Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

SPECIAL PROCEDURE | B2015

CASE DIGESTS

Razon v. Tagitis to determine whether it contains the details available to the one filing
the petition under the circumstances, WHILE presenting a cause of
December 3, 2009 action showing a violation of the victim’s rights to life, liberty and
Brion security through State or private party action.
Paolo Q. Bernardo
If you can, please go beyond the summary-doctrine boxes; especially so you understand the ratio of the Court.
On whether enforced disappearance is a proper ground for a writ of
Apologies for the delay AND length; as for the length, I omitted a lot of facts I deemed irrelevant. Lastly, please
see the dispositive.
amparo:
The Amparo Rule expressly provides that the "writ shall cover
SUMMARY: Engr. Morced N. Tagitis was last seen in Jolo, Sulu. His extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
disappearance was reported to the Jolo Police Station. It was unacted
upon for a month and hencee Mary B. Tagitis (Tagitis), Engr. Tagitis's However, while the Rule covers "enforced disappearances" this
wife, filed a Petition for the Writ of Amparo with the Court of Appeals concept is neither defined nor penalized in this jurisdiction.
against certain members of the the PNP.
However, this not a stumbling block that will prevent the issuance of a
writ of amparo, because UNDERLYING every enforced disappearance
The CA issued the Writ of Amparo.
is a violation of the constitutional rights to life, liberty and security
that the Supreme Court is mandated by the Constitution to protect
The PNP members appealed the decision of the CA to the Supreme through its rule-making powers.
Court. They mainly dispute:
Furthermore, the Court has surveyed international law and states that
1. the sufficiency in form and substance of the Amparo enforced disappearance as a State practice has been repudiated by the
petition filed before the CA; international community, so that the ban on it is now a generally
2. the sufficiency of the legal remedies the Tagitis took accepted principle of international law, which should be considered a
before petitioning for the writ; part of the law of the land, and which should act upon to the extent
3. the finding that the rights to life, liberty and security already allowed under our laws and the international conventions that
bind us.
of Tagitis had been violated;
4. the sufficiency of evidence supporting the conclusion On the elements of an enforced disappearance:
that Tagitis was abducted; Under the definition in the UN Convention, the elements that
5. the conclusion that the CIDG Zamboanga was constitute enforced disappearance are essentially fourfold:
responsible for the abduction; and, i. arrest, detention, abduction or any form of
6. generally, the ruling that the respondent discharged deprivation of liberty;
the burden of proving the allegations of the petition ii. carried out by agents of the State or persons or
by substantial evidence groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or
acquiescence of the State;
DOCTRINE: iii. followed by a refusal to acknowledge the detention,
On the test for the sufficiency of a petition for writ of amparo: or a concealment of the fate of the disappeared person; and
To read the Rules of Court requirement on pleadings while addressing iv. placement of the disappeared person outside the
the unique Amparo situation, the test in reading the petition should be protection of the law.
SPECIAL PROCEDURE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS

