Writ of Amparo – Interim Reliefs Available

Balao v. Arroyo
G.R. No. 186050, December 13, 2011

FACTS:
The siblings of James Balao, and Longid (petitioners), filed with the RTC of La
Trinidad, Benguet a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in favor of James Balao
who was abducted by unidentified armed men earlier.

James M. Balao is a Psychology and Economics graduate of the UP-Baguio. In

1984, he was among those who founded the Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA), a
coalition of NGOs working for the cause of indigenous peoples in the Cordillera Region.

According to witnesses’ testimony, James was abducted by unidentified men,

saying they were policemen and were arresting him for a drugs case and then made to
ride a white van.

Petitioners prayed for the issuance of a writ of amparo and likewise prayed for (1)
an inspection order for the inspection of at least 11 military and police facilities which have
been previously reported as detention centers for activists abducted by military and police
operatives; (2) a production order for all documents that contain evidence relevant to the
petition, particularly the Order of Battle List and any record or dossier respondents have
on James; and (3) a witness protection order.

The RTC issued a Writ of Amparo and ordered the respondents to (a) disclose
where James is detained or confined, (b) to release James considering his unlawful
detention since his abduction and (c) to cease and desist from further inflicting harm upon
his person. However, it denied the issuance of the inspection order, production order and
witness protection order for failure of herein Petitioners to comply with the stringent
provisions on the Rule on the Writ of Amparo and substantiate the same.

ISSUES:
1. Is the issuance of the Writ of Amparo proper?
2. Is the denial of the interim reliefs proper?

RULING:
1. No.
The trial court gave considerable weight to the discussion in the petition of briefing
papers supposedly obtained from the AFP indicating that the anti-insurgency campaign
of the military under the administration of President Arroyo included targeting of identified
legal organizations under the NDF, which included the CPA, and their members, as
“enemies of the state. Such documented practice of targeting activists in the military’s
counter-insurgency program by itself does not fulfill the evidentiary standard provided in
the Amparo Rule to establish an enforced disappearance.

The similarity between the circumstances attending a particular case of abduction

with those surrounding previous instances of enforced disappearances does not,
necessarily, carry sufficient weight to prove that the government orchestrated such
abduction. Accordingly, the trial court in this case cannot simply infer government
involvement in the abduction of James from past similar incidents in which the victims
also worked or affiliated with the CPA and other left-leaning groups.

Assessing the evidence on record, the participation in any manner of military and
police authorities in the abduction of James has not been adequately proven. The
identities of the abductors have not been established, much less their link to any military
or police unit. There is likewise no concrete evidence indicating that James is being held
or detained upon orders of or with acquiescence of government agents.

2. Yes.
An inspection order is an interim relief designed to give support or strengthen the
claim of a petitioner in an amparo petition, in order to aid the court before making a
decision. A basic requirement before an amparo court may grant an inspection order is
that the place to be inspected is reasonably determinable from the allegations of the party
seeking the order. In this case, the issuance of inspection order was properly denied since
the petitioners specified several military and police establishments based merely on the
allegation that the testimonies of victims and witnesses in previous incidents of similar
abductions involving activists disclosed that those premises were used as detention
centers. In the same vein, the prayer for issuance of a production order was predicated
on petitioners’ bare allegation that it obtained confidential information from an unidentified
military source, that the name of James was included in the so-called Order of Battle.
Indeed, the trial court could not have sanctioned any “fishing expedition” by precipitate
issuance of inspection and production orders on the basis of insufficient claims of one
party.