GR 242257; (June, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 242257 , June 15, 2021
IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF AMPARO OF VIVIAN A. SANCHEZ. VIVIAN A. SANCHEZ, PETITIONER, VS. PSUPT. MARC ANTHONY D. DARROCA, CHIEF OF POLICE, SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL POLICE STATION; PSSUPT. LEO IRWIN D. AGPANGAN, PROVINCIAL DIRECTOR, PNP-ANTIQUE; PCSUPT. JOHN C. BULALACAO, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PNP-REGION VI, AND MEMBERS OF THE PNP UNDER THEIR AUTHORITY, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
On October 15, 2019, the Supreme Court granted the Petition for a writ of amparo filed by petitioner Vivian A. Sanchez. The Court found that she proved with substantial evidence that she and her children became persons of interest and were placed under surveillance due to her deceased husband’s suspected affiliation with the New People’s Army (NPA), creating a real threat to their life, liberty, or security. The Court issued a Permanent Protection Order prohibiting members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) from monitoring or surveilling Sanchez and her children. The respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration, contending that the right to privacy and gender/power analysis were not applicable, that marital and filial privileges only apply to judicial proceedings, that the writ of amparo is confined to serious human rights violations like extrajudicial killings, and that their actions were part of a regular investigation. They denied conducting surveillance and asserted that any surveillance would have been justified as Sanchez was a proper subject of investigation.
ISSUE
Whether the Motion for Reconsideration should be granted, thereby reversing the Court’s Decision to issue a writ of amparo and a Permanent Protection Order in favor of petitioner Vivian A. Sanchez.
RULING
The Motion for Reconsideration is denied. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its Decision granting the writ of amparo. The Court held that:
1. The right to privacy is a fundamental right, and State agents must balance their duty to investigate with the fundamental rights of citizens. The spousal and filial privileges, which continue after death, protect Sanchez and her children from inquiries regarding her husband’s activities. The surreptitious surveillance conducted was an abuse of authority; a formal investigation in an intimidation-free environment with access to counsel should have been conducted instead.
2. Petitioner established her entitlement to the writ with substantial evidence, as required by the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. Considering the “totality of the obtaining situation,” the evidence convincingly showed that she and her family were subjected to unwarranted police surveillance due to their relationship with a suspected NPA member, creating a real threat in light of the government’s aggressive campaign against communism.
3. The respondents’ assertion that the right to privacy and gender/power analysis are inapplicable is gravely mistaken. The Court emphasized that trial courts must be perceptive of the gross power imbalance between private citizens and State agents, which in this case involved the dynamics of law enforcer-civilian and male-female. The lower court erred in treating the parties as being on equal footing.