Title

Rubrico vs. Macapagal-Arroyo

Case
G.R. No. 183871
Case Digest (G.R. No. 183871)
Facts:
Lourdes D. Rubrico, Jean Rubrico Apruebo, and Mary Joy Rubrico
Carbonel filed a petition for the writ of amparo. Respondents included then-
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and several high-ranking military and police
officials. On April 3, 2007, Lourdes Rubrico was allegedly abducted by armed
men from the 301st Air Intelligence and Security Squadron (AISS) in
Dasmariñas, Cavite. She was detained at Fernando Air Base in Lipa City without
charges, interrogated, and harassed for a week before being released. Post-
release, Lourdes continued to face harassment, and her daughter Mary Joy
reported harassment by P/Sr. Insp. Arsenio Gomez, who did not investigate
Lourdes' disappearance. Another daughter, Jean, had to leave their house due to
men watching them. Lourdes filed criminal and administrative complaints, but no
significant action was taken. The petitioners sought a writ of amparo to protect
their rights and compel the Office of the Ombudsman to file charges against the
perpetrators. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petition against the high-
ranking officials and the Ombudsman, citing lack of evidence and presidential
immunity.
Issue:
Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition against the other respondents for
lack of evidence.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court also affirmed the dismissal of the petition against the other
respondents, including Gen. Hermogenes Esperon and P/Dir. Gen. Avelino
Razon, due to the lack of substantial evidence linking them to the alleged
abduction and harassment. The petitioners failed to present substantial evidence
linking the high-ranking officials to the alleged abduction and harassment. The
affidavits and testimonies provided did not sufficiently establish the involvement
of military or police personnel. The writ of amparo is not intended to determine
criminal guilt but to provide protection against violations of the rights to life,
liberty, and security. The evidence presented did not meet the substantial
evidence standard required under the Amparo Rule. The doctrine of command
responsibility is not applicable in amparo proceedings to determine criminal or
administrative liability. It may be relevant only to identify who is responsible for
addressing the alleged violations and ensuring that appropriate remedial
measures are taken.

TITLE
BALAO VS. ERMITA
CASE
G.R. NO. 186050
Case Digest (G.R. No. 186050, 186059)
Facts:
 James M. Balao, a founding member of the Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA),
was abducted on September 17, 2008, by five unidentified armed men in Tomay, La
Trinidad, Benguet. Despite extensive efforts, his whereabouts remained unknown. His
siblings and CPA Chairperson Beverly Longid filed a petition for a writ of amparo before
the RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet. The RTC granted the writ of amparo on January 19,
2009, directing several public officers to disclose James's whereabouts, release him,
and cease harm. The RTC denied requests for inspection, production, and witness
protection orders due to non-compliance with the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. Both
parties appealed to the Supreme Court, leading to consolidated cases G.R. Nos.
186050 and 186059.
Issue:
1. Was the RTC correct in granting the privilege of the writ of amparo to
James Balao?
2. Was the recommendation of the RTC in archiving the case correct?
Ruling:
NO. In the case at hand, the Supreme Court reversed the RTC's grant of the writ
of amparo to James Balao. The Supreme Court held that the evidence did not
meet the required standard to prove that James was a victim of enforced
disappearance. The Court emphasized that government involvement could not
be inferred based on past incidents involving left-leaning groups.
NO. Under Section 20 of the Amparo rule, the court is mandated to archive, and
not dismiss, the case should it determine that it could not proceed for a valid
cause, viz.:

Section 20. Archiving and Revival of Cases. a The court shall not dismiss the
petition, but shall archive it, if upon its determination it cannot proceed for a valid
cause such as the failure of petitioner or witnesses to appear due to threats on
their lives.

A periodic review of the archived cases shall be made by the amparo court that
shall, motu proprio or upon motion by any party, order their revival when ready
for further proceedings. The petition shall be dismissed with prejudice upon
failure to prosecute the case after the lapse of two (2) years from notice to the
petitioner of the order archiving the case.

The clerks of court shall submit to the Office of the Court Administrator a
consolidated list of archived cases under this Rule not later than the first week of
January of every year. Jurisprudence states that archiving of cases is a
procedural measure designed to temporarily defer the hearing of cases in which
no immediate action is expected, but where no grounds exist for their outright
dismissal. Under this scheme, an inactive case is kept alive but held in abeyance
until the situation obtains in which action thereon can be taken. To be sure, the
Amparo rule sanctions the archiving of cases, provided that it is impelled by a
valid cause, such as when the witnesses fail to appear due to threats on their
lives or to similar analogous causes that would prevent the court from effectively
hearing and conducting the amparo proceedings which, however, do not obtain
in these cases.

Here, while it may appear that the investigation conducted by the AFP reached
an impasse, it must be pointed out that there was still an active lead worth
pursuing by the PNP. Thus, the investigation had not reached a dead end - which
would have warranted the case's archiving - because the testimony of Gonzales
set forth an immediate action on the part of the PNP which could possibly solve,
or uncover new leads, in the on-going investigation of James's abduction.
Therefore, the RTC's recommendation that these cases should be archived is
clearly premature, and hence, must be rejected.
Title
Gadian vs. Ibrado
Case
G.R. No. 188163
Case Digest (G.R. No. 188163, 188195)
Facts:
Lt. SG Mary Nancy P. Gadian, a Philippine Navy officer, exposed anomalies in
the RP-US Balikatan Exercises 2007. She was the Officer-In-Charge of the Civil
Military Operations (CMO) Fusion Cell, responsible for fund allocation. Gadian
alleged misuse of significant funds by higher-ranking officers. Following her
expose, she claimed to receive threats to her life, liberty, and security, leading
her to go into hiding. Her sister, Nedina Gadian-Diamante, filed a petition for a
writ of amparo for her protection. The Court of Appeals (CA) initially granted the
petition, directing the Secretary of National Defense to protect Gadian but denied
 her request for sanctuary from the Association of Major Religious Superiors of
the Philippines (AMRSP) due to lack of accreditation. The Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP), led by Gen. Victor Ibrado, contested the CA's decision,
arguing no substantial evidence linked them to the threats. The case was brought
before the Supreme Court for resolution.
Issue:
1. Was the issuance of the writ of amparo warranted by the circumstances?
Ruling:
YES. The Court upheld the CA's decision to issue the writ of amparo but noted
that the threats to Gadian's life and security had ceased. The Supreme Court
affirmed the CA's finding of substantial evidence warranting the issuance of the
writ of amparo for Lt. SG Gadian.
The writ of amparo is a preventive and curative remedy to protect constitutional
rights to life and liberty. The CA correctly determined the existence of threats to
Gadian's life, liberty, and security based on her expose and subsequent threats.
Gadian did not establish the specific source of the threats, and AFP leadership
could not be implicated without concrete evidence. The need for protection was
justified, and the CA's directive for the Secretary of National Defense to provide
protection was appropriate. The AMRSP's willingness to provide sanctuary was
acknowledged, but it lacked necessary accreditation under the Rule on the Writ
of Amparo. The case became moot and academic due to the cessation of threats
and the implicated individuals' retirement, rendering further judicial intervention
unnecessary.