On relaxing the general rules of evidence in amparo proceedings: Kunnong including his friends and companions in Jolo, exerted efforts in trying to locate
To give full meaning to our Constitution and the rights it protects, the the whereabouts of Engr. Tagitis and when he reported the matter to the police
Court declares that courts in amparo proceedings should at least take authorities in Jolo, he was immediately given a ready answer that Engr. Tagitis could
a close look at the available evidence to determine the correct import have been abducted by the Abu Sayyaf group;
of every piece of evidence; and this should include those usually
considered inadmissible under the general rules of evidence Information from persons in the military who do not want to be identified 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 custody of police intelligence operatives,
specifically with the CIDG, PNP Zamboanga City, being held against his will in an earnest
FACTS: attempt of the police to involve and connect Engr. Tagitis with the different terrorist
Engr. Morced N. Tagitis is a consultant for the World Bank and the Senior Honorary Counselor for groups.
the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) Scholarship Programme
Tagitis filed her complaint with the PNP Police Station in the ARMM in Cotobato and in
He was last seen in Jolo, Sulu. Jolo, seeking their help to find her husband, but Tagitis's request and pleadings failed to
produce any positive results.
Kunnong and Muhammad Abdulnazeir N. Matli, a UP professor of Muslim studies and Tagitis’
fellow student counselor at the IDB reported Tagitis’ disappearance to the Jolo Police Station. The unexplained uncooperative behavior of the [petitioners] to Tagitis's request for help
and failure and refusal of the [petitioners] to extend the needed help, support and
More than a month later , the Mary B. Tagitis (Tagitis), Engr. Tagitis's wife, filed a Petition for the assistance in locating the whereabouts of Engr. Tagitis who had been declared missing
Writ of Amparo (petition) with the Court of Appeals (CA). since October 30, 2007 which is almost two (2) months now, clearly indicates that the
The petition was directed against certain members of the Armed Forces of the [petitioners] are actually in physical possession and custody of Engr. Tagitis.
Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP):
Lt. Gen. Alexander Yano, Commanding General, Philippine Army; Gen. Avelino I. Tagitis has exhausted all administrative avenues and remedies but to no avail, and under
Razon, Chief, PNP; Gen. Edgardo M. Doromal, Chief, Criminal Investigation and the circumstances, Tagitis has no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy to protect
Detention Group (CIDG); Sr. Supt. Leonardo A. Espina, Chief, Police Anti-Crime and get the release of subject Engr. Morced Tagitis from the illegal clutches of the
and Emergency Response; Gen. Joel Goltiao, Regional Director, ARMM-PNP; and [petitioners], their intelligence operatives and the like which are in total violation of
Gen. Ruben Rafael, Chief, Anti-Terror Task Force Comet [collectively referred to thesubject’s human and constitutional rights, except the issuance of a WRIT OF AMPARO.
as petitioners].
On the same day the petition was filed, the CA immediately issued the Writ of Amparo. The basis
The petition went on to state: for the issuance by the Court of the Writ is as follows:

Soon after the Tagitis left the room, Engr. Tagitis went out of the pension house to take
his early lunch but while out on the street, a couple of burly men believed to be police At the same time, the CA dismissed the petition against the Tagitis from the military, Lt. Gen
intelligence operatives, forcibly took him Alexander Yano and Gen. Ruben Rafael, based on the finding that it was PNP-CIDG, not the
military, that was involved.
When Kunnong could not locate Engr. Tagitis, the former sought the help of another IDB
scholar and reported the matter to the local police agency.
SPECIAL PROCEDURE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS

