Case Digest (G.R. No. 189220)
Facts:
Albert Wilson v. The Honorable Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Secretary of Foreign Affairs Alberto Romulo, Secretary of Justice Raul Gonzales, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, Board of Claims, Department of Justice, Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera, and Bureau of Immigration, G.R. No. 189220, December 07, 2016, Supreme Court Third Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Albert Wilson, a British national, was prosecuted in the Philippines for consummated rape and, on September 30, 1998, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela, Branch 171, which imposed the death penalty under R.A. No. 7659 and ordered indemnity to the victim. The case was the subject of automatic review before the Supreme Court in People v. Wilson, G.R. No. 135915, and on December 21, 1999 the Court reversed and acquitted Wilson for lack of evidence; he was released the next day and returned to the United Kingdom.
While his appeal was pending, on June 15, 1999 Wilson filed a communication with the United Nations Human Rights Committee (the Committee) under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (CCPR/C/79/D/868/1999). The Committee issued its View on November 11, 2003, finding violations under, inter alia, Articles 7, 9, 10 and portions of Article 14 of the ICCPR, and recommended compensation, investigation, disciplinary/penal measures where appropriate, refund of immigration fees, and that any monetary compensation be made available at the venue of the author’s choice.
After his acquittal Wilson sought redress domestically under R.A. No. 7309 before the Board of Claims (BOC) of the Department of Justice (DOJ). The BOC initially awarded P14,000; after reconsideration it raised the award to the maximum authorized amount of P40,000, and the DOJ issued a check for the additional P26,000 payable to Wilson, care of the British Ambassador. Wilson could not return to the Philippines to claim the award because the Bureau of Immigration (BI) placed him on a watch list and denied a tourist visa, citing overstay and prior conviction.
Through counsel Wilson wrote to the Executive Secretary in 2008 asking the Republic to effect payment and implement the Committee’s View, to direct the BOC to release the awarded sums to his representatives, and to refund immigration fees. The Executive Secretary referred the matter to the DOJ. On September 9, 2009 Wilson filed the present petition for a writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court seeking to compel respondents to enforce the Committee’s View and to pay reparations for the ICCPR violations; he invoked the doctrine that Committee Views should be given effect domestically (a "doctrine of transformation" argument) and cited other international-law remedies and the Manila Bay jurisprudence.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) answered that the Committee’s View was recommendatory and not self-executing domestically; that under Article 2(2) of the ICCPR and Article VII, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution treaties require transformation (i.e., enabling legislation or other constitutional act) to have domestic effect; and that Wilson had already been awarded P40,000 under R.A. No. 7309, which he had not claimed. The OSG distinguished Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Concerned Resident...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does a writ of mandamus lie to compel respondents to enforce the United Nations Human Rights Committee’s View in CCPR/C/79/D/868/1999?
- If mandamus is sought, does the Committee’s View create a clear and complete legal right enforceable in domestic courts or impose a ministerial duty on respondents to implement the View (including additional compensation a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)