Razon v. Tagitis needed help, support and assistance in locating the whereabouts of Engr.

G.R. No. 182498 Tagitis who had been declared missing since October 30, 2007 which is
December 3, 2009 almost two (2) months now, clearly indicates that the [petitioners] are
actually in physical possession and custody of Engr. Tagitis.
FACTS: Engr. Morced N. Tagitis is a consultant for the World Bank and the Senior
Honorary Counselor for the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) Scholarship Programme Tagitis has exhausted all administrative avenues and remedies but to no
avail, and under the circumstances, Tagitis has no other plain, speedy and
He was last seen in Jolo, Sulu. Kunnong and Muhammad Abdulnazeir N. Matli, a UP adequate remedy to protect and get the release of subject Engr. Morced
professor of Muslim studies and Tagitis’ fellow student counselor at the IDB reported Tagitis from the illegal clutches of the [petitioners], their intelligence
Tagitis’ disappearance to the Jolo Police Station. operatives and the like which are in total violation of thesubject’s human and
constitutional rights, except the issuance of a WRIT OF AMPARO.
More than a month later , the Mary B. Tagitis (Tagitis), Engr. Tagitis's wife, filed a
Petition for the Writ of Amparo (petition) with the Court of Appeals (CA). On the same day the petition was filed, the CA immediately issued the Writ of
The petition was directed against certain members of the Armed Forces of Amparo. The basis for the issuance by the Court of the Writ is as follows:
the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP):
Lt. Gen. Alexander Yano, Commanding General, Philippine Army; At the same time, the CA dismissed the petition against the Tagitis from the military,
Gen. Avelino I. Razon, Chief, PNP; Gen. Edgardo M. Doromal, Lt. Gen Alexander Yano and Gen. Ruben Rafael, based on the finding that it was
Chief, Criminal Investigation and Detention Group (CIDG); Sr. Supt. PNP-CIDG, not the military, that was involved. Thereafter, the CA issued an ALARM
Leonardo A. Espina, Chief, Police Anti-Crime and Emergency WARNING that Task Force Tagitis of the PNP did not appear to be exerting
Response; Gen. Joel Goltiao, Regional Director, ARMM-PNP; and extraordinary efforts in resolving Tagitis’ disappearance.
Gen. Ruben Rafael, Chief, Anti-Terror Task Force Comet
[collectively referred to as petitioners]. Petitioners appealed the decision of the CA to the Supreme Court/They mainly
dispute:
The petition went on to state:
1. the sufficiency in form and substance of the Amparo petition filed before
Soon after the Tagitis left the room, Engr. Tagitis went out of the pension the CA;
house to take his early lunch but while out on the street, a couple of burly
2. the sufficiency of the legal remedies the Tagitis took before petitioning for
men believed to be police intelligence operatives, forcibly took him
the writ;
When Kunnong could not locate Engr. Tagitis, the former sought the help of 3. the finding that the rights to life, liberty and security of Tagitis had been
another IDB scholar and reported the matter to the local police agency. violated; t
4. the sufficiency of evidence supporting the conclusion that Tagitis was
Kunnong including his friends and companions in Jolo, exerted efforts in abducted;
trying to locate the whereabouts of Engr. Tagitis and when he reported the 5. the conclusion that the CIDG Zamboanga was responsible for the
matter to the police authorities in Jolo, he was immediately given a ready abduction; and,
answer that Engr. Tagitis could have been abducted by the Abu Sayyaf 6. generally, the ruling that the respondent discharged the burden of proving
group; the allegations of the petition by substantial evidence

Information from persons in the military who do not want to be identified

ISSUES:
stated that Engr. Tagitis is in the hands of the uniformed men; and according
to reliable information received by Tagitis, subject Engr. Tagitis is in the 1. WON the petition for writ of amparo filed is sufficent in form and substance –
custody of police intelligence operatives, specifically with the CIDG, PNP YES.
Zamboanga City, being held against his will in an earnest attempt of the 2. WON an enforced disappearance is a proper ground for issuance of a writ of
police to involve and connect Engr. Tagitis with the different terrorist groups. amparo – YES.
3. WON there was an enforced disappearance in this case – YES.
Tagitis filed her complaint with the PNP Police Station in the ARMM in
Cotobato and in Jolo, seeking their help to find her husband, but Tagitis's 4. WON the PNP may be held accountable – YES.
request and pleadings failed to produce any positive results.

