The Court of Appeals has affirmed its decision denying the petition filed by several physicians and health workers for the issuance of the privilege of the writs of amparo and habeas data to stop harassments, threats and surveillance activities being carried out against them by state security forces.
In a three-page resolution, the CA’s Seventh Division through Associate Justice Victoria Isabel Paredes dismissed the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners seeking the reversal of its decision issued last Dec. 10, 2015.
The CA stressed that the petitioners failed to raise new arguments that would warrant the granting of their petition.
“We have carefully reviewed our decision vis-a-vis the motion for reconsideration, and we found that the issues raised in the present motion and the arguments advanced in support thereof are mere rehash of those already considered and passed upon, and no new issue or substantial argument has been presented to justify the reversal or modification of the assailed decision,” the appellate court ruled.
Associate Justices Magdangal M. de Leon and Elihu Ybanez concurred with the ruling.
The petitioners include Dr. Darby Santiago, chairman of the Health Alliance for Democracy; Imelda Gerali, registered nurse and administrative officer of the Samahang Operasyong Sagip, member of HEAD; Rebecca Abelong, member of Kilusang Mayo Uno; Neil Ambion, media liaison officer of KMU; Renato C. Asa, member of KMU; and other health advocates.
A part from police and military officials, the petitioners named former President Benigno Aquino as respondent in the case.
A writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission.
The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, among others.
In its Dec. 10, 2015 decision, the CA ruled that the petitioners failed to mention Aquino’s involvement in any incident narrated by them.
The appellate court also held that the petitioners have not provided any clear information on the identity of the person or persons responsible for the purported threats and alleged surveillance on them.