By Atty. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF AMPARO OF VIVIAN A. SANCHEZ, VIVIAN A. SANCHEZ VS. PSUPT. MARK ANTHONY D. DARROCA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 242257 (JUNE 15, 2021): “TOTALITY OF OBTAINING SITUATION” TO DETERMINE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF AMPARO
On October 15, 2019, the Supreme Court granted the petition for Writ of Amparo filed by petitioner Vivian A. Sanchez against respondents members of the Philippine National Police (“PNP”) after petitioner was able to establish with substantial evidence that she and her children became persons of interest and were put under surveillance because of her dead husband’s suspected affiliation with the New People’s Army (“NPA”) thereby “creating a real threat to their life, liberty, or security.” In granting the Writ of Amparo, the Court held that spousal and filial privileges continue to exist after the death of a spouse which protected petitioner and her children from inquiries regarding her husband’s activities. The Court also castigated police officers’ brusque treatment of petitioner and their surreptitious surveillance stressing that if they wanted to interview petitioner, they should have formally done the same in an intimidation-free set-up and ensuring assistance by counsel to the petitioner.
The Supreme Court resolved to deny the motion for reconsideration filed by the respondents stating that while they have the mandate to investigate, their duty must be balanced with the petitioner’s fundamental rights. The petitioner continues to be protected by spousal and filial privilege which insulates her from any inquiries on her late husband’s supposed communist activities. Also, any investigation should have been done formally and not through surreptitious surveillance.
Notably, the Supreme Court restated Section 17 of the Rule on Writ of Amparo which states that while it is necessary for petitioner to establish her claims with substantial evidence, the respondents are also obligated to prove that extraordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in the performance of duty and that respondents cannot invoke the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.
Finally, the Supreme Court held that it does not agree with the assertion of the respondents that “the right to privacy, gender and power analysis are not applicable in the present case” holding that trial courts must be perceptive of and recognize gross imbalance between power dynamics between private citizens and State agents. The Court underscored two tiers of power at play in the instant case: (1) law enforcer-civilian; and (2) male-female. The case is about male police officers who investigated and monitored petitioner and her children due to their relationship with an alleged member of the NPA. Petitioner was targeted because she initially refused to divulge her relationship with her dead husband when she went to the funeral parlor and after then, she was subjected under general investigation because they wanted to know the identity of the unclaimed cadaver. But even after she had admitted to being suspected member’s estranged wife, police surveillance continued and even intensified, causing her fear and anxiety for her and her children’s safety. There were also threats to charge her with obstruction of justice and respondents took petitioner’s photo.
Applying the instant case with the current stand-off in Davao City, the facts therein may not fall squarely with that of the instant case. The police officers are serving a Warrant of Arrest to the powerful and influential religious leader Pastor Apollo Quiboloy in his 30-Hectare property near the Davao City International Airport. The fugitive wields political influence and mass support in Davao City being allied to the former President, Rodrigo Duterte. Hence, the number of police officers deployed and setting-up of barricade may be justified to ensure that their police operation will not be hampered or is insulated from interference. On the part of the members of Pastor Quiboloy’s church, Kingdom of Jesus Christ (“KOJC”), they question the threat to life, liberty and property because of the ongoing operation. But there is no life and liberty at stake if the members of Kingdom of Jesus Christ will not interfere and hamper the police operation. In fact, there are numerous media outlets covering the operation. The only issue is if there is a threat or violation of KOJC’s property rights because the classes and church activities will be affected by the ongoing operation.
The PNP will question the ruling of the Davao City trial court issuing a Writ of Amparo. It may go up to the Supreme Court again and it is expected that the Supreme Court will apply the “totality of obtaining situation” as enunciated in Razon vs. Tagitis, G.R. No. 182498 (Decision dated December 3, 2009 and Resolution dated February 16, 2010), to determine if petitioner is entitled to a Writ of Amparo.