Court dismisses another writ of amparo petition
By Leila Salaverria
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 05:15:00 07/23/2008
MANILA, Philippines—Protection under the writ of amparo has proved elusive for a member of the militant party-list group Anakpawis, whose plea was dismissed by the Court of Appeals.
The court threw out the plea of Francis Saez, who had witnessed the killing in 2003 of activists Eden Marcellana and Eduardo Gumanoy, for a protection order under the writ of amparo against state officials.
It rejected as well his request under the writ of habeas data to direct the Armed Forces to remove his name from a purported order of battle and to scrap a document he had purportedly signed under duress declaring himself a rebel who had surrendered.
In its decision dated July 9 and written by Justice Arcangelita Romillo-Lontok, the appellate court said Saez’s petition and supporting affidavits had failed to specify how his right to life, liberty and security were threatened by the people he had named as respondents, including President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, retired AFP Chief of Staff Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, and several military officials.
Saez sought relief from the court in March, saying a military intelligence agent and an Army officer had informed him that he was on the list of “targets for neutralization” in Naujan, Oriental Mindoro.
He said he had been interrogated and accused of being a member of the Communist Party of the Philippines, and that he had agreed to be a military asset and spy on militant groups and certain lawyers of the Public Interest Law Center.
He said he had subsequently changed his mind and sought the help of the human rights group Karapatan.
Saez also said he had been asked by the military to recant his affidavit on the killing of Marcellana and Gumanoy and to state that retired Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan and the latter’s men were not involved.
Precipitated by fear
But the appellate court said the filing of the petition “appears to have been precipitated by [Saez’s] fear that something might happen to him, not because of any apparent violation or visible threat to violate his life, liberty or security.”
It said Saez did not explain how alleged military agent Zaldy Osio’s presence at a pier threatened his rights. There was also no narration of the circumstances surrounding the supposed violation of his rights, it said.
“This court cannot just grant the privilege of the writs applied for on mere speculation or conjecture. This court is convinced that the Supreme Court did not intend it to be so when the rules on the writs of amparo and habeas data were adopted,” part of the ruling read.
According to the court, Saez’s need for protection was negated by his own admission that nothing happened to him after he saw a certain Joel tailing him in July 2007.
The court dropped Ms Arroyo from the list of respondents, saying she could not be sued during her term.
It also rejected Saez’s request for P5 million in damages, pointing out that the writ of amparo does not provide for damages.
‘Cowardly decision’
The court also said Saez’s petition was not accompanied by proper verification. It said he had showed only his community tax certificate to the notary public, in violation of procedure.
News of the dismissal of Saez’s petition came in the wake of the appellate court’s ruling that Edita Burgos had failed to prove that the military was behind the abduction and disappearance of her son Jonas.
Karapatan secretary general Marie Hilao-Enriquez Tuesday assailed the court for its “cowardly decision,” saying in a statement: “CA justices are trying to be on the safe side at the expense of the life of Jonas. Their dismissal of the case won’t help find him.”
In the ruling written by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and issued on Monday, the court junked Edita Burgos’ petition for writ of habeas corpus for her purported failure to show proof of her claim that the military kidnapped her 38-year-old son from the Ever Gotesco mall on April 28, 2007.
It ruled that Edita Burgos’ evidence did not establish a “direct link” between the AFP and the abduction.
But it partly granted her plea for a writ of amparo, and directed the military and police to furnish her the documents she deemed necessary in her investigation.
‘Cover-up’
Edita Burgos filed a petition for habeas corpus to compel the authorities to produce her son, and then a petition for amparo. The two were eventually consolidated.
Enriquez said Karapatan was “incredulous” of the court’s ruling because the Burgos family had presented evidence pointing to the AFP hand in the abduction, including a military document tagging Jonas Burgos a rebel.
“It’s plain and simple cover-up of the crime, and the magistrates refused to see through it,” Enriquez said.
“At first glance, the [court] seems not to have a clear stand. [Its] criticism on the lack of investigation by the police and military smacks of tokenism, which [it] thought would appease the Burgos family,” she said.
The evidence submitted by Edita Burgos included a supposed order of battle identifying her son as a member of the communist New People’s Army, as well as an e-mail from an anonymous writer claiming he saw the abduction, and tailed the abductors’ vehicle from the Quezon City mall to the Armed Forces headquarters in Camp Aguinaldo.
But the court said the order of battle was unsigned and unauthenticated, and pronounced the e-mail as hearsay.
Won’t give up
Edita Burgos said her family and lawyers would appeal the ruling but had yet to decide whether to file it with the appellate court or the Supreme Court.
“We will not give up,” the widow of the press freedom icon Joe Burgos said on the phone. “I’m more determined now to pursue the search for Jonas with or without the help of the courts. Since they’re not going to give it to us, we’ll do it ourselves.”
She acknowledged that without the writ of amparo, it would be tougher to look for her son.
But she said: “We will continue looking for Jonas.
“In God’s perfect time, He will show us the truth.”
Karapatan claimed that since last year, many justices of the appellate court had failed to try cases of human rights violations, and had been “remiss” in giving relief to victims seeking redress.
It said the appellate court had handed down a similar “cowardly decision” on the petition for the writ of habeas corpus filed by the families of missing University of the Philippines students Karen Empeño and Sherlyn Cadapan.
According to Karapatan, the court ruled that “the military is not telling the truth” on the whereabouts of the two students, but in the same breath said there was “no proof that the military has the missing women in their custody.”
“If our judges continue to act and decide this way, all remedies resorted to by the Supreme Court will be made inutile and unavailing to the victims and their families. Worse, this will breed more impunity,” Enriquez said.
Cadapan and Empeño were abducted from a rented apartment in Hagonoy, Bulacan, at dawn of June 26, 2006, supposedly while doing research work for peasants. Both are believed to be activists.
‘Vindication’...
An Army officer allegedly involved in Jonas Burgos’ disappearance views the appellate court’s dismissal of the habeas corpus petition as a “vindication.”
“Of course that’s a vindication, nothing more. From the start, I did not have any involvement there, so I guess that clears everything up,” Lt. Col. Noel Clement told reporters in Camp Aguinaldo.
Clement, former commander of the Army’s 56th Infantry Battalion based in Norzagaray, Bulacan, is now assigned to General Headquarters in Camp Aguinaldo.
His name cropped up in the investigation when the license plate (TAB-194) found attached to the getaway vehicle of Jonas Burgos’ abductors was later traced to an Isuzu XLT impounded at the 56th IB headquarters.
Clement and Lt. Col. Melquiades Feliciano were included in the habeas corpus petition as former commanders of the unit.
“I don’t know who is supposed to undertake [the tracing of the license plate], but as I’ve said, as far as I’m concerned, I was not anymore the [56th IB] commander when that happened,” Clement said.
...Not
The Army chief, Lt. Col. Victor Ibrado, told reporters that he welcomed the court’s decision on the Burgos case.
“But like I’ve said, we will cooperate with whatever the court says,” he said.
Ibrado said the decision was not so much a vindication as a confirmation that the denial of involvement by military officers like Clement was true.
“Vindication isn’t the right term. The decision said there was not enough evidence to prove the allegation [that the military is holding Jonas Burgos]... Somehow it proves that [what Clement and the others were saying was right],” he said. With reports from TJ Burgonio, Jerome Aning, Alcuin Papa and Inquirer Research
|
