DIZON v EDUARDO This is a case of disappeared persons" (desaparecidos).

This was the opening plea filed six years ago by the late Senator Jose Wright Diokno as lead counsel on behalf of the parents of the two young persons Eduardo Dizon, 30 years of age at the time, single and described in the petition as "a community leader and a selfemployed businessman (despite his having only one arm)" and Isabel Ramos, 22 years of age at the time, single and a former architecture student. The two had been arrested with others by the military, detained in the military camp, and then claimed by the military to have been released after nine days. But they were not released to their parents, who had been visiting them, nor to any other responsible person and were never seen or heard from by anyone since then. But a year ago, Diokno, the lead counsel, died. Then the court, through CJ Teenakee went on to give a history lesson: Basta he gave a long account of how Jose Diokno and Ninoy Aquino were one of the first victims of the Marcos dictatorship. This was due to the fact that they were the main contenders to the presidency at that time. Main ground invoked by Marcos: Ninoy and Diokno were part of a conspiracy to seize state power etc ec. Diokno, on one hand, was arrested without charges being filed and was detained for 2 years. Why was he released? He filed a petition for HC, which was denied by the Court. But according to Teehankee, for the sake of historical truth there was in fact a dissent made by Justice Munoz-Palma attacking the detention asserting that it was a violation of the UDHR. This dissent did not come out in the official published records. In response to this dissent, Marcos immediately released Diokno. Ninoy, on the other hand, suffered more hardships, as he was detained for 8 years. He was allegedly tried before the Military commission for murder, subversion and illegal possession and eventually sentenced to death. He wa allowed to go to US to undergo heart surgery, but when he came back, he was assassinated. The court then went to talk about the other horrors suffered by Diokno and Ninoy (i.e. Suddenly, their wives were not allowed to visit the two in their cells. They filed urgent petitions which were granted by the court. It turned out that Diokno and Ninoy were brought to a solitary confinement camp in Nueva Ecija were they were stripped naked etc etc since Ninoy was caught smuggling out written statements against Marcos. After Ka Pepe Dioknos release, he immediately formed the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) dedicated to the gratuitous defense and vindication of others who, like him, would be persecuted, oppressed and denied justice. This application for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus had been filed on December 17, 1981 by petitioners, Juan Dizon and Soledad Ramos, on behalf of their son, Eduardo Dizon and their daughter, Isabel Ramos, respectively, who were arrested on September 15, 1981 by Philippine Constabulary (PC) elements They were detained by the respondents at the PC Stockade at San Fernando, Pampanga

The desaparecidos were allegedly released nine days later, or on September 24,1981, as per their release papers of the same date. However, they were never seen nor heard from since their supposed release. Alleging that the signatures of the desaparecidos on their release papers were falsified and thus, they were never released by the militarysaid release being a scheme of the respondents to prolong their detention, torture and interrogation, the petitioners-parents filed the petition at bar. The Court issued the writ of habeas corpus on December 29, 1981. In the return of the writ filed on behalf of respondents by then Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, respondents insisted that the detainees were indeed released on September 24,1981. Diokno invoked the the UDHR and a UN GA Resolution expressing deep concern over such cases of involuntary disappearances and calling on all governments to stamp it out etc etc. ISSUES: Diokno posed on behalf of the desaparecidos the following vital questions in the case at bar: 1. When respondents' defense to a petition for habeas corpus is that they released the detainees for whom the petition was filed, but the allegation of release is disputed by petitioners, and it is not denied that the detainees have not been seen or heard from since their supposed release, do petitioners have the burden in law of proving that the detainees are still detained by respondents or does the burden shift to respondents of proving that they did release the detainees? 2. Secondly, if respondents have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that they released the detainees, have they in fact discharged that burden in this case? 3. And lastly, if respondents have not satisfied the Court that they released the detainees, but nevertheless refuse or are unable to produce their bodies, what relief may the Court grant petitioners?