Thereafter, the CA issued an ALARM WARNING that Task Force Tagitis of the PNP did not appear  in a complete manner HOW Tagitis was ABDUCTED, the persons
to be exerting extraordinary efforts in resolving Tagitis’ disappearance. RESPONSIBLE for his DISAPPEARANCE, and the respondent’s SOURCE of
INFORMATION;
Petitioners appealed the decision of the CA to the Supreme Court/They mainly dispute:  the abduction was committed at the petitioners’ instructions or with their
consent;
1. the sufficiency in form and substance of the Amparo petition filed before the CA;  any action or inaction attributable to the petitioners in the performance of
2. the sufficiency of the legal remedies the Tagitis took before petitioning for the their duties in the investigation of Tagitis’ disappearance;
writ; ii. implead the members of PNP-CIDG regional office in Zamboanga alleged to have
custody over her husband;
3. the finding that the rights to life, liberty and security of Tagitis had been
iii. attach the affidavits of witnesses to support her accusations;
violated; t iv. specify what legally available efforts she took to determine the fate or
4. the sufficiency of evidence supporting the conclusion that Tagitis was abducted; whereabouts of her husband.
5. the conclusion that the CIDG Zamboanga was responsible for the abduction; b. The petitioners state that a petition for the Writ of Amparo shall be signed and
and, verified and shall allege, among others, as stated in Section 5 of the Rule on the Writ
6. generally, the ruling that the respondent discharged the burden of proving the of Amparo:
allegations of the petition by substantial evidence i. “(c) The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or
threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of the respondent, and
how such threat or violation is committed with the attendant circumstances
ISSUES: detailed in supporting affidavits;”
1. WON the petition for writ of amparo filed is sufficent in form and substance; ii. “(d) The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal
2. WON an enforced disappearance is a proper ground for issuance of a writ of amparo; circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authority or individuals, as
3. WON there was an enforced disappearance in this case; well as the manner and conduct of the investigation, together with any report;”
4. WON the PNP may be held accountable; iii. “(e) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the fate or
whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of the person responsible
RULING: for the threat, act or omission; and”
1. Yes; c. The framers of the Amparo Rule never intended Section 5(c) of the Rule to be
2. Yes; complete in every detail in stating the threatened or actual violation of a victim’s
3. Yes; rights.
4. Yes; i. As in any other initiatory pleading,the pleader must of course state the ultimate
facts constituting the cause of action, omitting the evidentiary details.
RATIO: ii. In an Amparo petition, however, this requirement must be read in light of the
1. In questioning the sufficiency in form and substance of the respondent’s Amparo nature and purpose of the proceeding, which addresses a situation of
petition, the petitioners contend that the petition violated Section 5(c), (d), and (e) of the uncertainty; hence the one filing the petition may not be able to describe with
Amparo Rule. certainty how the victim exactly disappeared, or who actually acted to kidnap,
a. SPECIFICALLY, the petitioners allege that Tagitis failed to, in her petition: abduct or arrest him or her, or where the victim is detained, because these
i. allege: information may purposely be hidden or covered up by those who caused the
 any ACT or OMISSION the petitioners committed in violation of Tagitis’ disappearance.
rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, and SECURITY d. To read the Rules of Court requirement on pleadings while addressing the unique
Amparo situation, the test in reading the petition should be to determine
SPECIAL PROCEDURE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS

whether it contains the details available to the one filing the petition under the a. The Amparo Rule expressly provides that the "writ shall cover extralegal killings and
circumstances, WHILE presenting a cause of action showing a violation of the enforced disappearances or threats thereof."
victim’s rights to life, liberty and security through State or private party action. i. However, while the Rule covers "enforced disappearances" this concept is
i. The petition should likewise be read in its totality, to determine if the required neither defined nor penalized in this jurisdiction.
elements-–-namely, of the disappearance, the State or private action, and the b. The Court clarifies that it does not rule on any issue of criminal culpability for the
actual or threatened violations of the rights to life, liberty or security-–- are extrajudicial killing or enforced disappearance. This is an issue that requires
present. criminal action before our criminal courts based on existing penal laws.
e. Applying these rules in the present case, the petition amply recites in its paragraphs i. Its intervention is in determining whether an enforced disappearance has taken
4 to 11 the circumstances under which Tagitis suddenly dropped out of sight after place and who is responsible or accountable for this disappearance, and to
engaging in normal activities, and thereafter was nowhere to be found despite define and impose the appropriate remedies to address it.
efforts to locate him. c. The burden for the public authorities to discharge in these situations, under the Rule
i. The petition alleged, too, under its paragraph 7, in relation to paragraphs 15 and on the Writ of Amparo, is twofold.
16, that according to reliable information, police operatives were the i. The first is to ensure that all efforts at disclosure and investigation are
perpetrators of the abduction. undertaken under pain of indirect contempt from this Court when governmental
ii. It also clearly alleged how Tagitis’ rights to life, liberty and security were efforts are less than what the individual situations require.
violated when he was "forcibly taken and boarded on a motor vehicle by a ii. The second is to address the disappearance, so that the life of the victim is
couple of burly men believed to be police intelligence operatives," and then preserved and his or her liberty and security restored.
taken "into custody by the respondents’ police intelligence operatives since d. The absence of a specific penal law in the Philippines, however, is not a
October 30, 2007, specifically by the CIDG, PNP Zamboanga City, x x x held stumbling block for action from this Court through the issuance of a writ of
against his will in an earnest attempt of the police to involve and connect [him] amparo.
with different terrorist groups." i. Because UNDERLYING every enforced disappearance is a violation of the
f. If a defect can at all be attributed to the petition, this defect is its lack of supporting constitutional rights to life, liberty and security that the Supreme Court is
affidavit, as required by Section 5(c) of the Amparo Rule. mandated by the Constitution to protect through its rule-making powers.
i. This requirement, however, should not be read as an absolute one that e. Furthermore, the Court has surveyed international law and states that enforced
necessarily leads to the dismissal of the petition if not strictly followed. disappearance as a State practice has been repudiated by the international
g. Where, as in this case, the petitioner has substantially complied with the community, so that the ban on it is now a generally accepted principle of
requirement by submitting a verified petition sufficiently detailing the facts relied international law, which should be considered a part of the law of the land, and
upon, the strict need for the sworn statement that an affidavit represents is which we should act upon to the extent already allowed under our laws and the
essentially fulfilled. international conventions that bind us.
h. Section 5(d) of the Amparo Rule requires that prior investigation of an alleged i. This should serve as the backdrop for the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.
disappearance must have been made, specifying the manner and results of the f. Although the Amparo Rule still has gaps waiting to be filled through substantive law,
investigation. as evidenced primarily by the lack of a concrete definition of "enforced
i. The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the Tagitis's petition did not disappearance," the some material, among others, provide ample guidance and
comply with the Section 5(d) requirements of the Amparo Rule, as the petition standards on how, through the medium of the Amparo Rule, the Court can provide
specifies in its paragraph 11 that Kunnong and his companions immediately remedies.
reported Tagitis’ disappearance to the police authorities in Jolo, Sulu as soon as g. The Court also states that certain evidentiary difficulties are present in the
they were relatively certain that he indeed had disappeared. Amparo proceeding:
i. First, there may be a deliberate concealment of the identities of the direct
2. The present case is one of first impression in the use and application of the Rule on the perpetrators.
Writ of Amparo in an ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE situation.
SPECIAL PROCEDURE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS

