Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 59 views

    Aberca v. Ver - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Marbeluz Ann
    1) Task Force Makabansa conducted pre-emptive raids on houses under orders from General Fabian Ver, arresting people without warrants, denying visitation rights, and using torture during interrogations. 2) The issues are whether immunity can be invoked, if petitioners can question alleged rights violations, and if superior officers who gave orders are liable. 3) The court held that constitutional rights cannot be violated due to superior orders, immunity does not apply, petitioners can seek damages for illegal arrest, and superior officers who gave the orders can be indirectly liable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Aberca v. Ver - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Marbeluz Ann
    59 views2 pages
    1) Task Force Makabansa conducted pre-emptive raids on houses under orders from General Fabian Ver, arresting people without warrants, denying visitation rights, and using torture during interrogations. 2) The issues are whether immunity can be invoked, if petitioners can question alleged rights violations, and if superior officers who gave orders are liable. 3) The court held that constitutional rights cannot be violated due to superior orders, immunity does not apply, petitioners can seek damages for illegal arrest, and superior officers who gave the orders can be indirectly liable.

    Original Title

    Aberca v. Ver_Digest.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Task Force Makabansa conducted pre-emptive raids on houses under orders from General Fabian Ver, arresting people without warrants, denying visitation rights, and using torture during interrogations. 2) The issues are whether immunity can be invoked, if petitioners can question alleged rights violations, and if superior officers who gave orders are liable. 3) The court held that constitutional rights cannot be violated due to superior orders, immunity does not apply, petitioners can seek damages for illegal arrest, and superior officers who gave the orders can be indirectly liable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    59 views2 pages

    Aberca v. Ver - Digest

    Uploaded by

    Marbeluz Ann
    1) Task Force Makabansa conducted pre-emptive raids on houses under orders from General Fabian Ver, arresting people without warrants, denying visitation rights, and using torture during interrogations. 2) The issues are whether immunity can be invoked, if petitioners can question alleged rights violations, and if superior officers who gave orders are liable. 3) The court held that constitutional rights cannot be violated due to superior orders, immunity does not apply, petitioners can seek damages for illegal arrest, and superior officers who gave the orders can be indirectly liable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Political Law

    ROGELIO ABERCA v. MAJ. GEN. FABIAN VER


    G.R. No. L-69866 April 15, 1988
    YAP, J.:

    FACTS:

    Task Force Makabansa (TFM) was ordered by General Fabian Ver to conduct pre-emptive


    strikes against Communist- Terrorist underground houses. TFM raided several houses,
    employing in most cases defectively judicial search warrants, arrested people without warrant
    of arrest, denied visitation rights, and interrogated them with the use of threats and tortures. A
    motion to dismiss was filed by defendants, stating that 1) plaintiffs may
    not cause a judicial inquiry about their detention because the writ of habeas corpus was
    suspended; 2) defendants are immune from liability for acts done in their official duties; 3)
    there was no cause of action. On Nov 8, 1983, Judge Fortun granted the motion to dismiss,
    which prompted plaintiffs to file a MR on Nov 18, 1983. He later inhibited himself and was
    replaced Judge Lising, who denied the MR for being filed out of time. Another MR was filed, and
    was only modified to include Maj. Aguinaldo and MSgt. Balaba for officers accountable in the
    said complaint.

    ISSUES:

    1. Whether or not immunity from suit may be invoked?


    2. Whether petitioners have the right to question the alleged violation of their rights in the
    constitution?
    3. Whether the superior officers who gave the orders are liable?

    HELD:

    1. NO, Article 32 of the Civil Code provides a sanction to rights and freedom enshrined in the
    constitution. These rights cannot be violated just because of an order given by a superior. The
    rule of law must prevail, or else liberty will perish. Even though they just followed the orders of
    their superior, these do not authorize them to disregard the rights of the petitioners, and
    therefore cannot be considered “acts done in their official duties”.

    Article 32 speaks of any public officer or private individual, and violation of these constitutional
    rights does not exempt them from responsibility.

    2. YES, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus does not prevent petitioners from


    claiming damages for the illegal arrest and detention in violation of their constitutional rights by
    seeking judicial authority. What the writ suspends is merely the right of an individual to seek
    release from detention as a speedy means of obtaining liberty. It cannot suspend their rights

    Page 1 of 2
    Political Law

    and cause of action for injuries suffered due to violation of their rights.

    3. YES, Article 32 speaks of the liabilities of people who are in direct violation of the rights stated,
    as well as people who are indirectly responsible for such acts. In the case at hand, the superior
    officers are the ones who gave the order, and can be considered indirectly responsible. It was
    also stated in the complaint who were the ones who directly and indirectly participated in those
    acts. By filing a motion to dismiss, they admitted all the facts stated in the complaint.

    Page 2 of 2

    You might also like