SC to PNP: Uphold rights of family members of suspected NPA rebels
Published Feb 27, 2020 12:00 am
By Rey Panaligan
The Supreme Court (SC) has barred members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) from doing surveillance or monitoring of the family members of a suspected New People’s Army (NPA) member who was killed by the police in Antique in 2018.
(MANILA BULLETIN FILE PHOTO)
In issuing a permanent protection order under the Writ of Amparo in favor of Vivian A. Sanchez and her two children, the SC reminded the PNP to “uphold the rights of citizens as contained in the Constitution as well as conduct investigations in accordance with their promulgated manuals including the Ethical Doctrine Manual.”
A Writ of Amparo “is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.”
The SC also said in a decision written by Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen:
“While pursuing rebels is a legitimate law enforcement objective, the zeal of our police must be bound by the fundamental rights of persons, especially the loved ones of persons in interest.
After all, the values we have in our Constitution are what differentiate us from lawless elements.”
The SC decision was promulgated in October last year. The details were released by the SC’s public information office (PIO) on Thursday, February 27.
Case records showed that Vivian learned of the death of Eldie Labinghisa, her estranged husband, on Aug. 16, 2018. Eldie was one of seven suspected NPA members who were killed by the police in Barangay Atabay, San Jose, Antique.
Vivian went to the funeral home to verify the news of her husband’s death but she left in a hurry after policemen took her photographs without her permission.
She again went to the funeral home but left hurriedly when policemen threatened her of arrest and detention if she would not answer their questions.
Later, two policemen went to Vivian’s house and showed her a photograph of Eldie’s cadaver. She confirmed that the body belonged to her estranged husband.
Vivian testified during the trial of her petition for Writ of Amparo before the trial court that a police car had frequent drive-bys in front of her house and that a vehicle tailed her when she and her children went to Iloilo to attend her husband’s wake.
She also testified she feared for her and her children’s safety every time she noticed that someone was following her and monitoring her and her children’s whereabouts.
While the trial court issued a temporary protection order for her and her children, it eventually dismissed her petition for a Writ of Amparo. The dismissal prompted her to elevate the case to the SC.
In granting Vivian’s petition, the SC’s public information office (PIO) in its summary stated that “the SC found that the totality of Vivian’s evidence undoubtedly showed that she became a person of interest after she had first visited the funeral home, where her photo was taken.”
The summary also stated that “whether ’s photo was actually posted and distributed at the police station or was just taken for future reference, the taking of the photo bolsters ’s claims that she was being monitored by the police.”
It also stated:
“The SC also pointed out that Vivian and her 15-year old daughter categorically stated that police cars have driven by their house with alarming regularity after Vivian had identified her husband’s body.
“Further, Vivian’s report of being tailed by a vehicle only merited a perfunctory request from the police to the Land Transportation Office. The police, which had better resources to perform the investigation, should have done more to follow up her request. Their failure to exert the extraordinary diligence expected of them hints at a motive against her and her family.
“Moreover, respondent police officers tried to paint Vivian’s claims as the ramblings of a paranoid and overly suspicious person, but the Court underscored that even her daughter confirmed the numerous times the police drove by their house and being tailed whenever they set foot outside their house. This shows that Vivian was not merely imagining the threats against her and her family.
“The totality of obtaining circumstances likewise shows that Vivian and her children were the subject of surveillance because of their relationship with a suspected member of the New People’s Army, creating a real threat to their life, liberty or security.
“As the widow of Labinghisa, the Court considered Vivian’s apprehension at being targeted as a suspected member of the NPA as palpable and understandable, causing her to ‘act suspiciously’ as claimed by the respondent police officers, who subjected her to threats and accusations.”
(MANILA BULLETIN FILE PHOTO)
In issuing a permanent protection order under the Writ of Amparo in favor of Vivian A. Sanchez and her two children, the SC reminded the PNP to “uphold the rights of citizens as contained in the Constitution as well as conduct investigations in accordance with their promulgated manuals including the Ethical Doctrine Manual.”
A Writ of Amparo “is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.”
The SC also said in a decision written by Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen:
“While pursuing rebels is a legitimate law enforcement objective, the zeal of our police must be bound by the fundamental rights of persons, especially the loved ones of persons in interest.
After all, the values we have in our Constitution are what differentiate us from lawless elements.”
The SC decision was promulgated in October last year. The details were released by the SC’s public information office (PIO) on Thursday, February 27.
Case records showed that Vivian learned of the death of Eldie Labinghisa, her estranged husband, on Aug. 16, 2018. Eldie was one of seven suspected NPA members who were killed by the police in Barangay Atabay, San Jose, Antique.
Vivian went to the funeral home to verify the news of her husband’s death but she left in a hurry after policemen took her photographs without her permission.
She again went to the funeral home but left hurriedly when policemen threatened her of arrest and detention if she would not answer their questions.
Later, two policemen went to Vivian’s house and showed her a photograph of Eldie’s cadaver. She confirmed that the body belonged to her estranged husband.
Vivian testified during the trial of her petition for Writ of Amparo before the trial court that a police car had frequent drive-bys in front of her house and that a vehicle tailed her when she and her children went to Iloilo to attend her husband’s wake.
She also testified she feared for her and her children’s safety every time she noticed that someone was following her and monitoring her and her children’s whereabouts.
While the trial court issued a temporary protection order for her and her children, it eventually dismissed her petition for a Writ of Amparo. The dismissal prompted her to elevate the case to the SC.
In granting Vivian’s petition, the SC’s public information office (PIO) in its summary stated that “the SC found that the totality of Vivian’s evidence undoubtedly showed that she became a person of interest after she had first visited the funeral home, where her photo was taken.”
The summary also stated that “whether ’s photo was actually posted and distributed at the police station or was just taken for future reference, the taking of the photo bolsters ’s claims that she was being monitored by the police.”
It also stated:
“The SC also pointed out that Vivian and her 15-year old daughter categorically stated that police cars have driven by their house with alarming regularity after Vivian had identified her husband’s body.
“Further, Vivian’s report of being tailed by a vehicle only merited a perfunctory request from the police to the Land Transportation Office. The police, which had better resources to perform the investigation, should have done more to follow up her request. Their failure to exert the extraordinary diligence expected of them hints at a motive against her and her family.
“Moreover, respondent police officers tried to paint Vivian’s claims as the ramblings of a paranoid and overly suspicious person, but the Court underscored that even her daughter confirmed the numerous times the police drove by their house and being tailed whenever they set foot outside their house. This shows that Vivian was not merely imagining the threats against her and her family.
“The totality of obtaining circumstances likewise shows that Vivian and her children were the subject of surveillance because of their relationship with a suspected member of the New People’s Army, creating a real threat to their life, liberty or security.
“As the widow of Labinghisa, the Court considered Vivian’s apprehension at being targeted as a suspected member of the NPA as palpable and understandable, causing her to ‘act suspiciously’ as claimed by the respondent police officers, who subjected her to threats and accusations.”