RAFAEL, Chief Anti-Terror Task Force Comet, Zamboanga City, both being with the

EN BANC
military, which is a separate and distinct organization from the police and the CIDG,
G.R. No. 182498               December 3, 2009 in terms of operations, chain of command and budget.
GEN. AVELINO I. RAZON, JR., Chief, Philippine National Police (PNP); Police Chief This Decision reflects the nature of the Writ of Amparo – a protective remedy
Superintendent RAUL CASTAÑEDA, Chief, Criminal Investigation and Detection against violations or threats of violation against the rights to life, liberty and
Group (CIDG); Police Senior Superintendent LEONARDO A. ESPINA, Chief, Police security.3 It embodies, as a remedy, the court’s directive to police agencies to
Anti-Crime and Emergency Response (PACER); and GEN. JOEL R. GOLTIAO, undertake specified courses of action to address the disappearance of an individual,
Regional Director of ARMM, PNP, Petitioners,  in this case, Engr. Morced N. Tagitis. It does not determine guilt nor pinpoint
vs. criminal culpability for the disappearance; rather, it determines responsibility, or at
MARY JEAN B. TAGITIS, herein represented by ATTY. FELIPE P. ARCILLA, JR., least accountability, for the enforced disappearance for purposes of imposing the
Attorney-in-Fact, Respondent. appropriate remedies to address the disappearance. Responsibility refers to the
DECISION extent the actors have been established by substantial evidence to have
participated in whatever way, by action or omission, in an enforced disappearance,
BRION, J.:
as a measure of the remedies this Court shall craft, among them, the directive to file
We review in this petition for review on certiorari1 the decision dated March 7, the appropriate criminal and civil cases against the responsible parties in the proper
2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A-G.R. AMPARO No. 00009.2 This CA decision courts. Accountability, on the other hand, refers to the measure of remedies that
confirmed the enforced disappearance of Engineer Morced N. Tagitis (Tagitis) and should be addressed to those who exhibited involvement in the enforced
granted the Writ of Amparo at the petition of his wife, Mary Jean B. Tagitis disappearance without bringing the level of their complicity to the level of
(respondent). The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads: responsibility defined above; or who are imputed with knowledge relating to the
enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure; or those who
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petition is hereby GRANTED. The Court hereby
carry, but have failed to discharge, the burden of extraordinary diligence in the
FINDS that this is an "enforced disappearance" within the meaning of the United
investigation of the enforced disappearance. In all these cases, the issuance of the
Nations instruments, as used in the Amparo Rules. The privileges of the writ of
Writ of Amparo is justified by our primary goal of addressing the disappearance, so
amparo are hereby extended to Engr. Morced Tagitis.
that the life of the victim is preserved and his liberty and security are restored.
Consequently: (1) respondent GEN. EDGARDO M. DOROMAL, Chief, Criminal
We highlight this nature of a Writ of Amparo case at the outset to stress that the
Investigation and Detention Group (CIDG) who should order COL. JOSE VOLPANE
unique situations that call for the issuance of the writ, as well as the considerations
PANTE, CIDG-9 Chief, Zamboanga City, to aid him; (2) respondent GEN. AVELINO I.
and measures necessary to address these situations, may not at all be the same as
RAZON, Chief, PNP, who should order his men, namely: (a) respondent GEN. JOEL
the standard measures and procedures in ordinary court actions and proceedings. In
GOLTIAO, Regional Director of ARMM PNP, (b) COL. AHIRON AJIRIM, both head of
this sense, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo4 (Amparo Rule) issued by this Court is
TASK FORCE TAGITIS, and (c) respondent SR. SUPERINTENDENT LEONARDO A.
unique. The Amparo Rule should be read, too, as a work in progress, as its directions
ESPINA, Chief, Police Anti-Crime and Emergency Response, to aid him as their
and finer points remain to evolve through time and jurisprudence and through the
superior- are hereby DIRECTED to exert extraordinary diligence and efforts, not only
substantive laws that Congress may promulgate.
to protect the life, liberty and security of Engr. Morced Tagitis, but also to extend
the privileges of the writ of amparo to Engr. Morced Tagitis and his family, and to THE FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
submit a monthly report of their actions to this Court, as a way of PERIODIC REVIEW The background facts, based on the petition and the records of the case, are
to enable this Court to monitor the action of respondents. summarized below.
This amparo case is hereby DISMISSED as to respondent LT. GEN. ALEXANDER
The established facts show that Tagitis, a consultant for the World Bank and the
YANO, Commanding General, Philippine Army, and as to respondent GEN. RUBEN 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, personal belongings of Engr. Tagitis, including cell phones, documents and other
2007 from a seminar in Zamboanga City. They immediately checked-in at ASY personal belongings were all intact inside the room;
Pension House. Tagitis asked Kunnong to buy him a boat ticket for his return trip the
10. When Kunnong could not locate Engr. Tagitis, the former sought the help of
following day to Zamboanga. When Kunnong returned from this errand, Tagitis was
another IDB scholar and reported the matter to the local police agency;
no longer around.5 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.6 Kunnong 11. Arsimin Kunnong including his friends and companions in Jolo, exerted efforts in
looked for Tagitis and even sent a text message to the latter’s Manila-based trying to locate the whereabouts of Engr. Tagitis and when he reported the matter
secretary who did not know of Tagitis’ whereabouts and activities either; she to the police authorities in Jolo, he was immediately given a ready answer that Engr.
advised Kunnong to simply wait.7 Tagitis could have been abducted by the Abu Sayyaf group and other groups known
to be fighting against the government;
On November 4, 2007, Kunnong and Muhammad Abdulnazeir N. Matli, a UP
professor of Muslim studies and Tagitis’ fellow student counselor at the IDB, 12. Being scared with [sic] these suggestions and insinuations of the police officers,
reported Tagitis’ disappearance to the Jolo Police Station.8 On November 7, 2007, Kunnong reported the matter to the [respondent, wife of Engr. Tagitis] by phone
Kunnong executed a sworn affidavit attesting to what he knew of the circumstances and other responsible officers and coordinators of the IDB Scholarship Programme
surrounding Tagitis’ disappearance.9 in the Philippines, who alerted the office of the Governor of ARMM who was then
preparing to attend the OIC meeting in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia;
More than a month later (on December 28, 2007), the respondent filed a Petition
for the Writ of Amparo (petition) with the CA through her Attorney-in-Fact, Atty. 13. [Respondent], on the other hand, approached some of her co-employees with
Felipe P. Arcilla.10 The petition was directed against Lt. Gen. Alexander Yano, the Land Bank in Digos branch, Digos City, Davao del Sur who likewise sought help
Commanding General, Philippine Army; Gen. Avelino I. Razon, Chief, Philippine from some of their friends in the military who could help them find/locate the
National Police (PNP); Gen. Edgardo M. Doromal, Chief, Criminal Investigation and whereabouts of her husband;
Detention Group (CIDG); Sr. Supt. Leonardo A. Espina, Chief, Police Anti-Crime and 14. All of these efforts of the [respondent] did not produce any positive results
Emergency Response; Gen. Joel Goltiao, Regional Director, ARMM-PNP; and Gen. except the information from persons in the military who do not want to be
Ruben Rafael, Chief, Anti-Terror Task Force Comet [collectively referred to as identified that Engr. Tagitis is in the hands of the uniformed men;
petitioners]. After reciting Tagitis’ personal circumstances and the facts outlined
above, the petition went on to state: 15. According to reliable information received by the [respondent], subject Engr.
Tagitis is in the custody of police intelligence operatives, specifically with the CIDG,
xxxx PNP Zamboanga City, being held against his will in an earnest attempt of the police
7. Soon after the student left the room, Engr. Tagitis went out of the pension house to involve and connect Engr. Tagitis with the different terrorist groups;
to take his early lunch but while out on the street, a couple of burly men believed to xxxx
be police intelligence operatives, forcibly took him and boarded the latter on a
motor vehicle then sped away without the knowledge of his student, Arsimin 17. [Respondent] filed her complaint with the PNP Police Station in the ARMM in
Kunnong; Cotobato and in Jolo, as suggested by her friends, seeking their help to find her
husband, but [respondent’s] request and pleadings failed to produce any positive
8. As instructed, in the late afternoon of the same day, Kunnong returned to the results;
pension house, and was surprised to find out that subject Engr. Tagitis cannot [sic]
be contacted by phone and was not also around and his room was closed and 18. Instead of helping the [respondent], she [sic] was told of an intriguing tale by the
locked; police that her husband, subject of the petition, was not missing but was with
another woman having good time somewhere, which is a clear indication of the
9. Kunnong requested for the key from the desk of the pension house who [sic]
assisted him to open the room of Engr. Tagitis, where they discovered that the
[petitioners’] refusal to help and provide police assistance in locating her missing In their verified Return filed during the hearing of January 27, 2008, the petitioners
husband; denied any involvement in or knowledge of Tagitis’ alleged abduction. They argued
that the allegations of the petition were incomplete and did not constitute a cause
19. The continued failure and refusal of the [petitioners] to release and/or turn-over
of action against them; were baseless, or at best speculative; and were merely
subject Engr. Tagitis to his family or even to provide truthful information to [the
based on hearsay evidence. 12
respondent] of the subject’s whereabouts, and/or allow [the respondent] to visit
her husband Engr. Morced Tagitis, caused so much sleepless nights and serious The affidavit of PNP Chief Gen. Avelino I. Razon, attached to the Return, stated that:
anxieties; he did not have any personal knowledge of, or any participation in, the alleged
disappearance; that he had been designated by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo
20. Lately, [the respondent] was again advised by one of the [petitioners] to go to
as the head of a special body called TASK FORCE USIG, to address concerns about
the ARMM Police Headquarters again in Cotobato City and also to the different
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances; the Task Force, inter alia,
Police Headquarters including [those] in Davao City, in Zamboanga City, in Jolo, and
coordinated with the investigators and local police, held case conferences, rendered
in Camp Crame, Quezon City, and all these places have been visited by the
legal advice in connection to these cases; and gave the following summary:13
[respondent] in search for her husband, which entailed expenses for her trips to
these places thereby resorting her to borrowings and beggings [sic] for financial xxxx
help from friends and relatives only to try complying [sic] to the different
4.
suggestions of these police officers, despite of which, her efforts produced no
positive results up to the present time; a) On November 5, 2007, the Regional Director, Police Regional Office
ARMM submitted a report on the alleged disappearance of one Engr.
