G.R. No.

189689

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

The Cases

In each of these three (3) consolidated petitions for review, the Court is
tasked to evaluate the substantially similar but separately issued Orders of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 10, dated August 14,
2009[1] in the three (3) writ of amparo cases, as well as, the Order dated
September 22, 2009[2] denying the joint motion for reconsideration thereof.

The Facts

Petitioners share the common circumstance of having their names included

in what is alleged to be a JCICC "AGILA" 3rd Quarter 2007 Order of Battle
Validation Result of the Philippine Army's 10th Infantry Division (10th ID),
[3]
which is a list containing the names of organizations and personalities in
Southern Mindanao, particularly Davao City, supposedly connected to the
Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its military arm, the New
People's Army (NPA). They perceive that by the inclusion of their names in
the said Order of Battle (OB List), they become easy targets of unexplained
disappearances or extralegal killings a real threat to their life, liberty and
security.

The petitioner in G.R. No. 189689, ATTY. LILIBETH O. LADAGA (Atty.

Ladaga), first came to know of the existence of the OB List from an
undisclosed source on May 21, 2009. This was after the PowerPoint
presentation made public by Bayan Muna Party-List Representative Satur
Ocampo (Representative Ocampo) on May 18, 2009 during the conclusion of
the International Solidarity Mission (ISM) conducted by various
organizations. The following entries bearing specific reference to her
person were reflected therein:

7. ON 12 NOV 07, MEETING AT SHIMRIC BEACH RESORT, TALOMO,

DC PRESIDED BY ATTY LILIBETH LADAGA SEC GEN, UNION OF
PEOPLE'S LAWYER MOVEMENT (UPLM) AND KELLY DELGADO SEC
GEN, KARAPATAN:

- PRESENTED THE NATL GOAL/THEME WHICH STATES THAT

"THE STAGE IS SET, TIME TO UNITE AGAINST ARROYO, STEP UP
 PROTESTS AND ARMED OFFENSIVE."

- DISCUSSED THE FOLLOWING ISSUES WHICH WILL BE

CAPITALIZED ON THEIR PLANNED ACTIVITIES ON 30 NOV 07:

ISSUES:

1. OUTREACH PROGRAMS/ MEDICAL MISSION IN RURAL

AREAS;
2. OUT OF SCHOOL YOUTH RECRUITMENT;
3. P125 DAILY WAGE HIKE OR P3,000 ACROSS THE BOARD
HIKE;
4. SCRAP ANTI-TERRORISM BILL;
5. OIL DE-REGULATION LAW;
6. ANTI-LARGE SCALE MINING;
7. CORRUPTION AND ANTI-POVERTY/ZTE ISSUES AND
BRIBERY;
8. ANTI-POLITICAL AND EXTRA JUDICIAL KILLINGS;
9. CARP ISSUES AND LAND DISPUTES; AND
10. LATEST GLORIETA BOMBING

COMPOSITION: CIVIC, RELIGIOUS, TRANSPORT, LABOR AND

PEASANT, YOUTH SECTOR, PROGRESSIVE GROUPS, BUSINESS
SECTOR, ANTI-PGMA, BLACK AND WHITE MOVEMENT AND ANTI-
POVERTY MOVEMENT.

ULTIMATE GOAL: TRY TO OUST PGMA ON 30 NOV 07[4]

In her Affidavit,[5] Atty. Ladaga substantiated the threats against her life,
liberty and security by narrating that since 2007, suspicious-looking persons
have been visiting her Davao City law office during her absence, posing
either as members of the military or falsely claiming to be clients inquiring
on the status of their cases. These incidents were attested to by her law
office partner, Atty. Michael P. Pito, through an Affidavit [6]dated June 16,
2009.

On the other hand, the petitioner in G.R. No. 189690, Davao City Councilor
ATTY. ANGELA LIBRADO-TRINIDAD (Atty. Librado-Trinidad), delivered a
Privilege Speech[7] before the members of the Sangguniang Panglungsod of
Davao City on May 19, 2009 to demand the removal of her name from said
OB List. Subsequently, the Davao City Council ordered a formal
investigation into the existence of the alleged OB List. The Commission on
Human Rights (CHR), for its part, announced the conduct of its own
investigation into the matter, having been presented a copy of the
PowerPoint presentation during its public hearing in Davao City on May 22,
2009.