The unexplained uncooperative behavior of the [petitioners] to Tagitis's RATIO:

request for help and failure and refusal of the [petitioners] to extend the
1. In questioning the sufficiency in form and substance of the respondent’s be to determine whether it contains the details available to the one
Amparo petition, the petitioners contend that the petition violated Section filing the petition under the circumstances, WHILE presenting a
5(c), (d), and (e) of the Amparo Rule. cause of action showing a violation of the victim’s rights to life,
 SPECIFICALLY, the petitioners allege that Tagitis failed to, in her liberty and security through State or private party action.
petition:  The petition should likewise be read in its totality, to determine if the
 allege: required elements-–-namely, of the disappearance, the State or
 any ACT or OMISSION the petitioners committed in violation of private action, and the actual or threatened violations of the rights
Tagitis’ rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, and SECURITY to life, liberty or security-–- are present.
 in a complete manner HOW Tagitis was ABDUCTED, the  Applying these rules in the present case, the petition amply recites in its
persons RESPONSIBLE for his DISAPPEARANCE, and the paragraphs 4 to 11 the circumstances under which Tagitis suddenly
respondent’s SOURCE of INFORMATION; dropped out of sight after engaging in normal activities, and thereafter
 the abduction was committed at the petitioners’ instructions or was nowhere to be found despite efforts to locate him.
with their consent;  The petition alleged, too, under its paragraph 7, in relation to
 any action or inaction attributable to the petitioners in the paragraphs 15 and 16, that according to reliable information, police
performance of their duties in the investigation of Tagitis’ operatives were the perpetrators of the abduction.
disappearance;  It also clearly alleged how Tagitis’ rights to life, liberty and security
 implead the members of PNP-CIDG regional office in Zamboanga were violated when he was "forcibly taken and boarded on a motor
alleged to have custody over her husband; vehicle by a couple of burly men believed to be police intelligence
 attach the affidavits of witnesses to support her accusations; operatives," and then taken "into custody by the respondents’ police
 specify what legally available efforts she took to determine the fate intelligence operatives since October 30, 2007, specifically by the
or whereabouts of her husband. CIDG, PNP Zamboanga City, x x x held against his will in an
 The petitioners state that a petition for the Writ of Amparo shall be earnest attempt of the police to involve and connect [him] with
signed and verified and shall allege, among others, as stated in Section different terrorist groups."
5 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo:  If a defect can at all be attributed to the petition, this defect is its lack of
 “(c) The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party supporting affidavit, as required by Section 5(c) of the Amparo Rule.
violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission  This requirement, however, should not be read as an absolute one
of the respondent, and how such threat or violation is committed that necessarily leads to the dismissal of the petition if not strictly
with the attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits;” followed.
 “(d) The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names,  Where, as in this case, the petitioner has substantially complied with the
personal circumstances, and addresses of the investigating requirement by submitting a verified petition sufficiently detailing the
authority or individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of the facts relied upon, the strict need for the sworn statement that an affidavit
investigation, together with any report;” represents is essentially fulfilled.
 “(e) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine  Section 5(d) of the Amparo Rule requires that prior investigation of an
the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of alleged disappearance must have been made, specifying the manner
the person responsible for the threat, act or omission; and” and results of the investigation.
 The framers of the Amparo Rule never intended Section 5(c) of the Rule  The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the Tagitis's
to be complete in every detail in stating the threatened or actual petition did not comply with the Section 5(d) requirements of the
violation of a victim’s rights. Amparo Rule, as the petition specifies in its paragraph 11 that
 As in any other initiatory pleading,the pleader must of course state Kunnong and his companions immediately reported Tagitis’
the ultimate facts constituting the cause of action, omitting the disappearance to the police authorities in Jolo, Sulu as soon as
evidentiary details. they were relatively certain that he indeed had disappeared.