21. In fact at times, some police officers, who [sympathized with] the sufferings
Morced Tagitis. According to the said report, the victim checked-in at ASY
undergone by the [respondent], informed her that they are not the proper persons
Pension House on October 30, 2007 at about 6:00 in the morning and then
that she should approach, but assured her not to worry because her husband is [sic]
roamed around Jolo, Sulu with an unidentified companion. It was only after
in good hands;
a few days when the said victim did not return that the matter was
22. The unexplained uncooperative behavior of the [petitioners] to the reported to Jolo MPS. Afterwards, elements of Sulu PPO conducted a
[respondent’s] request for help and failure and refusal of the [petitioners] to extend thorough investigation to trace and locate the whereabouts of the said
the needed help, support and assistance in locating the whereabouts of Engr. Tagitis missing person, but to no avail. The said PPO is still conducting
who had been declared missing since October 30, 2007 which is almost two (2) investigation that will lead to the immediate findings of the whereabouts
months now, clearly indicates that the [petitioners] are actually in physical of the person.
possession and custody of [respondent’s] husband, Engr. Tagitis;
b) Likewise, the Regional Chief, 9RCIDU submitted a Progress Report to the
xxxx Director, CIDG. The said report stated among others that: subject person
attended an Education Development Seminar set on October 28, 2007
25. [The respondent] has exhausted all administrative avenues and remedies but to
conducted at Ateneo de Zamboanga, Zamboanga City together with a Prof.
no avail, and under the circumstances, [the respondent] has no other plain, speedy
Matli. On October 30, 2007, at around 5:00 o’clock in the morning, Engr.
and adequate remedy to protect and get the release of subject Engr. Morced Tagitis
Tagitis reportedly arrived at Jolo Sulu wharf aboard M/V Bounty Cruise, he
from the illegal clutches of the [petitioners], their intelligence operatives and the
was then billeted at ASY Pension House. At about 6:15 o’clock in the
like which are in total violation of the subject’s human and constitutional rights,
morning of the same date, he instructed his student to purchase a fast
except the issuance of a WRIT OF AMPARO. [Emphasis supplied]
craft ticket bound for Zamboanga City and will depart from Jolo, Sulu on
On the same day the petition was filed, the CA immediately issued the Writ of October 31, 2007. That on or about 10:00 o’clock in the morning, Engr.
Amparo, set the case for hearing on January 7, 2008, and directed the petitioners to Tagitis left the premises of ASY Pension House as stated by the cashier of
file their verified return within seventy-two (72) hours from service of the writ.11 the said pension house. Later in the afternoon, the student instructed to
 purchase the ticket arrived at the pension house and waited for Engr. make out a case of an enforced disappearance which presupposes a direct or
Tagitis, but the latter did not return. On its part, the elements of 9RCIDU is indirect involvement of the government.
now conducting a continuous case build up and information gathering to
That herein [petitioner] searched all divisions and departments for a person named
locate the whereabouts of Engr. Tagitis.
Engr. Morced N. Tagitis, who was allegedly abducted or illegally detained by covert
c) That the Director, CIDG directed the conduct of the search in all divisions CIDG-PNP Intelligence Operatives since October 30, 2007 and after a diligent and
of the CIDG to find Engr. Tagitis who was allegedly abducted or illegally thorough research records show that no such person is being detained in CIDG or
detained by covert CIDG-PNP Intelligence Operatives since October 30, any of its department or divisions.
2007, but after diligent and thorough search, records show that no such
That nevertheless, in order to determine the circumstances surrounding Engr.
person is being detained in CIDG or any of its department or divisions.
Morced Tagitis [sic] alleged enforced disappearance, the undersigned had
5. On this particular case, the Philippine National Police exhausted all possible undertaken immediate investigation and will pursue investigations up to its full
efforts, steps and actions available under the circumstances and continuously completion in order to aid in the prosecution of the person or persons responsible
search and investigate [sic] the instant case. This immense mandate, however, therefore.
necessitates the indispensable role of the citizenry, as the PNP cannot stand alone
Likewise attached to the Return of the Writ was PNP-PACER15 Chief PS Supt.
without the cooperation of the victims and witnesses to identify the perpetrators to
Leonardo A. Espina’s affidavit which alleged that:16
bring them before the bar of justice and secure their conviction in court.
xxxx
The petitioner PNP-CIDG Chief, Gen. Edgardo M. Doromal, submitted as well his
affidavit, also attached to the Return of the Writ, attesting that upon receipt of the That, I and our men and women in PACER vehemently deny any participation in the
Writ of Amparo, he caused the following:14 alleged abduction or illegally [sic] detention of ENGR. MORCED N. TAGITS on
October 30, 2007. As a matter of fact, nowhere in the writ was mentioned that the
xxxx
alleged abduction was perpetrated by elements of PACER nor was there any
That immediately upon receipt on December 29, 2007 of the Resolution of the indication that the alleged abduction or illegal detention of ENGR. TAGITIS was
Honorable Special Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals, I immediately directed undertaken jointly by our men and by the alleged covert CIDG-PNP intelligence
the Investigation Division of this Group [CIDG] to conduct urgent investigation on operatives alleged to have abducted or illegally detained ENGR. TAGITIS.
the alleged enforced disappearance of Engineer Morced Tagitis.
That I was shocked when I learned that I was implicated in the alleged
That based on record, Engr. Morced N. Tagitis attended an Education Development disappearance of ENGR. MORCED in my capacity as the chief PACER [sic]
Seminar on October 28, 2007 at Ateneo de Zamboanga at Zamboanga City together considering that our office, the Police Anti-Crime and Emergency Response (PACER),
with Prof. Abdulnasser Matli. On October 30, 2007, at around six o’clock in the a special task force created for the purpose of neutralizing or eradicating kidnap-for-
morning he arrived at Jolo, Sulu. He was assisted by his student identified as Arsimin ransom groups which until now continue to be one of the menace of our society is a
Kunnong of the Islamic Development Bank who was also one of the participants of respondent in kidnapping or illegal detention case. Simply put, our task is to go after
the said seminar. He checked in at ASY pension house located [sic] Kakuyagan, kidnappers and charge them in court and to abduct or illegally detain or kidnap
Patikul, Sulu on October 30, 2007 with [sic] unidentified companion. At around six anyone is anathema to our mission.
o’clock in the morning of even date, Engr. Tagitis instructed his student to purchase
That right after I learned of the receipt of the WRIT OF AMPARO, I directed the
a fast craft ticket for Zamboanga City. In the afternoon of the same date, Kunnong
Chief of PACER Mindanao Oriental (PACER-MOR) to conduct pro-active measures to
arrived at the pension house carrying the ticket he purchased for Engr. Tagitis, but
investigate, locate/search the subject, identify and apprehend the persons
the latter was nowhere to be found anymore. Kunnong immediately informed Prof.
responsible, to recover and preserve evidence related to the disappearance of
Abdulnasser Matli who reported the incident to the police. The CIDG is not involved
ENGR. MORCED TAGITIS, which may aid in the prosecution of the person or persons
in the disappearance of Engr. Morced Tagitis to
responsible, to identify witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning the
disappearance and to determine the cause, manner, location and time of Police Station, and reported the disappearance of Engr. Morced Tagitis, scholarship
disappearance as well as any pattern or practice that may have brought about the coordinator of Islamic Development Bank, Manila;
disappearance.
6. There was no report that Engr. Tagibis was last seen in the company of or taken
That I further directed the chief of PACER-MOR, Police Superintendent JOSE by any member of the Philippine National Police but rather he just disappeared
ARNALDO BRIONES JR., to submit a written report regarding the disappearance of from ASY Pension House situated at Kakuyagan Village, Village, Patikul, Sulu, on
ENGR. MORCED. October 30, 2007, without any trace of forcible abduction or arrest;
That in compliance with my directive, the chief of PACER-MOR sent through fax his 7. The last known instance of communication with him was when Arsimin Kunnong,
written report. a student scholar, was requested by him to purchase a vessel ticket at the Office of
Weezam Express, however, when the student returned back to ASY Pension House,
That the investigation and measures being undertaken to locate/search the subject
he no longer found Engr. Tagitis there and when he immediately inquired at the
in coordination with Police Regional Office, Autonomous Region of Muslim
information counter regarding his whereabouts [sic], the person in charge in the
Mindanao (PRO-ARMM) and Jolo Police Provincial Office (PPO) and other AFP and
counter informed him that Engr. Tagitis had left the premises on October 30, 2007
PNP units/agencies in the area are ongoing with the instruction not to leave any
around 1 o’clock p.m. and never returned back to his room;
stone unturned so to speak in the investigation until the perpetrators in the instant
case are brought to the bar of justice. 8. Immediately after learning the incident, I called and directed the Provincial
Director of Sulu Police Provincial Office and other units through phone call and text
That I have exercised EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE in dealing with the WRIT OF
messages to conduct investigation [sic] to determine the whereabouts of the
AMPARO just issued.
aggrieved party and the person or persons responsible for the threat, act or
Finally, the PNP PRO ARMM Regional Director PC Supt. Joel R. Goltiao (Gen. omission, to recover and preserve evidence related to the disappearance of Engr.
