Sans evidence of neglect, gov’t agencies cannot be compelled to probe, prosecute ‘killings,’ submit reports on illegal drugs operations -- SC

Without evidence of neglect, the Supreme Court (SC) has declared it cannot issue a continuing mandamus or an order compelling the investigation and prosecution of cases in the illegal drugs operations like the reported extrajudicial killings.

In a decision that dismissed a petition, the SC said that no evidence was presented to show that the heads of the Philippine National Police (PNP), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) neglected their duties in preventing and investigating violations of the right to life, in relation to the government’s anti-illegal drugs campaign.

The SC said a writ of mandamus is a remedy granted by law when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person unlawfully neglects the performance of a legal duty, or unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment of a right or office.

It pointed out that for a writ of mandamus to be issued, the person seeking it must have a clear legal right, the officer against whom the writ is directed must have a duty to perform the act sought, the law mandates the officer to perform such act, and that the officer neglected to perform the act.

With its declaration, the SC – in a decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh -- dismissed the petition filed by Anna May V. Baquirin, Mary Jane N. Real, Maria Lulu G. Reyes, Joan Dymphna G. Saniel, and Evalyn G. Ursua.  The petitioners are members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

The lawyers pleaded the SC to issue a writ of continuing mandamus to compel then PNP director-general and now Senator Ronald M. Dela Rosa, then CHR chairperson Jose Luis Martin C. Gascon (now deceased), and then DOJ secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II to investigate and prosecute extrajudicial killings in connection with the anti-illegal drugs campaign of then President Rodrigo R. Duterte.

They claimed that the government officials named in their petition failed to adequately perform their duty to prevent violations of the right to life and to investigate and prosecute the same.

Thus, they asked the SC to direct the officials at that time to investigate each and every allegation of violation of the right to life committed under the government’s anti-illegal drug operations, such as “Oplan Tokhang” and “Oplan Double Barrel,” and prosecute perpetrators when warranted.

They also asked the SC to compel the PNP, CHR and DOJ to submit periodic reports to the SC on the actual number of extrajudicial killings and their circumstances, the progress of the investigation of each case until all investigations are completed and appropriate criminal charges are filed in courts, and the positive measures adopted to prevent further violations of the right to life and their implementation.

In dismissing the petition, the SC ruled that “besides conjectures and conflicting statements, the petitioners offered no concrete proof that the respondents are remiss in their duties.”  

“Their bare allegations cannot be given credence, all the more so with respect to the CHR, as Gascon submitted certified true copies of the CHR’s records for each region on their investigations on the extrajudicial and drug-related killings, and the list of trainings they conducted for the police and military sectors from 2016 to 2017,” it also said.

It stressed that the petitioners cannot impose on the respondents “the standards and characteristics of investigation which they deem to be appropriate and sufficient through a mandamus petition, as it lies only to compel the performance of purely ministerial duties.”

The SC said it cannot direct the DOJ, PNP and CHR to submit periodic reports to the High Court as such directive would violate the doctrine of separation of powers.

At the same time, the SC said that a writ of continuing mandamus is a remedy available only in environmental cases as provided in A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC or the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.

The writ is issued by a court in an environmental case directing any agency or instrumentality of the government or its officer to perform an act or series of acts decreed by final judgment which should remain effective until judgment is fully satisfied, it said.

In 2008, the SC issued a mandamus on the protection of Manila Bay and thereafter issued a continuing mandamus.

It said: “In the light of the ongoing environmental degradation, the court wishes to emphasize the extreme necessity for all concerned executive departments and agencies to immediately act and discharge their respective official duties and obligations.”        

“Time is of the essence…, and hence, there is a need to set timetables for the performance and completion of the tasks, some of them as defined for them by law and the nature of their respective offices and mandates,” it stressed.        

Directed to undertake immediate action on the Manila Bay problem are the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), DENR, Department of Education (DepEd), Department of Health (DoH), Department of Agriculture (DA), Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Department of Budget and Management ((DBM), the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG), the PNP Maritime Group, Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), and the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA).      

The SC even formed the Manila Bay Advisory Committee (MBAC) to monitor and evaluate the reports submitted by the agencies tasked to implement its decision.