AFP asks Supreme Court to review Gadian's writ of amparo

MANILA, Philippines – Whistleblower Navy Lt. Senior grade Nancy Gadian must not be granted judicial protection as her life and liberty are not under threat, the military said yesterday.

Armed Forces chief Lt. Gen. Victor Ibrado, Navy commander Vice Adm. Ferdinand Golez, former Western Mindanao Command chief Col. Joel Ibanez, and former Westmincom management and financial officer Lt. Col. Antonio Dacanay have asked the Supreme Court to void a Court of Appeals decision granting Gadian’s petition for a writ of amparo. “The Court of Appeals should have dismissed the petition because it found that respondents failed to present even an iota of evidence that petitioners are the authors of the alleged threats to Lt. Senior grade Mary Nancy Gadian’s right to life, liberty and security,” read the petition.

Retired Westmincom chief Eugenio Cedo was also named respondent in the writ of amparo petition. Gadian has accused the military officials of threatening her life after she exposed alleged anomalies in the handling of P46 million intended for the Balikatan military exercises in 2007. The military officials said Gadian failed to show direct or indirect proof that they were the source of the supposed threats to her life, liberty and security.

“By granting protection to Gadian even without proof that the threats emanated from respondents in the petition, the CA ruling was inconsistent with section 5 (c) of the rules of amparo, which require petitioner to allege the cause of action in as complete a manner as possible,” read the petition. The military officials said the CA should have dismissed Gadian’s petition for a writ of amparo because she failed to establish how the threat was committed.

“Considering that the Court of Appeals found no evidence of an act committed or omission incurred by petitioners (Armed Forces officials), not even an allegation of any wrongdoing against them, it should have dismissed the petition because respondent does not have a cause of action against petitioners,” read the petition. State lawyers said the CA’s finding of lack of proof against the military officials “unquestionably negates the existence of a cause of action.”

“It is respectfully submitted that if it is allowed to hold sway, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals would impart the message that just about any one can be hailed to court in a petition for a writ of amparo despite absolute absence of evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the impleaded respondents,” the lawyers said.

“Worse, no vindication can be expected by the same respondents because the suit against them will not even be dismissed.” In its decision, the CA said Gadian needs judicial protection under a writ of amparo because substantial evidence shows the existence of threats to life, liberty and security.

However, it was not proven that the threats emanated directly or indirectly from Ibrado and other respondent military officials, the CA added.

The decision was written by Associate Justice Sixto Marella Jr. – Edu Punay