October 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > October 2007 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 179095 : October 28, 2007] RAYMOND MANALO AND REYNALDO MANALO V. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, ET AL. :
[G.R. No. 179095 : October 28, 2007]
RAYMOND MANALO AND REYNALDO MANALO V. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, ET AL.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a solution of the Court En Banc dated OCTOBER 25, 2007
"G.R. No. 179095 (Raymond Manalo and Reynaldo Manalo v. Secretary of National Defense, et al.)
This is a Petition for Prohibition, Injunction, and Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)[1] to stop respondents and/or their officers and agents from depriving the petitioners of their right to liberty and other basic rights. Petitioners also seek, as ancillary remedies, Protective Custody Orders, Appointment of Commissioner, Inspection and Access Orders, and all other legal and equitable reliefs under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution; and Rule 135, Section 6 of the Rules of Court.
Petitioners allege that on February 14, 2006, they were forcibly taken from their homes in Bulacan by unidentified armed men. On May 12, 2006, the relatives of petitioners filed a petition for habeas corpus with the Court of Appeals (CA), in which it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 94431, against then Lt. Gen. Hermogenes C. Esperon as Commanding General of the Philippine Army; then Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan as Commander of the 7th Infantry Division in Luzon; M/Sgt. Rizal Hilario alias "Rolly Castillo"; and Michael dela Cruz, Madning dela Cruz, Puti dela Cruz, Pula dela Cruz, Randy Mendoza, and Rudy Mendoza as members of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU). In the return of the writ, said respondents denied any involvement or participation in petitioners' disappearance.
In its June 27, 2007 Decision, the CA held that:
On August 13, 2007, petitioners allegedly escaped from their captors. Thus, motions to withdraw the habeas corpus petitions were filed before the CA and this Court because the cases had become moot and academic.
Petitioner Raymond Manalo executed a handwritten statement[4] narrating the circumstances leading to his and his brother's forcible disappearance, the torture inflicted on them, the place where they were held, and how they escaped. They allegedly remained in captivity for more than 18 months during which they were subjected to physical and psychological torture such as severe beatings, being bathed in their urine and whipped with a chain with a barbed wire attached to the end, having water poured into their nostrils, and being fed with rotten food. Raymond also recounted the human rights violations committed against other civilians they met in captivity. He identified retired Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan, M/Sgt. Rizal Hilario, other officers of the AFP, and some of respondents in the habeas corpus petition, as having been present or actively taken part in their torture. These respondents denied any involvement in petitioners' case and other disappearances.
Petitioner Reynaldo Manalo, Raymond's older brother, was allegedly so traumatized that he was not yet ready to execute any written statement. While the brothers were in captivity, they were threatened with harm if they or their families would reveal what had been done to them. Since their escape, petitioners have purportedly been staying with trusted persons. As such, they were fearful for their safety and that of their relatives.
Hence, with the help of the Free Legal Assistance Group, petitioners Manalo brothers filed this petition for (1) prohibition, injunction, and TRO to restrain the commission or continuance of the acts which violate petitioners' right to life, liberty, and other basic rights; (2) protective custody to place petitioners in the Court's custody instead of the institutions which they distrust, that is, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), Philippine National Police, and Witness Protection Program of the Department of Justice; (3) appointment of an independent commissioner who will examine the veracity of Raymond's statement instead of producing Raymond for the examination of the Court; and (4) Inspection and Access Orders and similar reliefs so that the Court can inquire into incommunicado detention places mentioned by Raymond, order a medical examination of petitioners, or undertake other means of protecting them.
In our August 24, 2007 Resolution, we (1) ordered the Secretary of the Department of National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the AFP, their agents, representatives, or persons acting in their stead, including but not limited to the CAFGU to submit their Comment; and (2) enjoined them from causing the arrest of petitioners, or otherwise restricting, curtailing, abridging, or depriving them of, their right to life, liberty, and other basic rights, as guaranteed under Art. Ill, Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution.[5]
Respondents, through the Solicitor General, argue in their Comment that the petition fails to meet and satisfy the essential requisites for the grant of the writ of prohibition, injunction, and TRO provided in Sec. 2, Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.[6] For one, respondents claim that they do not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions; and that their duties call for the exercise of discretion, not merely ministerial functions, which may not be restrained by an action for prohibition. Also, they claim that there was no allegation that respondents acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in relation to a "proceeding" that is pending before them. Lastly, they allege that the petition is not accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order, or resolution subject of the petition.[7]
Respondents further maintain that the need for immediate protective custody orders, appointment of an independent commissioner, inspection and access orders, and similar reliefs are all without factual and legal bases. They point out that the only basis of the petition is Raymond's "unverified, uncorroborated, obviously self-serving and unsworn statement." Moreover, they argue that the petition raises questions of fact which would require validation, reception of evidence for or against them, and full-blown trial on the merits to determine petitioners' entitlement to the reliefs. Lastly, they note that there is no law authorizing the issuance of protective orders, inspection and access orders, and appointment of an independent commissioner. Thus, they pray for the dismissal of the petition.[8]
In their Reply, petitioners submit that the Solicitor General's failure to traverse the factual matters stated by them under oath means that these matters are considered established in the absence of any factual controversy. They emphasize that prohibition lies when there is no clear, legal, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. They add that injunction is among the reliefs sought, and is undoubtedly meritorious since there are clear legal rights that are threatened by the act of respondents and the people under their control, supervision, or direction. They submitted a compact disc containing a video footage of Raymond's interview regarding their taking, detention, and escape for the Court's consideration. Lastly, they ask this Court to exercise its rule-making power under Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution to promulgate rules for the protection and enforcement of human rights.