According to her, in the course of the performance of her duties and

functions as a lawyer, as a member of the Sangguniang Panglungsod of
Davao, as well as, of Bayan Muna, she has not committed any act against
national security that would justify the inclusion of her name in the said OB
List. In her Affidavit,[8] she recounted that sometime in May 2008, two
suspicious-looking men on a motorcycle tailed her vehicle as she went about
her day going to different places. She also recalled that on June 23, 2008,
while she was away from home, three unidentified men tried to barge into
their house and later left on board a plate-less, stainless "owner type-
vehicle." Both incidents were duly reported to the police.[9]

Meanwhile, the petitioner in G.R. No. 189691, current Secretary General of

the Union of Peoples' Lawyers in Mindanao (UPLM) and Davao City
Coordinator of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), ATTY. CARLOS
ISAGANI T. ZARATE (Atty. Zarate), was informed sometime in May 2009
that his name was also among those included in the OB List made public by
Representative Ocampo at a forum concerning human rights violations in
Southern Mindanao. In Atty. Zarate's petition,[10] he alleged that:

5. On May 19, 2009, during a press conference marking the conclusion of

an International Solidarity Mission (ISM) attended by both local and
international delegates and organized to investigate alleged human rights
violations in Southern Mindanao by state's forces Bayan Muna Party-list
Representative Satur Ocampo revealed the existence of a "watch list,"
officially known in military parlance as "Order of Battle" prepared by the
intelligence arm of Philippine Army's 10th ID, headed by respondent Maj.
Gen. Reynaldo Mapagu. x x x;

6. The said "Order of Battle" was contained in a [PowerPoint]

presentation marked "SECRET" and captioned "3rd Quarter 2007 OB
Validation Result"; it was supposedly prepared by the "JCICC 'Agila'"
under the [O]ffice of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence of the 10th
Infantry Division of the Philippine Army. It also mentioned a certain "JTICC
'LAWIN'" with the following as members: Task Force Davao Chairman;
Team Leader, SPOT11-3, MIG11, ISAFP, NISU-Davao, NISG-EM, PN,
305th AISS, PAF, TL, ISU 11, PA, S2, RCDG, PA; M2, DCPO; NICA XI;
S2, 104th DRC, PA, and, WACOM-Researcher/Analyst MIG11,
ISAFP[;]
7. The said [PowerPoint] presentation (which Representative Ocampo said
was "leaked" by a "conscientious soldier"), revealed the names of
organizations and personalities in Southern Mindanao, particularly Davao
City, supposedly "connected" to the Communist Party of the Philippines
(CPP) and its military arm, the New People's Army (NPA);

8. The name of the herein petitioner was listed in the categories of "human
rights" and "Broad Alliance" x x x;[11] (Emphasis in the original)

Asserting that the inclusion of his name in the OB List was due to his
advocacies as a public interest or human rights lawyer, Atty. Zarate
vehemently and categorically denied that he was fronting for, or connected
with, the CPP-NPA.[12]

In fine, petitioners were one in asserting that the OB List is really a military
hit-list as allegedly shown by the fact that there have already been three
victims of extrajudicial killing whose violent deaths can be linked directly
to the OB List, to wit: Celso B. Pojas, who was assassinated in May
2008[13] purportedly because he was Secretary General of the Farmers
Association of Davao City[14] and Spokesperson of the Kilusang Magbubukid
sa Pilipinas (KMP),[15] which organizations were identified as communist
fronts in the subject OB List; Lodenio S. Monzon, who was a victim of a
shooting incident in April 2009[16] due to his supposed connection to the
known activist party-list group Bayan Muna[17] as Coordinator in the
Municipality of Boston, Davao Oriental; and Dr. Rogelio Peñera, who was
shot to death in June 2009 allegedly because he was a member of RX
Against Erap (RAGE),[18] a sectoral group also identified in the OB List.

