MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court (SC) denied former presidential spokesperson Harry Roque’s bid for a protective writ against the House of Representatives’ arrest order in a decision announced on Tuesday, October 1.

SC spokesperson Camille Sue Mae Ting announced the High Court’s dismissal of Roque’s petition for writ of amparo during a press conference on Tuesday afternoon. In the said petition, Roque claimed that House’s quad committee’s contempt and arrest order threatened his rights to life, liberty, and security.

However, the SC denied Roque’s petition as it said the extraordinary writ was not the proper remedy against the House’s detention order.

“The scope of amparo is limited to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, or threats thereof, which are not present in this case,” the SC said on Tuesday.

As to Roque’s petition for prohibition, the SC ordered the House quad committee to comment on Roque’s petition. Aside from amparo, Roque also filed for prohibition to prevent the House mega-panel from “arresting him, requiring him to attend future hearings, and producing documents.”

Rappler has reached out to Roque for comment. We will update this story once he responds.

Why is Roque seeking SC help?

Roque, a human-rights-lawyer-turned-presidential-spokesperson, is at the center of the legislative’s probe into illegal Philippine offshore gaming operators (POGO). He was implicated in the investigation after a document listing him as a legal representative of Lucky South 99 was revealed. Lucky South was the POGO raided in Porac, Pampanga due to alleged human trafficking and torture.

No less than the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation Chairman Alejandro Tengco has said that Roque is listed as Lucky South 99’s legal head. In a another House probe, lawmakers said that Roque “effectively” lawyered for POGO despite denials from the former official.

The increase on Roque’s wealth also put him in the POGO probe’s hot list. In a year, Roque’s company, Biancham went from having P1.5 million in net cash in 2017 to a P125-million cash flow in 2018.

Roque was cited in contempt and was ordered arrested at least twice by the House mega-panel.

On August 22, he was detained for 24 hours after he lied that a prior court commitment prevented him from attending a congressional inquiry on August 16. He was ordered detained for the second time during a hearing this month over his non-compliance to a subpoena issued by the mega-panel.

The House quad committee released the subpoena to compel Roque to produce documents related to his properties, and Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth. The former presidential spokesperson is still evading this House warrant, and has yet to be arrested.

Why ask for amparo?

Days after Roque’s second detention order, his daughter Bianca Hacintha filed a petition on behalf of her father.

“[Quad comm] has wielded its contempt power capriciously and whimsically, meting punishment just because some of its members did not like the answer of the resource persons, or because the resource persons are invoking their constitutional rights,” the petition read.

The writ of amparo, often invoked by activists, is a protective writ that that usually comes in the form of a restraining order.

The rules on this remedy, and other protective writs like habeas data, were promulgated under former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to respond to the high number of disappearances and extrajudicial killings back then.

These writs, however, are said to have weakened especially under former president Rodrigo Duterte. Progressive individuals had difficulties securing writs, like in the case of Negros activist Zara Alvarez, who pleaded the court in 2019 for a protection order, but was denied by the Court of Appeals. She was later shot dead in Bacolod on August 17, 2020.

There were also instances where activists were granted these writs, but failed to get its privileges.

This was the case for young environmental activists Jhed Tamano and Jonila Castro. The two secured victory in the SC for writ of amparo which they filed after they were abducted by the military.

However, the Court of Appeals denied Tamano and Castro of the writ’s privileges after they “failed to sufficiently identify that the perpetrators of their abduction are, in fact, affiliated with the Philippine military or any of the government agencies.” – Rappler.com