BALAO et al vs.

GMA
G.R. No. 186050
December 13, 2011
FA!"# The siblings of James Balao, and Longid (petitioners), fled with the
RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet a Petition for the Issuane of a !rit of "mparo in
fa#or of James Balao who was abduted b$ unidentifed armed men earlier%
&amed respondents in the petition were then President '(", )*e +e
)duardo )rmita, ,efense +e 'ilberto Teodoro, Jr%, IL' +eretar$ Ronaldo
Puno, &ational +eurit$ "d#iser (&+") &orberto 'on-ales, ".P Chief of +ta/
'en% "le*ander % 0ano, P&P Polie ,iretor 'eneral Jesus 1er-osa, among
others%
James (% Balao is a Ps$holog$ and )onomis graduate of the 2P3Baguio% In
4567, he was among those who founded the Cordillera Peoples "lliane (CP"),
a oalition of &'8s wor9ing for the ause of indigenous peoples in the
Cordillera Region%
"ording to witnesses: testimon$, James was abduted b$ unidentifed men,
sa$ing the$ were poliemen and were arresting him for a drugs ase and then
made to ride a white #an%
petitioners pra$ed for the issuane of a writ of amparo and li9ewise pra$ed
for (4) an inspetion order for the inspetion of at least 44 militar$ and polie
failities whih ha#e been pre#iousl$ reported as detention enters for
ati#ists abduted b$ militar$ and polie operati#es; (<) a prodution order
for all douments that ontain e#idene rele#ant to the petition, partiularl$
the 8rder of Battle List and an$ reord or dossier respondents ha#e on James;
and (=) a witness protetion order%
the RTC issued the assailed >udgment, disposing as follows?
I++2) a !rit of "mparo 8rdering the respondents to (a) dislose where
James is detained or onfned, (b) to release James onsidering his
unlawful detention sine his abdution and () to ease and desist from
further in@iting harm upon his person; and
,)&0 the issuane of I&+P)CTI8& 8R,)R, PR8,2CTI8& 8R,)R and
!IT&)++ PR8T)CTI8& 8R,)R for $a%l&re of herein Petitioners to ompl$
with the stringent pro#isions on the Rule on the !rit of "mparo and
substantiate the same
'""()? !8& the totalit$ of e#idene satisfes the degree of proof reAuired b$
the "mparo Rule to establish an enfored disappearane%
*)LD? NO; The Rule on the !rit of "mparo was promulgated on 8tober <7,
<BBC amidst rising inidene of De*tralegal 9illingsE and Denfored
disappearanes%E It was formulated in the e*erise of this CourtFs e*panded
rule3ma9ing power for the protetion and enforement of onstitutional rights
enshrined in the 456C Constitution, albeit limited to these two situations%
D)*tralegal 9illingsE refer to 9illings ommitted without due proess of law,
i%e%, without legal safeguards or >udiial proeedings% 8n the other hand,
Denfored disappearanesE are attended b$ the following harateristis? an
arrest, detention, or abdution of a person b$ a go#ernment oGial or
organi-ed groups or pri#ate indi#iduals ating with the diret or indiret
aAuiesene of the go#ernment; the refusal of the +tate to dislose the fate
or whereabouts of the person onerned or a refusal to a9nowledge the
depri#ation of libert$ whih plaes suh person outside the protetion of law%
HH
The trial ourt ga#e onsiderable weight to the disussion in the petition of
briefng papers supposedl$ obtained from the ".P indiating that the anti3
insurgen$ ampaign of the militar$ under the administration of President
"rro$o inluded targeting of identifed legal organi-ations under the &,.,
whih inluded the CP", and their members, as Denemies of the state%
!e hold that suh doumented pratie of targeting ati#ists in the
militar$Fs ounter3insurgen$ program b$ itself does not fulfll the
e#identiar$ standard pro#ided in the "mparo Rule to establish an enfored
disappearane%
In the ase of Ro*as #% (aapagal3"rro$o, the Court noted that the
similarit$ between the irumstanes attending a partiular ase of
abdution with those surrounding pre#ious instanes of enfored
disappearanes does not, neessaril$, arr$ suGient weight to pro#e that
the go#ernment orhestrated suh abdution% "ordingl$, the trial ourt
in this ase annot simpl$ infer go#ernment in#ol#ement in the abdution
of James from past similar inidents in whih the #itims also wor9ed or
aGliated with the CP" and other left3leaning groups%
HH
The petition further premised go#ernment ompliit$ in the abdution of
James on the #er$ positions held b$ the respondents% The Court in Rubrio
#% (aapagal3"rro$o had the oasion to e*pound on the dotrine of
