“x x x.
b. The failure to
conduct a fair and effect investigation amounted to a violation of or threat to
Rodriguezs rights to life, liberty and security.
The Rule on the Writ of Amparo explicitly states that the
violation of or threat to the right to life, liberty and security may be caused
by either an act or an omission of a public official.[111] Moreover, in the
context of amparo proceedings, responsibility may refer to the participation of
the respondents, by action or omission, in enforced disappearance.[112]
Accountability, on the other hand, may attach to respondents who are imputed
with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden
of disclosure; or those who carry, but have failed to discharge, the burden of
extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced
disappearance.[113]
In this regard, we emphasize our ruling in Secretary of
National Defense v. Manalo[114] that the right to security of a person includes
the positive obligation of the government to ensure the observance of the duty
to investigate, viz:
Third, the right to security of person is a guarantee of
protection of one's rights by the government. In the context of the writ of
Amparo, this right is built into the guarantees of the right to life and
liberty under Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution and the right to
security of person (as freedom from threat and guarantee of bodily and psychological
integrity) under Article III, Section 2. The right to security of person in
this third sense is a corollary of the policy that the State guarantees full
respect for human rights under Article II, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution.
As the government is the chief guarantor of order and security, the
Constitutional guarantee of the rights to life, liberty and security of person
is rendered ineffective if government does not afford protection to these
rights especially when they are under threat. Protection includes conducting
effective investigations, organization of the government apparatus to extend
protection to victims of extralegal killings or enforced disappearances (or
threats thereof) and/or their families, and bringing offenders to the bar of
justice. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights stressed the importance of
investigation in the Velasquez Rodriguez Case, viz:
(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 as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the
initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof, without an
effective search for the truth by the government.
xxx xxx xxx
Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has
interpreted the right to security not only as prohibiting the State from
arbitrarily depriving liberty, but imposing a positive duty on the State to
afford protection of the right to liberty. The ECHR interpreted the right to
security of person under Article 5(1) of the European Convention of Human
Rights in the leading case on disappearance of persons, Kurt v. Turkey. In this
case, the claimant's son had been arrested by state authorities and had not
been seen since. The family's requests for information and investigation
regarding his whereabouts proved futile. The claimant suggested that this was a
violation of her son's right to security of person. The ECHR ruled, viz:
... any deprivation of liberty must not only have been
effected in conformity with the substantive and procedural rules of national
law but must equally be in keeping with the very purpose of Article 5, namely
to protect the individual from arbitrariness... Having assumed control over
that individual it is incumbent on the authorities to account for his or her
whereabouts. For this reason, Article 5 must be seen as requiring the
authorities to take effective measures to safeguard against the risk of
disappearance and to conduct a prompt effective investigation into an arguable
claim that a person has been taken into custody and has not been seen
since.[115] (Emphasis supplied)
In the instant case, this Court rules that respondents in
G.R. No. 191805 are responsible or accountable for the violation of Rodriguezs
right to life, liberty and security on account of their abject failure to
conduct a fair and effective official investigation of his ordeal in the hands
of the military. Respondents Gen. Ibrado, PDG. Verzosa, Lt. Gen. Bangit, Maj.
Gen. Ochoa, Col. De Vera and Lt. Col. Mina only conducted a perfunctory
investigation, exerting no efforts to take Ramirezs account of the events into
consideration. Rather, these respondents solely relied on the reports and
narration of the military. The ruling of the appellate court must be
emphasized:
In this case, respondents Ibrado, Verzosa, Bangit,
Tolentino, Santos, De Vera, and Mina are accountable, for while they were
charged with the investigation of the subject incident, the investigation they
conducted and/or relied on is superficial and one-sided. The records disclose
that the military, in investigating the incident complained of, depended on the
Comprehensive Report of Noriel Rodriguez @Pepito prepared by 1Lt. Johnny Calub
for the Commanding Officer of the 501st Infantry Brigade, 5th Infantry
Division, Philippine Army. Such report, however, is merely based on the
narration of the military. No efforts were undertaken to solicit petitioners version
of the subject incident and no witnesses were questioned regarding the alleged
abduction of petitioner.
Respondent PDG Verzosa, as Chief of the PNP, is accountable
because Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6975, otherwise known as the PNP Law,
specifies the PNP as the governmental office with the mandate to investigate
and prevent crimes, effect the arrest of criminal offenders, bring offenders to
justice and assist in their prosecution. In this case, PDG Verzosa failed to
order the police to conduct the necessary investigation to unmask the mystery
surrounding petitioners abduction and disappearance. Instead, PDG Verzosa
disclaims accountability by merely stating that petitioner has no cause of
action against him. Palpable, however, is the lack of any effort on the part of
PDG Verzosa to effectively and aggressively investigate the violations of
petitioners right to life, liberty and security by members of the 17th Infantry
Battalion, 17th Infantry Division, Philippine Army.[116] (Emphasis supplied.)
Clearly, the absence of a fair and effective official
investigation into the claims of Rodriguez violated his right to security, for
which respondents in G.R. No. 191805 must be held responsible or accountable.
Nevertheless, it must be clarified that Rodriguez was unable
to establish any responsibility or accountability on the part of respondents
P/CSupt. Tolentino, P/SSupt. Santos, Calog and Palacpac. Respondent P/CSupt.
Tolentino had already retired when the abduction and torture of Rodriguez was
perpetrated, while P/SSupt. Santos had already been reassigned and transferred
to the National Capital Regional Police Office six months before the subject
incident occurred. Meanwhile, no sufficient allegations were maintained against
respondents Calog and Palacpac.
From all the foregoing, we rule that Rodriguez was
successful in proving through substantial evidence that respondents Gen.
Ibrado, PDG. Verzosa, Lt. Gen. Bangit, Maj. Gen. Ochoa, Brig. Gen. De Vera, 1st
Lt. Matutina, and Lt. Col. Mina were responsible and accountable for the
violation of Rodriguezs rights to life, liberty and security on the basis of
(a) his abduction, detention and torture from 6 September to 17 September 2009,
and (b) the lack of any fair and effective official investigation as to his allegations.
Thus, the privilege of the writs of amparo and habeas data must be granted in
his favor. As a result, there is no longer any need to issue a temporary
protection order, as the privilege of these writs already has the effect of
enjoining respondents in G.R. No. 191805 from violating his rights to life,
liberty and security.
It is also clear from the above discussion that despite (a)
maintaining former President Arroyo in the list of respondents in G.R. No.
191805, and (b) allowing the application of the command responsibility doctrine
to amparo and habeas data proceedings, Rodriguez failed to prove through
substantial evidence that former President Arroyo was responsible or
accountable for the violation of his rights to life, liberty and property. He
likewise failed to prove through substantial evidence the accountability or
responsibility of respondents Maj. Gen. Ochoa, Cruz, Pasicolan and Callagan.
X x x.”
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ: NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, versus GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN. VICTOR S. IBRADO, PDG JESUS AME VERSOZA, LT. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, MAJ. GEN. NESTOR Z. OCHOA, P/CSUPT. AMETO G. TOLENTINO, P/SSUPT. JUDE W. SANTOS, COL. REMIGIO M. DE VERA, an officer named MATUTINA, LT. COL. MINA, CALOG, GEORGE PALACPAC under the name HARRY, ANTONIO CRUZ, ALDWIN BONG PASICOLAN and VINCENT CALLAGAN, Respondents. G.R. No. 191805, November 15, 2011.
