Sunteți pe pagina 1din 14

Castillo vs Cruz

GR 182165
Facts:
Respondent Amanda Cruz (Amanda) who, along with her husband Francisco
G. Cruz (Spouses Cruz), leased a parcel of land situated at Barrio Guinhawa,
Malolos (the property), refused to vacate the property, despite demands by the
lessor Provincial Government of Bulacan (the Province) which intended to
utilize it for local projects.

Several cases were filed by both parties to enforce their rights over the
property. The pertinent case among the filed cases was the issuance by the
MTC an alias Writ of Demolition in favor of the Province. Respondents filed a
motion for TRO in the RTC, which was granted. However, the demolition was
already implemented before the TRO issuance.

On February 21, 2008, petitioners Police Superintendent Felixberto Castillo et


al., who were deployed by the City Mayor in compliance with a memorandum
issued by Governor Joselito R. Mendoza instructing him to “protect, secure
and maintain the possession of the property,” entered the property.

Amanda and her co-respondents refused to turn over the property, however.
Insisting that the RTC Order of Permanent Injunction enjoined the Province
from repossessing it, they shoved petitioners, forcing the latter to arrest them
and cause their indictment for direct assault, trespassing and other forms of
light threats.

Thus, respondents filed a Motion for Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data.

Issue:
WON Amparo and Habeas Data is proper to property rights; and,
WON Amparo and Habeas Data is proper when there is a criminal case
already filed.

Held:
On the 1st issue:
Section 1 of the Rules of Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data provides that the
coverage of the writs is limited to the protection of rights to life, liberty and
security, and the writs cover not only actual but also threats of unlawful acts or
omissions.

Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo teaches: “As the Amparo Rule was
intended to address the intractable problem of “extralegal killings” and
“enforced disappearances.” Tapuz v. Del Rosario also teaches: “What it is not
is a writ to protect concerns that are purely property or commercial. Neither is
it a writ that we shall issue on amorphous and uncertain grounds.”

To thus be covered by the privilege of the writs, respondents must meet the
threshold requirement that their right to life, liberty and security is violated or
threatened with an unlawful act or omission. Evidently, the present
controversy arose out of a property dispute between the Provincial
Government and respondents. Absent any considerable nexus between the
acts complained of and its effect on respondents’ right to life, liberty and
security, the Court will not delve on the propriety of petitioners’ entry into the
property.

It bears emphasis that respondents’ petition did not show any actual violation,
imminent or continuing threat to their life, liberty and security. Bare
allegations of petitioners will not suffice to prove entitlement to the remedy of
the writ of amparo. No undue confinement or detention was present. In fact,
respondents were even able to post bail for the offenses a day after their arrest.

On the 2nd issue:

Respondents’ filing of the petitions for writs of amparo and habeas data
should have been barred, for criminal proceedings against them had
commenced after they were arrested in flagrante delicto and proceeded
against in accordance with Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. Validity of
the arrest or the proceedings conducted thereafter is a defense that may be set
up by respondents during trial and not before a petition for writs of amparo
and habeas data.
Transcript of WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
The writ of habeas data provides a judicial remedy to protect a person’s right to control
information regarding oneself, particularly in instances where such information is being
collected through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful end.
As an independent and summary remedy to protect the right to privacy – especially the right to
informational privacy – the proceedings for the issuance of the writ of habeas data does not
entail any finding of criminal, civil or administrative culpability.

Literal Translation of Habeas Data


“You should have the data.”

PURPOSE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA


It is designed to safeguard individual freedom from abuse in the information age by means of
an individual complaint presented in a constitutional court.
Specifically, it protects the image, privacy, honor, information, self-determination, and
freedom of information of a person.

PHILIPPINE HABEAS DATA


The Rule on Habeas Data, promulgated by the Supreme Court on January 22, 2008 through
A.M. 08-1-16 and took effect on February 2, 2008, was born in the midst of worsening human
rights condition in the country through extra-judicial killings, enforced disappearance and
torture.