Goltiao), also submitted his affidavit detailing the actions that he had taken upon Tagitis, to identify witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning his
receipt of the report on Tagitis’ disappearance, viz:17 disappearance, to determine the cause and manner of his disappearance, to
xxxx identify and apprehend the person or persons involved in the disappearance so that
they shall be brought before a competent court;
3) For the record:
9. Thereafter, through my Chief of the Regional Investigation and Detection
1. I am the Regional Director of Police Regional Office ARMM now and during the Management Division, I have caused the following directives:
time of the incident;
a) Radio Message Cite No. RIDMD-1122-07-358 dated November 22, 2007
xxxx
directing PD Sulu PPO to conduct joint investigation with CIDG and CIDU
4. It is my duty to look into and take appropriate measures on any cases of reported ARMM on the matter;
enforced disappearances and when they are being alluded to my office; b) Radio Message Cite No. RIDMD-1128-07-361 dated November 28, 2007
5. On November 5, 2007, the Provincial Director of Sulu Police Provincial Office directing PD Sulu PPO to expedite compliance to my previous directive;
reported to me through Radio Message Cite No. SPNP3-1105-07-2007 that on c) Memorandum dated December 14, 2007 addressed to PD Sulu PPO
November 4, 2007 at around 3:30 p.m., a certain Abdulnasser Matli, an employee of reiterating our series of directives for investigation and directing him to
Islamic Development Bank, appeared before the Office of the Chief of Police, Jolo undertake exhaustive coordination efforts with the owner of ASY Pension
House and student scholars of IDB in order to secure corroborative
statements regarding the disappearance and whereabouts of said
personality;
 d) Memorandum dated December 24, 2007 addressed to PD Sulu PPO c) Memorandum dated December 30, 2007 addressed to the Director,
directing him to maximize efforts to establish clues on the whereabouts of DIDM;
Engr. Tagitis by seeking the cooperation of Prof. Abdulnasser Matli and
4) In spite of our exhaustive efforts, the whereabouts of Engr. Tagitis cannot be
Arsimin Kunnong and/or whenever necessary, for them to voluntarily
determined but our office is continuously intensifying the conduct of information
submit for polygraph examination with the NBI so as to expunge all clouds
gathering, monitoring and coordination for the immediate solution of the case.
of doubt that they may somehow have knowledge or idea to his
disappearance; Since the disappearance of Tagistis was practically admitted and taking note of
favorable actions so far taken on the disappearance, the CA directed Gen. Goltiao –
e) Memorandum dated December 27, 2007 addressed to the Regional
as the officer in command of the area of disappearance – to form TASK FORCE
Chief, Criminal Investigation and Detection Group, Police Regional Office 9,
TAGITIS.18
Zamboanga City, requesting assistance to investigate the cause and
unknown disappearance of Engr. Tagitis considering that it is within their Task Force Tagitis
area of operational jurisdiction; On January 11, 2008, Gen. Goltiao designated PS Supt. Ahiron Ajirim (PS Supt.
f) Memorandum from Chief, Intelligence Division, PRO ARMM dated Ajirim) to head TASK FORCE TAGITIS.19 The CA subsequently set three hearings to
December 30, 2007 addressed to PD Sulu PPO requiring them to submit monitor whether TASK FORCE TAGITIS was exerting "extraordinary efforts" in
complete investigation report regarding the case of Engr. Tagitis; handling the disappearance of Tagitis.20 As planned, (1) the first hearing would be to
mobilize the CIDG, Zamboanga City; (2) the second hearing would be to mobilize
10. In compliance to our directives, PD Sulu PPO has exerted his [sic] efforts to
intelligence with Abu Sayyaf and ARMM; and (3) the third hearing would be to
conduct investigation [sic] on the matter to determine the whereabouts of Engr.
mobilize the Chief of Police of Jolo, Sulu and the Chief of Police of Zamboanga City
Tagitis and the circumstances related to his disappearance and submitted the
and other police operatives.21
following:
In the hearing on January 17, 2008, TASK FORCE TAGITIS submitted to the CA an
a) Progress Report dated November 6, 2007 through Radio Message Cite
intelligence report from PSL Usman S. Pingay, the Chief of Police of the Jolo Police
No. SPNP3-1106-10-2007;
Station, stating a possible motive for Tagitis’ disappearance.22 The intelligence
b) Radio Message Cite No. SPIDMS-1205-47-07 informing this office that report was apparently based on the sworn affidavit dated January 4, 2008 of
they are still monitoring the whereabouts of Engr. Tagitis; Muhammad Abdulnazeir N. Matli (Prof. Matli), Professor of Islamic Studies at the
University of the Philippines and an Honorary Student Counselor of the IDB
c) Investigation Report dated December 31, 2007 from the Chief of Police,
Scholarship Program in the Philippines, who told the Provincial Governor of Sulu
Jolo Police Station, Sulu PPO;
that:23
11. This incident was properly reported to the PNP Higher Headquarters as shown in
[Based] on reliable information from the Office of Muslim Affairs in Manila, Tagitis
the following:
has reportedly taken and carried away… more or less Five Million Pesos
a) Memorandum dated November 6, 2007 addressed to the Chief, PNP (P5,000,000.00) deposited and entrusted to his … [personal] bank accounts by the
informing him of the facts of the disappearance and the action being taken Central Office of IDB, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which [was] intended for the
by our office; … IDB Scholarship Fund.
b) Memorandum dated November 6, 2007 addressed to the Director, In the same hearing, PS Supt. Ajirim testified that since the CIDG was alleged to be
Directorate for Investigation and Detection Management, NHQ PNP; responsible, he personally went to the CIDG office in Zamboanga City to conduct an
ocular inspection/investigation, particularly of their detention cells.24 PS Supt. Ajirim
stated that the CIDG, while helping TASK FORCE TAGITIS investigate the
disappearance of Tagitis, persistently denied any knowledge or complicity in any
abduction.25 He further testified that prior to the hearing, he had already mobilized Tagitis, for dissemination to all parts of the country and to neighboring
and given specific instructions to their supporting units to perform their respective countries. It had been three (3) months since GEN. JOEL GOLTIAO admitted
tasks; that they even talked to, but failed to get any lead from the respondent in having been informed on November 5, 2007 of the alleged abduction of
Jolo.26 In his submitted investigation report dated January 16, 2008, PS Supt. Ajirim Engr. Morced Tagitis by alleged bad elements of the CIDG. It had been
concluded:27 more than one (1) month since the Writ of Amparo had been issued on
December 28, 2007. It had been three (3) weeks when battle formation
9. Gleaned from the undersigned inspection and observation at the Headquarters 9
was ordered through Task Force Tagitis, on January 17, 2008. It was only on
RCIDU and the documents at hand, it is my own initial conclusion that the 9RCIDU
January 28, 2008 when the Task Force Tagitis requested for clear and
and other PNP units in the area had no participation neither [sic] something to do
recent photographs of the missing person, Engr. Morced Tagitis, despite
with [sic] mysterious disappearance of Engr. Morced Tagitis last October 30, 2007.
the Task Force Tagitis’ claim that they already had an "all points bulletin",
Since doubt has been raised regarding the emolument on the Islamic Development
since November 5, 2007, on the missing person, Engr. Morced Tagitis. How
Bank Scholar program of IDB that was reportedly deposited in the personal account
could the police look for someone who disappeared if no clear photograph
of Engr. Tagitis by the IDB central office in Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
had been disseminated?
Secondly, it could might [sic] be done by resentment or sour grape among students
who are applying for the scholar [sic] and were denied which was allegedly (2) Furthermore, Task Force Tagitis’ COL. AHIROM AJIRIM informed this
conducted/screened by the subject being the coordinator of said program. Court that P/Supt KASIM was designated as Col. Ahirom Ajirim’s
replacement in the latter’s official designated post. Yet, P/Supt KASIM’s
20. It is also premature to conclude but it does or it may and [sic] presumed that the
subpoena was returned to this Court unserved. Since this Court was made
motive behind the disappearance of the subject might be due to the funds he
to understand that it was P/Supt KASIM who was the petitioner’s unofficial
maliciously spent for his personal interest and wanted to elude responsibilities from
source of the military intelligence information that Engr. Morced Tagitis
the institution where he belong as well as to the Islamic student scholars should the
was abducted by bad elements of the CIDG (par. 15 of the Petition), the
statement of Prof. Matli be true or there might be a professional jealousy among
close contact between P/Supt KASIM and Col. Ahirom Ajirim of TASK FORCE
them.
TAGITIS should have ensured the appearance of Col. KASIM in response to
xxxx this court’s subpoena and COL. KASIM could have confirmed the military
It is recommended that the Writ of Amparo filed against the respondents be intelligence information that bad elements of the CIDG had abducted Engr.
dropped and dismissed considering on [sic] the police and military actions in the Morced Tagitis.
area particularly the CIDG are exerting their efforts and religiously doing their Testimonies for the Respondent
tasked [sic] in the conduct of its intelligence monitoring and investigation for the
On January 7, 2008, the respondent, Mary Jean B. Tagitis, testified on direct
early resolution of this instant case. But rest assured, our office, in coordination with
examination that she went to Jolo and Zamboanga in her efforts to locate her
other law-enforcement agencies in the area, are continuously and religiously
husband. She said that a friend from Zamboanga holding a high position in the
conducting our investigation for the resolution of this case.
military (whom she did not then identify) gave her information that allowed her to
On February 4, 2008, the CA issued an ALARM WARNING that Task Force Tagitis did "specify" her allegations, "particularly paragraph 15 of the petition."29 This friend
not appear to be exerting extraordinary efforts in resolving Tagitis’ disappearance also told her that her husband "[was] in good hands."30 The respondent also
on the following grounds:28 testified that she sought the assistance of her former boss in Davao City, Land Bank
(1) This Court FOUND that it was only as late as January 28, 2008, after the Bajada Branch Manager Rudy Salvador, who told her that "PNP CIDG is holding [her
hearing, that GEN. JOEL GOLTIAO and COL. AHIRON AJIRIM had requested husband], Engineer Morced Tagitis."31 The respondent recounted that she went to
for clear photographs when it should have been standard operating Camp Katitipan in Davao City where she met Col. Julasirim Ahadin Kasim (Col.
procedure in kidnappings or disappearances that the first agenda was for Kasim/Sr. Supt Kasim) who read to her and her friends (who were then with her) a
the police to secure clear pictures of the missing person, Engr. Morced "highly confidential report" that contained the "alleged activities of Engineer
Tagitis" and informed her that her husband was abducted because "he is under
custodial investigation" for being a liaison for "J.I. or Jema’ah Islamiah."32
On January 17, 2008, the respondent on cross-examination testified that she is they got from the cellular phone of the subject Engr. Tagitis. One of the very
Tagitis’ second wife, and they have been married for thirteen years; Tagitis was important text messages of Engr. Tagitis sent to his daughter Zaynah Tagitis was
divorced from his first wife.33 She last communicated with her husband on October that she was not allowed to answer any telephone calls in his condominium unit.
