EN BANC

[G.R. No. 220028. November 10, 2015.]

BAYAN MUNA PARTY-LIST REP. CARLOS ISAGANI T. ZARATE,

GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY REP. EMERENCIANA DE JESUS, FORMER
ANAKPAWIS PARTY-LIST REP. RAFAEL V. MARIANO, FORMER
BAYANMUNA PARTY-LIST REP. TEODORO CASIÑO, CRISTINA
PALABAY, SR. MARY FRANCIS AÑOVER, REV. IRMA M. BALABA,
JACQUILINE RUIZ, HEIRS OF FORMER ANAKPAWIS PARTY-LIST REP.
CRISPIN BELTRAN, REPRESENTED BY OFELIA BELTRAN BALLETA,
petitioners, vs. H. E. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III IN HIS CAPACITY
AS THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE
PHILIPPINES, VOLTAIRE GAZMIN IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE
SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, LT. GEN. HERNANDO IRIBERRI
IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE PHILIPPINES (AFP), MAJ. GEN. VIRGILIO A. HERNANDEZ IN HIS
CAPACITY AS DEPUTY COMMANDER FOR INTELLIGENCE OF THE
ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, BRIG. GEN. ARNOLD M.
QUIAPO IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE CHIEF OF THE INTELLIGENCE
SERVICE OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES (ISAFP), MAJ.
GEN. EDUARDO AÑO IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE COMMANDING
GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE ARMY (PA), BRIG. GEN. HONORATO S.
DE LOS REYES IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE DEPUTY COMMANDING
GENERAL FOR PERSONNEL OF THE AFP, P/DIR. RICARDO MARQUEZ
IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE
(PNP), LT. GEN. AURELIO BALADAD IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE
COMMANDING GENERAL OF THE EASTERN MINDANAO COMMAND,
COL. HAROLD CABREROS, COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE 1003RD
BRIGADE, LT. COL. ZOSIMO OLIVEROS IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE
COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE 68TH INFANTRY BATTALION, LT.
COL. ROBERTO BUNAGAN IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE COMMANDING
OFFICER OF THE 60TH INFANTRY BATTALION, AND C/SUPT. VICTOR
DEONA IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION AND DETECTION GROUP (CIDG), P/SSUPT. JOEL
PERNITO IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE
EASTERN MINDANAO CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND DETECTION
UNIT, P/CINSP. WARREN E. DABLO IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE TEAM
LEADER OF THE DAVAO CITY CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DIVISION,
AND JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated
NOVEMBER 10, 2015, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 220028 (Bayan Muna Party-List Rep. Carlos Isagani T. Zarate,
Gabriela Women's Party Rep. Emerenciana de Jesus, Former Anakpawis Party-List
Rep. Rafael V. Mariano, Former Bayanmuna Party-List Rep. Teodoro Casiño,
Cristina Palabay, Sr. Mary Francis Añover, Rev. Irma M. Balaba, Jacquiline Ruiz,
Heirs of Former Anakpawis Party-List Rep. Crispin Beltran, represented by Ofelia
Beltran Balleta, petitioners v. H. E. Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III in his capacity as
the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Voltaire Gazmin in his
capacity as the Secretary of National Defense, Lt. Gen. Hernando Iriberri in his
capacity as Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), Maj. Gen.
Virgilio A. Hernandez in his capacity as Deputy Commander for Intelligence of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines, Brig. Gen. Arnold M. Quiapo in his capacity as the
Chief of the intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (ISAFP), Maj.
Gen. Eduardo Año in his capacity as the Commanding General of the Philippine Army
(PA), Brig. Gen. Honorato S. de los Reyes in his capacity as the Deputy Commanding
General for Personnel of the AFP, P/Dir. Ricardo Marquez in his capacity as Chief of
the Philippine National Police (PNP), Lt. Gen. Aurelio Baladad in his capacity as the
Commanding General of the Eastern Mindanao Command, Col. Harold Cabreros,
Commanding Officer of the 1003rd Brigade, Lt. Col. Zosimo Oliveros in his capacity as
the Commanding Officer of the 68th Infantry Battalion, Lt. Col. Roberto Bunagan in his
capacity as the Commanding Officer of the 60th Infantry Battalion, and C/Supt. Victor
Deona in his capacity as the Director of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group
(CIDG), P/SSupt. Joel Pernito in his capacity as the Regional Director of the Eastern
Mindanao Criminal Investigation and Detection Unit, P/CInsp. Warren E. Dablo in his
capacity as the Team Leader of the Davao City Criminal Investigation Division, and
John Does and Jane Does, respondents)
RESOLUTION
Before the Court is a Petition for a Writ of Amparo and for a Writ of Habeas Data
filed by the following petitioners: Bayan Muna Party-List Rep. Carlos Isagani Zarate
(petitioner Zarate), Gabriela Women's Party Rep. Emerenciana De Jesus (petitioner De
Jesus), former Anakpawis Party-List Rep. Rafael Mariano (petitioner Mariano), former
Bayan Muna Party-List Rep. Teodoro Casiño (petitioner Casiño), Karapatan Secretary
General Cristina Palabay (petitioner Palabay), Sr. Mary Francis Añover (petitioner
Añover) of the Rural Missionaries of the Philippines, Rev. Irma Balaba (petitioner
Balaba) of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines, Children's Rehabilitation
Center (CRC) Executive Director Jacquiline Ruiz (petitioner Ruiz), and the Heirs of
Crispin Beltran (petitioner Heirs of Crispin Beltran).
Petitioners aver that they are members of various progressive party-lists and/or
national and religious organizations, and that these organizations have been wrongfully
tagged by the military and the police as "communist front organizations." 1
As alleged in the petition, sometime in March 2014, the Government commenced
intensified military offensives in Talaingod, Davao del Norte under the rubric of
counterinsurgency. 2 In April 2014, about 1,300 Manobos allegedly evacuated to Davao
City to escape the effects of said military operations. These evacuees returned to their
communities in May 2014. 3
Beginning January 2015, however, some of the Manobos started going back to
Davao City. By July 2015, approximately 700 Manobos were at the United Church of
Christ in the Philippines (UCCP) Haran. Petitioners claimed that these Manobos sought
refuge at UCCP Haran due to the persisting militarization of their communities and their
forcible recruitment to the paramilitary group, Alamara. 4
Certain Manobos claimed, on the other hand, that they were deceived into going
to Davao City; that, upon reaching UCCP Haran, they were deprived of their freedom of
locomotion and were held there against their will from 3 February 2015 to 25 February
2015; that during said period they were forced to listen to lectures and join rallies; that
their repeated pleas to go home fell on deaf ears until a fellow tribe member was found
dead, hanging lifeless on a tree, inside the UCCP Haran compound; and that it was only
then that they were allowed to go home with the body of the deceased. 5 CAIHTE

