SC denies writ of continuing mandamus
‘Besides conjectures and conflicting statements, the petitioners offered no concrete proof that the respondents are remiss in their duties.’
The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition filed by several lawyers asking it to compel three government agencies to investigate the killings under the Duterte administration’s war on drugs.
The petition asked the SC to issue a writ of continuing mandamus to ensure that the Philippine National Police, Commission on Human Rights and Department of Justice would look into the extrajudicial killings and prosecute those responsible for these.
The petitioners also said these agencies should be required to submit periodic reports to the Supreme Court on the number of extrajudicial killings and the circumstances behind these, the progress of their probe, and the measures they had taken to prevent further violations on the right to life.
The petition was filed in 2017, at the height of the implementation of Duterte’s anti-narcotics campaign. All of the petitioners except one are lawyers.
But in its 11 July 2023 decision, the SC en banc said it was not established that the PNP, CHR and DoJ chiefs neglected their duties in preventing and investigating violations of the right to life about the government’s anti-illegal drugs campaign.
It said that for a writ of mandamus to be issued, the petitioner’s clear legal right must be established, along with the respondent official’s duty to perform an act mandated by law, and the respondent’s neglect of this duty. It must also be shown that the duty is ministerial and not discretionary and that there is no other remedy in the ordinary course of law.
“Besides conjectures and conflicting statements, the petitioners offered no concrete proof that the respondents are remiss in their duties,” it said.
It also pointed out that CHR chair Jose Luis Martin Gascon had submitted copies of the agency’s investigations into the extrajudicial and drug-related killings, and the list of trainings it conducted for the police and military sectors from 2016 to 2017.
It said the petitioners cannot impose on the government officials “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 Court also said the writ of continuing mandamus is available only in environmental cases.
This 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, and it will remain effective until judgment is fully satisfied.
The SC further said the government officials cannot be required to submit periodic reports to the Supreme Court as this directive violates the doctrine of separation of powers.
Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh wrote the decision.