0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
57 tayangan17 halaman
This case involves the abduction of Lourdes Rubrico by armed men from the 301st Air Intelligence and Security Squadron. She was detained for a week and interrogated before being released. She filed several complaints but no action was taken. The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of command responsibility does not apply in amparo petitions, but high-ranking officials could still be determined as responsible for addressing rights violations. The Court affirmed the dismissal of some respondents but said investigations should continue to protect rights under the writ of amparo.
This case involves the abduction of Lourdes Rubrico by armed men from the 301st Air Intelligence and Security Squadron. She was detained for a week and interrogated before being released. She filed several complaints but no action was taken. The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of command responsibility does not apply in amparo petitions, but high-ranking officials could still be determined as responsible for addressing rights violations. The Court affirmed the dismissal of some respondents but said investigations should continue to protect rights under the writ of amparo.
This case involves the abduction of Lourdes Rubrico by armed men from the 301st Air Intelligence and Security Squadron. She was detained for a week and interrogated before being released. She filed several complaints but no action was taken. The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of command responsibility does not apply in amparo petitions, but high-ranking officials could still be determined as responsible for addressing rights violations. The Court affirmed the dismissal of some respondents but said investigations should continue to protect rights under the writ of amparo.
Ugnayan ng Maralita para sa Gawa Adhikan, was abducted by armed men belonging to the 301st Air Intelligence and Security Squadron (AISS) based in Lipa City while attending a Lenten pabasa in Dasmarinas, Cavite. • She was brought to and detained at the air base without charges. FACTS
• She was released a week after relentless
interrogation, but only after she signed a statement that she would be a military asset. • Despite her release, she was tailed on at least 2 occasions. FACTS
• Hence, Lourdes filed a complaint with the
Office of the Ombudsman a criminal complaint for kidnapping and arbitrary detention and grave misconduct against Cuaresma, Alfaro, Santana, and Jonathan, but nothing has happened. FACTS
• She likewise reported the threats and
harassment incidents to the Dasmarinas municipal and Cavite provincial police stations, but nothing eventful resulted from their investigation. FACTS
• Meanwhile, the human rights group Karapatan
conducted an investigation which indicated that men belonging to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) led the abduction of Lourdes. • Based on such information, Rubrico filed a petition for the writ of amparo with the Supreme Court on 25 October 2007. FACTS
• The Supreme Court issued the desired writ
and then referred the petition to the Court of Appeals (CA) for summary hearing and appropriate action. FACTS
• At the hearing conducted on 20 November
2007, the CA granted petitioner’s motion that the petition and writ be served on Darwin Sy/Reyes, Jimmy Santana, Ruben Alfaro, Capt. Angelo Cuaresma, and Jonathan. By a separate resolution, the CA dropped the President (President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo) as respondent in the case. FACTS
• At the hearing conducted on 20 November
2007, the CA granted petitioner’s motion that the petition and writ be served on Darwin Sy/Reyes, Jimmy Santana, Ruben Alfaro, Capt. Angelo Cuaresma, and Jonathan. • By a separate resolution, the CA dropped the President (President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo) as respondent in the case. FACTS
• On 31 July 2008, after due proceedings, the
CA rendered its partial judgment, dismissing the petition with respect to Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, P/Dir. Gen. Avelino Razon, Supt. Edgar B. Roquero, P/Sr. Insp. Arsenio C. Gomez (ret.) and the Office of the Ombudsman. FACTS
• Hence, the petitioners filed a Petition for
Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court. ISSUE
• Whether or not the doctrine of command
responsibility is applicable in an amparo petition. RULING
• No. Thus, subject to modifications, the Court
affirms the partial judgment dated July 31, 2008 of the CA. RATIO
• It would be inappropriate to apply to writ of
amparo proceedings the Doctrine of Command Responsibility as a form of criminal complicity through omission, for individual respondents’ criminal liability, if there be any, is beyond the reach of amparo. RATIO • If command responsibility is to be invoked and applied to amparo proceedings, it should, at most, be only to determine the author who, at the first instance, is accountable for, and has the duty to address, the disappearance and harassments complained of, so as to enable the Court to devise remedial measures that may be appropriate under the premises to protect rights covered by the writ of amparo. RATIO • Doctrine of Command Responsibility has little, if at all, bearing in amparo proceedings; • There is no Philippine law that provides for criminal liability under the Doctrine of Command Responsibility; RATIO • The seeming reluctance on the part of the Rubricos or their witnesses to cooperate ought not to pose a hindrance to the police in pursuing, on its own initiative, the investigation in question to its natural end; • The remedy of amparo ought to be resorted to and granted judiciously.