Petitioners further alleged that respondents' inconsistent statements and

obvious prevarication sufficiently prove their authorship of the subject OB
List. Supposedly sourced from their own Press Releases,[19] respondents
have been quoted in several newspapers as saying: 1) that the "10th ID has
its Order of Battle, and, it is not for public consumption"; 2) that the Order
of Battle "requires thorough confirmation and validation from different law
enforcement agencies, and from various sectors and stakeholders who are
the ones providing the information about the people and organizations that
may in one way or the other, wittingly or unwittingly, become involved in
the CPP's grand design"; 3) that an "order of battle does not target
individuals; it is mainly an assessment of the general threat to national
security"; 4) that Representative Ocampo "utilized the material to disrupt
the ongoing government efforts in the area by raising issues and
propaganda against the military"; 5) that "[t]he public viewing of the
"falsified" document of the OB was a deliberate act of Representative
Ocampo x x x to mar the image of the military forces, gain media mileage
and regain the support of the masses and local executives"; 6) that
Reperesentative Ocampo "'twisted' the data and insinuated names as
targets of the AFP/10ID when in fact these are targets (for infiltration) by
the CPP/NPA"; and 7) that this "attempt of the CPP to attribute human
rights violations to the Philippine government is a cover to mask their
record of killing people." According to petitioners, there is no question that
these Press Releases came from the 10th ID. Its source email address,
[email protected], has been identified by regular correspondent of
the Philippine Daily Inquirer Jeffrey Tupas as the same one used by
respondent Lt. Col. Decapia in sending to him previous official press
statements of the 10th ID, including the Press Release entitled, "CPP/NPA
demoralized, ISM on the rescue."[20]

On June 16, 2009, petitioners separately filed before the RTC a Petition for
the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo with Application for a Production Order,
[21]
docketed as Special Proceeding Nos. 004-09,[22] 005-09[23] and 006-09.[24]
On June 22, 2009, the RTC issued separate Writs of Amparo[25] in each of the
three (3) cases, directing respondents to file a verified written return within
seventy-two (72) hours and setting the case for summary hearing on June
29, 2009.

In their Returns,[26] respondents denied authorship of the document being

adverted to and distributed by Representative Ocampo to the media. They
claimed that petitioners miserably failed to show, by substantial evidence,
that they were responsible for the alleged threats perceived by petitioners.
Instead, they asserted that petitioners' allegations are based solely on
hearsay, speculation, beliefs, impression and feelings, which are insufficient
to warrant the issuance of the writ and, ultimately, the grant of the privilege
of the writ of amparo.

In her Reply,[27] Atty. Librado-Trinidad averred that the present petition

substantially conformed with the requirements of the Amparo Rule, as it
alleged ultimate facts on the participation of respondents in the preparation
of the OB List, which naturally requires utmost secrecy. The petition
likewise alleged how the inclusion of their names in the said OB List
substantiates the threat of becoming easy targets of unexplained
disappearances and extrajudicial killings. On the other hand, Attys. Zarate
and Ladaga commonly asserted[28] that the totality of the events, which
consists of respondents' virtual admission to the media of the existence of
the OB List, as well as, the fact that known victims of past extrajudicial
killings have been likewise labeled as communist fronts in similar orders of
battle, more than satisfies the standard required to prove that petitioners'
life, liberty and security are at risk.

During the scheduled summary hearing on June 22, 2009, Representative

Ocampo's oral testimony on the circumstances surrounding his obtention of
the alleged military document was dispensed with and, instead, the
Affidavit[29] he executed on June 30, 2009 was presented in the hearing held
on July 1, 2009 to form part of the documentary exhibits of petitioners. [30]

After submission of the parties' respective Position Papers, [31] the RTC
issued on August 14, 2009 the three separate but similarly-worded Orders
finding no substantial evidence to show that the perceived threat to
petitioners' life, liberty and security was attributable to the unlawful act or
omission of the respondents, thus disposing of each of the three cases in
this wise:

Prescinding therefrom, and in x x x light of all the pieces of evidence

presented, this Court is of the considered views [sic] that petitioner failed to
prove, by substantial evidence, that indeed, (her/his) perceived threat to
(her/his) life, liberty and security is attributable to the unlawful act or
omission of the respondents. Accordingly, this Court has no other recourse
but to deny the instant petition.

WHEREFORE, the privilege of the Writ is hereby denied.

SO ORDERED.[32]

The RTC rejected the sworn statement of Representative Ocampo for being
hearsay, holding that with no direct or personal knowledge of the
authenticity of the subject OB List, even an oral testimony from him on the
circumstances surrounding its obtention through a "conscientious soldier"
would still be of no probative weight. It likewise found that the violent
deaths of Celso Pojas, Lodenio Monzon and Dr. Rogelio Peñera, and other
incidents of threat have no direct relation at all to the existence of the
present OB List.

In their Joint Motion for Reconsideration,[33] petitioners argued that the

existence and veracity of the OB List had already been confirmed by
respondents themselves through their statements to the media, hence,
respondents' personal authorship thereof need not be proven by substantial
evidence, as it is, after all, "not the crux of the issue." Petitioners explicated
that since respondents were being impleaded as the responsible officers of
the 10th ID the military unit that supposedly prepared the OB List
PowerPoint presentation, their general denials on the existence of the OB
List without taking serious steps to find the persons actually responsible for
the threat could not discharge respondents from the standard of diligence
required of them under the Amparo Rule.