On 12 May 2015 the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG)

forwarded to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Davao City a complaint for violation of
Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention) , and
Republic Act No. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003) , as amended by R.A.
No. 10364 (Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012) . 6 Said complaint was
filed by Datu Kalumpot Dalon, Datu Laris Landahay, Libara Angkomog, Toto Angkomog,
Juvanie Angkomog, Limar Mansomoy-At, and Tata Angkomog-Lundia against
defendants Rev. Jurie Jaime, Sheena Duazo, Hanimay Suazo, Ryan Laniba, Tony
Salubre, Jimboy Marciano, May Ann Sapar, Jaja Necosio, Pedro Arnado, Kerlan
Fanagel, Sr., Stella Matutina, Sr., Restita Miles, Isidro Andao, Kharlo Manano, Riuz
Valle, and other John Does.
To determine who would be charged in the complaint, the complainants were
shown "lists" from which they purportedly identified the defendants. It appears that the
photographs of petitioners De Jesus, Mariano, 7 Casiño, and Añover were in the "first
list," while the photographs of petitioners Zarate, Palabay, Balaba, and Ruiz were in the
"second list."
Petitioners now aver that the inclusion of their names and photographs in the
"lists" indicates that they are and have been the subject of State surveillance. 8 Coupled
with instances of harassment in the past, attempts to incriminate them in fabricated
criminal charges, and insinuations of their links with the New People's Army (NPA),
petitioners argue that their inclusion in the "lists" are threats to their life, liberty, and
security warranting the protection of the writ of amparo. 9
Additionally, petitioners claim that as there is absolutely no basis for the inclusion
of their names and photographs in the "lists," then respondents should be compelled via
the writ of habeas data to disclose and to provide petitioners with copies of all
information and evidence pertaining to them which respondents have in their files or
records, and for such information to be destroyed. 10
After a careful review of the averments of the petition and the records of the
case, we dismiss the petition.
The writ of amparo is a "remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty
and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity." 11
In Tapuz v. Del Rosario , 12 the Court was emphatic in saying that a writ of
amparo, "intended to address violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or
security, as an extraordinary and independent remedy beyond those available under the
prevailing Rules, or as a remedy supplemental to these Rules," is not one to issue on
"amorphous and uncertain grounds." aSc ITE

This is precisely the reason why Section 5 (c) of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC (Rule on
the Writ of Amparo) requires every petition to state "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."
As an additional safeguard, Sections 17 & 18 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo
requires substantial evidence. "Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is more
than a mere imputation of wrongdoing or violation that would warrant a finding of liability
against the person charged." 13

The writ of amparo is an extraordinary remedy as it is available not only for

violations of life, liberty, and security, but also against threatened violations of such. But
not all threats are protected by the Amparo Rule. As previously elucidated by this Court,
"only actual threats, as may be established from all the facts and circumstances of the
case, can qualify as a violation that may be addressed under the Rule on the Writ of
Amparo." 14
Having these guidelines in mind, we hold that petitioners failed to substantially
prove that their life, liberty and security are threatened with violation.
The petitioners' general statements to the effect that 143 members of Bayanmuna
were victims of extrajudicial killings during the Arroyo administration, and that 12
members and leaders of Bayanmuna have been killed under the Aquino administration;
15 that from 2010 to 2015, more than 150 peasant leaders, farmers, and fisher-folks

have been killed while scores of others have suffered from other forms of human rights
abuses; 16 that 133 members of Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) were
extrajudicially killed under the Arroyo administration, and that under the Aquino
administration, 158 peasants have been killed, 22 of whom are members of the KMP; 17
and that from 2001 to 2015, 38 leaders and members of the KARAPATAN alliance have
been victims of extrajudicial killings 18 are empty averments in the context of the
Amparo Rule. Mere membership in these organizations or sectors cannot equate to an
actual threat that would warrant the issuance of a writ of amparo.
Moreover, as the writ of amparo is sought individually and granted individually,
then we should assess the situation of the petitioners individually. Lumping together the
previous and present experiences of petitioners may give off the impression that,
indeed, taken together, petitioners' life, liberty and security are threatened to be violated.
But this way of presenting the obtaining situation is misleading. A perusal of their
individual circumstances negates the conclusion that they are each entitled to a writ of
amparo.
Petitioner Zarate avers that his inclusion in the "lists," coupled with his previous
inclusion in the Order of Battle (OB) of the military, the filing of two charges of serious
illegal detention and violation of R.A. No. 7610 (Anti-Child Abuse Law) in connection
with the detention of the Manobos in UCCP Haran, and the fact of his being a former
representative of Bayanmuna Party-list which has been labeled by the Government,
through the military, as a "front organization" of the Communist Party of the Philippines,
entitle him to a writ of amparo.
We note, however, that the matter of petitioner Zarate's supposed inclusion in the
military's OB has already been addressed by the Court in the consolidated cases of In
re: Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in favor of Lilibeth O. Ladaga, et al.,
19 where we similarly held that a writ of amparo was unavailing. As for the pending

