RODRIGUEZ v ARROYO

GR No 191805
State Immunity; maraming issues dito, tiyaga lang mga anak ko, mahal tayo ni Lord
Sereno, J.

FACTS
Rodriguez is petitioner in G.R. No. 191805 and respondent in G.R. No. 193160. He is a member
of Alyansa Dagiti Mannalon Iti Cagayan (Kagimungan), a peasant organization affiliated with Kilusang
Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP). Rodriguez claims that the military tagged KMP as an enemy of the
State under the Oplan Bantay Laya, making its members targets of extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearances. Tangina talaga ng gobyerno minsan mga chong.
On 6 September 2009, at 5:00 p.m., Rodriguez had just reached Barangay Tapel, Cagayan when
four men forcibly took him and tortured Rodriguez to confess to being a member of the New People’s
Army (NPA), but he remained silent. After his release, Rodriguez filed before this Court a Petition for the
Writ of Amparo and Petition for the Writ of Habeas Data with Prayers for Protection Orders, Inspection of
Place, and Production of Documents and Personal Properties dated 2 December 2009.
The petition was filed against former Pres. Arroyo, et al. The writs were granted but the CA
dropped President Arroyo as party-respondent, as she may not be sued in any case during her tenure of
office or actual incumbency.

ISSUES AND RULINGS (4)

(pinagsama ko na kasi para ‘di na kayo mahirapan bumalik-balik, nakakahilo rin yon)

• Whether or not former President GMA should be dropped as respondent on the basis of
presidential immunity from suit.

NO. It bears stressing that since there is no determination of administrative, civil or criminal
liability in amparo and habeas data proceedings, courts can only go as far as ascertaining responsibility or
accountability for the enforced disappearance or extrajudicial killing.

As was held in the case of Estrada v Desierto, a non-sitting President does not enjoy immunity
from suit, even for acts committed during the latter’s tenure; that courts should look with disfavor upon
the presidential privilege of immunity, especially when it impedes the search for truth or impairs the
vindication of a right. The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission also reveal that the intent of the
framers is clear that presidential immunity from suit is concurrent only with his tenure and not his term.
(The term means the time during which the officer may claim to hold the office as of right, and fixes the
interval after which the several incumbents shall succeed one another. The tenure represents the term
during which the incumbent actually holds office. The tenure may be shorter than the term for reasons
within or beyond the power of the incumbent.) Therefore, former Pres. GMA cannot use such immunity
to shield herself from judicial scrutiny that would assess whether, within the context
of amparo proceedings, she was responsible or accountable for the abduction of Rodriguez.
• Whether or not the doctrine of command responsibility can be used in amparo and habeas data
cases.

YES. As explained in Rubrico v. Arroyo, 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, it is our view that command responsibility may likewise find application in
proceedings seeking the privilege of the writ of amparo.
Precisely in the case at bar, the doctrine of command responsibility may be used to determine whether
respondents are accountable for and have the duty to address the abduction of Rodriguez in order to
enable the courts to devise remedial measures to protect his rights. Clearly, nothing precludes this Court
from applying the doctrine of command responsibility in amparo proceedings to ascertain responsibility
and accountability in extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.
In other words, command responsibility may be loosely applied in amparo cases in order to identify
those accountable individuals that have the power to effectively implement whatever processes an amparo
court would issue. In such application, the amparo court does not impute criminal responsibility but
merely pinpoint the superiors it considers to be in the best position to protect the rights of the aggrieved
party. Such identification of the responsible and accountable superiors may well be a preliminary
determination of criminal liability which, of course, is still subject to further investigation by the
appropriate government agency.
Thus, although there is no determination of criminal, civil or administrative liabilities, the doctrine of
command responsibility may nevertheless be applied to ascertain responsibility and accountability within
these foregoing definitions.

• Whether or not the president, as commander-in-chief of the military, can be held responsible or
accountable for extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.

YES.
To hold someone liable under the doctrine of command responsibility, the following elements
must obtain:
A. The existence of a superior-subordinate relationship between the accused as superior
and the perpetrator of the crime as his subordinate;
B. The superior knew or had reason to know that the crime was about to be or had been
committed; and
C. The superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the
criminal acts or punish the perpetrators thereof.
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.
• Whether or not Rodriguez has proven through substantial evidence that former President Arroyo
is responsible or accountable for his abduction.

NO. Rodriguez anchors his argument on a general allegation that on the basis of the "Melo
Commission" and the "Alston Report," respondents in G.R. No. 191805 already had knowledge of and
information on, and should have known that a climate of enforced disappearances had been perpetrated on
members of the NPA. Without even attaching, or at the very least, quoting these reports, Rodriguez
contends that the Melo Report points to rogue military men as the perpetrators. While the Alston Report
states that there is a policy allowing enforced disappearances and pins the blame on the President, we do
not automatically impute responsibility to former President Arroyo for each and every count of forcible
disappearance. Aside from Rodriguez’s general averments, there is no piece of evidence that could
establish her responsibility or accountability for his abduction. Neither was there even a clear attempt to
show that she should have known about the violation of his right to life, liberty or security, or that she had
failed to investigate, punish or prevent it.