The Supreme Court ruled that the writ of continuing mandamus is a remedy only available in environmental cases and cannot be used to compel a probe on actions relating to the government’s anti-illegal drug operations.
In an en banc decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, the SC dismissed the petition for mandamus filed by Anna May V. Baquirin, Mary Jane N. Real, Maria Lulu G. Reyes, Joan Dymphna G. Saniel, and Evalyn G. Ursua seeking to compel concerned heads of law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute extrajudicial killings, in connection with the Duterte administration’s anti-illegal drugs campaign.
The respondents included then Philippine National Police Director-General now Senator Ronald dela Rosa, then Commission on Human Rights Chairperson Jose Luis Martin Gascon (deceased), and then Department of Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II.
The petitioners said the respondents failed to adequately perform their duty to prevent violations of the right to life and to investigate and prosecute them.
They prayed that respondents be directed, through a writ of continuing mandamus, to, among others: 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; and submit periodic reports to the Supreme Court on (1) the actual number of extrajudicial killings and their circumstances; (2) the progress of the investigation of each case until all investigations are completed and appropriate criminal charges are filed in courts; and (3) the positive measures adopted to prevent further violations of the right to life and their implementation.
In ruling against the petition, the High Court held that 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 to which such other is entitled.
The SC ruled that in the present case, it was not established that respondents neglected their duties as respective heads of the PNP, DOJ, and CHR in preventing and investigating violations of the right to life, in relation to the government’s anti-illegal drugs campaign.
“Besides conjectures and conflicting statements, the petitioners offered no concrete proof that the respondents are remiss in their duties,” said the tribunal.
“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,” the SC said.