29, 2007 at around 7:31 p.m. through text messaging; Tagitis was then on his way to
While we were there he did not tell us any information of the whereabouts of Engr.
Jolo, Sulu, from Zamboanga City.34
Tagitis. After the said meeting with Col. Ancanan, he treated us as guests to the city.
The respondent narrated that she learned of her husband’s disappearance on His two staffs accompanied us to the mall to purchase our plane ticket going back to
October 30, 2007 when her stepdaughter, Zaynah Tagitis (Zaynah), informed her Davao City on November 12, 2007.
that she had not heard from her father since the time they arranged to meet in
When we arrived in Davao City on November 12, 2007 at 9:00 in the morning, Col.
Manila on October 31, 2007.35 The respondent explained that it took her a few days
Ancanan and I were discussing some points through phone calls. He assured me
(or on November 5, 2007) to personally ask Kunnong to report her husband’s
that my husband is alive and he’s last looked [sic] in Talipapao, Jolo, Sulu. Yet I did
disappearance to the Jolo Police Station, since she had the impression that her
not believe his given statements of the whereabouts of my husband, because I
husband could not communicate with her because his cellular phone’s battery did
contacted some of my friends who have access to the groups of MILF, MNLF and
not have enough power, and that he would call her when he had fully-charged his
ASG. I called up Col. Ancanan several times begging to tell me the exact location of
cellular phone’s battery.36
my husband and who held him but he refused.
The respondent also identified the high-ranking military friend, who gave her the
While I was in Jolo, Sulu on November 30, 2007, I called him up again because the
information found in paragraph 15 of her petition, as Lt. Col. Pedro L. Ancanan, Jr
PNP, Jolo did not give me any information of the whereabouts of my husband. Col.
(Col. Ancanan). She met him in Camp Karingal, Zamboanga through her boss.37 She
Ancanan told me that "Sana ngayon alam mo na kung saan ang kinalalagyan ng
also testified that she was with three other people, namely, Mrs. Marydel Martin
asawa mo." When I was in Zamboanga, I was thinking of dropping by the office of
Talbin and her two friends from Mati City, Davao Oriental, when Col. Kasim read to
Col. Ancanan, but I was hesitant to pay him a visit for the reason that the Chief of
them the contents of the "highly confidential report" at Camp Katitipan, Davao City.
Police of Jolo told me not to contact any AFP officials and he promised me that he
The respondent further narrated that the report indicated that her husband met
can solve the case of my husband (Engr. Tagitis) within nine days.
with people belonging to a terrorist group and that he was under custodial
investigation. She then told Col. Kasim that her husband was a diabetic taking I appreciate the effort of Col. Ancanan on trying to solve the case of my husband
maintenance medication, and asked that the Colonel relay to the persons holding Engr. Morced Tagitis, yet failed to do so.
him the need to give him his medication.38 The respondent also narrated her encounter with Col. Kasim, as follows:41
On February 11, 2008, TASK FORCE TAGITIS submitted two narrative reports,39 On November 7, 2007, I went to Land Bank of the Philippines, Bajada Branch, Davao
 signed by the respondent, detailing her efforts to locate her husband which led to City to meet Mr. Rudy Salvador. I told him that my husband, Engineer Morced
her meetings with Col. Ancanan of the Philippine Army and Col. Kasim of the PNP. In Tagitis was presumed to be abducted in Jolo, Sulu on October 30, 2007. I asked him
her narrative report concerning her meeting with Col. Ancanan, the respondent a favor to contact his connections in the military in Jolo, Sulu where the abduction
recounted, viz:40 of Engr. Tagitis took place. Mr. Salvador immediately called up Camp Katitipan
On November 11, 2007, we went to Zamboanga City with my friend Mrs. Marydel located in Davao City looking for high-ranking official who can help me gather
Talbin. Our flight from Davao City is 9:00 o’clock in the morning; we arrived at reliable information behind the abduction of subject Engineer Tagitis.
Zamboanga Airport at around 10:00 o’clock. We [were] fetched by the two staffs of On that same day, Mr. Salvador and my friend, Anna Mendoza, Executive Secretary,
Col. Ancanan. We immediately proceed [sic] to West Mindanao Command accompanied me to Camp Katitipan to meet Col. Kasim. Mr. Salvador introduced me
(WESTMINCOM). to Col. Kasim and we had a short conversation. And he assured me that he’ll do the
On that same day, we had private conversation with Col. Ancanan. He interviewed best he can to help me find my husband.
me and got information about the personal background of Engr. Morced N. Tagitis.
After he gathered all information, he revealed to us the contents of text messages
After a few weeks, Mr. Salvador called me up informing me up informing me that I with terrorism. Col. Kasim also told them that he could not give a copy of the report
am to go to Camp Katitipan to meet Col. Kasim for he has an urgent, confidential because it was a "raw report."45 She also related that the Col. Kasim did not tell
information to reveal. them exactly where Tagitis was being kept, although he mentioned Talipapao,
[Link]., lalabas din yan."50 Prof. Matli also emphasized that despite what his
On November 24, 2007, we went back to Camp Katitipan with my three friends.
January 4, 2008 affidavit indicated,51 he never told PS Supt. Pingay, or made any
That was the time that Col. Kasim read to us the confidential report that Engr.
accusation, that Tagitis took away money entrusted to him.52 Prof. Matli confirmed,
Tagitis was allegedly connected [with] different terrorist [groups], one of which he
however, that that he had received an e-mail report53 from Nuraya Lackian of the
mentioned in the report was OMAR PATIK and a certain SANTOS - a Balik Islam.
Office of Muslim Affairs in Manila that the IDB was seeking assistance of the office in
It is also said that Engr. Tagitis is carrying boxes of medicines for the injured locating the funds of IDB scholars deposited in Tagitis’ personal account.54
terrorists as a supplier. These are the two information that I can still remember. It
On cross-examination by the respondent’s counsel, Prof. Matli testified that his
was written in a long bond paper with PNP Letterhead. It was not shown to us, yet
January 4, 2008 affidavit was already prepared when PS Supt. Pingay asked him to
Col. Kasim was the one who read it for us.
sign it.55 Prof Matli clarified that although he read the affidavit before signing it, he
He asked a favor to me that "Please don’t quote my Name! Because this is a raw "was not so much aware of… [its] contents."56
report." He assured me that my husband is alive and he is in the custody of the
On February 11, 2008, the petitioners presented Col. Kasim to rebut material
military for custodial investigation. I told him to please take care of my husband
portions of the respondent’s testimony, particularly the allegation that he had
because he has aliments and he recently took insulin for he is a diabetic patient.
stated that Tagitis was in the custody of either the military or the PNP.57 Col. Kasim
In my petition for writ of amparo, I emphasized the information that I got from categorically denied the statements made by the respondent in her narrative
Kasim. report, specifically: (1) that Tagitis was seen carrying boxes of medicines as supplier
On February 11, 2008, the respondent presented Mrs. Marydel Martin Talbin (Mrs. for the injured terrorists; (2) that Tagitis was under the custody of the military, since
Talbin) to corroborate her testimony regarding her efforts to locate her husband, in he merely said to the respondent that "your husband is in good hands" and is
relation particularly with the information she received from Col. Kasim. Mrs. Talbin "probably taken cared of by his armed abductors;" and (3) that Tagitis was under
testified that she was with the respondent when she went to Zamboanga to see Col. custodial investigation by the military, the PNP or the CIDG Zamboanga City.58 Col.
Ancanan, and to Davao City at Camp Katitipan to meet Col. Kasim.42 Kasim emphasized that the "informal letter" he received from his informant in Sulu
did not indicate that Tagitis was in the custody of the CIDG.59 He also stressed that
In Zamboanga, Mrs. Talbin recounted that they met with Col. Ancanan, who told the information he provided to the respondent was merely a "raw report" sourced
them that there was a report and that he showed them a series of text messages from "barangay intelligence" that still needed confirmation and "follow-up" as to its
from Tagitis’ cellular phone, which showed that Tagitis and his daughter would veracity.60
meet in Manila on October 30, 2007.43
On cross-examination, Col. Kasim testified that the information he gave the
She further narrated that sometime on November 24, 2007, she went with the respondent was given to him by his informant, who was a "civilian asset," through a
respondent together with two other companions, namely, Salvacion Serrano and letter which he considered as "unofficial."61 Col. Kasim stressed that the letter was
Mini Leong, to Camp Katitipan to talk to Col. Kasim.44 The respondent asked Col. only meant for his "consumption" and not for reading by others.62 He testified
Kasim if he knew the exact location of Engr. Tagitis. Col. Kasim told them that Tagitis further that he destroyed the letter right after he read it to the respondent and her
was in good hands, although he was not certain whether he was with the PNP or companions because "it was not important to him" and also because the
with the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). She further recounted that based on information it contained had no importance in relation with the abduction of Tagitis.
the report Col. Kasim read in their presence, Tagitis was under custodial 63
 He explained that he did not keep the letter because it did not contain any
investigation because he was being charged with terrorism; Tagitis in fact had been information regarding the whereabouts of Tagitis and the person(s) responsible for
under surveillance since January 2007 up to the time he was abducted when he was his abduction.64
seen talking to Omar Patik and a certain Santos of Bulacan, a "Balik Islam" charged
In the same hearing on February 11, 2008, the petitioners also presented Police
Senior Superintendent Jose Volpane Pante (Col. Pante), Chief of the CIDG-9, to
disprove the respondent’s allegation that Tagitis was in the custody of CIDG- kidnapping for ransom by the Abu Sayyaf or by the ARMM paramilitary as the cause
Zamboanga City.65 Col. Pante clarified that the CIDG was the "investigative arm" of for Tagitis’ disappearance, since the respondent, the police and the military noted
the PNP, and that the CIDG "investigates and prosecutes all cases involving that there was no acknowledgement of Tagitis’ abduction or demand for payment
violations in the Revised Penal Code particularly those considered as heinous of ransom – the usual modus operandi of these terrorist groups.
crimes."66 Col. Pante further testified that the allegation that 9 RCIDU personnel
Based on these considerations, the CA thus extended the privilege of the writ to
were involved in the disappearance of Tagitis was baseless, since they did not
Tagitis and his family, and directed the CIDG Chief, Col. Jose Volpane Pante, PNP
conduct any operation in Jolo, Sulu before or after Tagitis’ reported disappearance.
