Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Redigested 12.-Balao-vs.-Macapagal-Arroyo-662-SCRA-312-December-13-2011

    Uploaded by

    Alkhadri H Muin
    90 views2 pages
    The petitioners filed a writ of amparo with the RTC of Benguet seeking protection for James Balao, who was allegedly abducted by unidentified men claiming to be police arresting him for drugs. The petitioners sought inspection of 11 military/police sites, production of documents like an alleged Order of Battle list, and witness protection. The RTC granted the writ but denied the other requests. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that the evidence did not meet the evidentiary standard under the Amparo Rule to establish an enforced disappearance. Specifically, the identities of the abductors and their link to the military/police were not proven. Nor was there evidence that James was being detained by government agents. Thus, the

    Original Description:

    consti law digest

    Original Title

    redigested 12.-Balao-vs.-Macapagal-Arroyo-662-SCRA-312-December-13-2011

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The petitioners filed a writ of amparo with the RTC of Benguet seeking protection for James Balao, who was allegedly abducted by unidentified men claiming to be police arresting him for drugs. The petitioners sought inspection of 11 military/police sites, production of documents like an alleged Order of Battle list, and witness protection. The RTC granted the writ but denied the other requests. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that the evidence did not meet the evidentiary standard under the Amparo Rule to establish an enforced disappearance. Specifically, the identities of the abductors and their link to the military/police were not proven. Nor was there evidence that James was being detained by government agents. Thus, the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    90 views2 pages

    Redigested 12.-Balao-vs.-Macapagal-Arroyo-662-SCRA-312-December-13-2011

    Uploaded by

    Alkhadri H Muin
    The petitioners filed a writ of amparo with the RTC of Benguet seeking protection for James Balao, who was allegedly abducted by unidentified men claiming to be police arresting him for drugs. The petitioners sought inspection of 11 military/police sites, production of documents like an alleged Order of Battle list, and witness protection. The RTC granted the writ but denied the other requests. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that the evidence did not meet the evidentiary standard under the Amparo Rule to establish an enforced disappearance. Specifically, the identities of the abductors and their link to the military/police were not proven. Nor was there evidence that James was being detained by government agents. Thus, the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    12. Balao vs.

    Macapagal-Arroyo, 662 SCRA 312, December 13, 2011

    FACTS:

    The siblings of James Balao and Longid filed with the RTC of Benguet a Petition for the
    Issuance of a Writ of Amparo in favor of James Balao, a Psychology and Economics
    graduate of the UP-Baguio who was among those who founded the Cordillera Peoples
    Alliance (CPA). According to witnesses’ testimony, James was abducted by unidentified
    men, saying they were policemen and were arresting him for a drugs case and then
    made to ride a white van.

    Petitioners likewise prayed for (1) an inspection order for the inspection of at least 11
    military and police facilities; (2) a production order for all documents that contain
    evidence relevant to the petition, particularly the Order of Battle List; and (3) a witness
    protection order. The RTC issued the assailed judgment, disposing as follows: ISSUE a
    Writ of Amparo Ordering the respondents to (a) disclose where James is detained or
    confined, (b) to release James considering his unlawful detention since his abduction
    and (c) to cease and desist from further inflicting harm upon his person; and DENY the
    issuance of INSPECTION ORDER, PRODUCTION ORDER and WITNESS
    PROTECTION ORDER for failure of herein Petitioners to comply with the stringent
    provisions on the Rule on the Writ of Amparo and substantiate the same.

    ISSUE:

    WON the totality of evidence satisfies the degree of proof required by the Amparo Rule
    to establish an enforced disappearance.

    HELD:

    NO. The Rule on the Writ of Amparo was promulgated amidst rising incidence of
    “extralegal killings” and “enforced disappearances.” “Extralegal killings” refer to killings
    committed without due process of law. On the other hand, “enforced disappearances”
    are attended by the following characteristics: an arrest, detention, or abduction of a
    person by a government official or organized groups or private individuals acting with
    the direct or indirect acquiescence of the government; the refusal of the State to disclose
    the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the
    deprivation of liberty which places such person outside the protection of law. It was
    ruled that such documented practice of targeting activists in the military’s counter-
    insurgency program by itself does not fulfill the evidentiary standard provided in the
    Amparo Rule to establish an enforced disappearance.

    Assessing the evidence on record, the participation in any manner of military and police
    authorities in the abduction of James has not been adequately proven. The identities of
    the abductors have not been established, much less their link to any military or police
    unit. There is likewise no concrete evidence indicating that James is being held or
    detained upon orders of or with acquiescence of government agents. Consequently, the
    trial court erred in granting amparo reliefs. Such pronouncement of responsibility on
    the part of public respondents cannot be made given the insufficiency of evidence.

    An inspection order is an interim relief designed to give support or strengthen the claim
    of a petitioner in an amparo petition to aid the court before deciding. A basic
    requirement before an amparo court may grant an inspection order is that the place to
    be inspected is reasonably determinable from the allegations of the party seeking the
    order. In this case, the issuance of inspection order was properly denied since the
    petitioners specified several military and police establishments based merely on the
    allegation that the testimonies of victims and witnesses in previous incidents of similar
    abductions involving activists disclosed that those premises were used as detention
    centers. In the same vein, the prayer for issuance of a production order was predicated
    on petitioners’ bare allegation that it obtained confidential information from an
    unidentified military source, that the name of James was included in the so-called Order
    of Battle.

    You might also like