3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670 3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670

546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo

cial killings and enforced disappearances in the country, it

serves both preventive and curative roles to address the said
human rights violations. It is preventive in that it breaks the
G.R. Nos. 184379-80. April 24, 2012.*
expectation of impunity in the commission of these offenses,
RODOLFO NOEL LOZADA, JR., VIOLETA
and it is curative in that it facilitates the subsequent
LOZADA and ARTURO LOZADA, petitioners, vs.
punishment of perpetrators by inevitably leading to subsequent
PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO,
investigation and action.
EDUARDO ERMITA, AVELINO RAZON, ANGEL
ATUTUBO and SPO4 ROGER VALEROSO,** Same; Same; The writ of amparo is confined only to
respondents. cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, or
to threats thereof.—As it stands, the writ of amparo is
Constitutional Law; Writs of Amparo; Words and confined only to cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced
Phrases; The writ of amparo is an independent and summary disappearances, or to threats thereof. Considering that this
remedy that provides rapid judicial relief to protect the remedy is aimed at addressing these serious violations of or
people’s right to life, liberty and security; It is preventive in threats to the right to life, liberty and security, it cannot be
that it breaks the expectation of impunity in the commission of issued on amorphous and uncertain grounds, or in cases where
these offenses, and it is curative in that it facilitates the the alleged threat has ceased and is no longer imminent or
subsequent punishment of perpetrators by inevitably leading continuing. Instead, it must be granted judiciously so as not to
to subsequent investigation and action.—The writ of amparo dilute the extraordinary and remedial character of the writ,
is an independent and summary remedy that provides rapid thus: The privilege of the writ of amparo is envisioned
judicial relief to protect the people’s right to life, liberty and basically to protect and guarantee the rights to life, liberty, and
security. Having been originally intended as a response to the security of persons, free from fears and threats that vitiate the
alarming cases of extrajudi- quality of this life. It is an extraordinary writ conceptualized
and adopted in light of and in response to the prevalence of
extra-legal killings and enforced disappearances. Accordingly,
_______________
the remedy ought to be resorted to and granted
* EN BANC. judiciously, lest the ideal sought by the Amparo Rule be
** Corrected by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to be Rodolfo diluted and undermined by the indiscriminate filing of
– and not Roger – Valeroso. amparo petitions for purposes less than the desire to secure
amparo reliefs and protection and/or on the basis of
unsubstantiated allegations.
546
Same; Presidency; Presidential Immunity; Immunity from
Suit; The presidential privilege of immunity cannot be invoked

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/36

3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670 3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670

by a non-sitting president even for acts committed during his What the Court decides today has nothing to do with
or her tenure.—It is settled in jurisprudence that the President the substance or merits surrounding the aborted deal of
enjoys immunity from suit during his or her tenure of office or the Philippine government with the National Broadband
actual incumbency. Conversely, this presidential privilege of Network and ZTE Corporation, or any allegation of
immunity cannot be invoked by a non-sitting president even petitioner Rodolfo Noel “June” Lozada, Jr., (Lozada)
for acts committed during his or her tenure. regarding the same. There is only one issue that we
Same; Writs of Amparo; In amparo actions, petitioners decide today—whether circumstances are adequately
must establish their claims by substantial evidence, and they alleged and proven by petitioner Lozada to entitle him
cannot merely rely on the supposed failure of respondents to to the protection of the writ of amparo. Before us is a
prove either their de- Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision dated
12 September 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA),
547
dismissing the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of
Amparo.1

VOL. 670, APRIL 24, 2012 547 _______________

Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo 1 In the Matter of the Petition for the Writ of Amparo in favor of
Rodolfo Noel I. Lozada, Jr., Arturo Lozada v. President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo, Eduardo Ermita, Avelino Razon, Angel Atutubo
fenses or their exercise of extraordinary diligence.—In and SPO4 Roger Valeroso, CA-G.R. SP No. 00017; In the Matter of
amparo actions, petitioners must establish their claims by the Petition for Issuance of [the] Writ of Habeas Corpus of Rodolfo
substantial evidence, and they cannot merely rely on the Noel Lozada,
supposed failure of respondents to prove either their defenses
or their exercise of extraordinary diligence. In this case, the 548
totality of the evidence presented by petitioners fails to meet
the requisite evidentiary threshold, and the privilege of the
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
writ of amparo has already been rendered moot and academic
by the cessation of the restraint to Lozada’s liberty. Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Petitioner Lozada was the former President and
Court of Appeals. Chief Executive Officer of the Philippine Forest
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Corporation (PFC), a government-owned-and-controlled
Reynaldo R. Princesa, Edwin Lacierda and Rex corporation under the Department of Environment and
J.M.A. Fernandez for petitioners. Natural Resources (DENR).2 Petitioner Violeta Lozada
Juanito I. Velasco, Jr. and Jhonelle Estrada for (Violeta) is his wife, while petitioner Arturo Lozada
Gen. Angel Atutubo. (Arturo) is his brother.
At the time the Petition for the Writ of Amparo was
SERENO, J.:
filed, respondent former President Gloria Macapagal
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/36
3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670 3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670

