The Court of Appeals has junked a petition for writs of amparo and habeas data filed by three groups against various government officials making up the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict.
In a 24-page decision dated June 28, the appellate court’s 14th Division, through Associate Justice Mario Lopez, cited President Rodrigo Duterte’s duty to uphold national interests and the general welfare of the people.
“The petitioners failed to establish [the] accountability of the President, as commander in chief directly under the doctrine of command responsibility,” read the decision.
The petitioners, led by Karapatan Alliance Phils. Inc., Rural Missionaries of the Philippines Inc. and Gabriela, sued Duterte and a number of military and Palace officials before the Supreme Court, which in turn remanded the case to the CA.
“The petitioners merely included President Duterte as a party respondent without showing that he exhibited involvement in or can be imputed with knowledge of the violations, or had failed to exercise reasonable diligence in conducting the necessary investigations required by the rules,” the appellate court said.
“It is presumed that the President acted pursuant to his constitutional obligation to protect the people, promote their welfare and advance the national interest… There was [also] no unlawful act or omission on the part of the respondents [government] that violated or threatened the petitioners’ rights.”
The CA said the writs of amparo and habeas data cannot be issued “on amorphous and uncertain grounds lest their purpose be undermined by the indiscriminate filing of petitions on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations.”
The groups denounced the alleged harassment against them being undertaken by the government.
The court, however, said the distribution of propaganda materials, such as posters, tarpaulins, flyers linking the petitioners to communist rebels cannot be simply ascribed to the government.
“The origin of such materials [was] unexplained. Hence, the government cannot be ordered to refrain from distributing something that, in the first place, it was not shown to have,” it said.
The CA added that the alleged surveillance activities were a “mere impression based on the petitioners’ personal assessment of the circumstances.”