ommand responsibilit$ and wh$ it has little bearing, if at all, in amparo
proeedings%
It ma$ plausibl$ be ontended that ommand responsibilit$, as legal basis to
hold militar$Ipolie ommanders liable for e*tra3legal 9illings, enfored
disappearanes, or threats, ma$ be made appliable to this >urisdition on the
theor$ that the ommand responsibilit$ dotrine now onstitutes a priniple of
international law or ustomar$ international law in aordane with the
inorporation lause of the Constitution% +till, it would be inappropriate to
appl$ to these proeedings the dotrine of ommand responsibilit$, as the C"
seemed to ha#e done, as a form of riminal ompliit$ through omission, for
indi#idual respondentsF riminal liabilit$, if there be an$, is be$ond the reah
of amparo% In other words, the Court does not rule in suh proeedings on an$
issue of riminal ulpabilit$, e#en if inidentall$ a rime or an infration of an
administrati#e rule ma$ ha#e been ommitted% "s the Court stressed in
+eretar$ of &ational ,efense #% (analo ((analo), the writ of amparo was
onei#ed to pro#ide e*peditious and e/eti#e proedural relief against
#iolations or threats of #iolation of the basi rights to life, libert$, and seurit$
of persons; the orresponding amparo suit, howe#er, Dis not an ation to
determine riminal guilt reAuiring proof be$ond reasonable doubt * * * or
administrati#e liabilit$ reAuiring substantial e#idene that will reAuire full and
e*hausti#e proeedings%E 8f the same tenor, and b$ wa$ of e*pounding on the
nature and role of amparo, is what the Court said in Ra-on #% Tagitis?
It does +ot determine guilt nor pinpoint cr%m%+al ulpabilit$ for the
disappearane Jthreats thereof or e*tra>udiial 9illingsK; it determines
responsibilit$, or at least aountabilit$, for the enfored disappearane
Jthreats thereof or e*tra>udiial 9illingsK for purposes of imposing the
appropriate remedies to address the disappearane Jor e*tra>udiial
9illingsK%
* * * *
"s the law now stands, e*tra>udiial 9illings and enfored disappearanes in
this >urisdition are not rimes penali-ed separatel$ from the omponent
riminal ats underta9en to arr$ out these 9illings and enfored
disappearanes and are now penali-ed under the Re#ised Penal Code and
speial laws% The simple reason is that the Legislature has not spo9en on the
matter; the determination of what ats are riminal * * * are matters of
substanti#e law that onl$ the Legislature has the power to enat% * * *J
"ssessing the e#idene on reord, we fnd that the partiipation in an$
manner of militar$ and polie authorities in the abdution of James has
not been adeAuatel$ pro#en% The identities of the abdutors ha#e not
been established, muh less their lin9 to an$ militar$ or polie unit% There
is li9ewise no onrete e#idene indiating that James is being held or
detained upon orders of or with aAuiesene of go#ernment agents%
ConseAuentl$, the trial ourt erred in granting amparo reliefs% +uh
pronounement of responsibilit$ on the part of publi respondents annot
be made gi#en the insuGien$ of e#idene% Lowe#er, we a,ree with the
trial ourt in fnding that the ations ta9en b$ respondent oGials are
D#er$ limited, superfial and one3sided%E Its andid and forthright
obser#ations on the e/orts e*erted b$ the respondents are borne b$ the
e#idene on reord%
HH
"n inspetion order is an interim relief designed to gi#e support or
strengthen the laim of a petitioner in an amparo petition, in order to aid
the ourt before ma9ing a deision% " basi reAuirement before an amparo
ourt ma$ grant an inspetion order is that the plae to be inspeted is
reasonabl$ determinable from the allegations of the part$ see9ing the
order% In this ase, the issuane of inspetion order was properl$ denied
sine the petitioners speifed se#eral militar$ and polie establishments
based merel$ on the allegation that the testimonies of #itims and
witnesses in pre#ious inidents of similar abdutions in#ol#ing ati#ists
dislosed that those premises were used as detention enters% In the
same #ein, the pra$er for issuane of a prodution order was prediated
on petitionersF bare allegation that it obtained onfdential information
from an unidentifed militar$ soure, that the name of James was inluded
in the so3alled 8rder of Battle% Indeed, the trial ourt ould not ha#e
santioned an$ Dfshing e*peditionE b$ preipitate issuane of inspetion
and prodution orders on the basis of insuGient laims of one part$%