Arroyo (former President Arroyo) was the incumbent Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo
President of the Philippines. Meanwhile, Eduardo
Ermita (ES Ermita) was then the Executive Secretary; sultant in the ZTE-NBN deal.4 The latter avers that
Avelino Razon (Razon), the Director General of the during the course of his engagement, he discovered
Philippine National Police (PNP); Angel Atutubo several anomalies in the said transaction involving
(Atutubo), the Assistant General Manager for Security certain public officials.5 These events impelled the
and Emergency Services of the Manila International Senate of the Philippines Blue Ribbon Committee (Blue
Airport Authority; and Rodolfo Valeroso (Valeroso), an Ribbon Committee) to conduct an investigation
agent of the Aviation Security Group (ASG) of the PNP. thereon,6 for which it issued a subpoena directing
Lozada to appear and testify on 30 January 2008.7
Antecedent Facts
On that date, instead of appearing before the Blue
The instant Petition stems from the alleged Ribbon Committee, Lozada left the country for a
corruption scandal precipitated by a transaction between purported official trip to London, as announced by then
the Philippine government, represented by the National DENR Secretary Lito Atienza (Sec. Atienza).8 In the
Broadband Network (NBN), and ZTE Corporation Petition, Lozada alleged that his failure to appear at the
(ZTE), a Chinese manufacturer of telecommunications scheduled hearing was upon the instructions of then
equipment.3 Former National Economic Development Executive Assistant Undersecretary Manuel Gaite
Authority (NEDA) Secretary Romulo Neri (Sec. Neri) (Usec. Gaite).9 Consequently, the Senate issued an
sought the services of Lozada as an unofficial con- Order dated 30 January 2008: (a) citing Lozada for
contempt; (b) ordering his arrest and detention; and (c)
directing the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms to implement the
_______________
Order and make a return thereon.10
Jr., Rodolfo Noel Lozada, Jr. and Violeta Cruz Lozada, for herself
While overseas, Lozada asked Sec. Atienza whether
and in representation of Rodolfo Noel Lozada, Jr. v. General Angel
the former could be allowed to go back to the
Atutubo, General Avelino Razon, Lt. Gen. Pedrio Cadungog, General
Philippines.11 Upon the approval of Sec. Atienza,
Octavio Lina, Brig. Gen. Romeo C. Prestoza, and SPO1 Roger
Lozada informed his family that he was returning from
Valeroso, CA-G.R. SP No. 102251, 12 September 2008. Penned by
Hong Kong on 5 February 2008 on board Cathay
CA Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and concurred in by
Pacific Flight No. 919, bound to arrive in Manila at 4:40
Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Sixto C. Marella, Jr.,
p.m. on the same day.12
Rollo, pp. 61-144.
In the Petition, Lozada claims that, upon
2 Complaint-Affidavit dated 22 February 2008, at p. 1; Rollo, p.
disembarking from the aircraft, several men held his
453.
arms and took his bag. Although he allegedly insisted
3 Petition dated 23 September 2008, at p. 8; Rollo, p. 9.
on meeting with his family, he
549
_______________
4 Id.
VOL. 670, APRIL 24, 2012 549
5 Id.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/36
3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670 3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670

6 Id. The vehicle traversed the South Luzon Expressway

7 Petition, p. 7; Rollo, p. 8. and drove towards the direction of Laguna.20 Along the
8 Id. way, the men asked Lozada to draft an antedated letter
9 Petition, p. 8; Rollo, p. 9. requesting police protection.21
10 Senate Order dated 30 January 2008, CA Rollo, pp. 8-10. Lozada requested that he be brought home to Pasig,
11 Petition, p. 9; Rollo, p. 10. but the men were allegedly compelled to deny his
12 Petition, p. 7; Rollo, p. 8. request on ac-

550
_______________
13 Petition, pp. 9-10; Rollo, pp. 10-11.
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 14 Petition, p. 10; Rollo, p. 11.

Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo 15 Petition, p. 11; Rollo, p. 12.

16 Id.
17 Id.
later realized that it was wiser to just follow them,
18 Id.
especially when he overheard from their handheld radio:
19 Id.
“[H]wag kayong dumaan diyan sir nandyan ang mga
20 Petition, pp. 11-12; Rollo, pp. 12-13.
taga senado.”13
21 Petition, p. 12; Rollo, p. 13.
Lozada asked if he could go to the comfort room, an
opportunity he used to call up his brother, petitioner 551
Arturo, and inform him of his situation.14 The men
thereafter led him through the departure area of the
airport and into a car waiting for them.15 They made VOL. 670, APRIL 24, 2012 551
him sit alone at the back of the vehicle, while a man, Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo
whom he later discovered to be respondent Valeroso,
took the passenger seat and was always in contact with count of unidentified security risks.22 Eventually,
other individuals.16 Lozada observed that other cars however, the vehicle turned around and drove to Libis,
tailed their vehicle.17 Quezon City. The group stopped at The Outback
Sec. Atienza then phoned Lozada, assuring the latter restaurant to meet with certain individuals, who turned
that he was with people from the government, and that out to be Atty. Antonio Bautista (Atty. Bautista) and
the former was going to confer with “ES and Ma’[a]m.” Colonel Paul Mascarinas (Col. Mascarinas) of the
Lozada surmised that these individuals referred to ES Police Special Protection Office (PSPO). At the
Ermita and former President Arroyo, respectively.18 Sec. restaurant, Lozada claimed that he was made to fill in
Atienza also purportedly instructed Lozada to pacify his the blanks of a prepared affidavit.23
wife, petitioner Violeta, who was making public After the meeting, the men informed Lozada that
statements asking for her husband’s return.19 they were going to billet him in a hotel for a night, but

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/36

3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670 3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670

