RUBRICO v.

MACAPAGAL-
ARROYO
G.R. No. 183871
18 February 2010

PONENTE: Velasco, Jr., J.

PARTIES:
1. PETITIONERS: LOURDES RUBRICO, JEAN RUBRICO APRUEBO, and MARY JO Y RUBRICO CARBONEL
2. RESPONDENTS: PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON,
P/DIR.
GE. AVELINO RAZON, M AJ. DARWIN SY, JIMMY SANTANA, RUBEN ALFARO, CAPT. ANGELO
CUARESMA, P/SUPT. EDGAR ROQUERO, ARSENIO GOMEZ, JONATHAN, and OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN

NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari of CA decision

PROCEDURAL
BACKGROUND:
1. Supreme Court: Original Action for a Petition for the Writ of Amparo
2. Court of Appeals: Upon order of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals summarily heard
the Original Action for Petition of Amparo. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals issued a partial
judgment which is the subject of the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.

FACTS
:

On 03 April 2007, Lourdes Rubrico, chair of 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. 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. 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. She likewise reported the threats
and harassment incidents to the Dasmarinas municipal and Cavite provincial police stations , but nothing
eventful resulted from their investigation.

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, praying that respondents be ordered to desist from performing any threatening act against the
security of petitioners and for the Ombudsman to immediately file an information for kidnapping
qualified with the aggravating circumstance of gender of the offended party. Rubrico also prayed for
damages and for respondents to produce documents submitted to any of them on the case of Lourdes.

The Supreme Court issued the desired writ and then referred the petition to the Court of Appeals (CA)
for summary hearing and appropriate action. 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, Santana, Alfaro,
Cuaresma, and Jonathan. By a separate resolution, the CA dropped the President as respondent in the case.

On 31 July 2008, after due proceedings, the CA rendered its partial judgment, dismissing the petition
with respect to Esperon, Razon, Roquero, Gomez, and Ombudsman.

Hence, the petitioners filed a- Petition forofReview

- - Stories onBrutality,
Injustice, Certiorariandwith theWrongs
Human Supreme- -Court.
-
PERTINENT ISSUE: Whether or not the doctrine of command responsibility is applicable in an amparo
petition.

- - - Stories of Injustice, Brutality, and Human Wrongs - - -

Rubrico v. Macapagal Arroyo – Case Summary Page 2 of 3
G.R. No. 183871 18 February 2010

ANSWER: No.

SUPREME COURT
RULINGS:

DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY and THE WRIT OF AMPARO

Doctrine of Command Responsibility has little, if at all, bearing in amparo proceedings –

[C]ommand responsibility, as a concept defined, developed, and applied under international law, has little, if
at all, bearing in amparo proceedings.

The evolution of the command responsibility doctrine finds its context in the development of laws of war and
armed combats. According to Fr. Bernas, command responsibility, in its si mplest terms, means
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. In this sense,
command responsibility is properly a form of criminal complicity. The Hague Conventions of 1907 adopted
the doctrine of command responsibility, foreshadowing the present-day precept of holding a superior
accountable for the atrocities committed by his subordinates should he be remiss in his duty of control
over them. As then formulated, command responsibility is an omission mode of individual criminal
liability, whereby the superior is made responsible for crimes committed by his subordinates for failing
to prevent or punish the perpetrators.

There is no Philippine law that provides for criminal liability under the Doctrine of Command
Responsibility – While there are several pending bills on command responsibility, there is still no Philippine
law that provides for criminal liability under that doctrine. It may plausibly be contended that command
responsibility, as legal basis to hold military/police commanders liable for extra -legal killings, enforced
disappearances, or threats, may be made applicable to this jurisdiction on the theory that the command
responsibility doctrine now constitutes a principle of international law or customary international law
in accordance with the incorporation clause of the Constitution. Still, it would be inappropriate to apply to
these proceedings the doctrine of command responsibility, as the CA seemed to have done, as a form of
criminal complicity through omission, for individual respondents criminal liability, if there be any, is beyond
the reach of amparo. In other words, the Court does not rule in such procee dings on any issue of criminal
culpability, even if incidentally a crime or an infraction of an administrative rule may have been committed.

Reluctance of the amparo petitioners 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 – [T]he right
to security of persons is a guarantee of the protection of one’s right by the government. And this protection
includes conducting effective investigations of extra-legal killings, enforced disappearances, or threats of the
same kind. The nature and importance of an investigation are captured in the Velasquez Rodriguez case,
in which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights pronounced: [The duty to investigate] must be
undertaken in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective. An investigation
must have an objective and be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, not a step taken by private interests
that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon offer of proof, without an effective search
for the truth by the government.

The remedy of amparo ought to be resorted to and granted judiciously – The privilege of the writ
of amparo is envisioned basically to protect and guarantee the rights to life, liberty, and security of persons,
free from fears and threats that vitiate the quality of this life. It is an extraordinary writ conceptualized
and adopted in light of and in response to the prevalence 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 unsubstantiated
allegations.

- - - Stories of Injustice, Brutality, and Human Wrongs - - -

Rubrico v. Macapagal Arroyo – Case Summary Page 3 of 3
G.R. No. 183871 18 February 2010

DISPOSITIVE
:

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition for review. It issued a decision as

follows: (1) Affirming the dropping of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from

the petition;

(2) Affirming the dismissal of the amparo case as against Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, and P/Dir. Gen. Avelino
Razon, insofar as it tended, under the command responsibility principle, to attach accountability
and responsibility to them, as then AFP Chief of Staff and then PNP Chief, for the alleged
enforced disappearance of Lourdes and the ensuing harassments allegedly committed against
petitioners. The dismissal of the petition with respect to the Ombudsman is also affirmed for failure
of the petition to allege ultimate facts as to make out a case against that body for the enforced
disappearance of Lourdes and the threats and harassment that followed; and

(3) Directing the incumbent Chief of Staff, AFP, or his successor, and the incumbent Director -General of
the PNP, or his successor, to ensure that the investigations already commenced by their respective
units on the alleged abduction of Lourdes Rubrico and the alleged harassments and threats she and her
daughters were made to endure are pursued with extraordinary diligence as required by Sec. 17
of the Amparo Rule. The Chief of Staff of the AFP and Director-General of the PNP are directed to order
their subordinate officials, in particular, to do the following:

(a) Determine based on records, past and present, the identities and locations of respondents
Maj.
Darwin Sy, a.k.a. Darwin Reyes, Jimmy Santana, Ruben Alfaro, Capt. Angelo Cuaresma, and one
Jonathan; and submit certifications of this determination to the OMBUDSMAN with copy furnished
to petitioners, the CA, and this Court;

(b) Pursue with extraordinary diligence the evidentiary leads relating to Maj. Darwin Sy and the Toyota
Revo vehicle with Plate No. XRR 428; and

(c) Prepare, with the assistance of petitioners and/or witnesses, cartographic sketches of respondents
Maj. Sy/Reyes, Jimmy Santana, Ruben Alfaro, Capt. Angelo Cuaresma, and a certain Jonathan to aid in
positively identifying and locating them.

The investigations shall be completed not later than six (6) months from receipt of the Decision; and within
thirty (30) days after completion of the investigations, the Chief of Staff of the AFP and the Director-General
of the PNP are likewise directed to submit a full report of the results of the investigations to the Court, the
CA, the OMB, and petitioners.

The Supreme Court accordingly referred the case back to the CA for the purpose of monitoring
the investigations and the actions of the AFP and the PNP.

- - - Stories of Injustice, Brutality, and Human Wrongs - - -