 In an Amparo petition, however, this requirement must be read in
light of the nature and purpose of the proceeding, which addresses 2. The present case is one of first impression in the use and application
a situation of uncertainty; hence the one filing the petition may not of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo in an ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE
be able to describe with certainty how the victim exactly situation.
disappeared, or who actually acted to kidnap, abduct or arrest him  The Amparo Rule expressly provides that the "writ shall cover extralegal
or her, or where the victim is detained, because these information killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof."
may purposely be hidden or covered up by those who caused the  However, while the Rule covers "enforced disappearances"
disappearance. this concept is neither defined nor penalized in this
 To read the Rules of Court requirement on pleadings while addressing jurisdiction.
the unique Amparo situation, the test in reading the petition should
 The Court clarifies that it does not rule on any issue of criminal  In many cases, the State authorities deliberately deny that the
culpability for the extrajudicial killing or enforced disappearance. This is enforced disappearance ever occurred.
an issue that requires criminal action before our criminal courts based  "Deniability" is central to the policy of enforced
on existing penal laws. disappearances, as the absence of any proven disappearance
 Its intervention is in determining whether an enforced makes it easier to escape the application of legal standards
disappearance has taken place and who is responsible or ensuring the victim’s human rights.
accountable for this disappearance, and to define and impose the  The characteristics an amparo proceeding of being summary and
appropriate remedies to address it. of the use of substantial evidence as the required level of proof (in
 The burden for the public authorities to discharge in these situations, contrast to the usual preponderance of evidence or proof beyond
under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, is twofold. reasonable doubt in court proceedings) reveals the clear intent of
 The first is to ensure that all efforts at disclosure and investigation the framers of the Amparo Rule to have it become similar to an
are undertaken under pain of indirect contempt from this Court administrative proceeding.
when governmental efforts are less than what the individual  Thus, in these proceedings, the Amparo petitioner needs only to
situations require. properly comply with the substance and form requirements of a Writ of
 The second is to address the disappearance, so that the life of the Amparo petition, as discussed above, and prove the allegations by
victim is preserved and his or her liberty and security restored. substantial evidence.
 The absence of a specific penal law in the Philippines, however, is
not a stumbling block for action from this Court through the 3. The threshold question for our resolution is: was there an enforced
issuance of a writ of amparo. disappearance within the meaning of this term under the UN Declaration we
 Because UNDERLYING every enforced disappearance is a have cited?
violation of the constitutional rights to life, liberty and security  The Convention defines enforced disappearance as "the arrest,
that the Supreme Court is mandated by the Constitution to detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by
protect through its rule-making powers. agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with
 Furthermore, the Court has surveyed international law and states that the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed
enforced disappearance as a State practice has been repudiated by the by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by
international community, so that the ban on it is now a generally concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person,
accepted principle of international law, which should be considered a which place such a person outside the protection of the law."
part of the law of the land, and which we should act upon to the extent  Under this definition, the elements that constitute enforced
already allowed under our laws and the international conventions that disappearance are essentially fourfold:
bind us.  arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of
 This should serve as the backdrop for the Rule on the Writ of liberty;
Amparo.  carried out by agents of the State or persons or groups of
 Although the Amparo Rule still has gaps waiting to be filled through persons acting with the authorization, support or
substantive law, as evidenced primarily by the lack of a concrete acquiescence of the State;
definition of "enforced disappearance," the some material, among  followed by a refusal to acknowledge the detention, or a
others, provide ample guidance and standards on how, through the concealment of the fate of the disappeared person; and
medium of the Amparo Rule, the Court can provide remedies.  placement of the disappeared person outside the protection of
 The Court also states that certain evidentiary difficulties are the law.
present in the Amparo proceeding:  There is no DIRECT evidence indicating how the victim actually
 First, there may be a deliberate concealment of the identities of the disappeared. The direct evidence at hand only shows that Tagitis went
direct perpetrators. out of the ASY Pension House after depositing his room key with the
 Experts note that abductors are well organized, armed and hotel desk and was never seen nor heard of again.
usually members of the military or police forces.  The undisputed conclusion, however, from all concerned-–-the
 Second, deliberate concealment of pertinent evidence of the petitioner, Engr. Tagitis’ colleagues and even the police authorities-–-is
disappearance; that Engr Tagistis disappeared under mysterious circumstances and
 The central piece of evidence in an enforced disappearance-–- was never seen again.
i.e., the corpus delicti or the victim’s body-–-is usually  Likewise, there is no direct evidence showing that operatives of PNP
concealed to effectively thwart any investigation CIDG Zamboanga abducted or arrested Tagitis.