he suggested that they take him to La Salle Green Hills responsibility for his alleged abduction.29
instead. The men acquiesced.24 At around the same time that Arturo filed the
Upon arriving in La Salle Green Hills, Lozada was Petition for a Writ of Amparo, Col. Mascarinas drove
met by Violeta and his sister, Carmen Lozada Lozada back to La Salle Green Hills.30 Lozada was then
(Carmen).25 He observed that the perimeter was guarded made to sign a typewritten, antedated letter requesting
by policemen, purportedly restraining his liberty and police protection.31 Thereafter, former Presidential
threatening not only his security, but also that of his Spokesperson Michael Defensor (Sec. Defensor)
family and the De La Salle brothers.26 supposedly came and requested Lozada to refute reports
On 6 February 2008, at around 10:00 a.m., Col. that the latter was kidnapped and to deny knowledge of
Mascarinas supposedly brought Lozada to the office of alleged anomalies in the NBN-ZTE deal. Sec. Defensor
Atty. Bautista to finalize and sign an affidavit.27 then purportedly gave Lozada P50,000 for the latter’s
At about 1:00 p.m., Violeta filed before this Court a expenses.32
Petition for Habeas Corpus, docketed as G.R. No. On 7 February 2008, Lozada decided to hold a press
181342 (the Habeas Corpus case).28 Arturo likewise conference and contact the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms,
filed before this Court a Petition for a Writ of Amparo, who served the warrant of arrest on him.33 Lozada
docketed as G.R. No. 181356 (the Amparo case), and claimed that after his press conference and testimony in
prayed for the issuance of (a) the writ of amparo; (b) a the Senate, he and his family were since then harassed,
Temporary Protection Order (TPO); and (c) Inspection stalked and threatened.34
and Production Orders as regards documents re- On the same day, this Court issued a Resolution (a)
consolidating the Habeas Corpus case and the Amparo
_______________ case; (b) requiring respondents in the Habeas Corpus
22 Id. case to comment on the Petition; (c) issuing a Writ of
23 Id. Amparo; (d) ordering respondents in the Amparo case to
24 Id. file their verified Return; (e) referring the consolidated
25 Petition, p. 13; Rollo, p. 14. Petitions to the CA; and (f) directing the CA to set the
26 Id. cases for hearing on 14 February
27 Petition, p. 14; Rollo, p. 15.
28 Id. _______________
29 Petition, p. 14; Rollo, p. 15; Petition for a Writ of Amparo, CA
552
Rollo, pp. 2-7.
30 Petition, p. 14; Rollo, p. 15.
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 31 Id.
32 Id.
Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo
33 Id.
34 Petition, p. 15; Rollo, p. 16.
lated to the authority ordering custody over Lozada, as
well as any other document that would show 553

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/36

3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670 3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670

VOL. 670, APRIL 24, 2012 553 38 CA Rollo, p. 22.

39 Return dated 13 February 2008, Rollo, pp. 275-333.
Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo
40 Id.
41 CA Resolution dated 20 February 2008, p. 3; CA Rollo, p. 133.
2008.35 Accordingly, the court a quo set both cases for
hearing on 14 February 2008.36 554
On 12 February 2008, respondents filed before the
CA a Manifestation and Motion, praying for the
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
dismissal of the Habeas Corpus case.37 They asserted
that Lozada was never illegally deprived of his liberty Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo
and was, at that time, no longer in their custody. They
likewise averred that, beginning 8 February 2008, ply with Section 2 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo,42
Lozada had already been under the supervision of the which imposes an order to be followed by those who
Senate and, from then on, had been testifying before can sue for the writ.43 The CA also dismissed the
it.38 Habeas Corpus case in open court for being moot and
In their verified Return, respondents claimed that academic, as Lozada was physically present and was not
Sec. Atienza had arranged for the provision of a security confined or detained by any of the respondents.44
team to be assigned to Lozada, who was then fearful for Considering that petitioners failed to question the
his safety.39 In effect, respondents asserted that Lozada dismissal of the Habeas Corpus case, the said dismissal
had knowledge and control of the events that took place had lapsed into finality, leaving only the Amparo case
on 5 February 2008, voluntarily entrusted himself to open for disposition.
their company, and was never deprived of his liberty. Thereafter, Lozada filed a Motion for Temporary
Hence, respondents prayed for the denial of the interim Protection Order and Production of Documents,45 while
reliefs and the dismissal of the Petition.40 Arturo filed a Motion for Production of Documents.46
During the initial hearing on 14 February 2008, Additionally, Arturo also filed a Motion for the Issuance
Lozada and Violeta ratified the Petition in the Amparo of Subpoena Ad Testificandum and Presentation of
case41 to com- Hostile Witnesses and Adverse

_______________ _______________
35 Petition, p. 26; Rollo, p. 27; Resolution dated 7 February 2008, 42 A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC. Section 2 of the Rule on the Writ of
CA Rollo, pp. 11-14. Amparo provides:
36 CA Resolution dated 8 February 2008, CA Rollo, pp. 17-19. Who May File.—The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party
The Habeas Corpus case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 1022551; or by any qualified person or entity in the following order:
the Amparo case, CA-G.R. SP No. 00017. a. Any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse,
37 Manifestation and Motion (in lieu of Comment on the Petition children and parents of the aggrieved party;
for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus dated 6 February 2008) dated b. Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the
12 February 2008, CA Rollo, pp. 20-25. aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/36

3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670 3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670

affinity, in default of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph; or for Reconsideration,51 which the CA denied in its
c. Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution, Resolution dated 25 March 2008.52
if there is no known member of the immediate family or relative of the On 12 September 2008, the CA rendered its Decision
aggrieved party. denying petitioners the privilege of the Writ of Amparo
The filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends the right of and dismissing the Petition.53 The CA found that
all other authorized parties to file similar petitions. Likewise, the filing petitioners were unable to prove through substantial
of the petition by an authorized party on behalf of the aggrieved party evidence that respondents violated, or threatened with
suspends the right of all others, observing the order established herein. violation, the right to life, liberty and security of
43 Annotation to the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, Supreme Court, Lozada.
p. 4.
44 CA Resolution dated 20 February 2008, CA Rollo, pp. 131-136. _______________
45 CA Rollo, pp. 100-114. 47 Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary Protection
46 Motion for the Issuance of Subpoena dated 22 February 2008, Order and Production of Documents dated 22 February 2008, CA
CA Rollo, pp. 149-156. Rollo, pp. 171-180; Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Issuance of
Subpoena Ad Testificandum and Presentation of Hostile Witnesses and
555
Adverse Parties Romulo Neri, Benjamin Abalos, [Sr.], Rodolfo
Valeroso, “Jaime” the Driver, and Other Respondents dated 3 March
VOL. 670, APRIL 24, 2012 555 2008; CA Rollo, pp. 240-251.

Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo 48 CA Resolution dated 12 March 2008, CA Rollo, pp. 338-344.
49 CA Resolution dated 8 April 2008, CA Rollo, pp. 414-417.
50 Rollo pp. 468-478; CA Rollo, pp. 254-264.
Parties Romulo Neri, Benjamin Abalos, [Sr.], Rodolfo
51 Motion for Reconsideration dated 10 March 2008, CA Rollo,
Valeroso, “Jaime” the Driver and Other Respondents.
pp. 287-303.
Respondents opposed these motions.47 The CA denied
52 CA Rollo, pp. 371-374.
the Motion for the Issuance of Subpoena on the ground
53 CA Decision, Rollo, pp. 60-147.
that the alleged acts and statements attributed to Sec.
Neri and Benjamin Abalos (Abalos) were irrelevant to 556
the Amparo case, and that to require them to testify
would only result in a fishing expedition.48 The CA
likewise denied Arturo’s subsequent Motion for 556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Reconsideration.49 Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo
In its Resolution dated 5 March 2008, the CA
dropped former President Arroyo as a respondent on the Petitioners thus filed the instant Petition, praying for:
ground that at the time the Petition in the Amparo case (a) the reversal of the assailed CA Decision; (b) the
was filed, she was still the incumbent President issuance of the TPO; and (c) the accreditation of the
enjoying immunity from suit.50 Arturo filed a Motion Association of Major Religious Superiors of the
Philippines and the De La Salle Brothers as the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/36
3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670 3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670

sanctuaries of Lozada and his family.54 In the 557

alternative, petitioners pray that this Court remand the
case to the CA for further hearings and reverse the
VOL. 670, APRIL 24, 2012 557
latter’s Orders: (a) denying the Motion to Issue a
Subpoena Ad Testificandum and (b) dropping former Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo
President Arroyo as a respondent. Petitioners raise the
following issues: The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) asserts
that petitioners failed to adduce substantial evidence, as
(1) Whether the Court a [q]uo erred in ruling to dismiss
the allegations they propounded in support of their
the petition for a writ of amparo and deny Petitioners’ prayer
Petition were largely hearsay.56 The OSG also maintains
for a Temporary Protection Order, inter alia, because there is
that it was proper for the CA to have dropped former
no substantial evidence to prove that the right to life, liberty or
President Arroyo as respondent on account of her
security of Jun Lozada was violated or threatened with
presidential immunity from suit.57
violation. This rule is not in accord with the rule on the writ of
Respondent Atutubo also alleges, among others, that:
amparo and Supreme Court jurisprudence on substantial
(a) Lozada voluntarily asked for security and protection;
evidence[.]
(b) Lozada willingly submitted himself to the company
(2) Whether the Ponencia erred and gravely abused its
of the police escorts; (c) Atutubo merely accompanied
discretion by prematurely ruling that the testimony of
him to pass through the contingency route customarily
witnesses which Petitioners sought to present and who are
provided to VIP passengers, public figures, foreign
subject of the Motion for Issuance of Subpoena ad
dignitaries, and the like; and (d) Atutubo only
testificandum were irrelevant to the Petition for a Writ of
performed his job to ensure security and maintain order
Amparo in a way not in accord with the Rules of Court and
at the airport upon the arrival of Lozada.58
Supreme Court decisions.
In the face of these assertions by respondents,
(3) Whether the Court a quo erred in using and
petitioners nevertheless insist that while they have
considering the affidavits of respondents in coming up with
sufficiently established that Lozada was taken against
the questioned decision when these were not offered as
his will and was put under restraint, respondents have
evidence and were not subjected to cross-examination. This
failed to discharge their own burden to prove that they
ruling is not in accord with the Rules of Court and
exercised extraordinary diligence as public officials.59
jurisprudence.
Petitioners also maintain that it was erroneous for the
(4) Whether the Court a [q]uo erred in dropping as
CA to have denied their motion for subpoena ad
respondent Pres. Gloria Arroyo despite her failure to submit a
testificandum for being irrelevant, given that the
verified return and personally claim presidential immunity in a
relevancy of evidence must be examined after it is
way not in accord with the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.55
offered, and not before.60 Finally, petitioners contend
that the presidential immunity from suit cannot be
_______________ invoked in amparo actions.61
54 Rollo, pp. 2-59.
55 Id., at pp. 34-35.
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/36
3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670 3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670

56 Comment dated 5 November 2008, Rollo, pp. 161-274. to address the said human rights violations. It is
57 Id. preventive in that it breaks the expectation of impunity
58 Comment/Opposition (To: Petition for Review) dated 17 in the commission of these offenses, and it is curative in
November 2008, Rollo, pp. 484-504. that it facilitates the subsequent punishment of
59 Reply to Respondent[s’] Comment dated 26 January 2009, perpetrators by inevitably leading to subsequent
Rollo, pp. 510-524; Reply to the Comment of Respondent Atutubo investigation and action.63
dated 6 February 2009, Rollo, pp. 547-564. As it stands, the writ of amparo is confined only to
60 Id. cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced
61 Reply to Respondent[s’] Comment dated 26 January 2009, disappearances, or to threats thereof.64 Considering that
Rollo, pp. 510-524. this remedy is aimed at

558
_______________
62 Section 1, Rule on the Writ of Amparo; Rodriguez v. Arroyo,
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED G.R. Nos. 191805 and 193160.

Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo 63 Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, 7
October 2008, 568 SCRA 1, 43.
64 Id., at p. 38, reiterated in Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
Issues
182161, 3 December 2009, 606 SCRA 580.
In ruling on whether the CA committed reversible
error in issuing its assailed Decision, three issues must 559
be discussed:
I. Whether the CA committed an error in dropping
former President Arroyo as a respondent in the VOL. 670, APRIL 24, 2012 559
Amparo case. Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo
II. Whether the CA committed an error in denying
petitioners’ Motion for the Issuance of a addressing these serious violations of or threats to the
Subpoena Ad Testificandum. right to life, liberty and security, it cannot be issued on
III. Whether petitioners should be granted the amorphous and uncertain grounds,65 or in cases where
privilege of the writ of amparo. the alleged threat has ceased and is no longer imminent
or continuing.66 Instead, it must be granted judiciously
Discussion
so as not to dilute the extraordinary and remedial
The writ of amparo is an independent and summary character of the writ, thus:
remedy that provides rapid judicial relief to protect the
“The privilege of the writ of amparo is envisioned
people’s right to life, liberty and security.62 Having been
basically to protect and guarantee the rights to life, liberty, and
originally intended as a response to the alarming cases
security of persons, free from fears and threats that vitiate the
of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances in
quality of this life. It is an extraordinary writ conceptualized
the country, it serves both preventive and curative roles
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/36
3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670 3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670

and adopted in light of and in response to the prevalence of In the case at bar, the events that gave rise to the
extra-legal killings and enforced disappearances. Accordingly, present action, as well as the filing of the original
the remedy ought to be resorted to and granted Petition and the issuance of the CA Decision, occurred
judiciously, lest the ideal sought by the Amparo Rule be during the incumbency of former President Arroyo. In
diluted and undermined by the indiscriminate filing of that respect, it was proper for the court a quo to have
amparo petitions for purposes less than the desire to secure dropped her as a respondent on account of her
amparo reliefs and protection and/or on the basis of presidential immunity from suit.
unsubstantiated allegations.”67 (Emphasis supplied.) It must be underscored, however, that since her
tenure of office has already ended, former President
Using this perspective as the working framework for Arroyo can no longer invoke the privilege of
evaluating the assailed CA decision and the evidence presidential immunity as a defense to evade judicial
adduced by the parties, this Court denies the Petition. determination of her responsibility or accountability for
First issue: Presidential the alleged violation or threatened violation of the right
immunity from suit to life, liberty and security of Lozada.
It is settled in jurisprudence that the President enjoys Nonetheless, examining the merits of the case still
immunity from suit during his or her tenure of office or results in the denial of the Petition on the issue of
actual incumbency.68 Conversely, this presidential former President Arroyo’s alleged responsibility or
privilege of im- accountability. A thorough examination of the
allegations postulated and the evidence adduced by
_______________ petitioners reveals their failure to sufficiently establish
65 Tapuz v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 182484, 17 June 2008, 554 any unlawful act or omission on her part that violated,
SCRA 768, 784. or threatened with violation, the right to life, liberty and
66 Id., at p. 789. security of Lozada. Except for the bare claims that: (a)
67 Rubrico v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 183871, 18 February 2010, 613 Sec. Atienza mentioned a certain “Ma’[a]m,”70 whom
SCRA 233, 261. Lozada speculated to have referred to her, and (b) Sec.
68 David v. Arroyo, 522 Phil. 705, 763-764; 489 SCRA 160, 224 Defensor told Lozada that “the President was ‘hurting’
(2006). from all the media frenzy,”71 there is nothing in the
records that would sufficiently establish the link of
560
former President Arroyo to the events that transpired on
5-6 February 2010, as well as to the subsequent threats
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED that Lozada and his family purportedly received.
Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo
_______________
69 Rodriguez v. Arroyo, G.R. Nos. 191805 and 193160, 15
munity cannot be invoked by a non-sitting president
November 2011, 660 SCRA 84, 106, citing Estrada v. Desierto, 408
even for acts committed during his or her tenure.69
Phil. 194, 242; 353 SCRA 452, 522 (2001).
70 Petition, p. 11; Rollo, p. 12.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/36

3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670 3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670

71 Petition, p. 14; Rollo, p. 15. be readily identified (test of definiteness).”73 (Emphasis

supplied.)
561
In the present case, the CA correctly denied
petitioners’ Motion for the Issuance of Subpoena Ad
VOL. 670, APRIL 24, 2012 561
Testificandum on the ground that the testimonies of the
Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo witnesses sought to be presented during trial were prima
facie irrelevant to the issues of the case. The court a quo
Second issue: Denial of the issuance aptly ruled in this manner:
of a subpoena ad testificandum
This Court, in Roco v. Contreras,72 ruled that for a _______________
subpoena to issue, it must first appear that the person or 72 500 Phil. 275; 461 SCRA 505 (2005).
documents sought to be presented are prima facie 73 Id., at pp. 283-284; pp. 512-513 .
relevant to the issue subject of the controversy, to wit:
562
“A subpoena is a process directed to a person requiring him
to attend and to testify at the hearing or trial of an action or at
any investigation conducted under the laws of the Philippines, 562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
or for the taking of his deposition. Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo
In this jurisdiction, there are two (2) kinds of subpoena, to
wit: subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces “The alleged acts and statements attributed by the
tecum. The first is used to compel a person to testify, while the petitioner to Neri and Abalos are not relevant to the instant
second is used to compel the production of books, records, Amparo Petition where the issue involved is whether or not
things or documents therein specified. As characterized Lozada’s right to life, liberty and security was threatened or
in H.C. Liebenow vs. The Philippine Vegetable Oil Company: continues to be threatened with violation by the unlawful act/s
The subpoena duces tecum is, in all respects, like of the respondents. Evidence, to be relevant, must have such a
the ordinary subpoena ad testificandum with the relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence
exception that it concludes with an injunction that the or nonexistence. Further, Neri, Abalos and a certain driver
witness shall bring with him and produce at the “Jaime” are not respondents in this Amparo Petition and the
examination the books, documents, or things described vague allegations averred in the Motion with respect to them
in the subpoena. do not pass the test of relevancy. To Our mind, petitioner
Well-settled is the rule that before a subpoena duces appears to be embarking on a “fishing expedition”. Petitioner
tecum may issue, the court must first be satisfied that the should present the aggrieved party [Lozada], who has been
following requisites are present: (1) the books, documents or regularly attending the hearings, to prove the allegations in the
other things requested must appear prima facie relevant to Amparo Petition, instead of dragging the names of other
the issue subject of the controversy (test of relevancy); and people into the picture. We have repeatedly reminded the
(2) such books must be reasonably described by the parties to parties, in the course of the proceedings, that the instant