When the Rule on the Writ of Amparo (Amparo Rule) took effect on October 24, 2007, petitioners filed a Manifestation and Omnibus Motion to Treat Existing Petition as Amparo Petition, to Admit Supporting Affidavits, and to Grant Interim and Final Amparo Reliefs (Manifestation). In this Manifestation, petitioners prayed (1) that the petition be considered a Petition for the Writ of Amparo under Sec. 26 of the Amparo Rule; (2) that the Court issue the writ commanding respondents to make a verified return within the period provided by law and containing the specific matter required by law; (3) that they be granted the interim reliefs allowed by the Amparo Rule and all other reliefs prayed for but not covered by the Amparo Rule; (4) that the Court, after hearing, render judgment as required in Sec. 18; and (5) all other just and equitable reliefs.
After a close perusal of the allegations of the petition and the Comment thereon, we are treating the petition filed last August 23, 2007 as a Petition under the Amparo Rule.
WHEREFORE, let a WRIT OF AMPARO be issued to respondents requiring them to file with the CA a verified written return within five (5) working days from service of the writ. We REMAND the petition to the CA and designate the Division of Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin to conduct the summary hearing on the petition on November 8, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. and decide the petition in accordance with the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.
"G.R. No. 179095 (Raymond Manalo and Reynaldo Manalo v. Secretary of National Defense, et al.)
This is a Petition for Prohibition, Injunction, and Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)[1] to stop respondents and/or their officers and agents from depriving the petitioners of their right to liberty and other basic rights. Petitioners also seek, as ancillary remedies, Protective Custody Orders, Appointment of Commissioner, Inspection and Access Orders, and all other legal and equitable reliefs under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution; and Rule 135, Section 6 of the Rules of Court.
Petitioners allege that on February 14, 2006, they were forcibly taken from their homes in Bulacan by unidentified armed men. On May 12, 2006, the relatives of petitioners filed a petition for habeas corpus with the Court of Appeals (CA), in which it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 94431, against then Lt. Gen. Hermogenes C. Esperon as Commanding General of the Philippine Army; then Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan as Commander of the 7th Infantry Division in Luzon; M/Sgt. Rizal Hilario alias "Rolly Castillo"; and Michael dela Cruz, Madning dela Cruz, Puti dela Cruz, Pula dela Cruz, Randy Mendoza, and Rudy Mendoza as members of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU). In the return of the writ, said respondents denied any involvement or participation in petitioners' disappearance.
In its June 27, 2007 Decision, the CA held that:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court holds that respondents Madning de la Cruz, Puti de la Cruz, Pula de la Cruz, Rudy Mendoza and CAFGU members, Michael de la Cruz and Randy Mendoza are illegally detaining Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo, and are hereby ordered to RELEASE said victims Raymond Manalo and Reynaldo Manalo within ten (10) days from receipt hereof; otherwise, they will be held in contempt of court. This is without prejudice to any penalty that may be imposed should they be found later by any other court of justice to be criminally, administratively, or civilly liable for any other act/s against the persons of aforenamed victims.[2]On July 18, 2007, the relatives of petitioners appealed to this Court. The case was docketed as G.R. No. 178614. Meanwhile, respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the CA.[3]
On August 13, 2007, petitioners allegedly escaped from their captors. Thus, motions to withdraw the habeas corpus petitions were filed before the CA and this Court because the cases had become moot and academic.
Petitioner Raymond Manalo executed a handwritten statement[4] narrating the circumstances leading to his and his brother's forcible disappearance, the torture inflicted on them, the place where they were held, and how they escaped. They allegedly remained in captivity for more than 18 months during which they were subjected to physical and psychological torture such as severe beatings, being bathed in their urine and whipped with a chain with a barbed wire attached to the end, having water poured into their nostrils, and being fed with rotten food. Raymond also recounted the human rights violations committed against other civilians they met in captivity. He identified retired Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan, M/Sgt. Rizal Hilario, other officers of the AFP, and some of respondents in the habeas corpus petition, as having been present or actively taken part in their torture. These respondents denied any involvement in petitioners' case and other disappearances.