HELD: FIRST ISSUE: (DOCTRINE) The GR is that the release of a detained person renders the petition for habeas corpus moot and academic BUT: The cited general rule postulates that (1) the release of the detainees is an established fact and not in dispute, and that (2) they do not continue to be missing persons or desaparecidos. Where. however, there are grounds for grave doubts about the alleged release of the detainees, which we share, particularly, where the standard and prescribed procedure in effecting the release has not been followed, then the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the alleged release is shifted to the respondents. Release is an affirmative defense and "each party must prove his own affirmative allegations,"just

as the burden of proof of self-defense in a killing rests on the accused. Moreover, evidence of release lies particularly within respondents' power. SECOND ISSUE: This brings us to the second question: Have the respondents proved the alleged release by clear and convincing evidence? Claims a. Falsification a. Diokno: The signatures of the detainees on their release papers were falsified. He submitted specimen signatures of the two victims, and an inspection of the signatures shows that the signatures in the alleged release papers were obviously not made by them (different strokes etc, i.e. in case of Isabel, the s had a different stroke). i. OSGs answer: not possible to make proper comparison since the specimen signatures presented were mere Xerox copies. b. Non- Observance of the prescribed procedure a. Respondents did not release the detainees to their parents, though the latter had been visiting them and, in fact Dizon's father was in the camp on the very day he was supposedly released. Failing this, they should be released to another responsible person in the community. This is the standard practice! b. Defense Ministry regulations require that releases be reported to the Ministry within 72 hours. Respondent Carian did not report the supposed releases to the Ministry. In fact, he did not even report their "releases" to his regional commander, respondent Gen. Eduardo. c. Respondent Carian's command could not readily furnish copies of the detainees' release certificates to their parents when the latter asked for them. They took one month to produce the certificate of d. Respondent Col. Carian had no authority, inherent or delegated, to release the detainees. In respondents' return, it was stated that the two were arrested in flagrante delicto with unlicensed firearms and explosives. Under General Order No. 67 (October 8, 1980), only the President or his duly authorized representative could have released the two before trial. c. The Inherent implausibility of respondent Carian's reason for supposedly releasing the detaineesthat they had agreed to act as spies. a. Respondent Carian says he knew that Isabel had once before been detained for subversive activities and, after her release, had resumed those activities. It is unlikely that Isabel would have agreed to become a spy b. Respondent Carian knew that the probability of the detainees' keeping their supposed bargain was remote. Yet, he took no precautions i. He did not follow the prescribed procedure in releasing them. ii. He required them to report to his command twice a month. That made it virtually certain that their activities would be discovered, and soon, by their comrades. iii. He eagerly revealed the supposed bargain in his defense in this case, making it a matter of public record. That effectively stifled any possibility of the supposed bargain's ever being carried out.

iv. It appears clear that no bargain was ever made THIRD ISSUE: What relief may be granted? The Court regrets that it cannot grant the relief sought by petitioners. It is not the repository of all remedies for every grievance. But the Court does state that under the facts and circumstances above set forth. it is far from satisfied and as already indicated shares the grave doubts about public respondents' allegation that they had released the desaparecidos on September 24, 1981, nine days after they were taken into custody. Petitioners charges need thorough investigation. If duly determined, they would involve, as indicated by Diokno, prosecution for criminal contempt, falsification of public document, perjury and violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code requiring delivery of detained persons to the judicial authority within the periods therein fixed, and worse, This connotes that the respondents with their subordinates who executed the supporting affidavits, were involved in a grand conspiracy for the purpose. BUT, the Court cannot make this determination. It is not a trier of facts, nor does it have the means and facilities to conduct such investigation of the grave charges at bar as well as of the whereabouts and fate of the desaparecidos. Fortunately, after the EDSA revolution, President Cory created the Presidential Committee On Human Rights (PCHR)with Diokno himself as chairman, primarily charged with the investigation, among others, of "complaints it may receive, cases known to it or to its members, and such cases as the President may, from time to time assign to it, of unexplained or forced disappearances (extra-judicial killings, salvaging, massacres, torture, hamletting, food blockades) and other violations of human rights, past or present, committed by officers or agents of the national government or persons acting in their place or stead or under their orders, express or implied." When the 1987 Consti was ratified, the PCHR was replaced by the CHR. ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to refer this case to the Commission on Human Rights for investigation and appropriate action as may be warranted by its findings, and to furnish the Court with a report of the outcome of its investigation and action taken thereon. This Resolution is immediately executory.