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/36

3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670 3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670

Amparo Petition does not involve the investigation of the Sections 17 and 18 of the Rule on the Writ of
ZTE-[NBN] contract. Petitioner should focus on the fact in Amparo requires the parties to establish their claims by
issue and not embroil this Court into said ZTE-NBN contract, substantial evidence,75 or such relevant evidence as a
which is now being investigated by the Senate Blue Ribbon reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
Committee and the Office of the Ombudsman.”74 (Emphasis conclusion.76 The use of this evidentiary threshold
supplied.) reveals the clear intent of the framers of the Rule on the
Writ of Amparo to have the equivalent of an
All the references of petitioners to either Sec. Neri or administrative proceeding, albeit judicially conducted,
Abalos were solely with respect to the ZTE-NBN deal, in addressing amparo situations.77
and not to the events that transpired on 5-6 February
2008, or to the ensuing threats that petitioners
_______________
purportedly received. Although the present action is
75 Section 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence
rooted from the involvement of Lozada in the said
Required.—The parties shall establish their claims by substantial
government transaction, the testimonies of Sec. Neri or
evidence.
Abalos are nevertheless not prima facie relevant to the
The respondent who is a private individual or entity must prove
main issue of whether there was an unlawful act or
that ordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and
omission on the part of respondents that violated the
regulations was observed in the performance of duty.
right to life, liberty and security of Lozada. Thus, the
The respondent who is a public official or employee must prove
CA did not commit any reversible error in denying the
that extraordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and
Motion for the Issuance of Subpoena Ad Testificandum.
regulations was observed in the performance of duty.
The respondent public official or employee cannot invoke the
_______________ presumption that official duty has been regularly performed to evade
74 CA Resolution dated 12 March 2008, pp. 4-5; CA Rollo, pp. responsibility or liability.
341-342. Section 18. Judgment.—The court shall render judgment within
ten (10) days from the time the petition is submitted for decision. If
563
the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the
court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be
VOL. 670, APRIL 24, 2012 563 proper and appropriate; otherwise, the privilege shall be denied.

Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo 76 Razon v. Tagitis, G.R. No. 182498, 3 December 2009, 606
SCRA 598, 688, citing Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, 69
Phil. 635, 642 (1940).
Third issue: Grant of the privilege
77 Razon v. Tagitis, G.R. No. 182498, 3 December 2009, 606
of the writ of amparo
SCRA 598, 687.
A. Alleged violation of or threat
to the right to life, liberty and 564
security of Lozada

564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/36
3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670 3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670

Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo _______________

78 Supra note 66.
79 Razon v. Tagitis (Resolution), G.R. No. 182498, 16 February
In cases where the violation of the right to life,
2010, 612 SCRA 685.
liberty or security has already ceased, it is necessary for
80 Id., at pp. 696-697.
the petitioner in an amparo action to prove the existence
81 Petition, p. 11; Rollo, p. 12.
of a continuing threat.78 Thus, this Court held in its
Resolution in Razon v. Tagitis:79 565

“Manalo is different from Tagitis in terms of their factual

settings, as enforced disappearance was no longer a VOL. 670, APRIL 24, 2012 565
problem in that case. The enforced disappearance of the
Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo
brothers Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo effectively ended
when they escaped from captivity and surfaced, while
“[Lozada] was one of the first few passengers to get off the
Tagitis is still nowhere to be found and remains missing more
plane because he was instructed by Secretary Atienza,
than two years after his reported disappearance. An Amparo
th[r]ough a phone call on the night of 04 February 2008, while
situation subsisted in Manalo, however, because of the
he was still in Hong Kong, to proceed directly to the Bureau
continuing threat to the brothers’ right to security; the
of Immigration so that few people would notice him and he
brothers claimed that since the persons responsible for their
could be facilitated in going out of the airport without any
enforced disappearance were still at large and had not been
hassle from the people of the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms. Again,
held accountable, the former were still under the threat of
[Lozada] stated that he wanted to get away from the Senate
being once again abducted, kept captive or even killed, which
people. [Lozada] even went to the men’s room of the airport,
threat constituted a direct violation of their right to security of
after he was allegedly “grabbed”, where he made a call to his
person.”80 (Emphasis supplied.)
brother Arturo, using his Globe phone, and he was not
In the present case, the totality of the evidence prevented from making said call, and was simply advised by
adduced by petitioners failed to meet the threshold of the person who met him at the tube to (sic) “sir, bilisan mo
substantial evidence. Sifting through all the evidence na”. When they proceeded out of the tube and while walking,
and allegations presented, the crux of the case boils [Lozada] heard from the radio track down, “wag kayo dyan,
down to assessing the veracity and credibility of the sir, nandyan yong mga taga Senado”, so they took a detour
parties’ diverging claims as to what actually transpired and went up to the departure area, did not go out of the normal
on 5-6 February 2008. In this regard, this Court is in arrival area, and proceeded towards the elevator near the Duty
agreement with the factual findings of the CA to the Free Shop and then down towards the tarmac. Since [Lozada]
extent that Lozada was not illegally deprived of his was avoiding the people from the Office of the Senate
liberty from the point when he disembarked from the Sergeant-at-Arms, said detour appears to explain why they
aircraft up to the time he was led to the departure area of did not get out at the arrival area, where [Lozada] could
the airport,81 as he voluntarily submitted himself to the have passed through immigration so that his passport could be
custody of respondents: properly stamped.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/36

3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670 3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670