67
Chief Avelino I. Razon, Task Force Tagitis heads Gen. Joel Goltiao and Col. Ahiron
 Col. Pante added that the four (4) personnel assigned to the Sulu CIDT had no
Ajirim, and PACER Chief Sr. Supt. Leonardo A. Espina to exert extraordinary diligence
capability to conduct any "operation," since they were only assigned to investigate
and efforts to protect the life, liberty and security of Tagitis, with the obligation to
matters and to monitor the terrorism situation.68 He denied that his office
provide monthly reports of their actions to the CA. At the same time, the CA
conducted any surveillance on Tagitis prior to the latter’s disappearance.69 Col.
dismissed the petition against the then respondents from the military, Lt. Gen
Pante further testified that his investigation of Tagitis’ disappearance was
Alexander Yano and Gen. Ruben Rafael, based on the finding that it was PNP-CIDG,
unsuccessful; the investigation was "still facing a blank wall" on the whereabouts of
not the military, that was involved.
Tagitis.70
On March 31, 2008, the petitioners moved to reconsider the CA decision, but the CA
THE CA RULING
denied the motion in its Resolution of April 9, 2008.73
On March 7, 2008, the CA issued its decision71 confirming that the disappearance of
THE PETITION
Tagitis was an "enforced disappearance" under the United Nations (UN) Declaration
on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances.72 The CA ruled that In this Rule 45 appeal questioning the CA’s March 7, 2008 decision, the petitioners
when military intelligence pinpointed the investigative arm of the PNP (CIDG) to be mainly dispute the sufficiency in form and substance of the Amparo petition filed
involved in the abduction, the missing-person case qualified as an enforced before the CA; the sufficiency of the legal remedies the respondent took before
disappearance. The conclusion that the CIDG was involved was based on the petitioning for the writ; the finding that the rights to life, liberty and security of
respondent’s testimony, corroborated by her companion, Mrs. Talbin. The CA noted Tagitis had been violated; the sufficiency of evidence supporting the conclusion that
that the information that the CIDG, as the police intelligence arm, was involved in Tagitis was abducted; the conclusion that the CIDG Zamboanga was responsible for
Tagitis’ abduction came from no less than the military – an independent agency of the abduction; and, generally, the ruling that the respondent discharged the burden
government. The CA thus greatly relied on the "raw report" from Col. Kasim’s asset, of proving the allegations of the petition by substantial evidence.74
pointing to the CIDG’s involvement in Tagitis’ abduction. The CA held that "raw THE COURT’S RULING
reports" from an "asset" carried "great weight" in the intelligence world. It also
labeled as "suspect" Col. Kasim’s subsequent and belated retraction of his We do not find the petition meritorious.
statement that the military, the police, or the CIDG was involved in the abduction of Sufficiency in Form and Substance
Tagitis.
In questioning the sufficiency in form and substance of the respondent’s Amparo
The CA characterized as "too farfetched and unbelievable" and "a bedlam of petition, the petitioners contend that the petition violated Section 5(c), (d), and (e)
speculation" police theories painting the disappearance as "intentional" on the part of the Amparo Rule. Specifically, the petitioners allege that the respondent failed to:
of Tagitis. He had no previous brushes with the law or any record of overstepping
1) allege any act or omission the petitioners committed in violation of
the bounds of any trust regarding money entrusted to him; no student of the IDB
Tagitis’ rights to life, liberty and security;
scholarship program ever came forward to complain that he or she did not get his or
her stipend. The CA also found no basis for the police theory that Tagitis was "trying
to escape from the clutches of his second wife," on the basis of the respondent’s
testimony that Tagitis was a Muslim who could have many wives under the Muslim
faith, and that there was "no issue" at all when the latter divorced his first wife in
order to marry the second. Finally, the CA also ruled out
 2) allege in a complete manner how Tagitis was abducted, the persons actually acted to kidnap, abduct or arrest him or her, or where the victim is
responsible for his disappearance, and the respondent’s source of detained, because these information may purposely be hidden or covered up by
information; 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
3) allege that the abduction was committed at the petitioners’ instructions
the Amparo Rule is to make this Rule a token gesture of judicial concern for
or with their consent;
violations of the constitutional rights to life, liberty and security.
4) implead the members of CIDG regional office in Zamboanga alleged to
To read the Rules of Court requirement on pleadings while addressing the unique
have custody over her husband;
Amparo situation, the test in reading the petition should be to determine whether it
5) attach the affidavits of witnesses to support her accusations; contains the details available to the petitioner under the circumstances, while
6) allege any action or inaction attributable to the petitioners in the presenting a cause of action showing a violation of the victim’s rights to life, liberty
performance of their duties in the investigation of Tagitis’ disappearance; and security through State or private party action. The petition should likewise be
and read in its totality, rather than in terms of its isolated component parts, to
determine if the required elements – namely, of the disappearance, the State or
7) specify what legally available efforts she took to determine the fate or private action, and the actual or threatened violations of the rights to life, liberty or
whereabouts of her husband. security – are present.
A petition for the Writ of Amparo shall be signed and verified and shall allege, In the present case, the petition amply recites in its paragraphs 4 to 11 the
among others (in terms of the portions the petitioners cite):75 circumstances under which Tagitis suddenly dropped out of sight after engaging in
(c) The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or normal activities, and thereafter was nowhere to be found despite efforts to locate
threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of the respondent, and him. The petition alleged, too, under its paragraph 7, in relation to paragraphs 15
how such threat or violation is committed with the attendant circumstances and 16, that according to reliable information, police operatives were the
detailed in supporting affidavits; perpetrators of the abduction. It also clearly alleged how Tagitis’ rights to life,
liberty and security were violated when he was "forcibly taken and boarded on a
(d) The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal
motor vehicle by a couple of burly men believed to be police intelligence
circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authority or individuals, as well
operatives," and then taken "into custody by the respondents’ police intelligence
as the manner and conduct of the investigation, together with any report;
operatives since October 30, 2007, specifically by the CIDG, PNP Zamboanga City, x
(e) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the fate or x x held against his will in an earnest attempt of the police to involve and connect
whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of the person responsible for [him] with different terrorist groups."77
the threat, act or omission; and
These allegations, in our view, properly pleaded ultimate facts within the pleader’s
The framers of the Amparo Rule never intended Section 5(c) to be complete in knowledge about Tagitis’ disappearance, the participation by agents of the State in
every detail in stating the threatened or actual violation of a victim’s rights. As in this disappearance, the failure of the State to release Tagitis or to provide sufficient
any other initiatory pleading, the pleader must of course state the ultimate facts information about his whereabouts, as well as the actual violation of his right to
constituting the cause of action, omitting the evidentiary details.76 In an Amparo liberty. Thus, the petition cannot be faulted for any failure in its statement of a
petition, however, this requirement must be read in light of the nature and purpose cause of action.
of the proceeding, which addresses a situation of uncertainty; the petitioner may
If a defect can at all be attributed to the petition, this defect is its lack of supporting
not be able to describe with certainty how the victim exactly disappeared, or who
affidavit, as required by Section 5(c) of the Amparo Rule. Owing to the summary
nature of the proceedings for the writ and to facilitate the resolution of the petition,
the Amparo Rule incorporated the requirement for supporting affidavits, with the
annotation that these can be used as the affiant’s direct testimony.78 This
requirement, however, should not be read as an absolute one that necessarily leads
to the dismissal of the petition if not strictly followed. Where, as in this case, the Section 5(e) is in the Amparo Rule to prevent the use of a petition – that otherwise
petitioner has substantially complied with the requirement by submitting a verified is not supported by sufficient allegations to constitute a proper cause of action – as
petition sufficiently detailing the facts relied upon, the strict need for the sworn a means to "fish" for evidence.81 The petitioners contend that the respondent’s
statement that an affidavit represents is essentially fulfilled. We note that the petition did not specify what "legally available efforts were taken by the
failure to attach the required affidavits was fully cured when the respondent and respondent," and that there was an "undue haste" in the filing of the petition when,
her witness (Mrs. Talbin) personally testified in the CA hearings held on January 7 instead of cooperating with authorities, the respondent immediately invoked the
and 17 and February 18, 2008 to swear to and flesh out the allegations of the Court’s intervention.
petition. Thus, even on this point, the petition cannot be faulted.
We do not see the respondent’s petition as the petitioners view it.
Section 5(d) of the Amparo Rule requires that prior investigation of an alleged
Section 5(e) merely requires that the Amparo petitioner (the respondent in the
disappearance must have been made, specifying the manner and results of the
present case) allege "the actions and recourses taken to determine the fate or
investigation. Effectively, this requirement seeks to establish at the earliest
whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of the person responsible for
opportunity the level of diligence the public authorities undertook in relation with
the threat, act or omission." The following allegations of the respondent’s petition
the reported disappearance.79
duly outlined the actions she had taken and the frustrations she encountered, thus
We reject the petitioners’ argument that the respondent’s petition did not comply compelling her to file her petition.
with the Section 5(d) requirements of the Amparo Rule, as the petition specifies in
xxxx
its paragraph 11 that Kunnong and his companions immediately reported Tagitis’
disappearance to the police authorities in Jolo, Sulu as soon as they were relatively 7. Soon after the student left the room, Engr. Tagitis went out of the pension house
certain that he indeed had disappeared. The police, however, gave them the "ready to take his early lunch but while out on the street, a couple of burly men believed to
answer" that Tagitis could have been abducted by the Abu Sayyaf group or other be police intelligence operatives, forcibly took him and boarded the latter on a
anti-government groups. The respondent also alleged in paragraphs 17 and 18 of motor vehicle then sped away without the knowledge of his student, Arsimin
her petition that she filed a "complaint" with the PNP Police Station in Cotobato and Kunnong;
in Jolo, but she was told of "an intriguing tale" by the police that her husband was xxxx
having "a good time with another woman." The disappearance was alleged to have
been reported, too, to no less than the Governor of the ARMM, followed by the 10. When Kunnong could not locate Engr. Tagitis, the former sought the help of
respondent’s personal inquiries that yielded the factual bases for her petition.80 another IDB scholar and reported the matter to the local police agency;

These allegations, to our mind, sufficiently specify that reports have been made to 11. Arsimin Kunnong, including his friends and companions in Jolo, exerted efforts in
the police authorities, and that investigations should have followed. That the trying to locate the whereabouts of Engr. Tagitis and when he reported the matter
petition did not state the manner and results of the investigation that the Amparo to the police authorities in Jolo, he was immediately given a ready answer that Engr.
