Facts:
Nedina
Gadian-Diamante, sister of Lt. Sg. Gadian, filed for a petition for the
issuance of a writ of amparo in the
Supreme Court alleging perceived threats to the life, liberty, and security of
the latter from the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). Lt. SG Gadian was
involved in the alleged misuse and disbursement of the RP-US Balikatan
Exercises 2007 Funds which could possibly implicate her superiors and other
officials in the AFP with higher ranks. Due to her expose, she perceived
imminent threats to her and her children’s lives when she received reports of
text messages that a “shoot-to-kill” order was served for her and when unnamed
men would go to her relatives’ houses to ask for her whereabouts.
The
Association of Major Religious Superiors of the Philippines (SMRSP) manifested
its willingness and readiness to give sanctuary to Lt. SG Gadian. The Court of
Appeals granted the writ of amparo
but decided that then Secretary of National Defense Gilbert Teodoro was the
appropriate authority to extend protection to her inasmuch as he had executive
supervision over the AFP.
Issues:
- Whether or not the issuance of the writ of amparo was warranted by circumstance;
- Assuming that there had really been threats against Lt. SG Gadian, whether the Secretary of National Defense or the Association of Major Religious Superiors of the Philippines (AMRSP) was in the better position to protect her
Ruling:
The
petitions were dismissed as they have become moot and academic due to
supervening events such as the refusal of petitioner to attend the AFP
investigations and the retirement of the officials she attributed as threats to
her life and liberty.
Accordingly,
the writ of amparo is an independent
and summary remedy to provide immediate judicial relief for the protection of a
person’s constitutional right to life and liberty (Lozada, Jr. et al. v. President Macapagal-Arroyo, et al.). The
source of fear must be valid and substantiated by circumstances, and not mere
paranoia.
The writ of
amparo could either be preventive or curative. It is curative when it seeks to
stop the impunity in committing offenses that violates a person’s right to live
and be free. It is curative when it facilitates subsequent punishment of
perpetrators through an investigation and action.
- Yes, the issuance of the writ of amparo was warranted in these circumstances. The Court of Appeals correctly observed that the person threatened in this case was a junior officer of the AFP who had exposed anomalies in the Balikatan which could possibly apprehend senior officers of the AFP. Threat or intimidation must be viewed in the light of the perception of the victim at the time of the commission of the crime, not by any hard and fast rule.
- The AMRSP was in a better position to provide protection to Lt. SG Gadian. The Rule on the Writ of Amparo states that persons or agencies who may provide protection to the aggrieved parties and any member of the immediate family are limited to government agencies, and accredited persons or private institutions capable of keeping and securing their safety, but in respect of the latter, they should be accredited in accordance with guideline still to be issued.
The Court of Appeals recommended that then Secretary of
National Defense Teodoro provide Lt. SG Gadian protection as the AMRSP was not
yet an accredited agency. However, the Supreme Court duly noted that the AMRSP
could have been a viable provider of protection and sanctuary to her. The
viability of the AMRSP, or of any other private or religious organization or
person so disposed into taking anyone under its protection, should not be
dismissed or ignored only because of the lack of accreditation, but should have
been fully determined by hearing the AMRSP.