WRIT IS A GUARANTEE TO THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND THE RIGHT TO TRUTH


Recourse to the action for habeas data has become a fundamental instrument for
investigations into human rights violations committed during past military dictatorship in the
Western Hemisphere. Family members of disappeared persons have used actions for habeas
data to obtain information concerning government conduct, to learn the fate of disappeared
persons, and to exact accountability.

WRIT OF HABEAS DATA VIS-À-VIS WRIT OF HABEAS AMPARO


The Writ of Habeas Data is not complimentary to the writ of amparo. It is an independent
remedy to enforce the right to informational privacy. All persons have the right to access
information about themselves, especially if it is in the hands of the government. Any violation
of this right ought to give the aggrieved person the remedy to go to court to modify, remove or
correct such misinformation. The right to access and control personal information is essential
to protect one’s privacy, honor and personal identity, even as it underscores accountability in
information gathering.

A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC


WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE PHILIPPINE HABEAS DATA
SEC. 1. Habeas Data. - The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right
to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering,
collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party.

Interpreted to refer to an act or omission which violates or threatens the right to privacy of an
individual which in turn, results in violating or threatening his or her right to life, liberty or
security.
Habeas data essentially allows families of victims of enforced disappearance to petition the
courts to compel government and security officials to allow access to documents about the
missing person.
The rule requires that the act or omission causing the violation must be unlawful. It is best that
the petition must allege the unlawfulness of an act or omission to fulfill this required element.
Any gathering, collecting, storing or using of data on an individual, without that individual’s
consent, is presumed unlawful UNLESS the respondent proves that the data is current,
accurate, its confidentiality assured, and was legally acquired or gathered for a legitimate or
legal purpose.
The media may be a respondent in a habeas data petition, but it can raise as a defense the
confidentiality of its sources, and therefore privileged, as the habeas data rule provides.

BASIS OF THE WRIT


It is based on the principle that the privacy of one’s person, family and home is a sanctified
right in the history of constitutional law. (Irene Cortes, The Constitutional Foundations of
Privacy, in Emerging Trends, UP Press, 1983). It has been said that a man’s home is his
kingdom, which even the king has to respect. (Morfe v. Mutuc, 130 Phil. 415; 22 SCRA 424).

INAPPLICABILITY TO COMMERCIAL CONCERNS


The writ of habeas data will NOT issue to protect purely property or commercial concerns nor
when the grounds invoked in support of the petitions therefor are vague or doubtful.

CASE: The writ of habeas data cannot be invoked in labor disputes where there is no unlawful
violation of the right to life, liberty, or security.
Employment is a property right in the due process clause. Lim was concerned with her
employment, one that can be solved in the NLRC. There was no violation of respondent’s right
to privacy. Respondent even said that the letters were mere jokes and even conceded the fact
that the issue was labor related due to references to “real intent of management”.(MERALCO
ET AL VS. ROSARIO GOPEZ LIM GR No. 184769, October 5, 2010)

Habeas data cannot be invoked when respondents in the petition or issuance of the writ are
not gathering, collecting, or storing data or information.
The coverage of the writs is limited to the protection of rights to life, liberty and security. And
the writs cover not only actual but also threats of unlawful acts or omissions.
To thus be covered by the privilege of the writs, respondents must meet the threshold
requirement that their right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with an
unlawful act or omission. Evidently, the present controversy arose out of a property dispute
between the Provincial Government and respondents. Absent any considerable nexus between
the acts complained of and its effect on respondents’ right to life, liberty and security, the
Court will not delve on the propriety of petitioners’ entry into the property.
Oddly, respondents also seek the issuance of a writ of habeas data when it is not even alleged
that petitioners are gathering, collecting or storing data or information regarding their person,
family, home and correspondence. (Felixberto Castillo, et al vs Amanda Cruz, et al GR No.
182165, November 25 2009)

DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY ON HABEAS DATA PROCEEDING


Command responsibility pertains to the “responsibility of commanders for crimes committed
by subordinate members of the armed forces or other persons subject to their control in
international wars or domestic conflict.”

