The writ of continuing mandamus is a remedy available only in environmental cases, hence it cannot be used to compel the performance of certain acts, like relating to the anti-illegal drug operations of the government.

In a recent case, Anna May Baquirin et. al. vs. Ronald M. dela Rosa (G.R. 233930, 11 July 2023), the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for mandamus filed by Anna May V. Baquirin, Mary Jane N. Real, Maria Lulu G. Reyes, Joan Dymphna G. Saniel, and Evalyn G. Ursua (collectively, Petitioners) who are concerned citizens and members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

The Petitioners prayed for the issuance of a writ of continuing mandamus to compel then Philippine National Police, or PNP, director-general now Senator Ronald M. dela Rosa, the then Commission on Human Rights, or CHR, chairperson Jose Luis Martin C. Gascon (now deceased), and then Department of Justice, or DOJ, Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II (collectively, “Respondents”) to investigate and prosecute extrajudicial killings in connection with the Duterte administration’s anti-illegal drugs campaign.

In the case, Petitioners claimed that the Respondents failed to adequately perform their duty to prevent violations of the right to life and to investigate and prosecute the same.

They prayed that Respondents be directed, through a writ of continuing mandamus, to (1) perform their duty to prevent, investigate and prosecute violations of the right to life under the Constitution and domestic laws and in compliance with the Philippines’ obligations under international law, (2) investigate every allegation of violation of the right to life committed under the government’s anti-illegal drug operations, such as Oplan Tokhang and Oplan Double Barrel; and (3) prosecute perpetrators when warranted, and submit periodic reports to the Supreme Court on (i) the actual number of extrajudicial killings and their circumstances; (ii) the progress of the investigation of each case until all investigations are completed and appropriate criminal charges are filed in courts; and (iii) the positive measures adopted to prevent further violations of the right to life and their implementation.

The Supreme Court ruled that a writ of mandamus is a remedy granted by law when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person unlawfully neglects the performance of a legal duty or unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled.

For a writ of mandamus to be issued in a case alleging an officer’s neglect of duty, the following must be established: (1) a clear legal right accruing to the petitioner; (2) a correlative duty incumbent upon the respondent to perform an act mandated by law; (3) the respondent neglected to perform such act; (4) the duty is ministerial, and not discretionary, in nature; and (5) there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

In the given case, however, the Court held that the Petitioners were not able to show and entrench the Respondent’s negligence in the performance of their respective duties as heads of the PNP, DOJ and CHR, in preventing and investigating violations of the right to life in relation to the anti-illegal drugs operations of the government.

The Court added that the Petitioners cannot impose on the Respondents the standards of investigation that the Petitioners deem to be appropriate and sufficient through a mandamus petition, as the mandamus lies only to compel the performance of purely ministerial duties.

The Court further held that the writ of continuing mandamus is available only in environmental cases, as provided in A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC or the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases. The 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 the final judgment which shall remain effective until judgment is fully satisfied. When granted, the writ requires the performance of an act or several acts for the full satisfaction of a judgment.

Finally, the Court stressed that neither can the Respondents be required to submit periodic reports to the Court, as the writ of continuing mandamus requires, as such directive violates the fundamental doctrine of separation of powers.

For more of Dean Nilo Divina’s legal tidbits, please visit www.divinalaw.com. For comments and questions, please send an email to cad@divinalaw.com.