MANILA — The Supreme Court (SC) upheld a Court of Appeals (CA) decision granting the issuance of the writs of amparo and habeas data to a member of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyer (NUPL) based in Isabela, who was allegedly tagged as a “red lawyer” for representing political prisoners suspected to be members of the New People’s Army (NPA).
In a 21-page decision dated January 23 penned by Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin, the SC denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) against the petition filed by lawyer Maria Catherine Dannug-Salucon for lack of merit.
The ruling affirmed the CA decision dated March 12 and December 2, 2015 in favor of Dannug-Salucon.
The SC also ordered to remand the case to the CA for the monitoring of the investigation to be conducted in line with the latter’s decision issued on March 12, 2015 and for the validation of the results of the investigation.
Dannug-Salucon filed a petition for writs of habeas data and amparo in April 2014 before the appellate court after she received information that she was placed under surveillance by the military and tagged as a “red lawyer.”
She also claimed that the police and military linked her to the communist movement after she represented several prisoners suspected to be members of the communist New People’s Army.
She also alleged that her name was included in the military’s watchlist of so-called communist terrorist supporters rendering legal services.
In her petition, Dannug-Salucon cited several instances of military personnel casing and asking her about her activities.
Her paralegal, William Bugatti, was also killed by unidentified men after the latter informed her of the need for additional security measures to ensure her safety.
A writ of amparo is a a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security has been violated or is threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity while a writ of habeas data protects a person’s right to control information especially when the information against the person was illegally obtained.
A habeas data on the other hand, protects a person’s right to control information especially when the information against the person was illegally obtained.
The High Tribunal held that the CA did not err in giving weight to Dannug-Salucon’s proof even if it supposedly consisted of circumstantial evidence and hearsay testimonies.
The Court pointed out that proceedings related to the petition for the issuance of the writ of amparo should allow not only direct evidence, but also circumstantial evidence.
“What the respondent obviously established is that the threats to her right to life, liberty and security were neither imaginary nor contrived, but real and probable. The gunning down of her paralegal Bugatti after he had relayed to her his observation that they had been under surveillance was the immediate proof of the threat,” the SC noted.
“The purpose and noble objectives of the special rules on the writ of amparo may be rendered inutile if the rigid standards of evidence applicable in ordinary judicial proceedings were not tempered with such flexibility,” it added.
The Court, likewise, sided with the CA when it granted the petitioner’s plea for a writ of habeas corpus and directed the respondents to produce and disclose to the Court all information, records and evidence pertaining to her for possible destruction upon order of the Court.
“The directive was factually and procedurally warranted,” the Court said.
The SC noted that it was established that the civilian asset of the PNP Intelligence Section relayed to the petitioner that there was standing order issued by the PNP Isabela Provincial Office to the PNP office in Burgos, Isabela to conduct a background investigation in order to confirm if she was a “Red lawyer.”
The lawyer, according to the Court, was also under surveillance by different individuals who looked like they were members of the military or police establishments.
“These and other established circumstances fully warranted within the context of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data the directive of the CA for the handing over and destruction of all information and data on her in order to protect her privacy and security,” the SC declared.
In its earlier ruling, the CA ordered the AFP to identify its personnel that are harassing the human rights lawyer and file the necessary charges against them.
It also ordered the respondents, then AFP Chief of Staff, Emmanuel Bautista, Philippine Army Commanding General Hernando Irriberi, General Eduardo Ano, General Benito Antonio De Leon in his capacity as commander of the Army’s 5th Infantry Division and Chief Supt. Miguel De Mayor Lauder, acting regional director of the Police Regional Office 2, or their successors to produce before the Court for possible destruction all information, records, photographs and dossiers gathered by the military on Dannug-Salucon. (Christopher Lloyd Caliwan/PNA)