The RTC, however, rejected petitioners' arguments in the September 22,

2009 Order, hence, these petitions for review on certiorari raising the
following issues:
 I. The trial court erred in ruling that Petitioner failed to adduce
substantial evidence to warrant the grant of the privilege of the writ,
i.e., protection;

II. The trial court erred in failing to consider that the Respondents
likewise failed to discharge the diligence required by the Amparo
Rules by their sweeping and general denials; AND

III. The trial court erred in appreciating the nature and concept of the
privilege of the writ.[34]

Commenting on the petitions, respondents argue[35] that the purported OB

List could not have come from the military because it does not have the
"distinctive marks and security classifications" of military documents. They
quickly defend the correctness of the RTC's denial of the privilege of the
writ and the interim relief of a protection order as petitioners have not
presented any adequate and competent evidence, much less substantial
evidence, to establish that public respondents are threatening to violate
their rights to life, liberty and security or that, at the very least, were
involved in the preparation of the OB List.

We deny the petitions.

The writ of amparo was promulgated by the Court pursuant to its rule-
making powers in response to the alarming rise in the number of cases of
enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings.[36] It plays the
preventive role of breaking the expectation of impunity in the commission of
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, as well as the curative role
of facilitating the subsequent punishment of the perpetrators.[37] In Tapuz v.
Del Rosario,[38] the Court has previously held that the writ of amparo is an
extraordinary remedy intended to address violations of, or threats to, the
rights to life, liberty or security and that, being a remedy of extraordinary
character, it is not one to issue on amorphous or uncertain grounds but only
upon reasonable certainty. Hence, every petition for the issuance of the
writ is required to be supported by justifying allegations of fact on the
following matters:

(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner;

(b) The name and personal circumstances of the respondent responsible for
the threat, act or omission, or, if the name is unknown or uncertain, the
respondent may be described by an assumed appellation;

(c) The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or
threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of the respondent,
and how such threat or violation is committed with the attendant
circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits;

(d) The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal

circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authority or individuals,
as well as the manner and conduct of the investigation, together with any
report;

(e) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the fate
or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of the person
responsible for the threat, act or omission; and

(f) The relief prayed for. The petition may include a general prayer for other
just and equitable reliefs.[39] (Underscoring supplied)

The sole and common issue presented in these petitions is whether the
totality of evidence satisfies the degree of proof required under
the Amparo Rule. Sections 17 and 18 of the Rule on the Writ
of Amparo provide as follows:

SEC. 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. The parties
shall establish their claims by substantial evidence.

xxxx

SEC. 18. Judgment. The court shall render judgment within ten (10) days
from the time the petition is submitted for decision. If the allegations in the
petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall grant the
privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate;
otherwise, the privilege shall be denied. (Emphasis supplied)

Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is
more than a mere imputation of wrongdoing or violation that would warrant
a finding of liability against the person charged.[40] The summary nature
of amparo proceedings, as well as, the use of substantial evidence as
standard of proof shows the intent of the framers of the rule to address
situations of enforced disappearance and extrajudicial killings, or threats
thereof, with what is akin to administrative proceedings. [41]
Suitable to, and consistent with this incipiently unique and informal
treatment of amparo cases, the Court eventually recognized the evidentiary
difficulties that beset amparo petitioners, arising as they normally would
from the fact that the State itself, through its own agents, is involved in the
enforced disappearance or extrajudicial killing that it is supposedly tasked
by law to investigate. Thus, in Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis, the Court laid down a
new standard of relaxed admissibility of evidence to
enableamparo petitioners to meet the required amount of proof showing the
State's direct or indirect involvement in the purported violations and found
it a fair and proper rule in amparo cases "to consider all the pieces of
evidence adduced in their totality" and "to consider any evidence
otherwise inadmissible under our usual rules to be admissible if it is
consistent with the admissible evidence adduced."[42] Put simply,
evidence is not to be rejected outright because it is inadmissible under the
rules for as long as it satisfies "the most basic test of reason i.e.,
relevance of the evidence to the issue at hand and its consistency
with all other pieces of adduced evidence."[43]

This measure of flexibility in the admissibility of evidence, however, does

not do away with the requirement of substantial evidence in showing the
State's involvement in the enforced disappearance, extrajudicial killing or
threats thereof. It merely permits, in the absence of hard-to-produce direct
evidence, a closer look at the relevance and significance of every available
evidence,[44] including those that are, strictly speaking, hearsay where the
circumstances of the case so require, and allows the consideration of the
evidence adduced in terms of their consistency with the totality of the
evidence.[45]

