The Court of Appeals (CA) has dismissed the petition of a wife who alleged that her activist husband had been arrested or abducted, and has been detained by the police or the military in Luzon since Nov. 6, 2021.
Dismissed was the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Johanna U. Abua in behalf of her husband Steve because she failed to pinpoint to the CA who arrested or abducted, and where her husband is being held captive.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo Villordon, the CA said:
“While the Court commiserates with petitioner (Johanna) for her husband's (Steve) alleged disappearance, the writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued in the absence of proof that the person in whose behalf the petition is filed is being restrained of his liberty.
“We emphasize that the grant of relief in a habeas corpus proceeding is not predicated on the disappearance of a person, but on his illegal detention.
“Habeas corpus may not be used as a means of obtaining evidence on the whereabouts of a person, or as a means of finding out who specifically abducted or caused the disappearance of a certain person.”
A writ of habeas corpus is a petition filed to compel a person detaining another to produce the body of the detained person at a designated time and place. The writ extends to cases of illegal or arbitrary detention.
In her petition, Johanna told the CA that her husband was to attend a farmers’ meeting in Orani, Bataan on Nov. 6, 2021 and that he was last seen in Barangay Santa Cruz in Lubao, Pampanga.
She alleged that her husband has been under surveillance by unidentified persons and that on Nov. 7, 2021 she received a call from her husband’s cellular telephone.
She claimed that the man on the telephone told her that her husband was under their custody. Later, she said that through a video call she saw her husband blindfolded, his hands tied, and his mouth gagged with a piece of cloth.
She also said that while her husband’s captors arranged a meeting, she received a text message informing her that her husband is a member of the New People’s Army (NPA). Thereafter, the communication with the alleged captors ceased.
She also told the CA she scoured various military and police camps in Luzon and other detention facilities and hospitals but failed to locate husband. She then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the CA.
Named respondents in her petition were ranking officials of the Philippine Army, the Philippine National Police, and the Philippine Air Force.
She told the CA that her husband’s organization, the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), has been previously tagged as a communist terrorist group by the government, particularly by the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC).
Thus, she claimed that based on the “red-tagging” and the series of communications with Steve’s captors, there was a very strong indication that her husband was arrested or abducted and detained by agents of the government’s security forces.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opposed Johanna’s petition. The OSG told the CA that the writ of habeas corpus is not warranted by bare speculations as it pointed out the absence of proof of Steve’s alleged detention.
The OSG also said that the text messages allegedly received by Johanna cannot be attributed to agents of the government’s security forces since the sender was never identified.
The CA, in dismissing the petition, also said:
“While habeas corpus is a writ of right, it will not issue as a matter of course or as a mere perfunctory operation on the filing of the petition. Judicial discretion is called for in its issuance and it must be clear to the judge to whom the petition is presented that, prima facie, the petitioner is entitled to the writ.
“It is only if the court is satisfied that a person is being unlawfully restrained of his liberty will the petition for habeas corpus be granted. If the respondents (police and military officials) are not detaining or restraining the applicant of the person in whose behalf the petition is filed, the petition should be dismissed.
“In this case, petitioner (Johanna) was utterly remiss in discharging the burden of proof necessary for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus.
“We note that the instant petition is primarily hinged on Steve's disappearance. It is on the fact of his disappearance upon which petitioner theorizes her claim that Steve is being held captive by respondents. Nonetheless, the Court finds no sufficient proof to establish her allegations.
“Petitioner claims having seen her husband, via video call, inside a medium-sized room made of concrete with unpainted walls, which looked like a safe house. However, such claim does not establish that Steve was indeed detained. At most, the alleged video call merely proves that Steve was inside a medium-sized room.
“Notwithstanding NTF-ELCAC's alleged ‘red-tagging’ of Steve's organization, no evidence was adduced to corroborate petitioner's allegation that Steve is being detained by elements or agents of the State's security forces.
“An appreciation of the series of text messages purportedly received from his captors would neither link respondents to Steve's disappearance and alleged confinement. As correctly observed by the OSG, the identity of the sender was never proven.
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. SO ORDERED.”