Petitioner Reynaldo Manalo, Raymond's older brother, was allegedly so traumatized that he was not yet ready to execute any written statement. While the brothers were in captivity, they were threatened with harm if they or their families would reveal what had been done to them. Since their escape, petitioners have purportedly been staying with trusted persons. As such, they were fearful for their safety and that of their relatives.
Hence, with the help of the Free Legal Assistance Group, petitioners Manalo brothers filed this petition for (1) prohibition, injunction, and TRO to restrain the commission or continuance of the acts which violate petitioners' right to life, liberty, and other basic rights; (2) protective custody to place petitioners in the Court's custody instead of the institutions which they distrust, that is, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), Philippine National Police, and Witness Protection Program of the Department of Justice; (3) appointment of an independent commissioner who will examine the veracity of Raymond's statement instead of producing Raymond for the examination of the Court; and (4) Inspection and Access Orders and similar reliefs so that the Court can inquire into incommunicado detention places mentioned by Raymond, order a medical examination of petitioners, or undertake other means of protecting them.
In our August 24, 2007 Resolution, we (1) ordered the Secretary of the Department of National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the AFP, their agents, representatives, or persons acting in their stead, including but not limited to the CAFGU to submit their Comment; and (2) enjoined them from causing the arrest of petitioners, or otherwise restricting, curtailing, abridging, or depriving them of, their right to life, liberty, and other basic rights, as guaranteed under Art. Ill, Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution.[5]
Respondents, through the Solicitor General, argue in their Comment that the petition fails to meet and satisfy the essential requisites for the grant of the writ of prohibition, injunction, and TRO provided in Sec. 2, Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.[6] For one, respondents claim that they do not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial functions; and that their duties call for the exercise of discretion, not merely ministerial functions, which may not be restrained by an action for prohibition. Also, they claim that there was no allegation that respondents acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in relation to a "proceeding" that is pending before them. Lastly, they allege that the petition is not accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order, or resolution subject of the petition.[7]
Respondents further maintain that the need for immediate protective custody orders, appointment of an independent commissioner, inspection and access orders, and similar reliefs are all without factual and legal bases. They point out that the only basis of the petition is Raymond's "unverified, uncorroborated, obviously self-serving and unsworn statement." Moreover, they argue that the petition raises questions of fact which would require validation, reception of evidence for or against them, and full-blown trial on the merits to determine petitioners' entitlement to the reliefs. Lastly, they note that there is no law authorizing the issuance of protective orders, inspection and access orders, and appointment of an independent commissioner. Thus, they pray for the dismissal of the petition.[8]
In their Reply, petitioners submit that the Solicitor General's failure to traverse the factual matters stated by them under oath means that these matters are considered established in the absence of any factual controversy. They emphasize that prohibition lies when there is no clear, legal, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. They add that injunction is among the reliefs sought, and is undoubtedly meritorious since there are clear legal rights that are threatened by the act of respondents and the people under their control, supervision, or direction. They submitted a compact disc containing a video footage of Raymond's interview regarding their taking, detention, and escape for the Court's consideration. Lastly, they ask this Court to exercise its rule-making power under Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution to promulgate rules for the protection and enforcement of human rights.
When the Rule on the Writ of Amparo (Amparo Rule) took effect on October 24, 2007, petitioners filed a Manifestation and Omnibus Motion to Treat Existing Petition as Amparo Petition, to Admit Supporting Affidavits, and to Grant Interim and Final Amparo Reliefs (Manifestation). In this Manifestation, petitioners prayed (1) that the petition be considered a Petition for the Writ of Amparo under Sec. 26 of the Amparo Rule; (2) that the Court issue the writ commanding respondents to make a verified return within the period provided by law and containing the specific matter required by law; (3) that they be granted the interim reliefs allowed by the Amparo Rule and all other reliefs prayed for but not covered by the Amparo Rule; (4) that the Court, after hearing, render judgment as required in Sec. 18; and (5) all other just and equitable reliefs.
After a close perusal of the allegations of the petition and the Comment thereon, we are treating the petition filed last August 23, 2007 as a Petition under the Amparo Rule.
WHEREFORE, let a WRIT OF AMPARO be issued to respondents requiring them to file with the CA a verified written return within five (5) working days from service of the writ. We REMAND the petition to the CA and designate the Division of Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin to conduct the summary hearing on the petition on November 8, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. and decide the petition in accordance with the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 315
[2] Id. at 9-10. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok and concurred in by Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon and Aurora Santiago-Lagman of the Former Special Sixth Division.
[3] Id. at 10-11.
[4] Id. at 17-19, Annex �A�.
[5] Id. at 20-21
[6] Petition for Prohibition. - When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum dshopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46.
[7] Rollo, pp. 15-19.
[8] Id. at 19-20.