Although originally used for ascertaining criminal complicity, the command responsibility
doctrine has also found application in civil cases for human rights abuses. This development in
the use of command responsibility in civil proceedings shows that the application of this
doctrine has been liberally extended even to cases not criminal in nature. Thus, the doctrine
may likewise find application in proceedings seeking the privilege of the writ of habeas data.
(IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA IN
FAVOR OF NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ, NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ VS. GMA, G.R. No. 191805
November 15, 2011)

EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN HABEAS DATA PROCEEDINGS


Substantial evidence of an actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or
security of the victim is an indispensable requirement before the privilege of the writ may be
extended.
In the case at bar, Roxas failed to show that there is an actual or threatened violation of such
right. Verily, until such time that any of the public respondents were found to be actually
responsible for the abduction and torture of the petitioner, any inference regarding the
existence of reports being kept in violation of the petitioner’s right to privacy becomes
farfetched, and premature. The Court must, at least in the meantime, strike down the grant of
the privilege of the writ of habeas data. (IN RE ROXAS VS. GMA et al)

WHO MAY FILE THE PETITION


SEC. 2. Who May File. - Any aggrieved party may file a petition for the writ of habeas data.
However, in cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, the petition may be filed
by:
(a) Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party, namely: the spouse, children
and parents; or
(b) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the fourth
civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those mentioned in the preceding
paragraph.

Any Aggrieved Party


Third parties - in cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.
In this situation, it is important to allege the threat of extrajudicial killing or enforced
disappearance in the petition in order to grant third parties the standing to file the petition.
Unlike in Amparo, human rights organizations or institutions are no longer allowed to file the
petition, possibly in recognition of the privacy aspect of a habeas data petition.

WHERE TO FILE THE PETITION


(i) The “Regional Trial Court where the respondent or petitioner resides”

(ii) The Regional Trial Court which has jurisdiction over the place “where the data or
information is gathered, collected or stored.”

(iii) The Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan when the action “concerns
public data files of government offices’. (Section 3)

WHERE THE WRIT IS RETURNABLE AND ENFORCEABLE


SEC. 4. Where Returnable; Enforceable. - When the writ is issued by a Regional Trial Court or
any judge thereof, it shall be returnable before such court or judge.

When issued by the Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan or any of its justices, it may be
returnable before such court or any justice thereof, or to any Regional Trial Court of the place
where the petitioner or respondent resides, or that which has jurisdiction over the place where
the data or information is gathered, collected or stored.

When issued by the Supreme Court or any of its justices, it may be returnable before such
Court or any justice thereof, or before the Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan or any of its
justices, or to any Regional Trial Court of the place where the petitioner or respondent resides,
or that which has jurisdiction over the place where the data or information is gathered,
collected or stored.

The writ of habeas data shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.

PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES


SEC. 5. Docket Fees. - No docket and other lawful fees shall be required from an indigent
petitioner. The petition of the indigent shall be docked and acted upon immediately, without
prejudice to subsequent submission of proof of indigency not later than fifteen (15) days from
the filing of the petition.

CONTENTS OF THE PETITION


SEC. 6. Petition. - A verified written petition for a writ of habeas data should contain:
(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the respondent;
(b) The manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it affects the right to life,
liberty or security of the aggrieved party;
(c) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure the data or information;
(d) The location of the files, registers or databases, the government office, and the person in
charge, in possession or in control of the data or information, if known;
(e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating, rectification, suppression or
destruction of the database or information or files kept by the respondent.
In case of threats, the relief may include a prayer for an order enjoining the act complained of;
and
(f) Such other relevant reliefs as are just and equitable.

DANIEL MASANGKAY TAPUZ vs. HON. JUDGE ELMO DEL ROSARIO, ET ALG.R. No. 182484
June 17, 2008

In the present case, Support for the habeas data aspect of the present petition only alleges
that:
“1. Similarly, a petition for a WRIT OF HABEAS DATA is prayed for so that the PNP may release
the report on the burning of the homes of the petitioners and the acts of violence employed
against them by the private respondents, furnishing the Court and the petitioners with copy of
the same;

66. Petitioners apply for a WRIT OF HABEAS DATA commanding the Philippine National
Police [PNP] to produce the police report pertaining to the burning of the houses of the
petitioners in the land in dispute and likewise the investigation report if an investigation was
conducted by the PNP.”

