IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF

AMPARO IN FAVOR OF LILIBETH O. LADAGA

G.R. No. 189689
November 13, 2012

FACTS:
The names of the petitioner are included in the infantry connected to the CPP and NPA.
Because of these, they are believed to be easy targets of extralegal killing- a real threat to their
life, liberty and security. Atty. Ladaga substantiated the threats against her life in an Affidavit.
She field a petition for writ of amparo with Application for a Production Order, because
allegedly the said list is the military hit-list wherein extrajudicial killing whose violent deaths can
be linked directly. The lower court dismissed the case for being a heresay.

ISSUE:
WON the allegation of the petitioner is justified.

HELD:
No. Every petition for the issuance of the writ is required to be supported by justifying
allegations of fact including the right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated
or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of the respondent, and how such
threat or violation is committed with the attendant circumstances detailed in supporting
affidavits. However, without substantial evidence of an actual threat to petitioners' rights to life,
liberty and security that consists more than just the inclusion of their names in an OB List, an
order for further investigation into, or production of, the military's Order of Battle, would have
no concrete basis.





















LT. COL. ROGELIO BOAC, LT. COL. FELIPE ANOTADO AND LT. FRANCIS
MIRABELLE SAMSON vs ERLINDA T. CADAPAN AND CONCEPCION E. EMPEO
G.R. Nos. 184461-62
May 31, 2011

FACTS:
Sherlyn, Karen, and Merino were allegedly abducted by some officials of the AFP. The
parents of the abducted students of the University of the Philippines filed a Writ of Habeas
Corpus and Writ of Amparo praying the release of their children. A decision was rendered in
favour of the respondents herein. However, the abducted was not yet released because petitioners
contend that there is a need to file a motion for execution in the decision of Writ of Amparo and
Habeas Corpus before such decision can be executed.

ISSUE:
WON a Motion for Execution of a decision in the Writ of Amparo and Habeas Corpus is
needed to cause the release of the abducted.

HELD:
No. Contrary to the ruling of the appellate court, there is no need to file a motion for
execution for an amparo or habeas corpus decision. Since the right to life, liberty and security of
a person is at stake, the proceedings should not be delayed and execution of any decision thereon
must be expedited as soon as possible since any form of delay, even for a day, may jeopardize
the very rights that these writs seek to immediately protect.
In fine, the appellate court erred in ruling that its directive to immediately release
Sherlyn, Karen and Merino was not automatically executory. For that would defeat the very
purpose of having summary proceedings in amparo petitions. Summary proceedings, it bears
emphasis, are immediately executory without prejudice to further appeals that may be taken
therefrom.


















MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, ALEXANDER S. DEYTO and
RUBEN A. SAPITULA vs ROSARIO GOPEZ LIM
G.R. No. 184769
October 5, 2010

FACTS:
Rosario Gopez Lim is an administrative clerk of Meralco in Plaridel Branch. An
anonymous letter was sent to their office stating punitive words against the respondent. The
president of MERALCO then ordered the transfer of respondents workplace from Plaridel to
Alabang. Respondent ask petitioner to provide explanation why she is ordered to immediately
transfer her place of work. Petitioner denied such prayer. Respondent now filed a writ of habeas
data so that petitioner will be forced to provide information.

ISSUE:
WON Writ of Habeas Data is appropriate in this case.

HELD:
No. The writ filed by respondent is of no moment. Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of
Habeas Data provides that 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. Petitioner is not engaged in the gathering, collecting or
storing of data or information. Hence it is not applicable to them.






















NORIEL RODRIGUEZ vs GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
G.R. No. 191805
April 16, 2013

FACTS:
The soldiers of the 17th Infantry Battalion, 5th Infantry Division of the military abducted
petitioner Rodriguez on 6 September 2009, and detained and tortured him until 17 September
2009. Upon release, Noriel Rodriguez filed writ of Amparo and Writ of Habeas data to refrain
respondents from further violating the petitioners right to life, liberty, security, and privacy
respectively.

ISSUE:
WON the petition of Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data should pursue.

HELD:
Yes. As correctly found out by the CA, there is substantial proof that indeed the
respondents abducted and tortured Rodriguez. The motion for reconsideration filed by
respondents are considered but hereby denied. The CA found that respondents Gen. Ibrado, PDG
Verzosa, LT. Gen. Bangit, Maj. Gen. Ochoa, Col. De Vera, and Lt. Col. Mina conducted a
perfunctory investigation which relied solely on the accounts of the military. Thus, the CA
correctly held that the investigation was superficial, one-sided, and depended entirely on the
report prepared by 1st Lt. Johnny Calub. No efforts were undertaken to solicit petitioners
version of the incident, and no witnesses were questioned regarding it. The CA also took into
account the palpable lack of effort from respondent Versoza, as the chief of the Philippine
National Police.





















IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND THE
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF MELISSA C. ROXAS,
MELISSA C. ROXAS vs.
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, et.al.
G.R. No. 189155
September 7, 2010

FACTS:
Petitioner is an American citizen of Filipino descent and a member of BAYAN-USA.
After doing volunteer work, someone bang at the front door and a voice demanding that they
open up. Suddenly, fifteen (15) heavily armed men forcibly opened the door, barged inside and
ordered petitioner and her companions to lie on the ground face down. The armed men were all
in civilian clothes and, with the exception of their leader, were also wearing bonnets to conceal
their faces. Petitioner was then detained for being a member of Communist Party of the
Philippines-New Peoples Army. She was interrogated and was later on released. Seeking
sanctuary against the threat of future harm as well as the suppression of any existing government
files or records linking her to the communist movement, petitioner filed a Petition for the Writs
of Amparo and Habeas Data. She impleaded in her petition the high-ranking civilian and military
authorities invoking the doctrine of command responsibility.

ISSUE:
WON the doctrine of command responsibility is applicable in this case.

HELD:
No. 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. Since the application of command responsibility presupposes
an imputation of individual liability, it is more aptly invoked in a full-blown criminal or
administrative case rather than in a summary amparo proceeding. It is because a writ of amparo
is a protective remedy aimed at providing judicial relief consisting of the appropriate remedial
measures and directives that may be crafted by the court, in order to address specific violations
or threats of violation of the constitutional rights to life, liberty or security. While the principal
objective of its proceedings is the initial determination of whether an enforced disappearance,
extralegal killing or threats thereof had transpiredthe writ does not, by so doing, fix liability
for such disappearance, killing or threats, whether that may be criminal, civil or administrative
under the applicable substantive law.