Rule requires, but rather generally stated the inaction of the police, their failure to Tagitis could [have been] abducted by the Abu Sayyaf group and other groups
perform their duty to investigate, or at the very least, their reported failed efforts, known to be fighting against the government;
should not be a reflection on the completeness of the petition. To require the 12. Being scared with these suggestions and insinuations of the police officers,
respondent to elaborately specify the names, personal circumstances, and Kunnong reported the matter to the [respondent](wife of Engr. Tagitis) by phone
addresses of the investigating authority, as well the manner and conduct of the and other responsible officers and coordinators of the IDB Scholarship Programme
investigation is an overly strict interpretation of Section 5(d), given the respondent’s in the Philippines who alerted the office of the Governor of ARMM who was then
frustrations in securing an investigation with meaningful results. Under these preparing to attend the OIC meeting in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia;
circumstances, we are more than satisfied that the allegations of the petition on the
investigations undertaken are sufficiently complete for purposes of bringing the
petition forward.
13. [The respondent], on the other hand, approached some of her co-employees Based on these considerations, we rule that the respondent’s petition for the Writ
with the Land Bank in Digos branch, Digos City, Davao del Sur, who likewise sought of Amparo is sufficient in form and substance and that the Court of Appeals had
help from some of their friends in the military who could help them find/locate the every reason to proceed with its consideration of the case.
whereabouts of her husband;
The Desaparecidos
xxxx
The present case is one of first impression in the use and application of the Rule on
15. According to reliable information received by the [respondent], subject Engr. the Writ of Amparo in an enforced disappearance situation. For a deeper
Tagitis is in the custody of police intelligence operatives, specifically with the CIDG, appreciation of the application of this Rule to an enforced disappearance situation,
PNP Zamboanga City, being held against his will in an earnest attempt of the police a brief look at the historical context of the writ and enforced disappearances would
to involve and connect Engr. Tagitis with the different terrorist groups; be very helpful.
xxxx The phenomenon of enforced disappearance arising from State action first attracted
notice in Adolf Hitler’s Nact und Nebel Erlass or Night and Fog Decree of December
17. [The respondent] filed her complaint with the PNP Police Station at the ARMM
7, 1941.82 The Third Reich’s Night and Fog Program, a State policy, was directed at
in Cotobato and in Jolo, as suggested by her friends, seeking their help to find her
persons in occupied territories "endangering German security"; they were
husband, but [the respondent’s] request and pleadings failed to produce any
transported secretly to Germany where they disappeared without a trace. In order
positive results
to maximize the desired intimidating effect, the policy prohibited government
xxxx officials from providing information about the fate of these targeted persons.83
20. Lately, [respondent] was again advised by one of the [petitioners] to go to the In the mid-1970s, the phenomenon of enforced disappearances resurfaced,
ARMM Police Headquarters again in Cotobato City and also to the different Police shocking and outraging the world when individuals, numbering anywhere from
Headquarters including the police headquarters in Davao City, in Zamboanga City, in 6,000 to 24,000, were reported to have "disappeared" during the military regime in
Jolo, and in Camp Crame, Quezon City, and all these places have been visited by the Argentina. Enforced disappearances spread in Latin America, and the issue became
[respondent] in search for her husband, which entailed expenses for her trips to an international concern when the world noted its widespread and systematic use
these places thereby resorting her to borrowings and beggings [sic] for financial by State security forces in that continent under Operation Condor84 and during the
help from friends and relatives only to try complying to the different suggestions of Dirty War85 in the 1970s and 1980s. The escalation of the practice saw political
these police officers, despite of which, her efforts produced no positive results up to activists secretly arrested, tortured, and killed as part of governments’ counter-
the present time; insurgency campaigns. As this form of political brutality became routine elsewhere
xxxx in the continent, the Latin American media standardized the term "disappearance"
to describe the phenomenon. The victims of enforced disappearances were called
25. [The respondent] has exhausted all administrative avenues and remedies but to the "desaparecidos,"86 which literally means the "disappeared ones."87 In general,
no avail, and under the circumstances, [respondent] has no other plain, speedy and there are three different kinds of "disappearance" cases:
adequate remedy to protect and get the release of subject Engr. Morced Tagitis
from the illegal clutches of [the petitioners], their intelligence operatives and the 1) those of people arrested without witnesses or without positive
like which are in total violation of the subject’s human and constitutional rights, identification of the arresting agents and are never found again;
except the issuance of a WRIT OF AMPARO. 2) those of prisoners who are usually arrested without an appropriate
warrant and held in complete isolation for weeks or months while their
families are unable to discover their whereabouts and the military
authorities deny having them in custody until they eventually reappear in
one detention center or another; and
 3) those of victims of "salvaging" who have disappeared until their lifeless the jurisdiction of the courts. So we’ll have to agree among ourselves about the
bodies are later discovered.88 nature of killings and disappearances for instance, in other jurisdictions, the rules
only cover state actors. That is an element incorporated in their concept of
In the Philippines, enforced disappearances generally fall within the first two
extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. In other jurisdictions, the
categories,89 and 855 cases were recorded during the period of martial law from
concept includes acts and omissions not only of state actors but also of non state
1972 until 1986. Of this number, 595 remained missing, 132 surfaced alive and 127
actors. Well, more specifically in the case of the Philippines for instance, should
were found dead. During former President Corazon C. Aquino’s term, 820 people
these rules include the killings, the disappearances which may be authored by let us
were reported to have disappeared and of these, 612 cases were documented. Of
say, the NPAs or the leftist organizations and others. So, again we need to define
this number, 407 remain missing, 108 surfaced alive and 97 were found dead. The
the nature of the extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances that will be
number of enforced disappearances dropped during former President Fidel V.
covered by these rules. [Emphasis supplied] 95
Ramos’ term when only 87 cases were reported, while the three-year term of
former President Joseph E. Estrada yielded 58 reported cases. KARAPATAN, a local In the end, the Committee took cognizance of several bills filed in the House of
non-governmental organization, reports that as of March 31, 2008, the records Representatives96 and in the Senate97 on extrajudicial killings and enforced
show that there were a total of 193 victims of enforced disappearance under disappearances, and resolved to do away with a clear textual definition of these
incumbent President Gloria M. Arroyo’s administration. The Commission on Human terms in the Rule. The Committee instead focused on the nature and scope of the
Rights’ records show a total of 636 verified cases of enforced disappearances from concerns within its power to address and provided the appropriate remedy
1985 to 1993. Of this number, 406 remained missing, 92 surfaced alive, 62 were therefor, mindful that an elemental definition may intrude into the ongoing
found dead, and 76 still have undetermined status.90 Currently, the United Nations legislative efforts.98
Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance91 reports 619
As the law now stands, extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances in this
outstanding cases of enforced or involuntary disappearances covering the period
jurisdiction are not crimes penalized separately from the component criminal acts
December 1, 2007 to November 30, 2008.92
undertaken to carry out these killings and enforced disappearances and are now
Enforced Disappearances penalized under the Revised Penal Code and special laws.99 The simple reason is
that the Legislature has not spoken on the matter; the determination of what acts
Under Philippine Law
are criminal and what the corresponding penalty these criminal acts should carry
The Amparo Rule expressly provides that the "writ shall cover extralegal killings and are matters of substantive law that only the Legislature has the power to enact
enforced disappearances or threats thereof."93 We note that although the writ under the country’s constitutional scheme and power structure.
specifically covers "enforced disappearances," this concept is neither defined nor
Even without the benefit of directly applicable substantive laws on extra-judicial
penalized in this jurisdiction. The records of the Supreme Court Committee on the
killings and enforced disappearances, however, the Supreme Court is not powerless
Revision of Rules (Committee) reveal that the drafters of the Amparo Rule initially
to act under its own constitutional mandate to promulgate "rules concerning the
considered providing an elemental definition of the concept of enforced
protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice and
disappearance:94
procedure in all courts,"100 since extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances,
JUSTICE MARTINEZ: I believe that first and foremost we should come up or by their nature and purpose, constitute State or private party violation of the
formulate a specific definition [for] extrajudicial killings and enforced constitutional rights of individuals to life, liberty and security. Although the Court’s
disappearances. From that definition, then we can proceed to formulate the rules, power is strictly procedural and as such does not diminish, increase or modify
definite rules concerning the same. substantive rights, the legal protection that the Court can provide can be very
CHIEF JUSTICE PUNO: … As things stand, there is no law penalizing extrajudicial meaningful through the procedures it sets in addressing extrajudicial killings and
killings and enforced disappearances… so initially also we have to [come up with] enforced disappearances. The Court, through its procedural rules, can set the
the nature of these extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances [to be covered procedural standards and thereby directly compel the public authorities to act on
by the Rule] because our concept of killings and disappearances will define actual or threatened violations of constitutional rights. To state the obvious, judicial
intervention can make a difference – even if only procedurally – in a situation when
the very same investigating public authorities may have had a hand in the In 1992, in response to the reality that the insidious practice of enforced
threatened or actual violations of constitutional rights. disappearance had become a global phenomenon, the UN General Assembly
adopted the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced
Lest this Court intervention be misunderstood, we clarify once again that we do not
Disappearance (Declaration).104 This Declaration, for the first time, provided in its
rule on any issue of criminal culpability for the extrajudicial killing or enforced
third preambular clause a working description of enforced disappearance, as
disappearance. This is an issue that requires criminal action before our criminal
follows:
courts based on our existing penal laws. Our intervention is in determining whether
an enforced disappearance has taken place and who is responsible or accountable Deeply concerned that in many countries, often in a persistent manner, enforced
for this disappearance, and to define and impose the appropriate remedies to disappearances occur, in the sense that persons are arrested, detained or abducted
address it. The burden for the public authorities to discharge in these situations, against their will or otherwise deprived of their liberty by officials of different
under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, is twofold. The first is to ensure that all branches or levels of Government, or by organized groups or private individuals
efforts at disclosure and investigation are undertaken under pain of indirect acting on behalf of, or with the support, direct or indirect, consent or acquiescence
contempt from this Court when governmental efforts are less than what the of the Government, followed by a refusal to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the
individual situations require. The second is to address the disappearance, so that persons concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of their liberty,
the life of the victim is preserved and his or her liberty and security restored. In which places such persons outside the protection of the law. [Emphasis supplied]
these senses, our orders and directives relative to the writ are continuing efforts
Fourteen years after (or on December 20, 2006), the UN General Assembly adopted
that are not truly terminated until the extrajudicial killing or enforced
the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced
disappearance is fully addressed by the complete determination of the fate and the
Disappearance (Convention).105 The Convention was opened for signature in Paris,
whereabouts of the victim, by the production of the disappeared person and the
France on February 6, 2007.106 Article 2 of the Convention defined enforced
restoration of his or her liberty and security, and, in the proper case, by the
disappearance as follows:
commencement of criminal action against the guilty parties.
