ABERCA v. VER
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 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.