These allegations obviously lack what the Rule on Writ of Habeas Data requires as a minimum,
thus rendering the petition fatally deficient. Specifically, we see no concrete allegations of
unjustified or unlawful violation of the right to privacy related to the right to life, liberty or
security. The petition likewise has not alleged, much less demonstrated, any need for
information under the control of police authorities other than those it has already set forth as
integral annexes. The necessity or justification for the issuance of the writ, based on the
insufficiency of previous efforts made to secure information, has not also been shown.

SEC. 7. Issuance of the Writ. - Upon the filing of the petition, the court, justice or judge shall
immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its face it ought to issue. The clerk of court
shall issue the writ under the seal of the court and cause it to be served within three (3) days
from the issuance; or, in case of urgent necessity, the justice or judge may issue the writ under
his or her own hand, and may deputize any officer or person serve it.

The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the petition which shall not be
later than ten (10) work days from the date of its issuance.

WHEN IS THE WRIT ISSUED


The rule requires courts to ‘immediately’ issue a writ if, from the ‘face’ of the petition, it ought
to issue. Although no period was provided, it is expected that the writ should issue forthwith
since all the court is required to look into is simply if it ought to issue ‘on its face’.

If there is utmost urgency, Petitioner has the option of asking the court, through the Petition,
to deputize petitioner’s counsel or representative to serve the writ on respondents.

PENALTY FOR REFUSING TO ISSUE OR SERVE THE WRIT


SEC. 8. Penalty for Refusing to Issue or Serve the Writ. - A clerk of court who refuses to issue
the writ after its allowance, or a deputized person who refuses to serve the same, shall be
punished by the court, justice or judge for contempt without prejudice to other disciplinary
actions.
SEC. 9. How the Writ is Served – The writ shall be served upon the respondent by a judicial
officer or by a person deputized by the court, justice or judge who shall retain a copy on which
to make a return of service. In case the writ cannot be served personally on the respondent, the
rules on substituted service shall apply.

HOW WILL THE WRIT BE SERVED


SEC. 10. Return; Contents. - The respondent shall file in a verified written return together with
supporting affidavits within five (5) working days form service of the writ, which period may be
reasonably extended by the Court for justifiable reasons. The return shall, among other things,
contain the following:
(a) The lawful defenses such as national security, state secrets, privileged communications,
confidentiality of the source of information of media and others;
(b) In case of respondent in charge, in possession or in control of the data or information
subject of the petition;
(i) a disclosure of the data or information about the petitioner, the nature of such data or
information, and the purpose for its collection;
(ii) the steps or actions taken by the respondent to ensure the security and confidentiality of
the data or information; and,
(iii) the currency and accuracy of the data or information held; and,
(c) Other allegations relevant to the resolution of the proceeding.
A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed.

UPON RECEIPT OF THE WRIT, WHAT SHALL THE RESPONDENT FILE?


Firstly, the return must also be verified by the respondent.
Secondly, the return must specify its lawful defenses to the Petition.
Thirdly, the return must state the ‘currency and accuracy of the data or information’.
This could be the focal point of the petition since if respondent fails to prove that the data is
current and accurate, the prayer for its rectification or destruction should be granted.
The collection and storage of data on an individual, without that individual’s consent, should
be presumed a violation of his or her constitutional right to privacy.

UPON RECEIPT OF THE WRIT, WHAT SHALL THE RESPONDENT FILE?


WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE IF RESPONDENT FILES A FALSE RETURN OR REFUSES TO
MAKE A RETURN?
SEC. 11. Contempt. - The court, justice or judge may punish with imprisonment or fine a
respondent who commits contempt by making a false return, or refusing to make a return; or
any person who otherwise disobeys or resist a lawful process or order of the court
HOW WILL BE THE HEARING CONDUCTED IN CASES OF SENSITIVE DATA?
SEC. 12. When Defenses May be Heard in Chambers. - A hearing in chambers may be
conducted where the respondent invokes the defense that the release of the data or
information in question shall compromise national security or state secrets, or when the data
or information cannot be divulged to the public due to its nature or privileged character.

