G.R. Nos. 186050 and 186059, December 13, 2011
ARTHUR BALAO, WINSTON BALAO, NONETTE BALAO, JONILYN BALAO-STRUGAR and BEVERLY LONGID, Petitioners, vs. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, EDUARDO ERMITA, GILBERTO TEODORO, RONALDO PUNO, NORBERTO GONZALES, Gen. ALEXANDER YANO, Gen. JESUS VERZOSA, Brig. Gen. REYNALDO MAPAGU, Lt. P/Dir. EDGARDO DOROMAL, Maj. Gen. ISAGANI CACHUELA, Commanding Officer of the AFP-ISU based in Baguio City, PSS EUGENE MARTIN and several JOHN DOES, Respondents.

(Consolidated with)
PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, SECRETARY GILBERTO TEODORO, SECRETARY RONALDO PUNO, SECRETARY NORBERTO GONZALES, GEN. ALEXANDER YANO, P/DGEN. JESUS VERZOSA, BRIG GEN. REYNALDO MAPAGU, MAJ. GEN. ISAGANI CACHUELA AND POL. SR. SUPT. EUGENE MARTIN, Petitioners, vs. ARTHUR BALAO, WINSTON BALAO, NONETTE BALAO, JONILYN BALAO-STRUGAR and BEVERLY LONGID, Respondents.

FACTS

This case involves consolidated appeals from a Judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of La Trinidad, Benguet in a petition for a Writ of Amparo filed by the siblings and an associate of James Balao. James Balao, a founder of the Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA), was abducted by unidentified armed men in civilian clothes on September 17, 2008, in Tomay, La Trinidad, Benguet. Witnesses saw him being handcuffed, told the onlookers the arrest was for illegal drugs, and forced into a white van. Prior to his disappearance, James had reported to his family and CPA Chairperson Beverly Longid that he was under surveillance by state security forces, citing specific details like a van’s plate number and knowledge of his movements. After his abduction, his family and associates searched for him, checking with police and military units (including the AFP-ISU and Military Intelligence Group in Baguio City) and filing a police blotter, but to no avail. The petition for the writ named high-ranking government officials, including the President, cabinet secretaries, and military and police commanders. The RTC granted the writ of amparo but denied the petitioners’ prayers for inspection, production, and witness protection orders. Both parties appealed.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, specifically the grant of the privilege of the writ and the issuance of inspection, production, and witness protection orders.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petitions. The Court upheld the RTC’s grant of the writ of amparo but MODIFIED the judgment by ordering the dismissal of the amparo petition.
1. On the Propriety of the Writ of Amparo: The Court found that the RTC correctly issued the writ. The established facts—James Balao’s enforced disappearance following state surveillance, the pattern of threats against CPA members, and the initial lack of concrete investigative action from the police and military—constituted substantial evidence to satisfy the requirement of “more than a mere possibility” of a threat to life, liberty, or security. This justified the issuance of the writ to compel the State to perform its positive duty to protect.
2. On the Privilege of the Writ and Ultimate Relief: However, the Supreme Court ruled that the respondents subsequently complied with their burden under the writ by conducting a meaningful investigation. The Court noted that after the writ was issued, the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) undertook official investigations. The PNP-CIDG filed a kidnapping case against unknown persons before the Prosecutor’s Office, and the AFP created a Fact-Finding Board which found no evidence of military involvement but recommended further police investigation. The Court held that these actions constituted “extraordinary diligence” on the part of the State, thereby negating any continuing violation or imminent threat that would necessitate the permanent protection of the privilege of the writ. Since the objective of the writ is to address an actual or threatened violation, and the State had undertaken appropriate action, the petition should be dismissed.
3. On the Ancillary Remedies (Inspection, Production, and Witness Protection Orders): The Court denied the petitioners’ prayers for these orders. It held that the issuance of inspection and production orders is not mandatory but discretionary, contingent on a showing that they are necessary to protect the right to life, liberty, or security of the aggrieved party. The Court found that the respondents’ verified returns and supporting affidavits, which detailed their investigative actions and denied custody of James Balao, were sufficient. It deemed further inspection of military and police camps unnecessary. The request for a production order for documents like an “Order of Battle” was denied for being speculative and for failing to establish the existence and relevance of such documents to the case. The plea for a witness protection order was also denied as the witnesses’ affidavits were already part of the record, and there was no showing they were refusing to testify due to fear.
4. On Procedural and Party Matters: The Court dropped President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as a party-respondent, upholding presidential immunity from suit during her incumbency for official acts. It also ruled that all petitioners (James Balao’s siblings and Beverly Longid) had the legal standing to file the petition as his relatives and a concerned colleague who had personal knowledge of the surveillance reports.
In summary, while the disappearance of James Balao initially warranted the extraordinary remedy of the writ of amparo, the subsequent investigations conducted by the state authorities were deemed by the Supreme Court to have fulfilled the government’s duty under the writ. Consequently, the privilege of the writ was not made permanent, and the petition was ordered dismissed.