cases against petitioner Zarate, suffice it to say that the complaints were duly supported
by affidavits, 20 police blotters, 21 medical records, 22 and reports of social workers. 23
Thus, at this point, we cannot say that these are fabricated criminal charges or that they
were filed to threaten petitioner Zarate's life, liberty, and security. As for his membership
in the Bayanmuna Party-list, we reiterate our pronouncement that mere membership in
such an organization cannot be considered as an actual threat as to justify the issuance
of a writ of amparo.
As for petitioner De Jesus, she merely cites her status as the current party-list
representative of Gabriela Women's Party. Similarly, petitioner Ruiz cites her position
as Executive Director of the CRC.
As we have earlier said, however, mere membership in such organizations do not
equate to actual threats which will warrant the issuance of a writ of amparo.
Petitioners Mariano and Casiño, on the other hand, cite their previous charge of
rebellion, 24 and their earlier implication in a kidnapping with murder case.
The filing of cases, however, cannot be characterized as an unlawful act or
omission in the context of the Amparo Rule. In Chairperson Siegfred B. Mison v. Hon.
Paulino Q. Gallegos and Ja Hoon Ku, 25 we said that "(a)s the Amparo Rule was
intended to address the intractable problem of "extralegal killings" and "enforced
disappearances," its coverage, in its present form, is confined to these two instances or
to threats thereof," Clearly then, having failed to show how the legal cases against them
translates to threats of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, petitioners
Mariano and Casiño are not entitled to the writ of amparo. HEITAD

Petitioner Palabay points to the labeling of the administrations of Presidents

Macapagal-Arroyo and Aquino of KARAPATAN as "front organization of the CPPA-NPA-
NDP," 26 and the death in 2013 of one of their human rights worker who was allegedly
included in the "target list" of the military. 27
Again, we emphasize that mere membership in said organization is not an actual
threat that entitles one to a writ of amparo. Moreover, the fact of death of one of
KARAPATAN's workers, without corroborative evidence that his death was on account
of his membership in KARAPATAN, is not an actual threat that will pass the test of
substantial evidence.
Petitioner Añover claims that the schools run by the Rural Missionaries of the
Philippines for the Manobos have been occupied by soldiers, and that these schools
were tagged as "communist schools" providing education for rebels.
Petitioner Añover, however, fails to allege any personal circumstances showing
how her right to life, liberty, and security are threatened to be violated.
Petitioner Balaba, for her part, reports that after the dialogue at the Commission
on Human Rights regarding the detention of the Manobos in UCCP Haran, three
unidentified men believed to be agents of the State went to the Pastoral House to look
for her in four different occasions; and also that she noticed a vehicle with red plates
(SLB 383) parked just six meters away from the gate of the parsonage, with a man who
was always on his cellphone, and which left after a couple of hours.
Of all the petitioners, it is only petitioner Balaba who alleged personal
circumstances claiming threatened violations of her right to life, liberty and security. The
next question, then, is whether these allegations constitute substantial evidence as to
warrant the issuance of a writ of amparo.
We answer in the negative. The instances cited by petitioner Balaba fail to
demonstrate an actual threat to her life, liberty, and security. In the Ladaga case where
the petitioner therein claimed that the inclusion of her name in the OB List presented a
threat to her security because other known activists whose names or the names of their
militant organizations were also included in the said OB List met violent deaths, and as
her vehicle was tailed by motorcycle-riding men, and as suspicious men attempted
entry into her home, the Court held that "the existence of the OB List could not be
directly associated with the menacing behavior of suspicious men or the violent deaths
of certain personalities." 28 Similarly, in the case at bar, we cannot conclude that
petitioner Balaba's inclusion in the "lists" has a direct relation to the circumstances she
experienced, which circumstances are even less menacing than the ones reported in
the Ladaga case.
Time and again, we have held that "[t]he alleged threat to herein petitioners' rights
 Time and again, we have held that "[t]he alleged threat to herein petitioners' rights
to life, liberty and security must be actual, and not merely one of supposition or with the
likelihood of happening." 29 The writ of amparo, being an extraordinary remedy,
"[a]ccordingly, the remedy ought to be resorted to and granted judiciously, lest the ideal
sought by the Amparo Rule be diluted and undermined by the indiscriminate filing of
amparo petitions for purposes less than the desire to secure amparo reliefs and
protection and/or on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations." 30
Let us now discuss petitioners' prayer for the writ of habeas data. 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." 31
The extraordinary writ of habeas data "provides a judicial remedy to protect a
person's right to control information regarding oneself, particularly in instances where
such information is being collected through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful
ends." 32 ATICc S

Similar to the writ of amparo, Section 6 of A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC (Rule on the Writ
of Habeas Data) provides that the petition should aver "the manner the right to privacy
is violated or threatened and how it affects the right to life, liberty or security of the
aggrieved party." The Habeas Data Rule likewise requires substantial evidence. 33
In the present petition, petitioners fail to show how their right to privacy is
violated given that the information contained in the "lists" are only their names, their
positions in their respective organizations, and their photographs. All these data are of
public knowledge and are readily accessible even to civilians, especially since
petitioners are known personalities who are often featured in news reports.
We also note that petitioner Heirs of Crispin Beltran joined the present petition to
"seek the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Data to determine what documents are in the
possession of the respondents pertaining to Rep. Crispin Beltran who died on 20 May
2008." 34
Although the petition for a writ of habeas data may be filed by family member, or
even relatives, on behalf of the aggrieved party, 35 the Habeas Data Rule presupposes
that the aggrieved party is still alive as Section 6 of the said Rule requires the petitioner
to show how the violation of the aggrieved party's right to privacy or threats of such
violation affect the aggrieved party's right to life, liberty or security. Given the obtaining
circumstances, petitioner Heirs of Crispin Beltran do not have the legal standing to file
the present petition.