This Court does not find any evidence on record that Sec. Atienza. These men neither informed him of where
[Lozada] struggled or made an outcry for help when he he was being transported nor provided him complete
was allegedly “grabbed” or “abducted” at the airport. liberty to contact his family members to assure them of
[Lozada] even testified that nobody held him, and they his safety. These acts demonstrated that he lacked
were not hostile to him nor shouted at him. With noon day absolute control over the situation, as well as an
clarity, this Court finds that the reason why [Lozada] was effective capacity to challenge their instructions.
fetched at the airport was to help him avoid the Senate Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that if Lozada
contingent, who would arrest and detain him at the Office of had in fact been illegally restrained, so much so that his
the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms, until such time that he would right to liberty and security had been violated, the acts
appear and give his testimony, pursuant to the Order of the that manifested this restraint had already ceased and
Senate on the NBN-ZTE Project. [Lozada] clearly knew this has consequently rendered the grant of the privilege of
because at that time, it was still his decision not to testify the writ of amparo moot. Whether or not Lozada was
before the Senate. He agreed with that plan.”82 (Emphases deprived of his liberty from the point when he was led
supplied.) inside the vehicle waiting for him at the airport up to the
time he was taken to La Salle Green Hills, petitioners’
The foregoing statements show that Lozada assertions that Lozada and his family continue to suffer
personally sought the help of Sec. Atienza to avoid the various threats from respondents remain unproven. The
Senate personnel, CA correctly found as follows:

_______________ “The supposed announcement of General Razon over

82 CA Decision, pp. 76-77; Rollo, pp. 136-137. the radio that [Lozada] was in the custody of the PNP can
neither be construed as a threat to [Lozada’s] life, liberty and
566 security. Certainly, no person in his right mind would make
that kind of media announcement if his intent was indeed
to threaten somebody’s life, liberty and security.
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
xxx  xxx  xxx
Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo He claims that he is threatened by the alleged presence of
armed men riding in motorcycle passing outside the De La
and thus knew that the men who met him at the airport Salle premises where he and his family are staying and by
were there to aid him in such objective. Surely, the alleged threats of armed men around him at places where he
actions of Lozada evinced knowledge and voluntariness, went to. Again, these
uncharacteristic of someone who claims to have been
567
forcibly abducted.
However, these men’s subsequent acts of directing
Lozada to board the vehicle and driving him around, VOL. 670, APRIL 24, 2012 567
without disclosing the exact purpose thereof, appear to Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo
be beyond what he had consented to and requested from

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/36

3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670 3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670

alleged threats were not proven by any evidence at all, as realm of the instant amparo petition filed against the
having originated from any of the respondents. respondents.”83 (Emphasis supplied.)
[Lozada] also considers the installation of the
surveillance camera at the De La Salle and at St. _______________
Scholastica as indirect threat to his right to life, liberty and 83 CA Decision, pp. 79-81; Rollo, pp. 139-141.
security. He claims that these are spy cameras. However, save
for [Lozada’s] self-serving claim, he simply failed to prove 568
that they were installed or ordered installed by the
respondents for the purpose of threatening his right to life,
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
liberty and security.
[Lozada] further maintains that there is an alleged trend, Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo
i.e., wherever he goes, there is a bomb threat. There were
bomb threats in the places where he went to like in [the Finally, petitioners insist that while they were able to
Polytechnic University of the Philippines], Dagupan, Cebu sufficiently establish their case by the required
and Bohol. However, [Lozada] himself testified that he did not evidentiary standard, respondents failed to discharge
try to ascertain where the bomb threats emanated. Plainly, their burden to prove their defenses by substantial
there is no evidence on record that the bomb threats were evidence and to show that respondents exercised
made by the respondents or done upon their instigation. extraordinary diligence as required by the Rule on the
Moreover, [Lozada] views the pronouncement of the Writ of Amparo.84 This Court has squarely passed upon
Secretary of Justice that he was put on the watch list of the this contention in Yano v. Sanchez,85 to wit:
Bureau of Immigration as a threat to his life, liberty and
security. This alleged threat is again unsupported by evidence, “The failure to establish that the public official observed
as in fact, [Lozada] testified that he did not ascertain from extraordinary diligence in the performance of duty does not
the Bureau of Immigration whether his name was actually result in the automatic grant of the privilege of
in the official watch list of the Bureau. At any rate, the the amparo writ. It does not relieve the petitioner from
Secretary of Justice is not one of the respondents in the establishing his or her claim by substantial evidence.”
amparo petition, and there is no showing in the record that it
Thus, in amparo actions, petitioners must establish
was the respondents who ordered the same for the purpose of
their claims by substantial evidence, and they cannot
threatening him.
merely rely on the supposed failure of respondents to
[Lozada] harps on the filing of alleged frivolous cases
prove either their defenses or their exercise of
against him and his family as threat to his life, liberty and
extraordinary diligence. In this case, the totality of the
security. xxx However, [Lozada] himself testified that he
evidence presented by petitioners fails to meet the
does not know whether the respondents or any of the
requisite evidentiary threshold, and the privilege of the
respondents ordered the filing of these cases against him.
writ of amparo has already been rendered moot and
In any event, said purported cases are to be determined
academic by the cessation of the restraint to Lozada’s
based on their own merits and are clearly beyond the
liberty.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/36

3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670 3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670

