By Joseph Bernard A. Marzan
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, Oct. 1, dismissed the petition for a writ of amparo filed by former presidential spokesperson Harry Roque against four House of Representatives (HOR) committees over contempt and detention orders issued following his non-attendance at hearings.
The high court’s decision was made during its en banc session, which reviewed only two cases.
The Court stated that a writ of amparo is not the proper remedy against Congressional contempt and detention orders, explaining that the writ is limited to cases involving extralegal killings, enforced disappearances, or related threats.
The Court noted that none of these conditions were present in Roque’s case.
Section 1 of The Rule on the Writ of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC), issued by the Court in 2007, states that the writ is a remedy available to any person whose life, liberty, or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official, employee, or private individual.
The petition, filed by Roque’s daughter, Bianca Hacintha, sought to prevent the HOR committees on Dangerous Drugs, Public Order and Safety, Human Rights, and Public Accounts — collectively known as the “Quad-Committee” — from arresting Roque or compelling his attendance at future hearings and producing documents.
While the Court rejected the request for a writ of amparo, it directed the Quad-Committee to respond to the petition for prohibition within 10 days of receiving the resolution.
Roque had been cited for contempt and ordered detained by the committee in September for refusing to comply with subpoenas requiring his appearance and the submission of documents related to the investigation into Philippine Offshore Gaming Operations (POGOs).