In conclusion, let us recall the case of In re: The Petition for the Writ of Amparo
and the Writ of Habeas Data in favor of Francis Saez, 36 where the Court recognized
that "in view of the evidentiary difficulties attendant to the filing of a petition for the
privilege of the writs of amparo and habeas data, not only direct evidence, but
circumstantial evidence, indicia, and presumptions may be considered, so long as they
lead to conclusions consistent with the admissible evidence adduced." In the present
case, however, the allegations of petitioners do not even constitute circumstantial
evidence as to justify the issuance of the extraordinary writs.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby DISMISSES the present
petition." Brion and Mendoza, JJ., on leave. (3)

Very truly yours,

 (SGD.) FELIPA B. ANAMA
Clerk of Court

Separate Opinions
LEONEN, J., dissenting:

This case involves the phenomenon of "red baiting." It is our version of

McCarthyism. 1
To make it easy for military and paramilitary units to silence or cause untold
human rights abuses on vocal dissenters, government agents usually resort to
stereotyping or caricaturing individuals. This is accomplished by providing witnesses
who, under coercive and intimidating conditions, identify the leaders of organizations
critical of the administration as masterminds of ordinary criminal acts. Not only does
this make these leaders' lives and liberties vulnerable, a chilling effect on dissent is also
generated among similar-minded individuals.
Belief in communism has historically been used as a bogey to create non-existent
exigencies for purposes of national security. History records the many human rights
violations that may have been caused by this unsophisticated view of some in the
echelons of military power. History, too, teaches that toleration and the creation of wider
deliberative spaces are the more lasting and peaceful ways to debunk worn-out
ideologies.
The use of the red bogey of communism may be what is at work again today in
the mountains of Northeastern Mindanao.
I dissent in the majority's Resolution to deny the Petition for the issuance of a writ
of Amparo. The writ of Amparo should be issued in this case or, in the alternative,
respondents should be required to comment on the Petition.
I
Amparo affords protection for individuals against extrajudicial killings and
enforced disappearances. 2 It protects life and liberty, ensuring the security of an
individual. Security means freedom from fear, guarantee of bodily and psychological
integrity, and the guarantee of protection of one's rights. 3
The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data was devised to ensure autonomous control
over personal information. It deters the illegal acquisition of information protected by the
right to privacy which may be used to the detriment of citizens. 4
Petitioners in this case are active members of various progressive party-list
groups, non-government, civil service, and religious organizations. 5 They seek relief
because their life, liberty, and security are threatened by the labels given to their groups
by the military as "communist front organizations." 6 The fear for their life, liberty, and
security is based on their personal experiences. These are consistent with the effect of
labeling and stereotyping in the reports of Philip Alston (Alston) and Chaloka Beyani,
two United Nations Special Rapporteurs on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary
Executions. 7 TIADCc