As emphasized by Justice Arturo D. Brion (Justice Brion) during the

deliberations on this case, in cases of enforced disappearance, the evidence
that would directly establish a violation of the right to life, liberty and
security is indubitably in the State's possession. The same is not equally
true in cases where the amparo petitioner alleges (as in this case) a
threatened violation of his/her rights since the facts, circumstances and the
link between these that create an actual threat to his/her life are
measurably within the ability of the amparo petitioner to prove. These
include, among others, the alleged documented human rights violations by
the military in Mindanao; documentary and/or testimonial evidence on the
military's counter-insurgency operations; corroborative evidence to support
the allegations on the presence of suspicious men; and presumptive
evidence linking the deaths of Celso Pojas, Ludenio Monzon and Dr. Rogelio
Peñera to their political affiliation and the similarity of their situation to
those of petitioners. A mere inclusion of one's name in the OB List, without
more, does not suffice to discharge the burden to establish actual threat to
one's right to life, liberty and security by substantial evidence.
The statement of Representative Ocampo that the respondents are the real
source of the OB List is unquestionably hearsay evidence because, except
for the fact that he himself received the OB List from an unnamed source
merely described as "a conscientious soldier," he had no personal
knowledge concerning its preparation. But even if the Court were to apply
the appropriate measure of flexibility in the instant cases by admitting the
hearsay testimony of Representative Ocampo, a consideration of this piece
of evidence to the totality of those adduced, namely, the Press Releases
issued by the 10th ID admitting the existence of a military-prepared Order
of Battle, the affidavits of petitioners attesting to the threatening visits and
tailing of their vehicles by menacing strangers, as well as the violent deaths
of alleged militant personalities, leads to the conclusion that the threat to
petitioners' security has not be adequately proven.

Petitioners sought to prove that the inclusion of their names in the OB List
presented a real threat to their security by attributing the violent deaths of
known activists Celso Pojas, Lodenio Monzon and Dr. Rogelio Peñera to the
inclusion of the latter's names or the names of their militant organizations
in the subject OB List. Petitioner Atty. Librado-Trinidad even attributed the
alleged tailing of her vehicle by motorcycle-riding men and the attempted
entry by suspicious men into her home to the inclusion of her name in the
OB List. The RTC, however, correctly dismissed both arguments, holding
that the existence of the OB List could not be directly associated with the
menacing behavior of suspicious men or the violent deaths of certain
personalities, thus:

"Anent petitioner's revelation that sometime in 2008, a number of

unidentified men attempted to forcibly enter the premises of her dwelling
and that at one occasion, the vehicle she was riding was tailed by
motorcycle-riding men, the same could not led [sic] to the conclusion that
indeed, those incidents were related to the existence of the "OB List."
There appears not even an iota of evidence upon which the same
assumption can be anchored on.[46]

This Court likewise sees no direct relation between the violent deaths of
Celso Pojas, Ludenio Monzon and Dr. Rogelio Peñera and the subject "OB
List." There is no evidence pointing to the claim that they were killed
because their names or the organizations they were involved in were
mentioned in the same "OB List." More importantly, there is no official
finding by the proper authorities that their deaths were precipitated by
their involvement in organizations sympathetic to, or connected with, the
Communist Party of the Philippines, or its military arm, the New People's
Army. Lastly, and more telling, the existence of the subject "OB List" has
not been adequately proven, as discussed heretofore, hence, reference to
the same finds no basis."[47]
The Court holds that the imputed pattern of targeting militants for
execution by way of systematically identifying and listing them in an Order
of Battle cannot be inferred simply from the Press Releases admitting the
existence of a military document known as an Order of Battle and the fact
that activists Celso Pojas, Lodenio Monzon and Dr. Rogelio Peñera have
become supposed victims of extralegal killings. The adduced evidence
tends to bear strongly against the proposition because, except for Celso
Pojas, the names of the supposed victims of extrajudicial killings are
manifestly absent in the subject OB List and the supposed connection of the
victims to the militant groups explicitly identified in the OB List is nothing
short of nebulous.