Can the respondent file a pleading other than a return? NO.


SEC. 13. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions. - The following pleadings and motions are
prohibited:
(a) Motion to dismiss;
(b) Motion for extension of time to file return, opposition, affidavit, position paper and other
pleadings;
(c) Dilatory motion for postponement;
(d) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(e) Counterclaim or cross-claim;
(f) Third-party complaint;
(g) Reply;
(h) Motion to declare respondent in default;
(i) Intervention;
(j) Memorandum;
(k) Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory orders or interim relief orders; and
(l) Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against any interlocutory order.

WHAT IS THE EFFECT IF RESPONDENT FAILS TO FILE A RETURN?


SEC. 14. Return; Filing. - In case the respondent fails to file a return, the court, justice or judge
shall proceed to hear the petition ex parte, granting the petitioner such relief as the petition
may warrant unless the court in its discretion requires the petitioner to submit evidence.

NATURE OF THE HEARING


SEC. 15. Summary Hearing. - The hearing on the petition shall be summary. However, the
court, justice or judge may call for a preliminary conference to simplify the issues and
determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations and admissions from the parties.

Is there a period within which the court must decide the petition? What should the decision
contain?
SEC. 16. Judgment. - The court shall render judgment within ten (10) days from the time the
petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial
evidence, the court shall enjoin the act complained of, or order the deletion, destruction, or
rectification of the erroneous data or information and grant other relevant reliefs as may be
just and equitable; otherwise, the privilege of the writ shall be denied.
Upon its finality, the judgment shall be enforced by the sheriff or any lawful officers as may be
designated by the court, justice or judge within five (5) working days.
“GRANT OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS DATA” vs. “GRANT OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF
HABEAS DATA”
SEC. 17. Return of Service. – The officer who executed the final judgment shall, within three (3)
days from its enforcement, make a verified return to the court. The return shall contain a full
statement of the proceedings under the writ and a complete inventory of the database or
information, or documents and articles inspected, updated, rectified, or deleted, with copies
served on the petitioner and the respondent.

The officer shall state in return how the judgment was enforced and complied with by the
respondent, as well as all objections of the parties regarding the manner and regularity of the
service of the writ.

What shall the Sheriff do after enforcement of the writ?


CONTENTS of the Return of Service

Full statement of the proceedings under the writ;


Complete inventory of the database or information or documents or articles inspected,
updated, rectified, or deleted, with the copies served on the petitioner and respondent;
Statement by the officer how the judgment was enforced and complied with by the
respondent; and
All the objections of the parties regarding the manner and regularity of the service of writ.

HEARING ON OFFICER’S RETURN


SEC. 18. Hearing on Officer’s Return. – The court shall set the return for hearing with due
notice to the parties and act accordingly.

REMEDY of an Aggrieved Party after judgment is rendered


SEC. 19. Appeal. – Any party may appeal from the final judgment or order to the Supreme
Court under Rule 45. The appeal may raise questions of fact or law or both.
The period of appeal shall be five (5) working days from the date of notice of the judgment or
final order.
The appeal shall be given the same priority as in habeas corpus and amparo cases.

EFFECT of the filing of the Petition in relation to the Right to file other action
SEC. 20. Institution of Separate Actions. – The filing of a petition for the writ of habeas data
shall not preclude the filing of separate criminal, civil or administrative actions.

EFFECT of the filing of a Criminal Action AFTER the filing of the Petition
SEC. 21. Consolidation. – When a criminal actions is filed subsequent to the filing of a petition
for the writ, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal actions.
When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to a petition for a writ of
habeas data, the petition shall be consolidated with the criminal action
After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to govern the disposition of
the reliefs in the petition.

