G.R. No. 189220 - Wilson vs. Ermita

Case Summary (G.R. No. 189220)

Factual Background

Wilson was accused on September 16, 1996 of consummated rape of a twelve-year-old and was taken into custody. After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Branch 171, found him guilty and sentenced him to death under R.A. No. 7659 in its September 30, 1998 decision. While the case was pending automatic review, on June 15, 1999 Wilson submitted a communication to the United Nations Human Rights Committee pursuant to the Optional Protocol, alleging violations of several provisions of the ICCPR.

Proceedings in People of the Philippines v. Wilson

On December 21, 1999 the Supreme Court in People of the Philippines v. Wilson reversed the RTC decision. The Court found serious discrepancies in the victim’s testimony and concluded that the evidence did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court acquitted Wilson and ordered his immediate release. Wilson was released the day after the acquittal and he returned to the United Kingdom.

Board of Claims Applications and Awards

Upon his return to the UK, Wilson sought compensation under R.A. No. 7309 before the Board of Claims of the Department of Justice as one unjustly accused, convicted and imprisoned but released by acquittal. On January 1, 2001 the Board initially awarded P14,000.00. Wilson moved for reconsideration asserting entitlement to P40,000.00. The Board issued Resolution No. 2001-25 dated August 24, 2001 increasing the award to P40,000.00, and in September 2001 the DOJ issued a P26,000.00 check representing the additional award, made out to Wilson care of the Ambassador of the United Kingdom at his request. Wilson did not claim the award in person.

Committee Communication and the View

On November 11, 2003 the Human Rights Committee issued its View in Communication No. 868/1999. The Committee found certain allegations under Article 14 inadmissible but concluded that the State party had obligations under Article 2(3)(a) to provide an effective remedy and that compensation was due for violations of Article 9 and for ill-treatment under Articles 7 and 10. The Committee observed that domestic compensation awarded had not been directed at these violations and that compensation should reflect the seriousness of the violations and damage suffered. The Committee also recommended a comprehensive and impartial investigation, appropriate penal and disciplinary consequences for responsible individuals, refund of immigration fees and visa exclusion-related amounts claimed from the author, and that monetary compensation be made available for payment to the author at the venue of his choice.

Correspondence with the Executive Secretary and DOJ

Through counsel, Wilson wrote the Executive Secretary on June 19, 2008 requesting implementation of the Committee’s View. He asked that the Executive Secretary take steps to effect payment of compensation, direct the Board of Claims to release sums to his authorized representatives, and direct the Bureau of Immigration to refund monies unjustly imposed. Wilson reiterated these requests in a letter dated October 20, 2008. The Executive Secretary referred the matter to the Secretary of Justice on October 29, 2008.

Petition for Mandamus and Relief Sought

Wilson filed the present petition for a writ of mandamus on September 9, 2009. He sought an order compelling respondents to pay reparation sufficient to compensate him for torture and abuse suffered while in Philippine custody in compliance with the ICCPR and the Committee’s Communication. He also sought institutional measures to prevent future torture and inhuman treatment in places of detention and implementation of the Committee’s recommendations.

Government Opposition

The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the petition. The OSG contended that the ICCPR and the Optional Protocol have not been given domestic force beyond ratification and that the Committee’s Views are recommendatory and do not create a ministerial duty enforceable by the courts. The OSG also noted that the Board of Claims had already awarded Wilson the maximum compensation permitted under R.A. No. 7309 and that Wilson had not claimed the money. The Government argued that the Manila Bay case was distinguishable because that decision concerned enforcement of domestic law and administrative obligations rather than enforcement of international recommendations.

Issue Presented

The sole issue before the Court was whether a writ of mandamus lies to compel the enforcement in the Philippines of the Human Rights Committee’s View in Communication No. 868/1999.

Legal Standard for Mandamus

The Court recalled Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which provides that mandamus issues only where a tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, and where there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy. The Court reiterated settled principles that mandamus lies only to compel the performance of a purely ministerial duty and only when the petitioner establishes a clear legal right and a corresponding mandatory duty on the part of the respondent.

Analysis on Ministerial Duty and Compensation

The Court examined whether the Committee’s View conferred upon Wilson a legal right that respondents were ministerially required to perform. The Court found that a purely ministerial duty must be clear and specific and must leave no room for the exercise of discretion. The Court observed that Wilson had already been granted compensation under R.A. No. 7309 and that the Board of Claims had awarded him the maximum amount authorized by that statute. The Court concluded that, other than R.A. No. 7309, Wilson failed to point to any domestic law or regulation creating a ministerial right to additional compensation. The Court held that it lacked discretion to arbitraril

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 189220)

Parties and Posture

Albert Wilson was the petitioner who sought a writ of mandamus to compel enforcement of a United Nations Human Rights Committee View.
The respondents included 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.
The petition invoked the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol and sought compliance with Communication No. 868/1999 of the Human Rights Committee.
The Court adjudicated the petition under Rule 65, Section 3 of the Rules of Court and denied the petition for lack of merit.

Key Facts

Albert Wilson, a British national, was arrested on September 16, 1996 for consummated rape allegedly committed against a twelve-year-old girl who was the daughter of his Filipina live-in partner.
The Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Branch 171 convicted petitioner on September 30, 1998, imposed the death penalty under R.A. No. 7659, and ordered indemnification of P50,000.00.
Petitioner filed Communication No. 868/1999 with the Human Rights Committee on June 15, 1999 while the case was pending before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted petitioner in its December 21, 1999 decision in People v. Wilson.
Petitioner left the Philippines after his release and sought compensation from the Board of Claims under R.A. No. 7309 as one unjustly accused, convicted and imprisoned.
The Board of Claims initially awarded P14,000.00 and later increased the award to P40,000.00 by Resolution No. 2001-25, with a subsequent check for P26,000.00 issued in September 2001 made payable care of the United Kingdom Ambassador at petitioner's request.
Petitioner was denied a Philippine tourist visa because he appeared on the Bureau of Immigration watch list, which the BI attributed to overstaying and his prior conviction.
The Human Rights Committee issued its View on November 11, 2003 finding certain claims inadmissible and recommending compensation, investigation, refund of immigration fees, and that monetary compensation be made available at the venue of the author’s choice.
Petitioner sent letters to the Executive Secretary in June and October 2008 requesting implementation of the Committee View and filed the present petition for mandamus on September 9, 2009.

Procedural History

The trial court convicted petitioner and imposed the death penalty, which prompted automatic review before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court vacated the conviction and ordered petitioner's release in the decision reported as People v. Wilson.
Petitioner pursued administrative relief and compensation with the Board of Claims, Department of Justice under R.A. No. 7309, which culminated in a total award of P40,000.00.
The Human Rights Committee issued a View favorable to petitioner in Communication No. 868/1999 on November 11, 2003.
Petitioner sought executive action to implement the Committee View and thereafter filed the petition for mandamus against various executive offices and agencies.

Issues Presented

The sole issue was whether a writ of mandamus lies to compel the respondents to enforce the Human Rights Committee View and to provide the relief recommended therein.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioner contended that the ICCPR and the Optional Protocol, together with the doctrine of transformation, required the Republic of the Philippines to enforce the Committee View and to make full reparation including compensation for violations, refund of immigration fees, and implementation of remedial measures.
Petitioner further prayed that respondents pay compensation sufficient to redres