Moreover, while respondents may have admitted through various

statements to the media that the military has its own Order of Battle, such
an admission is not equivalent to proof that the subject OB List, which was
publicly disclosed by Representative Ocampo by way of a PowerPoint
presentation, is one and the same with the Order of Battle that the military
has in its keeping. And, assuming that the Press Releases do amount to an
admission not only of the existence but also the authenticity of the subject
OB List, the inclusion of petitioners' names therein does not, by itself,
constitute an actual threat to their rights to life, liberty and security as to
warrant the issuance of a writ of amparo.

In the case of Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo,[48] the Court ruled

that a person's right to security is, in one sense, "freedom from fear" and
that any threat to the rights to life, liberty or security is an actionable
wrong. The term "any threat," however, cannot be taken to mean every
conceivable threat in the mind that may cause one to fear for his life, liberty
or security. The Court explicated therein that "[f]ear is a state of mind, a
reaction; threat is a stimulus, a cause of action. Fear caused by the same
stimulus can range from being baseless to well-founded as people react
differently. The degree of fear can vary from one person to another with
the variation of the prolificacy of their imagination, strength of character or
past experience with the stimulus." Certainly, given the uniqueness of
individual psychological mindsets, perceptions of what is fearful will
necessarily vary from one person to another.

The alleged threat to herein petitioners' rights to life, liberty and security
must be actual, and not merely one of supposition or with the likelihood of
happening. And, when the evidence adduced establishes the threat to be
existent, as opposed to a potential one, then, it goes without saying that the
threshold requirement of substantial evidence in amparo proceedings has
also been met. Thus, in the words of Justice Brion, in the context of
the Amparo rule, only actual threats, as may be established from all the
facts and circumstances of the case, can qualify as a violation that may be
addressed under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.

Petitioners cannot assert that the inclusion of their names in the OB List is
as real a threat as that which brought ultimate harm to victims Celso Pojas,
Lodenio Monzon and Dr. Rogelio Peñera without corroborative evidence
from which it can be presumed that the suspicious deaths of these three
people were, in fact, on account of their militant affiliations or that their
violent fates had been actually planned out by the military through its Order
of Battle.

The Court may be more yielding to the use of circumstantial or indirect

evidence and logical inferences, but substantial evidence is still the rule to
warrant a finding that the State has violated, is violating, or is threatening
to violate, amparo petitioners' right to life, liberty or security. No
substantial evidence of an actual threat to petitioners' life, liberty and
security has been shown to exist in this case. For, even if the existence of
the OB List or, indeed, the inclusion of petitioners' names therein, can be
properly inferred from the totality of the evidence presented, still, no link
has been sufficiently established to relate the subject OB List either to the
threatening visits received by petitioners from unknown men or to the
violent deaths of the three (3) mentioned personalities and other known
activists, which could strongly suggest that, by some identifiable pattern of
military involvement, the inclusion of one's name in an Order of Battle
would eventually result to enforced disappearance and murder of those
persons tagged therein as militants.

Emphasizing the extraordinary character of the amparo remedy, the Court

ruled in the cases of Roxas and Razon, Jr. that an amparo petitioner's failure
to establish by substantial evidence the involvement of government forces
in the alleged violation of rights is never a hindrance for the Court to order
the conduct of further investigation where it appears that the government
did not observe extraordinary diligence in the performance of its duty to
investigate the complained abduction and torture or enforced
disappearance. The Court directed further investigation in the case of
Roxas because the modest efforts of police investigators were effectively
putting petitioner's right to security in danger with the delay in identifying
and apprehending her abductors. In Razon, Jr., the Court found it
necessary to explicitly order the military and police officials to pursue with
extraordinary diligence the investigation into the abduction and
disappearance of a known activist because not only did the police
investigators conduct an incomplete and one-sided investigation but they
blamed their ineffectiveness to the reluctance and unwillingness of the
relatives to cooperate with the authorities. In both of these cases, the
incidents of abduction and torture were undisputed and they provided the
evidentiary support for the finding that the right to security was violated
and the necessity for further investigation into such violation.
Unlike Roxas and Razon, Jr., however, the present petitions do not involve
actual cases of abduction or disappearance that can be the basis of an
investigation. Petitioners would insist that respondents be investigated and
directed to produce the Order of Battle that they have admitted to be in
their safekeeping and justify the inclusion of petitioners' names therein.
However, without substantial evidence of an actual threat to petitioners'
rights to life, liberty and security that consists more than just the inclusion
of their names in an OB List, an order for further investigation into, or
production of, the military's Order of Battle, would have no concrete basis.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitions are

hereby DENIED. The assailed Orders dated August 14, 2009 and
September 22, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 10,
are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Sereno, C.J. Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta,

Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, and Reyes, JJ.,
concur.