The antecedents of this case involve the plight of the Manobos who are lumads or
indigenous people in Mindanao. 8 Manobos from Talaingod, Davao del Norte are
currently being displaced from their communities due to military activities allegedly
attributed to clashes between the government and the New People's Army. 9
 These conflicts, which caused various human rights abuses, forced the Manobos
to flee their communities and stay at the Haran Center of the United Church of Christ in
the Philippines 10 in Davao City. 11 The alternative narrative being posed by the Criminal
Investigation and Detection Group was that these Manobos were being held at the Haran
Center against their will and forced to attend lectures and rallies. 12
Sometime in April 2015, some of the Manobos returned to their communities. 13
According to petitioners, the returning Manobos were compelled by the members of the
military to file a criminal complaint against those who "forcibly detained" them in Davao
City. 14 Petitioners' photographs were shown to them. These photographs constitute
what petitioners refer to as a "rogue gallery," which caused some of the Manobos to
identify these individuals as the ones responsible for their alleged detention. 15 The
conditions within which the Manobos were asked to identify, i.e., whether it was
coercive or intimidating, were unknown.
Petitioners are known to be critical of government. They engaged in various
humanitarian activities in support of their advocacies. 16 They were surprised when they
were tagged as individuals criminally responsible for the atrocities against the Manobos,
especially since they were not even based in Davao City nor in Mindanao. 17 Criminal
complaints 18 were filed against petitioners Representative Isagani T. Zarate (Zarate), 19
Representative Emerenciana De Jesus, 20 Rafael V. Mariano (Mariano), 21 Teodoro
Casiño (Casiño), 22 Cristina Palabay, 23 Sister Mary Francis Añover, 24 Reverend Irma
M. Balaba (Balaba), 25 and Jacquiline Ruiz. 26
The phenomenon of implicating progressive civil group leaders to heinous crimes
is called " red baiting." As stated by Alston, it is the "'vilification', 'labelling', or guilt by
association" 27 of various democratic organizations. These groups are stereotyped or
caricatured by the military as communist groups, making them easy targets of
government military or paramilitary units. Alston described this in detail in the Report of
the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Philip Alston,
on His Mission to Philippines (12-21 February 2007):
1. Since 2001 the number of politically motivated killings in the Philippines has
been high and the death toll has mounted steadily. These killings have
eliminated civil society leaders, including human rights defenders, trade
unionists, and land reform advocates, as well as many others on the left of the
political spectrum. Of particular concern is the fact that those killed appear to
have been carefully selected and intentionally targeted. The aim has been to
intimidate a much larger number of civil society actors, many of whom have, as
a result, been placed on notice that the same fate awaits them if they continue
their activism. One of the consequences is that the democratic rights that the
people of the Philippines fought so hard to assert are under serious threat.
xxx xxx xxx
13. Senior Government officials in and out of the military believe that many civil
society organizations are fronts for the [Communist Party of the Philippines
(CPP)] and that the CPP controls these groups to instrumentalize popular
grievances in the service of revolutionary struggle, forge anti-Government
alliances, and recruit new party members. While greatly overstated, these views
are not entirely baseless. It is the self-professed policy of the CPP to engage in
united front politics for the purpose of promoting its views among those who are
dissatisfied with the status quo but would be disinclined to join the CPP.
Similarly, the CPP has publicly stated that its members engaged in such
organizing and mobilization are subject to the principle of democratic centralism
and, thus, ultimately to the direction of the Central Committee of the CPP. There
is no reason to doubt that the CPP expects those of its members who occupy
leadership positions within civil society organizations to promote its strategic
priorities. This does not, however, warrant the approach of many officials who
characterized alleged front groups as if they were simply branches of the CPP.
More objective interlocutors recognized that the term "front" encompasses many
gradations of control, some very tenuous, and that in virtually any front
organization most members will not belong to the CPP and will likely be
unaware of the organization's relationship to the CPP. Relatively little is known
about the extent of the CPP's influence within civil society organizations, and it
would be naÑ—ve to assume that the CPP is as powerful as it would like to
present itself as being.
xxx xxx xxx
16. Newspapers routinely carry reports of senior military officials urging that
alleged CPP front groups and parties be neutralized. Often, prominent political
parties and established civil society groups are named specifically. The public
is told that supporting their work or candidates is tantamount to supporting "the
enemy". This practice was openly and adamantly defended by nearly every
member of the military with whom I spoke. When I suggested to senior military
officials that denunciation of civil society groups should only be done according
to law and by the Government, the response was that civilian authorities are in
no position to make such statements because they might be assassinated as a
result. On another occasion, I asked a senior civilian official whether the
Government might issue a directive prohibiting such statements by military
officers. He expressed vague sympathy for the idea, but his subordinate — a
retired military commander — promptly interjected that such a directive would
be "impossible" because "this is a political war". When political "warfare" is
conducted by soldiers rather than civilians, democracy has been superseded by
the military.
17. The public vilification of "enemies" is accompanied by operational
measures. The most dramatic illustration is the "order of battle " approach
adopted systematically by the AFP and, in practice, often by the PNP. In military
terms an order of battle is an organizational tool used by military intelligence to
list and analyze enemy military units. The AFP adopts an order of battle in
relation to the various regions and sub-regions in which it operates. A copy of a
leaked document of this type, from 2006, was provided to me, and I am aware of
no reason to doubt its authenticity. The document, co-signed by senior military
and police officials, calls upon "all members of the intelligence community in the
[relevant] region . . . to adopt and be guided by this update to enhance a more
comprehensive and concerted effort against the CPP/NPA/NDF". Some 110
pages in length, the document lists hundreds of prominent civil society groups
and individuals who have been classified, on the basis of intelligence, as
members of organizations which the military deems "illegitimate". While some
officials formalistically deny that being on the order of battle constitutes being
classified as an enemy of the state, the widespread understanding even among
the political elite is that it constitutes precisely that.

xxx xxx xxx

46. Senior Government officials are attempting to use prosecutions to dismantle
the numerous civil society organizations and party list groups that they believe
to be fronts for the CPP. While this project is sometimes discussed as if it were a
dark conspiracy, it was explained to me openly and directly by numerous
officials as the very function of [Inter-Agency Legal Action Group (IALAG)],
which was established in 2006. IALAG is an executive rather than advisory
body and, while it includes representatives of various criminal justice,
intelligence, and military organs, institutional power and legal authority over its
operations is concentrated in the Office of the National Security Adviser. At the
 national level, IALAG meets at least once every other week, discusses the
evidence in particular cases and debates whether it is sufficient to file a criminal
complaint. There are also regional and provincial IALAG bodies with a similar
structure and role. It has been due to the efforts of IALAG that charges have
been brought against a number of leftist lawmakers and persons who had been
given immunity guarantees to facilitate peace negotiations with the NDF.
47. The reason that such an ad hoc mechanism was established for bringing
charges against members of these civil society organizations and party list
groups is that they have seldom committed any obvious criminal offence.
Congress has never reversed its decision to legalize membership in the CPP or
to facilitate the entry of leftist groups into the democratic political system. But the
executive branch, through IALAG, has worked resolutely to circumvent the spirit
of these legislative decisions and use prosecutions to impede the work of these
groups and put in question their right to operate freely. SDAaTC

