Razon vs Tagitis

GR No. 182498 December 3,2009

FACTS:

The established facts show that Tagitis, a consultant for the World Bank and the Senior
Honorary Counselor for the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) Scholarship Programme,
was last seen in Jolo, Sulu. Together with Arsimin Kunnong (Kunnong), an IDB scholar,
Tagitis arrived in Jolo by boat in the early morning of October 31, 2007 from a seminar
in Zamboanga City. They immediately checked-in at ASY Pension House. Tagitis asked
Kunnong to buy him a boat ticket for his return trip the following day to Zamboanga.
When Kunnong returned from this errand, Tagitis was no longer around. The
receptionist related that Tagitis went out to buy food at around 12:30 in the afternoon
and even left his room key with the desk. Kunnong looked for Tagitis and even sent a
text message to the latter’s Manila-based secretary who did not know of Tagitis’
whereabouts and activities either; she advised Kunnong to simply wait.

On November 4, 2007, 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. On November 7, 2007, Kunnong executed a
sworn affidavit attesting to what he knew of the circumstances surrounding Tagitis’
disappearance.

On December 28, 2007, Mary Jean Tagitis filed a Petition for the Writ of Amparo
(petition) with the CA through her Attorney-in-Fact, Atty. Felipe P. Arcilla.The petition
was directed against Lt. Gen. Alexander Yano, Commanding General, Philippine Army;
Gen. Avelino I. Razon, Chief, PNP; Gen. Edgardo M. Doromal, Chief, CIDG; Sr. Supt.
Leonardo A. Espina, Chief, Police Anti-Crime and Emergency Response; Gen. Joel
Goltiao, Regional Director, ARMM-PNP; and Gen. Ruben Rafael, Chief, Anti-Terror
Task Force Comet.

Mary Jean said in her statement that she approached some of her co-employees with
the Land Bank in Digos branch, Digos City, Davao del Sur who likewise sought help
from some of their friends in the military who could help them find/locate the
whereabouts of her husband. All of her efforts did not produce any positive results
except the information from persons in the military who do not want to be identified that
Engr. Tagitis is in the hands of the uniformed men. According to reliable information she
received, 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 attempt of the police to involve and connect Engr. Tagitis with the different
terrorist groups particularly the Jemaah Islamiyah.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the privilege of the Writ of Amparo should be extended to Engr. Morced
Tagitis.

RULING:

The disappearance of Engr. Morced Tagitis is classified as an enforced disappearance,

thus the privilege of the Writ of Amparo applies.

Under the UN Declaration enforced disappearance as "the arrest, detention,

abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by
persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or
acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation
of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared
person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law."

Under this definition, the elements that constitute enforced disappearance are
essentially fourfold:

(a) arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty;

(b) carried out by agents of the State or persons or groups of persons acting with
the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State;

(c) followed by a refusal to acknowledge the detention, or a concealment of the

fate of the disappeared person;

(d) placement of the disappeared person outside the protection of the law.

There was no direct evidence indicating how the victim actually disappeared. The
direct evidence at hand only shows that Tagitis went out of the ASY Pension House
after depositing his room key with the hotel desk and was never seen nor heard of
again. The undisputed conclusion, however, from all concerned – the petitioner, Tagitis’
colleagues and even the police authorities – is that Tagistis disappeared under
mysterious circumstances and was never seen again.

The framers of the Amparo Rule never intended Section 5(c) to be complete in
every detail in stating the threatened or actual violation of a victim’s rights. As in any
other initiatory pleading, the pleader must of course state the ultimate facts constituting
the cause of action, omitting the evidentiary details. In an Amparo petition, however, this
requirement must be read in light of the nature and purpose of the proceeding, which
addresses a situation of uncertainty; the petitioner may not be able to describe with
certainty how the victim exactly disappeared, or who actually acted to kidnap, abduct or
arrest him or her, or where the victim is detained, because these information may
purposely be hidden or covered up by those who caused the disappearance. In this type
of situation, to require the level of specificity, detail and precision that the petitioners
apparently want to read into the Amparo Rule is to make this Rule a token gesture of
judicial concern for violations of the constitutional rights to life, liberty and security.

The unique evidentiary difficulties presented by enforced disappearance cases;

these difficulties form part of the setting that the implementation of the Amparo Rule
shall encounter. These difficulties largely arise because the State itself – the party
whose involvement is alleged – investigates enforced disappearances. Past
experiences in other jurisdictions show that the evidentiary difficulties are generally
threefold.

First, there may be a deliberate concealment of the identities of the direct

perpetrators. In addition, there are usually no witnesses to the crime; if there are, these
witnesses are usually afraid to speak out publicly or to testify on the disappearance out
of fear for their own lives.

Second, deliberate concealment of pertinent evidence of the disappearance is a

distinct possibility; the central piece of evidence in an enforced disappearance

Third is the element of denial; in many cases, the State authorities deliberately
deny that the enforced disappearance ever occurred. "Deniability" is central to the policy
of enforced disappearances, as the absence of any proven disappearance makes it
easier to escape the application of legal standards ensuring the victim’s human rights.

Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

The remedy of the writ of amparo provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a
summary proceeding that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate
reliefs available to the petitioner; it is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring
proof beyond reasonable doubt, or liability for damages requiring preponderance of
evidence, or administrative responsibility requiring substantial evidence that will require
full and exhaustive proceedings.