For the purposes of this Convention, "enforced disappearance" is considered to be
Enforced Disappearance 
the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by
Under International Law
agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization,
From the International Law perspective, involuntary or enforced disappearance is support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the
considered a flagrant violation of human rights.101 It does not only violate the right deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the
to life, liberty and security of the desaparecido; it affects their families as well disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law.
through the denial of their right to information regarding the circumstances of the [Emphasis supplied]
disappeared family member. Thus, enforced disappearances have been said to be "a
The Convention is the first universal human rights instrument to assert that there is
double form of torture," with "doubly paralyzing impact for the victims," as they
a right not to be subject to enforced disappearance107 and that this right is non-
"are kept ignorant of their own fates, while family members are deprived of
derogable.108 It provides that no one shall be subjected to enforced disappearance
knowing the whereabouts of their detained loved ones" and suffer as well the
under any circumstances, be it a state of war, internal political instability, or any
serious economic hardship and poverty that in most cases follow the disappearance
other public emergency. It obliges State Parties to codify enforced disappearance as
of the household breadwinner.102
an offense punishable with appropriate penalties under their criminal law.109 It also
The UN General Assembly first considered the issue of "Disappeared Persons" in recognizes the right of relatives of the disappeared persons and of the society as a
December 1978 under Resolution 33/173. The Resolution expressed the General whole to know the truth on the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared and on
Assembly’s deep concern arising from "reports from various parts of the world the progress and results of the investigation.110 Lastly, it classifies enforced
relating to enforced or involuntary disappearances," and requested the "UN disappearance as a continuing offense, such that statutes of limitations shall not
Commission on Human Rights to consider the issue of enforced disappearances with apply until the fate and whereabouts of the victim are established.111
a view to making appropriate recommendations."103
Binding Effect of UN  We characterized "generally accepted principles of international law" as norms of
Action on the Philippines general or customary international law that are binding on all states. We held
further:117
To date, the Philippines has neither signed nor ratified the Convention, so that the
country is not yet committed to enact any law penalizing enforced disappearance as [G]enerally accepted principles of international law, by virtue of the incorporation
a crime. The absence of a specific penal law, however, is not a stumbling block for clause of the Constitution, form part of the laws of the land even if they do not
action from this Court, as heretofore mentioned; underlying every enforced derive from treaty obligations. The classical formulation in international law sees
disappearance is a violation of the constitutional rights to life, liberty and security those customary rules accepted as binding result from the combination [of] two
that the Supreme Court is mandated by the Constitution to protect through its rule- elements: the established, widespread, and consistent practice on the part of
making powers. States; and a psychological element known as the opinion juris sive necessitates 
(opinion as to law or necessity). Implicit in the latter element is a belief that the
Separately from the Constitution (but still pursuant to its terms), the Court is
practice in question is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law
guided, in acting on Amparo cases, by the reality that the Philippines is a member of
requiring it. [Emphasis in the original]
the UN, bound by its Charter and by the various conventions we signed and ratified,
particularly the conventions touching on humans rights. Under the UN Charter, the The most widely accepted statement of sources of international law today is Article
Philippines pledged to "promote universal respect for, and observance of, human 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, which provides that the
rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinctions as to race, sex, Court shall apply "international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted
language or religion."112 Although no universal agreement has been reached on the as law."118 The material sources of custom include State practice, State legislation,
precise extent of the "human rights and fundamental freedoms" guaranteed to all international and national judicial decisions, recitals in treaties and other
by the Charter,113 it was the UN itself that issued the Declaration on enforced international instruments, a pattern of treaties in the same form, the practice of
disappearance, and this Declaration states:114 international organs, and resolutions relating to legal questions in the UN General
Assembly.119 Sometimes referred to as "evidence" of international law,120 these
Any act of enforced disappearance is an offence to dignity. It is condemned as a 
sources identify the substance and content of the obligations of States and are
denial of the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and as a grave and
indicative of the "State practice" and "opinio juris" requirements of international
flagrant violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the
law.121 We note the following in these respects:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed and developed in
international instruments in this field. [Emphasis supplied] First, barely two years from the adoption of the Declaration, the Organization of
American States (OAS) General Assembly adopted the Inter-American Convention
As a matter of human right and fundamental freedom and as a policy matter made
on Enforced Disappearance of Persons in June 1994.122 State parties undertook
in a UN Declaration, the ban on enforced disappearance cannot but have its effects
under this Convention "not to practice, permit, or tolerate the forced disappearance
on the country, given our own adherence to "generally accepted principles of
of persons, even in states of emergency or suspension of individual guarantees."123
international law as part of the law of the land."115
 One of the key provisions includes the States’ obligation to enact the crime of
In the recent case of Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines forced disappearance in their respective national criminal laws and to establish
v. Duque III,116 we held that: jurisdiction over such cases when the crime was committed within their jurisdiction,
Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the sphere of when the victim is a national of that State, and "when the alleged criminal is within
domestic law either by transformation or incorporation. The transformation its territory and it does not proceed to extradite him," which can be interpreted as
method requires that an international law be transformed into a domestic law establishing universal jurisdiction among the parties to the Inter-American
through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation. The incorporation Convention.124 At present, Colombia, Guatemala, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela
method applies when, by mere constitutional declaration, international law is have enacted separate laws in accordance with the Inter-American Convention and
deemed to have the force of domestic law. [Emphasis supplied] have defined activities involving enforced disappearance to be criminal.1251avvphi1
Second, in Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights has no explicit Fourth, in interpreting Article 2 (right to an effective domestic remedy) of the
provision dealing with the protection against enforced disappearance. The European International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the
Court of Human Rights (ECHR), however, has applied the Convention in a way that Philippines is both a signatory and a State Party, the UN Human Rights Committee,
provides ample protection for the underlying rights affected by enforced under the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, has stated that the
disappearance through the Convention’s Article 2 on the right to life; Article 3 on act of enforced disappearance violates Articles 6 (right to life), 7 (prohibition on
the prohibition of torture; Article 5 on the right to liberty and security; Article 6, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) and 9 (right to
paragraph 1 on the right to a fair trial; and Article 13 on the right to an effective liberty and security of the person) of the ICCPR, and the act may also amount to a
remedy. A leading example demonstrating the protection afforded by the European crime against humanity.131
Convention is Kurt v. Turkey,126where the ECHR found a violation of the right to
Fifth, Article 7, paragraph 1 of the 1998 Rome Statute establishing the International
liberty and security of the disappeared person when the applicant’s son
Criminal Court (ICC) also covers enforced disappearances insofar as they are defined
disappeared after being taken into custody by Turkish forces in the Kurdish village
as crimes against humanity,132 i.e., crimes "committed as part of a widespread or
of Agilli in November 1993. It further found the applicant (the disappeared person’s
systematic attack against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack."
mother) to be a victim of a violation of Article 3, as a result of the silence of the
While more than 100 countries have ratified the Rome Statute,133 the Philippines is
authorities and the inadequate character of the investigations undertaken. The
still merely a signatory and has not yet ratified it. We note that Article 7(1) of the
ECHR also saw the lack of any meaningful investigation by the State as a violation of
Rome Statute has been incorporated in the statutes of other international and
Article 13.127
hybrid tribunals, including Sierra Leone Special Court, the Special Panels for Serious
Third, in the United States, the status of the prohibition on enforced disappearance Crimes in Timor-Leste, and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia.
134
as part of customary international law is recognized in the most recent edition of  In addition, the implementing legislation of State Parties to the Rome Statute of
Restatement of the Law: The Third,128 which provides that "[a] State violates the ICC has given rise to a number of national criminal provisions also covering
international law if, as a matter of State policy, it practices, encourages, or enforced disappearance.135
condones… (3) the murder or causing the disappearance of individuals."129 We
While the Philippines is not yet formally bound by the terms of the Convention on
significantly note that in a related matter that finds close identification with
enforced disappearance (or by the specific terms of the Rome Statute) and has not
enforced disappearance – the matter of torture – the United States Court of
formally declared enforced disappearance as a specific crime, the above recital
Appeals for the Second Circuit Court held in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala130 that the
shows that enforced disappearance as a State practice has been repudiated by the
prohibition on torture had attained the status of customary international law. The
international community, so that the ban on it is now a generally accepted principle
court further elaborated on the significance of UN declarations, as follows:
of international law, which we should consider a part of the law of the land, and
These U.N. declarations are significant because they specify with great precision the which we should act upon to the extent already allowed under our laws and the
obligations of member nations under the Charter. Since their adoption, "(m)embers international conventions that bind us.
can no longer contend that they do not know what human rights they promised in
The following civil or political rights under the Universal Declaration of Human
the Charter to promote." Moreover, a U.N. Declaration is, according to one
Rights, the ICCPR and the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural
authoritative definition, "a formal and solemn instrument, suitable for rare
Rights (ICESR) may be infringed in the course of a disappearance:136
occasions when principles of great and lasting importance are being enunciated."