48. What justification is given for waging this legal offensive? One explanation
that I received was that when membership in the CPP was legalized, the
expectation was that its members would lay down their arms and participate in
the parliamentary struggle. On this interpretation, the CPP has instead sought to
pursue simultaneously the armed and parliamentary struggles. Many senior
government officials stated unequivocally that they consider the party list groups
in Congress as part of the insurgency. It is evidently the case that there are
persons in Congress as well as in the hills who adhere to a "national
democratic" ideology, but when I would ask interlocutors in what respect party
list members of Congress belonging to the most criticized parties — Bayan
Muna, Anakpawis, and Gabriela — had gone beyond expressing sympathy for
the armed struggle to actually supporting it, I was repeatedly provided the same
unsubstantiated allegation, that these congresspersons provide their "pork
barrel" to the NPA. Cases filed against several congresspersons on these
grounds have failed. This has not discouraged senior government officials. One
insisted that although the publicly available evidence might be inadequate, the
charges were amply supported by intelligence information that could not be
disclosed. Another informed me simply that warrants had been issued based on
probable cause and that he would not stop treating the congresspersons as
criminals simply because no conviction had yet been achieved.
49. The central purpose of IALAG is to prosecute and punish members of the
CPP and its purported front groups whenever there is any legal basis for doing
so. I received no evidence that it was designed or generally functions to plan
extrajudicial executions. However, IALAG's proactive legal strategy requires
drawing up lists of individuals who are considered enemies of the state but
many of whom will not be reachable by legal process. The temptation to
execute such individuals is clear, representatives of the AFP and PNP with the
capacity to do so participate in IALAG bodies at all levels, and there is
circumstantial evidence that this has sometimes occurred. The most deleterious
role played by IALAG bodies may, however, be to encourage prosecutors to act
as team players with the AFP and PNP in counterinsurgency operations and to
de-prioritize cases involving the deaths of leftist activists. 28 (Emphasis
supplied, citations omitted)
Alston's report shows that the military has routinely prosecuted leaders of
progressive groups for a specific purpose. Once the government prosecutes
baselessly, these progressive leaders will have to bargain for immunity and, in
exchange, the government will use them to facilitate negotiations with the Communist
Party of the Philippines. Alston's observations match the experience of petitioners
currently being prosecuted for allegedly detaining the Manobos.
The display of petitioners' photographs in the "rouge gallery" to the Manobos does
not appear to be an isolated incident of red baiting against petitioners. Petitioner
Representative Zarate found evidence that his name had been included in an Order of
Battle, as described by Alston, of the 10th Infantry Division of the Philippine Army. 29
Petitioners Mariano and Casiño were also wrongfully accused in a kidnapping and
murder case in Nueva Ecija, similar to the criminal complaint filed by the Manobos
against them. However, it turned out that in the earlier case, the victim had died in a
road accident. 30
Petitioner Reverend Balaba also narrated in detail four (4) different occasions in
August 2015 when unidentified men looked for her in their church and in her residence.
31 She also noticed that for several hours, a government-issued vehicle (red plate with
plate number SLB 383) was parked six (6) meters away from their church. 32 Petitioners
believe this type of systematized surveillance resulted in information in the possession
of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group that was eventually used in the
criminal complaint alleging that petitioners illegally detained the Manobos. 33
The previous encounter of petitioner Representative Zarate with the military, the
harassment in the criminal cases previously filed against petitioners Mariano and
Casiño, the apparent surveillance being conducted against petitioner Reverend Balaba,
and petitioners' inclusion in the military's "rogue gallery" may possibly escalate into a
situation where the life, liberty, or security of these petitioners will be violated. This
possibility of harm is what the writ of Amparo seeks to avert. One of the functions of the
writ is to "[break] the expectation of impunity in the commission of [extralegal killings
and enforced disappearances]." 34 The writ of Amparo must be allowed in order that its
preventive function be realized.
II
In the alternative, given the nature of the allegations made in the Petition,
respondents should be ordered to comment on the Petition for the writ of Amparo and
writ of Habeas Data in order to show cause why these protective writs should not be
issued.
Under the rules on the writs of Amparo and Habeas Data, "the court, justice or
judge shall immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its face it ought to issue ."
35 The immediate issuance of the writ is conditioned on a prima facie showing that the
petitioner's life, liberty, or security is violated or threatened to be violated. The rules,
however, do not suggest that the petition should immediately be dismissed absent a
prima facie showing of a violation or threat of violation of petitioner's life, liberty, or
security. The rules provide enough procedural leeway 36 to allow the courts to ask for
additional pleadings in order to evaluate the merits of the petition. ac EHCD

A comment to the petition for the issuance of a writ of Amparo or habeas data is
different from a verified return. While both may be responsive to the petition, a comment
merely discusses the issues raised in the petition to guide the court as to whether to
grant due course to the petition. A verified return, on the other hand, has to comply with
the requisites enumerated under the rules, thus:
SEC. 9. Return; Contents. — Within seventy-two (72) hours after service of the
writ, the respondent shall file a verified written return together with supporting
affidavits which shall, among other things, contain the following:
(a) The lawful defenses to show that the respondent did not violate
or threaten with violation the right to life, liberty and security of the
aggrieved party, through any act or omission;
(b) The steps or actions taken by the respondent to determine the
fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the person or
persons responsible for the threat, act or omission;
 (c) All relevant information in the possession of the respondent
pertaining to the threat, act or omission against the aggrieved
party; and
(d) If the respondent is a public official or employee, the return
shall further state the actions that have been or will still be taken:
(i) to verify the identity of the aggrieved party;
(ii) to recover and preserve evidence related to the death or
disappearance of the person identified in the petition which
may aid in the prosecution of the person or persons
responsible;
(iii) to identify witnesses and obtain statements from them
concerning the death or disappearance;
(iv) to determine the cause, manner, location and time of
death or disappearance as well as any pattern or practice
that may have brought about the death or disappearance;
(v) to identify and apprehend the person or persons
involved in the death or disappearance; and
(vi) to bring the suspected offenders before a competent
court.
The return shall also state other matters relevant to the investigation, its
resolution and the prosecution of the case.
A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed. 37
SEC. 10. Return; Contents. — The respondent shall file a verified written return
together with supporting affidavits within five (5) work days from service of the
writ, which period may be reasonably extended by the Court for justifiable
reasons. The return shall, among other things, contain the following:

