“A petition for continuing mandamus can be filed only when ‘there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law’”
(First of 2 parts)
A petition for continuing mandamus is filed “[w]hen any agency or instrumentality of the government or officer thereof unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins [it to do] as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station…”
This is “[i]n connection with the enforcement or violation of an environmental law rule or regulation or a right therein, or [when someone] unlawfully excludes another from the use or enjoyment of such right…” (A.M. 09-6-8-SC, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases).
This petition can be filed only when “there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”
The ultimate objective in filing the petition is to obtain a judgment “commanding the respondent to do an act or series of acts until the judgment is fully satisfied, and to pay damages [to the petitioner] by reason of the malicious neglect to perform the duties of the respondent, under the law, rules or regulations” (A.M. 09-6-8-SC).
The petition applying for the writ of continuing mandamus “shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territory where the actionable neglect or omission occurred or with the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.”
In all cases, “[t]he petition shall also contain a sworn certification of non-forum shopping” (A.M. 09-6-8-SC).
In the case of Baquirin v. De la Rosa, concerned citizens and members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines filed a Petition for Mandamus before the Supreme Court praying for the issuance of a writ of continuing mandamus.
They want “to compel the [Philippine National Police, Commission on Human Rights, and Department of Justice] to perform their duties under the Constitution… and to report to the Court the measures they will be taking in carrying out such duties” (G.R. 233930. July 11, 2023).
“The PNP implemented Oplan Double Barrel, which consists of Oplan Tokhang and Project High Value Target/Low Value Target.
“The former involved police officers visiting the homes of suspected drug offenders to persuade them to stop using or peddling illegal drugs, while the latter focused on big-time and small-time drug personalities and their accomplices in the government” (op.cit.)
“Due to the varying statistics on the aforementioned killings from the PNP which were published in several news articles, the petitioners concluded that there is a lack of genuine, thorough, prompt, impartial, and independent investigation thereon.
“They allege that apart from some ‘high-profile cases and possibly a handful of others, many alleged extrajudicial killings remain uninvestigated’” (op.cit.)
Petitioners argued that the PNP, CHR, and DOJ “have failed to adequately perform their duty to prevent violations of the right to life and to investigate and prosecute the same under the Constitution, pertinent laws, and human rights treaties…”
They further contended these agencies should be directed to “adopt adequate positive measures to prevent any and all further violations of the right to life in the course of the government’s anti-illegal drug operations” (op.cit.)
“[T]hey also cite the absence of reported convictions for extrajudicial killings despite the lapse of one year and the lack of public disclosure of actions taken against persons identified to have been involved in the said killings.
In the same breath, however, the petitioners admit that the CHR commenced its motu proprio investigations on the alleged extrajudicial killings and that the DOJ directed the National Bureau of Investigation to investigate the reported killings…” (op.cit.)