B. Propriety of the privilege “First, a criminal complaint for kidnapping and,

of the writ of amparo and alternatively, for arbitrary detention rooted in the same
its interim reliefs acts and incidents leading to the filing of the subject
As previously discussed, there is no basis to grant amparo petition has been instituted with the OMB,
Lozada the privilege of the writ of amparo, considering docketed as OMB-P-C-O7-0602-E. The usual initial steps to
that the illegal restraint alleged in this case had already determine the existence of a prima facie case against the five
ceased and there is no imminent or continuing (5) impleaded individuals suspected to be actually involved in
restriction on his liberty. In Castillo v. Cruz,86 this Court the detention of Lourdes have been set in motion. It must be
held as follows: pointed out, though, that the filing of the OMB complaint
came before the effectivity of the Amparo Rule on October 24,
_______________ 2007.
84 Reply to Respondent[s’] Comment dated 26 January 2009, pp. Second, Sec. 22 of the Amparo Rule proscribes the filing of
4-5; Rollo, pp. 513-514. an amparo petition should a criminal action have, in the
85 G.R. No. 186640, 11 February 2010, 612 SCRA 347, 360. meanwhile, been commenced. The succeeding Sec. 23, on the
86 Castillo v. Cruz, G.R. No. 182165, 25 November 2009, 605 other hand, provides that when the criminal suit is filed
SCRA 628, 638. subsequent to a petition for amparo, the petition shall be
consolidated with the criminal action where the Amparo Rule
569 shall nonetheless govern the disposition of the relief under the
Rule. Under the terms of said Sec. 22, the present petition
ought to have been dismissed at the outset. But as things stand,
VOL. 670, APRIL 24, 2012 569
the outright dismissal of the petition by force of that section is
Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo no longer technically feasible in light of the interplay of the
following factual mix: (1) the Court has, pursuant to Sec. 6 of
“Although respondents’ release from confinement does not the
necessarily hinder supplication for the writ of amparo, absent
any evidence or even an allegation in the petition that there _______________
is undue and continuing restraint on their liberty, and/or 87 Complaint-Affidavit dated 22 February 2008, Rollo, pp. 453-467.
that there exists threat or intimidation that destroys the 88 Supra note 67, at pp. 263-265.
efficacy of their right to be secure in their persons, the
issuance of the writ cannot be justified.” (Emphasis supplied.) 570

Further, it appears that Lozada had already filed 570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
before the Department of Justice (DOJ) a Complaint
Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo
charging respondents with kidnapping and attempted
murder, docketed as I.S. No. 2008-467.87 In this regard,
Rule, already issued ex parte the writ of amparo; (2) the CA,
this Court’s ruling in Rubrico v. Arroyo88 is worth
after a summary hearing, has dismissed the petition, but not on
considering:
the basis of Sec. 22; and (3) the complaint in OMB-P-C-O7-
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 32/36
3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670 3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670

0602-E named as respondents only those believed to be the lodged before the courts, then the denial of the Petition
actual abductors of Lourdes, while the instant petition is without prejudice to the filing of the appro-
impleaded, in addition, those tasked to investigate the
kidnapping and detention incidents and their superiors at the _______________
top. Yet, the acts and/or omissions subject of the criminal 89 Supra note 67; supra note 78 at p. 668.
complaint and the amparo petition are so linked as to call for
the consolidation of both proceedings to obviate the mischief 571
inherent in a multiplicity-of-suits situation.
Given the above perspective and to fully apply the
VOL. 670, APRIL 24, 2012 571
beneficial nature of the writ of amparo as an inexpensive and
effective tool to protect certain rights violated or threatened to Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo
be violated, the Court hereby adjusts to a degree the literal
application of Secs. 22 and 23 of the Amparo Rule to fittingly priate administrative, civil or criminal case, if
address the situation obtaining under the premises. Towards applicable, against those individuals whom Lozada
this end, two things are at once indicated: (1) the consolidation deems to have unduly restrained his liberty.
of the probe and fact-finding aspects of the instant petition Finally, with respect to the interim reliefs sought by
with the investigation of the criminal complaint before the petitioners, this Court, in Yano v. Sanchez,90 declined to
OMB; and (2) the incorporation in the same criminal grant the prayer for the issuance of a TPO, as well as
complaint of the allegations in this petition bearing on the Inspection and Production Orders, upon a finding that
threats to the right to security. Withal, the OMB should be the implicated public officials were not accountable for
furnished copies of the investigation reports to aid that body in the disappearance subject of that case. Analogously, it
its own investigation and eventual resolution of OMB-P-C- would be incongruous to grant herein petitioners’ prayer
O7-0602-E. Then, too, the OMB shall be given easy access to for a TPO and Inspection and Production Orders and at
all pertinent documents and evidence, if any, adduced before the same time rule that there no longer exists any
the CA. Necessarily, Lourdes, as complainant in OMB-P-C- imminent or continuing threat to Lozada’s right to life,
O7-0602-E, should be allowed, if so minded, to amend her liberty and security. Thus, there is no basis on which a
basic criminal complaint if the consolidation of cases is to be prayer for the issuance of these interim reliefs can be
fully effective.” (Emphasis supplied.) anchored.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for
Thus, if the Complaint filed before the DOJ had being moot and academic. The Court of Appeals’ denial
already progressed into a criminal case, then the latter of the privilege of the writ of amparo is hereby
action can more adequately dispose of the allegations AFFIRMED.
made by petitioners. After all, one of the ultimate SO ORDERED.
objectives of the writ of amparo as a curative remedy is
to facilitate the subsequent punishment of perpetrators.89 Corona (C.J.), Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De
On the other hand, if there is no actual criminal case Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad,

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 33/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/36

3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670 3/3/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 670

Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes and Perlas-

Bernabe, JJ., concur.

Motions denied with qualification.

Notes.—The Rule on the Writ of Amparo explicitly

states that the violation of or threat to the right to life,
liberty and security may be caused by either an act or an
omission of a public official. (Rodriguez vs. Macapagal-
Arroyo, 660 SCRA 84 [2011])
The Rule on the Writ of Amparo was promulgated on
October 24, 2007 amidst rising incidence of “extralegal
killings” and “enforced disappearances.” It was
formulated in the exer-

_______________
90 Supra note 85.

572

572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lozada, Jr. vs. Macapagal-Arroyo

cise of this Court’s expanded rule-making power for the

protection and enforcement of constitutional rights
enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, albeit limited to
these two situations. (Balao vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, 662
SCRA 312 [2011])
——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 35/36 www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000177f3c128b2baf6a7f9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 36/36