance.

Facts:

          Jeffrey Cabintoy and Elsa Agasang have witnessed on that fateful day of April 28, 2007 the forcible abduction of Jonas Burgos by a group of about seven (7) men and a woman from the extension portion of Hapag Kainan Restaurant located in Quezon City.

The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) submitted to the Court its Investigation Report on the Enforced Disappearance of Jonas Burgos. The CHR finds that the enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos had transpired and that his constitutional rights to life, liberty and security were violated by the Government have been fully determined. The CHR demonstrated in its investigations resulted in the criminal prosecution of Lt. Baliaga. Regional Trial Court found probable cause for arbitrary detention against Lt. Baliaga and ordered his arrest in connection with Jonas’ disappearance.

Based on the finding that Jonas was a victim of enforced disappearance, the Court of Appeals concluded that the present case falls within the ambit of the Writ of Amparo. The respondents have not appealed to the court, as provided under Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. Hence, the petitioner filed an Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela.

Issue:

          Whether or not the petitioner’s motion should be granted.

Ruling:

          No.

After reviewing the newly discovered evidence submitted by the petitioner and considering all the developments of the case, including the Court of Appeal’s decision that confirmed the validity of the issuance of the Writ of Amparo in the present case, the Court resolve to deny the petitioner’s Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela.

The Court note and conclude, based on the developments highlighted above, that the beneficial purpose of the Writ of Amparo has been served in the present case. As the Court held in Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis the writ merely embodies the Court’s directives to police agencies to undertake specified courses of action to address the enforced disappearance of an individual. The Writ of Amparo serves both a preventive and a curative role. It is curative as it facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators through the investigation and remedial action that it directs. The focus is on procedural curative remedies rather than on the tracking of a specific criminal or the resolution of administrative liabilities. The unique nature of Amparo proceedings has led us to define terms or concepts specific to what the proceedings seek to achieve. In Razon Jr., v. Tagitis, the Court defined what the terms “responsibility” and “accountability” signify in an Amparo case. The Court said: Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have been established by substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way, by action or omission, in an enforced disappearance, as a measure of the remedies this Court shall craft, among them, the directive to file the appropriate criminal and civil cases against the responsible parties in the proper courts. Accountability, on the other hand, refers to the measure of remedies that should be addressed to those who exhibited involvement in the enforced disappearance without bringing the level of their complicity to the level of responsibility defined above; or who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure; or those who carry, but have failed to discharge, the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance.

In the present case, while Jonas remains missing, the series of calculated directives issued by the Court outlined above and the extraordinary diligence the CHR demonstrated in its investigations resulted in the criminal prosecution of Lt. Baliaga. The Court take judicial notice of the fact that the Regional Trial Court has already found probable cause for arbitrary detention against Lt. Baliaga and has ordered his arrest in connection with Jonas’ disappearance.

The Court emphasize that the Court’s role in a writ of Amparo proceeding is merely to determine whether an enforced disappearance has taken place; to determine who is responsible or accountable; and to define and impose the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance.

As shown above, the beneficial purpose of the Writ of Amparo has been served in the present case with the CA’s final determination of the persons responsible and accountable for the enforced disappearance of Jonas and the commencement of criminal action against Lt. Baliaga. At this stage, criminal, investigation and prosecution proceedings are already beyond the reach of the Writ of Amparo proceeding now before us.

Siegfred Mison vs Gallegos GR Nos. 210759, 211403 & 211590

Doctrine:

          The privilege of the writ of amparo is an extraordinary remedy adopted to address the special concerns of extra-legal killings and enforced disappearances. Accordingly, the remedy ought to be resorted to and granted judiciously, lest the ideal sought by the Amparo Rule be diluted and undermined by the indiscriminate filing of amparo petitions for purposes less than the desire to secure amparo reliefs and protection and/or on the basis of unsubstantial allegations.

         

Facts:

          The Embassy of the Republic of Korea wrote a Letter-Request to petitioner, Hon. Siegfried Mison, Chairperson of the Bureau of Immigation (BI) for the immediate arrest and deportation of respondent Ja Hoon Ku (Ku) to Korea for being an undesirable alien. Pursuant to Summary Deportation Order, Ku was arrested and detained at the BI detention center.

          Ku filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo with Interim Remedies. Judge Gallegos granted the petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the privilege of the writ of amparo was properly granted.

Ruling:

          No.

          The Supreme Court ruled in negative. Section 1 of the Rule in the Writ of Amparo (Amparo Rule) provides:

Section 1. Petition. – The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.

The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.

          The Amparo rule was intended to address the intractable problem of the “extralegal killings” and “enforced disappearances,” its coverage, in its present form, is confined to these two instances or to threats thereof. “Extralegal killings” are killings committed without due process of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings. On the other hand, “enforced disappearances” are attended by the following characteristics: an arrest, detention or abduction of a person by a 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 concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which places such persons outside the protection of law.

          As to what constitutes enforced disappearance, the Court in Navia v. Pardico enumerated the elements constituting enforced disappearances as the term is statutorily defined in Section 3(g) of the RA 9851, to wit:

(a) That there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty;

(b) That it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or political organization;

(c) That it be followed by the State or political organization’s refusal to acknowledge or give information on the fate or whereabouts of the person subject of the amparo petition; and

(d)That the intention for such refusal is to remove the subject person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.

In probing enforced disappearance cases, courts should read A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC in relation to RA 9851.

Guided by the parameters of RA 9851, we can readily discern that Ku’s circumstance does not come under the statutory definition of an enforced disappearance. Indeed, Ku was arrested by agents of the BI, but there was no refusal on the part of the BI to acknowledge such arrest nor was there any refusal to give information to remove Ku from the protection of the law for a prolonged time. More importantly, there was no attempt on the part of the BI to conceal Ku or his whereabouts. Within the Bureau, Ku’s arrest and the fact that he was in their custody was not obscured as, in fact, these were well-documented as evidenced by the Return of Warrant of Deportation.

The RTC’s grant of the privilege of the writ of amparo was improper in this case as Ku and his whereabouts were never concealed, and as the alleged threats to his life, liberty and security were unfounded and unsubstantiated. It is to be emphasized that the fundamental function of the writ of amparo is to cause the disclosure of details concerning the extrajudicial killing or the enforced disappearance of an aggrieved party. As Ku and his whereabouts were never hidden, there was no need for the issuance of the privilege of the writ of amparo in the case at bar.

Wherefore, premises considered, the Court hereby resolves to deny the privilege of the Writ of Amparo.