G.R. No. 183789 - Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corporation vs. Pozzolanic Philippines Incorporated

Francis Saez filed a petition on March 6, 2008, for the issuance of the writs of amparo and habeas data, seeking protection from alleged threats to his life and liberty.
He requested temporary protection, inspection of premises, production of documents, exclusion from military records (order of battle), and cessation of military surveillance.
Petitioner expressed fear of being abducted and killed, seeking sanctuary appointed by the Court.
The Supreme Court issued the writ of amparo commanding the respondents to file a verified return and referred the case to the Court of Appeals (CA).

Respondents included then-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, various military officers and personnel alleged to have committed violations.
Respondents denied certain assignments and identification of some persons was unclear.
Affidavits were submitted by some respondents denying involvement.
Hearings were conducted; petitioner narrated incidents of surveillance starting April 16, 2007, notably by “Joel,” a former colleague purportedly monitoring him.
Petitioner admitted fear of Pvt. Osio at the pier, hindering his return home.

On July 9, 2008, the CA denied the petition for the writs of amparo and habeas data on both formal and substantial grounds.
The CA dropped former President Arroyo as a respondent, citing presidential immunity from suit during tenure.
The CA held that the petitioner failed to prove violation or threat to fundamental rights with substantial evidence.
The petition lacked specific allegations identifying acts or omissions violating or threatening petitioner’s rights.
The petition for habeas data lacked specificity as to documents sought or government offices holding them.
The CA also found defects in the verification of the petition.

Petitioner filed a petition for review on July 21, 2008, raising issues on the dismissal, dropping of the President, defective verification, and sufficiency of evidence.
On August 31, 2010, the Supreme Court denied the petition for review, affirming the CA’s findings.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration on September 26, 2010.

Petitioner asserted substantial evidence existed, pointing to respondents’ own admissions and military documentation linking him to the CPP and order of battle.
He contested the CA’s finding about his incommunicado status, emphasizing the phone was only for communication with the military.
He cited previous jurisprudence supporting the right to security as freedom from threats and clarified the proper quantum of proof in amparo cases is substantial evidence.
Petitioner underscored the importance of the writ of habeas data to secure or rectify information held by the military.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) maintained no ground to overturn the Court’s prior resolution.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the petition complied with formal requirements but emphasized the lack of substantial evidence to prove violations.
The Court examined petitioner’s claims of surveillance, intimidation, and forced recruitment as a military asset, finding them unsupported by documentary or testimonial evidence.
Investigation by military and denial by respondents showed petitioner’s alleged inclusion in order of battle was unsubstantiated.
Petitioner was shown to have mobility, access to communication, and no restraint was effectively imposed.
Conflicting accounts between petitioner and respondents on voluntary vs. forced cooperation as military asset.
Petitioner's failure to present witnesses who could corroborate critical claims was noted.
The Court reiterated the presidential immunity rule but clarified that the doctrine of command responsibility applies, making the President liable if evidence shows knowledge or failure to act.
Petitioner failed to establish the President’s accountability under this doctrine.
The Court also held that minor procedural defects, such as the defective verification, were not fatal and were cured by petitioner’s testimony.

Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the petition for the writs of amparo and habeas data and dropping Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as party respondent.

Whether or not the omission by the notarial officer to require identification cards during the verification of the petition justifies the denial of the petition.

Whether or not there was gross abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals in failing to recognize substantial evidence that respondents committed acts threatening petitioner’s right to life, liberty, and security.

Whether or not the petitioner sufficiently met the requirements of the Rules on the Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data in the filing of his petition.

Whether or not the doctrine of command responsibility applies to hold the sitting President liable in an amparo proceeding.