 The problem for the victim’s family is the State’s virtual  Col. Kasim never denied that he met with the Tatigits and her friends,
monopoly of access to pertinent evidence. and that he provided them information that Tagitis was being held by
 Third is the element of denial; police officials.
  However, this is based on the input of an unnamed asset. President assigns the case exclusively to the National Bureau of
 He simply claimed in his testimony that the "informal letter" he Investigation (NBI).
received from his informant in Sulu did not indicate that Tagitis was  Given their mandates, the PNP and PNP-CIDG officials and members
in the custody of the CIDG. were the ones who were remiss in their duties when the government
 He also stressed that the information he provided the respondent completely failed to exercise its duties in entertaining the complaints of
was merely a "raw report" from "barangay intelligence" that still Tagitis.
needed confirmation and "follow up" as to its veracity.  To fully enforce the Amparo remedy, the Court refers this case back to
 To be sure, Tagitis’s and Mrs. Talbin’s testimonies were far from perfect, the CA for appropriate proceedings directed at the monitoring of the
as the petitioners pointed out. PNP and the PNP-CIDG investigations and actions, and the validation
 The inconsistencies the petitioners point out relate, more than of their results through hearings the CA may deem appropriate to
anything else, to details that should not affect the credibility of the conduct.
respondent and Mrs. Talbin; the inconsistencies are not on material
points.
 To consider also that some pieces of evidence are incompetent and DISPOSITIVE - The Court:
inadmissible evidence of is to state that in the absence of any direct a. Ruled that the disapperance of Engr. Tagitis is an enforced disappearance
evidence, a court should dismiss the petition. covered by the Rule on the Writ of Amparo;
 An immediate dismissal for this reason would make the Amparo b. Without any specific pronouncement on exact authorship and responsibility,
Rule ineffective, since it cannot allow for the special evidentiary declaring the government accountable for the enforced disappearance of
difficulties that are unavoidably present in Amparo situations,
Engr.Tagitis;
particularly in extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.
 To give full meaning to our Constitution and the rights it c. Holding the PNP directly responsible for the disclosure of material facts
protects, the Court declares that courts in amparo known to the government and to their offices regarding the disappearance of
proceedings should at least take a close look at the available Engr. Morced N. Tagitis, and for the conduct of proper investigations using
evidence to determine the correct import of every piece of extraordinary diligence, with the obligation to show investigation results
evidence; and this should include those usually considered
acceptable to this Court;
inadmissible under the general rules of evidence
 But the Court must take into account the surrounding d. Ordering Col. Kasim impleaded in this case and holding him accountable
circumstances and the test of reason which shall be used as a with the obligation to disclose information known to him and to his "assets" in
basic minimum admissibility requirement. relation with the enforced disappearance of Engr. Tagitis;
 The Court gleans from all these admitted pieces of evidence and e. Referring this case back to the CA for appropriate proceedings directed at
developments a consistency in the government’s denial of any
the monitoring of the PNP investigations, actions and the validation of their
complicity in the disappearance of Tagitis, which is disrupted only by the
report made by Col. Kasim to Tagitis about her husband. Even Col. results;
Kasim, however, eventually denied that he ever made the disclosure f. Requiring the CA to submit to this Court a quarterly report with its
that Tagitis was under custodial investigation for complicity in terrorism. recommendations,
 Based on these considerations, we conclude that Col. Kasim’s
disclosure, made in an unguarded moment, unequivocally point to some g. The PNP shall have one (1) full year to undertake their investigations; the
government complicity in the disappearance. CA shall submit its full report for the consideration of this Court at the end of
the 4th quarter counted from the finality of this Decision;
4. The PNP and CIDG are accountable because Section 24 of Republic Act
No. 6975, otherwise known as the "PNP Law," specifies the PNP as the
governmental office with the mandate "to investigate and prevent crimes,
effect the arrest of criminal offenders, bring offenders to justice and assist in
their prosecution."
 The PNP-CIDG is the "investigative arm" of the PNP and is mandated to
"investigate and prosecute all cases involving violations of the Revised
Penal Code, particularly those considered as heinous crimes."
 Under the PNP organizational structure, the PNP-CIDG is tasked to
investigate all major crimes involving violations of the Revised Penal
Code and operates against organized crime groups, unless the