a) The lawful defenses such as national security, state secrets,

privileged communication, confidentiality of the source of
information of media and others;
b) In case of respondent in charge, in possession or in control of
the data or information subject of the petition:
(i) a disclosure of the data or information about the
petitioner, the nature of such data or information, and the
purpose for its collection;
(ii) the steps or actions taken by the respondent to ensure
the security and confidentiality of the data or information;
and
(iii) the currency and accuracy of the data or information
held; and
c) Other allegations relevant to the resolution of the proceeding. A
general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be
allowed. 38
The difference in the function of a return and a comment was apparent in In the
Matter of the Petition for the Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data in Favor of Rodriguez.
39 This court issued the writs of Amparo and habeas data and ordered respondents to

file a verified Return and a Comment to the Petition. 40 Upon filing the Return of the writ,
respondents' counsels merely manifested that the return be treated as their Comment to
the Petition. 41 In Saez v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 42 this court issued a writ of Amparo
without necessarily giving due course to the Petition. 43 This is akin to asking for a
Comment.
A comment to a petition for the writs of Amparo or habeas data is similar to a
preliminary citation issued by courts in petitions for the issuance of the writ of habeas
corpus. The writ of habeas corpus requires respondent to produce the body of a person
who appears to be illegally confined or deprived of his or her liberty, or when the rightful
custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto. 44 Like the writs of
Amparo and habeas data, the writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary writ; hence, the
rules require that judicial relief be given with immediacy.SDHTEC

A writ of habeas corpus may be issued if it appears on the face of the petition that
the writ ought to be issued. 45 If it is not apparent that the writ should be issued, a
preliminary citation is issued by the courts asking respondents to show cause why the
writ itself should not be issued. 46 The procedural device of a preliminary citation,
though textually absent in our rules, is borne from practice. It was recognized in the
1921 case of Lee Yick Hon v. Collector of Customs . 47
While these extraordinary writs should be processed with urgency, this court
should also be mindful in granting these remedies and should only do so with great
circumspection and scrutiny of the merits. In Tapuz, et al. v. Hon. Judge Del Rosario,
et al., 48 this court stated that the writ of Amparo should not be issued on "amorphous
and uncertain grounds." 49 An opportunity for respondent to comment would allow this
court to exercise better scrutiny of the allegations in the Petition.
Petitioners in this case allege facts that threaten their lives and liberty, and,
therefore, their security. The Resolution of the majority correctly points out that there is
still no tangible offense committed by respondents against petitioners. However,
Amparo does not come into existence as a relevant preventive device only when there
is the certainty of an offense committed. In those cases, preliminary investigation or the
judicial determination of probable cause affords a venue for the accused to contest the
impending threats on his or her liberties.
Rather, Amparo is a remedy designed for events that reside in legal penumbra.
Those conditions, which, though ambiguously legal, incrementally create the
vulnerabilities that will, with the certainty of experience, lead to the person's
harassment, disappearance, or death. Certainly, "red baiting" is quintessentially
paradigmatic of these cases.
ACCORDINGLY, the writ of Amparo should be issued. In the alternative and
without necessarily giving due course to the Petition, respondents should be required to
file their Comment.
Footnotes

1. Rollo, p. 10.

2. Id. at 18-19.

3. Id. at 19.

4. Id.

5. Rollo, pp. 80-101; In the Joint Affidavit-Complaint of Datu Kalumpot Dalon and Datu Laris
Landahay, as well as in the Joint Affidavit-Complaint of Libara Angkomog, Limar
Mansomoy-At, Toto Angkomog, and Juvanie Angkomog, these Manobos averred that
sometime in January 2015, they received a letter from a Kumander Jose inviting them
to go to Davao City to attend a dialogue with President Aquino, Manny Pacquiao,
 and Mayor Duterte. They were told that the dialogue is of great urgency, and that they
will be away for just three days. Moreover, they were promised free transportation,
food, and accommodations, plus sacks of rice, grocery items, kitchen utensils, and
farm tools if they will attend said dialogue.

Enticed by the offer, they went to Davao City, assisted by certain persons, and were brought
to UCCP Haran. Therein, they were told that they were not allowed to go out of the
compound without permission and, in fact, the compound was with a concrete fence
and a steel gate which was padlocked. Those who had cellphones were also forced
to surrender the same.

6. Id. at 51-52.

7. In the list, the name is that of petitioner Mariano, but the corresponding photograph is that of
the late Beltran.

8. Rollo, p. 24.

9. Id. at 31.

10. Id. at 31-32.

11. Sec. 1, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC.

12. 577 Phil. 636, 652 (2008).

13. In re: Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in favor of Lilibeth O. Ladaga , 13
November 2012, 685 SCRA 322, 340.

14. Id. at 344.

15. Rollo, p. 11.

16. Id. at 12.

17. Id. at 13.

18. Id. at 31.

19. Supra note 13.

20. Rollo, pp. 248-251 and 273-276.

21. Id. at 257-261 and 282-285.

22. Id. at 262, and 286-287.

23. Id. at 252-256 and 277-281.

24. Batasan 5.

25. G.R. Nos. 210759, 211403 & 211590, 23 June 2015.

26. Rollo, p. 30.

27. Id. at 31.

28. In re: Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in favor of Lilibeth O. Ladaga , supra
note 13 at 342.

29. Id. at 344.

30. Chairperson Siegfred B. Mison vs. Hon. Paulino Q. Gallegos and Ja Hoon Ku, supra note
25.

31. Sec. 1, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC.

32. In re: The Petition for the Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data in favor of Noriel H.
Rodriguez, 676 Phil. 84 (2011).

