RODRIGUEZ VS.

GMA
660 SCRA 98 (2011)

Digested by : Imee Callao

Immunity from suits

The petition for a 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

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND

HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ, NORIEL H.
RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner,
vs.
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.

FACTS
Petitioner, Noel Rodriguez claims that the military tagged KMP as an enemy of the State
under the Oplan Bantay Laya, making its members targets of extrajudicial killings and
enforced disappearances.

On 6 September 2009, at 5:00 p.m., Rodriguez had just reached Barangay Tapel,
Cagayan onboard a tricycle driven by Hermie Antonio Carlos (Carlos), when four men
forcibly took him and forced him into a car. Inside the vehicle were several men in
civilian clothes, one of whom was holding a .45 caliber pistol. Subsequently, three more
persons arrived, and one of them carried a gun at his side. Two men boarded the car,
while the others rode on the tricycle.

The men tied the hands of Rodriguez, ordered him to lie on his stomach, sat on his back
and started punching him. The car travelled towards the direction of Sta. Teresita-
Mission and moved around the area until about 2:00 a.m. During the drive, the men
forced Rodriguez to confess to being a member of the New People’s Army (NPA), but he
remained silent. The car then entered a place that appeared to be a military camp. There
were soldiers all over the area, and there was a banner with the word “Bravo” written on
it. Rodriguez later on learned that the camp belonged to the 17th Infantry Battalion of
the Philippine Army.

ISSUE
1. WHETHER OR NOT President Arroyo should be dropped as a respondent by
virtue of her presidential immunity from suit.
2. WHETHER OR NOT the doctrine of command responsibility can be used in
writs of amparo and habeas data cases.

RULING
1) CA’s rationale does not stand anymore since the presidential immunity from suits
only applies during her incumbency. “Incumbent Presidents are immune from suit or
from being brought to court during the period of their incumbency and tenure but not
beyond.”

“A non-sitting President does not enjoy immunity from suit, even for acts committed
during the latter’s tenure. We emphasize our ruling therein that courts should look with
disfavor upon the presidential privilege of immunity, especially when it impedes the
search for truth or impairs the vindication of a right.”

Term vs Tenure: The term means the time during which the officer may claim to hold
the office as of right, and fixes the interval after which the several incumbents shall
succeed one another.

The tenure represents the term during which the incumbent actually holds office. The
tenure may be shorter than the term for reasons within or beyond the power of the
incumbent. The intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution is to limit the president’s
immunity from suits during their tenure (and not term).

“It is clear that former President Arroyo cannot use the presidential immunity from suit
to shield herself from judicial scrutiny that would assess whether, within the context of
amparo proceedings, she was responsible or accountable for the abduction of
Rodriguez.”

(2) Yes. The doctrine of command responsibility may be used to determine whether
respondents are accountable for and have the duty to address the abduction of
Rodriguez in order to enable the courts to devise remedial measures to protect his
rights.
Proceedings under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo do not determine criminal, civil or
administrative liability, but this should not abate the applicability of the doctrine of
command responsibility.

“In the context of amparo proceedings, responsibility may refer to the participation of
the respondents, by action or omission, in enforced disappearance. 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.”

“Despite maintaining former President Arroyo in the list of respondents in G.R. No.
191805, and 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.”

The case is dismissed with respect to respondents former President Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo, P/CSupt. Ameto G. Tolentino, and P/SSupt. Jude W. Santos, Calog, George
Palacpac, Antonio Cruz, Aldwin Pasicolan and Vicent Callagan for lack of merit.

SC affirmed the decision of the CA, but with modifications. The case is dismissed with
respect to respondents former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, P/CSupt. Ameto G.
Tolentino, and P/SSupt. Jude W. Santos, Calog, George Palacpac, Antonio Cruz, Aldwin
Pasicolan and Vicent Callagan for lack of merit.