Case Summary (G.R. No. 252120)
Factual Background
AJ enrolled as a Grade 11 student at Far Eastern University and became an official member of the FEU chapter of Anakbayan on February 2, 2019. Shortly after joining, AJ left the family home on several occasions and stayed with national officers of Anakbayan, specifically Chary Delos Reyes, Bianca Gacos, and Jay Roven Ballais Villafente, during which time she engaged in recruiting activities and campaigned for the Kabataan Party-list and a senatorial candidate. AJ ceased attending FEU and, after a final departure on July 10, 2019, did not return to her parents’ custody thereafter.
Petition and Reliefs Sought
Petitioners filed for the issuance of the writs of amparo and habeas corpus principally to regain custody of AJ. They impleaded Anakbayan officers, Kabataan Party-list representatives, Anakbayan spokespersons, and counsel as respondents. Petitioners sought a peremptory writ of amparo in favor of AJ and themselves, a temporary protection order prohibiting respondents and the organizations from recruiting or influencing AJ, a writ of habeas corpus directing respondents to produce AJ in court, immediate placement of AJ under petitioners’ custody, and court-ordered medical and psychological examination and assistance for AJ.
Procedural Posture
The Court required respondents to show cause by Resolution dated May 19, 2020, and respondents timely filed compliances. The petition proceeded to decision by the En Banc Court which rendered judgment denying the petition and dismissing the action.
Petitioners' Contentions
Petitioners conceded AJ’s majority but argued that AJ’s decision to remain with Anakbayan did not constitute valid and informed consent. They maintained that earlier radicalization and indoctrination while AJ was a minor prejudiced her mental, psychological, emotional, and spiritual development and thus continued to impair her capacity to consent after reaching majority. Petitioners characterized AJ’s continued association with Anakbayan as effectively withholding custody from them and as a state of unlawful deprivation of liberty or its equivalent warranting amparo and habeas relief.
Respondents' Submissions and AJ's Statements
Respondents filed compliances and produced AJ’s sworn statements. AJ publicly and under oath denied any kidnapping or forced detention and expressly disavowed allegations that she had been brainwashed into joining Anakbayan or into becoming a member of an armed group. AJ declared that she left her parents’ home because she could no longer tolerate alleged abuse and that her decision to remain with Anakbayan was voluntary and reasoned.
Issues Presented
The Court framed and resolved two principal legal questions: whether the remedy of the writ of amparo lay in the circumstances presented; and whether the writ of habeas corpus appropriately extended to petitioners’ claim that AJ was being detained or that petitioners’ custodial rights over AJ were being withheld.
Court's Analysis on the Writ of Amparo
The Court held that the writ of amparo, as presently formulated and construed in its precedents, is confined to cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. Relying on the Rule and authoritative decisions including Agcaoili v. Farinas and Secretary of National Defense, et al. v. Manalo, et al., the Court reiterated the elements that constitute an enforced disappearance and the scope of amparo relief. Applying these standards, the Court found that AJ’s situation did not qualify as an extralegal killing or enforced disappearance because AJ was not missing, her whereabouts were ascertainable, and the persons with whom she stayed were not agents of the State acting with governmental acquiescence. Consequently, the remedy of amparo was not proper.
Court's Analysis on the Writ of Habeas Corpus
The Court observed that Rule 102, Sec. 1, Rules of Court confines the writ of habeas corpus to cases of illegal confinement or detention or situations where rightful custody is unlawfully withheld. The Court found that petitioners failed to prove that AJ was being detained or kept against her will. There was no allegation or evidence of physical force, violence, or threats by respondents to restrain AJ or to prevent her from leaving in the future, and petitioners’ claim that prior indoctrination while AJ was a minor rendered her consent invalid rested on speculation contradicted by AJ’s own sworn statements. The Court further held that petitioners had no enforceable custodial right over AJ because AJ had attained the age of majority; under Article 234 of Executive Order No. 209, s. of 1987 as amended by R.A. No. 6809, parental authority and custodi
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 252120)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Petitioners Relissa and Francis Lucena filed a petition for the issuance of the writs of amparo and habeas corpus in favor of their daughter Alicia Jasper S. Lucena.
- Respondents Sarah Elago, Alex Danday, Chary Delos Reyes, Bianca Gacos, Jay Roven Ballais Villafuente, and Atty. Maria Kristina Conti were impleaded in the petition.
- The Court issued a Resolution on May 19, 2020 requiring respondents to show cause why the writs should not be issued.
- All respondents filed timely compliances with the Court's Resolution.
- The Court rendered a decision dismissing the petition and denying the writs of amparo and habeas corpus.
- Peralta, C.J. authored the decision, and the named concurring justices joined the dismissal.
Key Factual Allegations
- Alicia Jasper S. Lucena was born on July 24, 2001 and enrolled as a Grade 11 student at Far Eastern University in 2018.
- AJ joined the FEU Chapter of Anakbayan and informed petitioners of her membership on February 2, 2019.
- AJ left the family home on February 3, 2019 and returned three days later, and she left again on March 10, 2019 and returned on May 25, 2019.
- Petitioners learned that during AJ's absence she was allegedly in the custody of Chary Delos Reyes, Bianca Gacos, and Jay Roven Ballais Villafuente and was conducting recruiting activities for Anakbayan and campaigning for Kabataan Party-list and Neri Colmenares.
- AJ left the family home a third time on July 10, 2019 and did not return, and she subsequently dropped out from FEU.
- AJ appeared at an August 14, 2019 press conference and stated that she was not abducted and that she joined Anakbayan voluntarily.
- AJ executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay on September 9, 2019 in which she denied kidnapping and brainwashing allegations and stated that she left home due to alleged parental abuse.
Reliefs Sought
- Petitioners sought the issuance of a writ of amparo in favor of Alicia Jasper S. Lucena and the petitioners.
- Petitioners sought a temporary protection order prohibiting respondents and Anakbayan and Kabataan Party-list from recruiting, indoctrinating, or threatening AJ.
- Petitioners sought the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ordering respondents to produce the person of AJ in Court.
- Petitioners sought an order placing AJ immediately under the custody and care of the petitioners.
- Petitioners sought an order requiring medical and psychological examination and assistance for AJ.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the remedy of writ of amparo was properly invoked given the factual circumstances.
- Whether the remedy of writ of habeas corpus was proper given the allegations regarding AJ's custody and alleged detention.
- Whether alleged radicalization and indoctrination inflicted while AJ was a minor negated AJ's consent after reaching the age of majority.
Ruling and Disposition
- The Court dismissed the petition and denied the prayers for the writs of amparo and habeas corpus.
- The Court held that the facts did not establish an extralegal killing or an enf