33. Sec. 16 states that: The court shall render judgment within ten (10) days from the time the
petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations in the petition are proven by
substantial evidence, the court shall enjoin the act complained of, or order the
deletion, destruction, or rectification of the erroneous data or information and grant
other relevant reliefs as may be just and equitable; otherwise, the privilege of the writ
shall be denied. (Emphasis ours)

Upon its finality, the judgment shall be enforced by the sheriff or any lawful officers as may
be designated by the court, justice or judge within five (5) working days.

34. Rollo, p. 7.

35. Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC, Sec. 2.

36. G.R. No. 183533, 25 September 2012, 681 SCRA 678, 690.

LEONEN, J., dissenting:

1. Petition, p. 3. See also, Dr. Nymia P. Simbulan, Red Baiting: A Tool of Repression, Then
and Now, Observer: A Journal on Threatened Human Rights Defenders in the
Philippines Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 12-15 (2011), <http://www.ipon-
philippines.info/fileadmin/user_upload/Observers/Observer_Vol.3_Nr.2/Observer_Vol.3_Nr.2_Red-
Baiting.pdf> (visited November 16, 2015).

2. Secretary of National Defense, et al. v. Manalo, et al. , 589 Phil. 1, 41 (2008) [Per C.J.
Puno, En Banc].

3. Id. at 50-58.

4. In the Matter of the Petition for the Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data in Favor of
Rodriguez, 676 Phil. 84, 103 (2011) [Per J. Sereno (now Chief Justice), En Banc].

5. Petition, pp. 4-5.

6. Id. at 8.

7. Id. at 18, 23-24.

8. Id. at 16.

9. Id. at 16-17.

10. Id. at 14. Petitioner Reverend Irma M. Balaba is an ordained minister of this church.

11. Petition, p. 17.

12. Id. at 20-22.

13. Id. at 20.

14. Id.

15. Id. at 20-22.

16. Id. at 8-16.

17. Id. at 22.

18. Id. at 20.

19. Id. at 8-9. Petitioner Bayan Muna Party-list incumbent representative Carlos Isagani T.
Zarate stated in the Petition that he has worked with the lumads sometime in May
2014.

20. Id. at 9. Petitioner Rep. Emerenciana De Jesus is the incumbent representative of

Gabriela Women's Party.

21. Id. at 10. Petitioner Rafael V. Mariano is the former representative of Anakpawis Party-list.

22. Id. at 11. Petitioner Teodoro Casiño is the former representative of Bayan Muna Party-list.

23. Id. at 12. Petitioner Cristina Palabay is the Secretary General of KARAPATAN.

24. Id. at 13. Petitioner Sr. Mary Francis Añover is the national coordinator of Rural
Missionaries of the Philippines.

25. Id. at 14-15. Petitioner Rev. Irma M. Balaba is an ordained minister of the United Church
of Christ in the Philippines. She stated in the Petition that she has done some
humanitarian work with the lumads in August 2014.

26. Id. at 15. Petitioner Jacquiline Ruiz is the Executive Director of the Children's
Rehabilitation Center.

27. Implementation of General Assembly Resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 Entitled

"Human Rights Council," Preliminary note on the visit of the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, to the Philippines (12-
21 February 2007), par. 8 <http://www.ihumanrights.ph/hr-mechanism/human-rights-
bodies/charter-based-bodies/special-
procedures/reportsrecommendations/preliminary-note-on-the-visit-of-the-special-
rapporteur-on-extrajudicial-summary-or-arbitrary-executions-philip-alston-to-the-
philippines-12-21-february-2007/> (visited November 16, 2015).

28. Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Summary or Arbitrary Executions,

Philip Alston, on His Mission to Philippines (12-21 February 2007) 6-19
<http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/8session/A.HRC.8.3.Add.2_sp.doc>
(visited November 16, 2015).

29. Petition, p. 26. However, the inclusion of Zarate's name in an Order of Battle was already
subject to a separate Petition for Amparo in this court, which this court denied. See
Ladaga v. Mapagu, G.R. No. 189689, November 13, 2012, 685 SCRA 322 [Per J.
Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc].

30. Id. at 27.

31. Id. at 27-28.

32. Id. at 28.

33. Id. at 31-32.

34. Secretary of National Defense, et al. v. Manalo, et al. , 589 Phil. 1, 41 (2008) [Per C.J.
Puno, En Banc]
35. A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC (2007), sec. 6; A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC (2008), sec. 7.

36. A Comment or Answer is not among the prohibited pleadings enumerated under Section
11 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC (2007) and Section 13 of A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC (2008).

37. A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC (2007), sec. 9.

38. A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC (2008), sec. 10.

39. 676 Phil. 84 (2011) [Per J. Sereno (now Chief Justice), En Banc].

40. Id. at 97.

41. Id. at 98.

42. G.R. No. 183533, September 25, 2012, 681 SCRA 678 [Per J. Reyes, En Banc].

43. Id. at 681.

44. Zagala v. Ilustre, 48 Phil. 282, 283 (1925) [Per J. Villa-Real, En Banc].

45. RULES OF COURT, Rule 102, sec. 5.

46. Lee Yick Hon v. Collector of Customs , 41 Phil. 548, 551 (1921) [Per J. Street, En Banc].

47. 41 Phil. 548 (1921) [Per J. Street, En Banc].

48. 577 Phil. 636 (2008) [Per J. Brion, En Banc].

49. Id. at 652.