 Experts note that abductors are well organized, armed and usually iv. placement of the disappeared person outside the protection of the law.
members of the military or police forces. c. There is no DIRECT evidence indicating how the victim actually disappeared. The
ii. Second, deliberate concealment of pertinent evidence of the disappearance; direct evidence at hand only shows that Tagitis went out of the ASY Pension House
 The central piece of evidence in an enforced disappearance-–-i.e., the corpus after depositing his room key with the hotel desk and was never seen nor heard of
delicti or the victim’s body-–-is usually concealed to effectively thwart any again.
investigation d. The undisputed conclusion, however, from all concerned-–-the petitioner, Engr.
 The problem for the victim’s family is the State’s virtual monopoly of access Tagitis’ colleagues and even the police authorities-–-is that Engr Tagistis
to pertinent evidence. disappeared under mysterious circumstances and was never seen again.
iii. Third is the element of denial; e. Likewise, there is no direct evidence showing that operatives of PNP CIDG
 In many cases, the State authorities deliberately deny that the enforced Zamboanga abducted or arrested Tagitis.
disappearance ever occurred. f. Col. Kasim never denied that he met with the Tatigits and her friends, and that he
 "Deniability" is central to the policy of enforced disappearances, as the provided them information that Tagitis was being held by police officials.
absence of any proven disappearance makes it easier to escape the i. However, this is based on the input of an unnamed asset.
application of legal standards ensuring the victim’s human rights. ii. He simply claimed in his testimony that the "informal letter" he received from
h. The characteristics an amparo proceeding of being summary and of the use of his informant in Sulu did not indicate that Tagitis was in the custody of the CIDG.
substantial evidence as the required level of proof (in contrast to the usual iii. He also stressed that the information he provided the respondent was merely a
preponderance of evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt in court "raw report" from "barangay intelligence" that still needed confirmation and
proceedings) reveals the clear intent of the framers of the Amparo Rule to "follow up" as to its veracity.
have it become similar to an administrative proceeding. g. To be sure, Tagitis’s and Mrs. Talbin’s testimonies were far from perfect, as the
i. Thus, in these proceedings, the Amparo petitioner needs only to properly comply petitioners pointed out.
with the substance and form requirements of a Writ of Amparo petition, as i. The inconsistencies the petitioners point out relate, more than anything else, to
discussed above, and prove the allegations by substantial evidence. details that should not affect the credibility of the respondent and Mrs. Talbin;
the inconsistencies are not on material points.
3. The threshold question for our resolution is: was there an enforced disappearance h. To consider also that some pieces of evidence are incompetent and inadmissible
within the meaning of this term under the UN Declaration we have cited? evidence of is to state that in the absence of any direct evidence, a court should
a. The Convention defines enforced disappearance as "the arrest, detention, dismiss the petition.
abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or i. An immediate dismissal for this reason would make the Amparo Rule
by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or ineffective, since it cannot allow for the special evidentiary difficulties that are
acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the unavoidably present in Amparo situations, particularly in extrajudicial killings
deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the and enforced disappearances.
disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the ii. To give full meaning to our Constitution and the rights it protects, the
law." Court declares that courts in amparo proceedings should at least take a
b. Under this definition, the elements that constitute enforced disappearance are close look at the available evidence to determine the correct import of
essentially fourfold: every piece of evidence; and this should include those usually considered
i. arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty; inadmissible under the general rules of evidence
ii. carried out by agents of the State or persons or groups of persons acting  But the Court must take into account the surrounding circumstances and
with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State; the test of reason which shall be used as a basic minimum admissibility
iii. followed by a refusal to acknowledge the detention, or a concealment of requirement.
the fate of the disappeared person; and
SPECIAL PROCEDURE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS

i. The Court gleans from all these admitted pieces of evidence and developments a and for the conduct of proper investigations using extraordinary diligence, with the
consistency in the government’s denial of any complicity in the disappearance of obligation to show investigation results acceptable to this Court;
Tagitis, which is disrupted only by the report made by Col. Kasim to Tagitis about her
husband. Even Col. Kasim, however, eventually denied that he ever made the d. Ordering Col. Kasim impleaded in this case and holding him accountable with the
disclosure that Tagitis was under custodial investigation for complicity in terrorism. obligation to disclose information known to him and to his "assets" in relation with the
j. Based on these considerations, we conclude that Col. Kasim’s disclosure, made in an
enforced disappearance of Engr. Tagitis;
unguarded moment, unequivocally point to some government complicity in the
disappearance.
e. Referring this case back to the CA for appropriate proceedings directed at the
4. The PNP and CIDG are accountable because Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6975, monitoring of the PNP investigations, actions and the validation of their results;
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, f. Requiring the CA to submit to this Court a quarterly report with its recommendations,
bring offenders to justice and assist in their prosecution."
a. The PNP-CIDG is the "investigative arm" of the PNP and is mandated to "investigate g. The PNP shall have one (1) full year to undertake their investigations; the CA shall
and prosecute all cases involving violations of the Revised Penal Code, particularly submit its full report for the consideration of this Court at the end of the 4th quarter
those considered as heinous crimes." counted from the finality of this Decision;
b. 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 President assigns the case exclusively to the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
c. Given their mandates, the PNP and PNP-CIDG officials and members were the ones
who were remiss in their duties when the government completely failed to exercise
its duties in entertaining the complaints of Tagitis.
d. To fully enforce the Amparo remedy, the Court refers this case back to the CA for
appropriate proceedings directed at the monitoring of the PNP and the PNP-CIDG
investigations and actions, and the validation of their results through hearings the
CA may deem appropriate to conduct.

DISPOSITIVE:
The Court:
a. Ruled that the disapperance of Engr. Tagitis is an enforced disappearance covered by
the Rule on the Writ of Amparo;

b. Without any specific pronouncement on exact authorship and responsibility, declaring


the government accountable for the enforced disappearance of Engr.Tagitis;

c. Holding the PNP directly responsible for the disclosure of material facts known to the
government and to their offices regarding the disappearance of Engr. Morced N. Tagitis,

Вам также может понравиться