May a petition for habeas data be filed if there is a pending criminal action? NO
SEC. 22. Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action. – When a criminal action has been commenced,
no separate petition for the writ shall be filed. The relief under the writ shall be available to an
aggrieved party by motion in the criminal case.
The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the reliefs available under the
writ of habeas data.

SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS
SEC. 23. Substantive Rights. – This Rule shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive
rights.

SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF THE RULES OF COURT


SEC. 24. Suppletory Application of the Rules of Court. – The Rules of Court shall apply
suppletorily insofar as it is not inconsistent with this Rule.

EFFECTIVITY
SEC. 25. Effectivity. – This Rule shall take effect on February 2, 2008, following its publication
in three (3) newspapers of general circulation.

Marynette R. Gamboa vs. P/SSUPT.Marlou C. Chan GR No. 193636, July 24, 2012
The writ of habeas data may not be granted.
The writ of habeas data is an independent and summary remedy designed to protect the
image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of information of an individual, and to
provide a forum to enforce one’s right to the truth and to informational privacy.
It seeks to protect a person’s right to control information regarding oneself, particularly in
instances in which such information is being collected through unlawful means in order to
achieve unlawful ends. It must be emphasized that in order for the privilege of the writ to be
granted, there must exist a nexus between the right to privacy on the one hand, and the right
to life, liberty or security on the other.

RECENT JURISPRUDENCE
Gamboa was unable to prove through substantial evidence that her inclusion in the list of
individuals maintaining PAGs made her and her supporters susceptible to harassment and to
increased police surveillance. In this regard, respondents sufficiently explained that the
investigations conducted against her were in relation to the criminal cases in which she was
implicated. As public officials, they enjoy the presumption of regularity, which she failed to
overcome.

It is clear from the foregoing discussion that the state interest of dismantling PAGs far
outweighs the alleged intrusion on the private life of Gamboa, especially when the collection
and forwarding by the PNP of information against her was pursuant to a lawful mandate.
Therefore, the privilege of the writ of habeas data must be denied.

SAEZ VS GMAG.R. No. 183533, September 25, 2012


Petitioner failed to adduced substantial evidence to prove his claims
It cannot be overemphasized that Section 1 of both the Rules on the Writ of Amparo and
Habeas Data expressly include in their coverage even threatened violations against a person’s
right to life, liberty or security. Further, threat and intimidation that vitiate the free will –
although not involving invasion of bodily integrity – nevertheless constitute a violation of the
right to security in the sense of "freedom from threat".
It must be stressed, however, that such "threat" must find rational basis on the surrounding
circumstances of the case. In this case, the petition was mainly anchored on the alleged threats
against his life, liberty and security by reason of his inclusion in the military’s order of battle,
the surveillance and monitoring activities made on him, and the intimidation exerted upon him
to compel him to be a military asset. While as stated earlier, mere threats fall within the mantle
of protection of the writs of amparo and habeas data, in the petitioner’s case, the restraints
and threats allegedly made allegations lack corroborations, are not supported by independent
and credible evidence, and thus stand on nebulous grounds.
Doctrine of Command Responsibility is applicable in Habeas Data proceedings
In Noriel Rodriguez v. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, et al., the Court stated:
a. Command responsibility of the President
The president, being the commander-in-chief of all armed forces, necessarily possesses control
over the military that qualifies him as a superior within the purview of the command
responsibility doctrine.

Pursuant to the doctrine of command responsibility, the President, as the Commander-in-


Chief of the AFP, can be held liable for affront against the petitioner’s rights to life, liberty and
security as long as substantial evidence exist to show that he or she had exhibited involvement
in or can be imputed with knowledge of the violations, or had failed to exercise necessary and
reasonable diligence in conducting the necessary investigations required under the rules.

The petitioner, however, is not exempted from the burden of proving by substantial evidence
his allegations against the President to make the latter liable for either acts or omissions
violative of rights against life, liberty and security.

In the instant case, the petitioner merely included the President’s name as a party respondent
without any attempt at all to show the latter’s actual involvement in, or knowledge of the
alleged violations.

S-ar putea să vă placă și