Accordingly, it has been observed that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1) the right to recognition as a person before the law;
"no longer fits into the dichotomy of ‘binding treaty’ against ‘non-binding 2) the right to liberty and security of the person;
pronouncement,' but is rather an authoritative statement of the international
community." Thus, a Declaration creates an expectation of adherence, and "insofar 3) the right not to be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or
as the expectation is gradually justified by State practice, a declaration may by degrading treatment or punishment;
custom become recognized as laying down rules binding upon the States." Indeed, 4) the right to life, when the disappeared person is killed;
several commentators have concluded that the Universal Declaration has become,
in toto, a part of binding, customary international law. [Citations omitted]
 5) the right to an identity; 15. Article 2, paragraph 3, requires that in addition to effective protection of
Covenant rights, States Parties must ensure that individuals also have accessible and
6) the right to a fair trial and to judicial guarantees;
effective remedies to vindicate those rights… The Committee attaches importance
7) the right to an effective remedy, including reparation and compensation; to States Parties' establishing appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms
8) the right to know the truth regarding the circumstances of a for addressing claims of rights violations under domestic law… Administrative
disappearance. mechanisms are particularly required to give effect to the general obligation to
investigate allegations of violations promptly, thoroughly and effectivelythrough
9) the right to protection and assistance to the family; independent and impartial bodies. A failure by a State Party to investigate
10) the right to an adequate standard of living; allegations of violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the
Covenant. Cessation of an ongoing violation is an essential element of the right to
11) the right to health; and
an effective remedy. [Emphasis supplied]
12) the right to education [Emphasis supplied]
The UN Human Rights Committee further stated in the same General Comment No.
Article 2 of the ICCPR, which binds the Philippines as a state party, provides: 31 that failure to investigate as well as failure to bring to justice the perpetrators of
Article 2 ICCPR violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant,
thus:138
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
18. Where the investigations referred to in paragraph 15 reveal violations of certain
(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein Covenant rights, States Parties must ensure that those responsible are brought to
recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding justice. As with failure to investigate, failure to bring to justice perpetrators of such
that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. These
capacity; obligations arise notably in respect of those violations recognized as criminal under
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right either domestic or international law, such as torture and similar cruel, inhuman and
thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative degrading treatment (article 7), summary and arbitrary killing (article 6) and
authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal enforced disappearance (articles 7 and 9 and, frequently, 6). Indeed, the problem of
system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; impunity for these violations, a matter of sustained concern by the Committee, may
well be an important contributing element in the recurrence of the violations. When
(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies
committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack on a civilian population,
when granted. [Emphasis supplied]
these violations of the Covenant are crimes against humanity (see Rome Statute of
In General Comment No. 31, the UN Human Rights Committee opined that the right the International Criminal Court, article 7). [Emphasis supplied]
to an effective remedy under Article 2 of the ICCPR includes the obligation of the
In Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo,139 this Court, in ruling that the right to
State to investigate ICCPR violations promptly, thoroughly, and effectively, viz:137
security of persons is a guarantee of the protection of one’s right by the
government, held that:
The right to security of person in this third sense is a corollary of the policy that the
State "guarantees full respect for human rights" under Article II, Section 11 of the
1987 Constitution. As the government is the chief guarantor of order and security,
the Constitutional guarantee of the rights to life, liberty and security of person is
rendered ineffective if government does not afford protection to these rights
especially when they are under threat. Protection includes conducting effective
investigations, organization of the government apparatus to extend protection to
victims of extralegal killings or enforced disappearances (or threats thereof)
and/or their families, and bringing offenders to the bar of justice. The Inter- difficulties presented by enforced disappearance cases; these difficulties form part
American Court of Human Rights stressed the importance of investigation in the of the setting that the implementation of the Amparo Rule shall encounter.
Velasquez Rodriguez Case, viz:
These difficulties largely arise because the State itself – the party whose
(The duty to investigate) must be undertaken in a serious manner and not as a mere involvement is alleged – investigates enforced disappearances. Past experiences in
formality preordained to be ineffective. An investigation must have an objective and other jurisdictions show that the evidentiary difficulties are generally threefold.
be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, not as a step taken by private
First, there may be a deliberate concealment of the identities of the direct
interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their
perpetrators.141 Experts note that abductors are well organized, armed and usually
offer of proof, without an effective search for the truth by the government.
members of the military or police forces, thus:
[Emphasis supplied]
The victim is generally arrested by the security forces or by persons acting under
Manalo significantly cited Kurt v. Turkey,140 where the ECHR interpreted the "right
some form of governmental authority. In many countries the units that plan,
to security" not only as a prohibition on the State against arbitrary deprivation of
implement and execute the program are generally specialized, highly-secret bodies
liberty, but also as the imposition of a positive duty to afford protection to the right
within the armed or security forces. They are generally directed through a separate,
to liberty. The Court notably quoted the following ECHR ruling:
clandestine chain of command, but they have the necessary credentials to avoid or
[A]ny deprivation of liberty must not only have been effected in conformity with the prevent any interference by the "legal" police forces. These authorities take their
substantive and procedural rules of national law but must equally be in keeping with victims to secret detention centers where they subject them to interrogation and
the very purpose of Article 5, namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness... torture without fear of judicial or other controls.142
Having assumed control over that individual, it is incumbent on the authorities to
In addition, there are usually no witnesses to the crime; if there are, these witnesses
account for his or her whereabouts. For this reason, Article 5 must be seen as
are usually afraid to speak out publicly or to testify on the disappearance out of fear
requiring the authorities to take effective measures to safeguard against the risk of
for their own lives.143 We have had occasion to note this difficulty in Secretary of
disappearance and to conduct a prompt effective investigation into an arguable
Defense v. Manalo144 when we acknowledged that "where powerful military officers
claim that a person has been taken into custody and has not been seen since.
are implicated, the hesitation of witnesses to surface and testify against them
[Emphasis supplied]
comes as no surprise."
These rulings effectively serve as the backdrop for the Rule on the Writ of Amparo,
Second, deliberate concealment of pertinent evidence of the disappearance is a
which the Court made effective on October 24, 2007. Although the Amparo Rule still
distinct possibility; the central piece of evidence in an enforced disappearance – i.e.,
has gaps waiting to be filled through substantive law, as evidenced primarily by the
the corpus delicti or the victim’s body – is usually concealed to effectively thwart
lack of a concrete definition of "enforced disappearance," the materials cited above,
the start of any investigation or the progress of one that may have begun.145 The
among others, provide ample guidance and standards on how, through the medium
problem for the victim’s family is the State’s virtual monopoly of access to pertinent
of the Amparo Rule, the Court can provide remedies and protect the constitutional
evidence. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) observed in the
rights to life, liberty and security that underlie every enforced disappearance.
landmark case of Velasquez Rodriguez146 that inherent to the practice of enforced
Evidentiary Difficulties Posed  disappearance is the deliberate use of the State’s power to destroy the pertinent
by the Unique Nature of an  evidence. The IACHR described the concealment as a clear attempt by the State to
Enforced Disappearance commit the perfect crime.147
Before going into the issue of whether the respondent has discharged the burden of Third is the element of denial; in many cases, the State authorities deliberately deny
proving the allegations of the petition for the Writ of Amparo by the degree of that the enforced disappearance ever occurred.148 "Deniability" is central to the
proof required by the Amparo Rule, we shall discuss briefly the unique evidentiary 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.149 Experience shows that government officials typically respond to
requests for information about desaparecidos by saying that they are not aware of evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt in court proceedings) – reveal the clear
any disappearance, that the missing people may have fled the country, or that their intent of the framers of the Amparo Rule to have the equivalent of an
names have merely been invented.150 administrative proceeding, albeit judicially conducted, in addressing Amparo
situations. The standard of diligence required – the duty of public officials and
These considerations are alive in our minds, as these are the difficulties we
employees to observe extraordinary diligence – point, too, to the extraordinary
confront, in one form or another, in our consideration of this case.
measures expected in the protection of constitutional rights and in the consequent
Evidence and Burden of Proof in  handling and investigation of extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearance
Enforced Disappearances Cases cases.
Sections 13, 17 and 18 of the Amparo Rule define the nature of an Amparo Thus, in these proceedings, the Amparo petitioner needs only to properly comply
 proceeding and the degree and burden of proof the parties to the case carry, as with the substance and form requirements of a Writ of Amparo petition, as
follows: discussed above, and prove the allegations by substantial evidence. Once a
Section 13. Summary Hearing. The hearing on the petition shall be summary. rebuttable case has been proven, the respondents must then respond and prove
However, the court, justice or judge may call for a preliminary conference to their defenses based on the standard of diligence required. The rebuttable case, of
simplify the issues and determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations and course, must show that an enforced disappearance took place under circumstances
admissions from the parties. showing a violation of the victim’s constitutional rights to life, liberty or security,
and the failure on the part of the investigating authorities to appropriately respond.
xxxx
The landmark case of Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations151 provided the
Section 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. – The parties shall Court its first opportunity to define the substantial evidence required to arrive at a
establish their claims by substantial evidence. valid decision in administrative proceedings. To directly quote Ang Tibay:
The respondent who is a private individual must prove that ordinary diligence as Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence
required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in the performance as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. [citations
of duty. omitted] The statute provides that ‘the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law
The respondent who is a public official or employee must prove that extraordinary and equity shall not be controlling.’ The obvious purpose of this and similar
diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in the provisions is to free administrative boards from the compulsion of technical rules so
performance of duty. that the mere admission of matter which would be deemed incompetent in judicial
proceedings would not invalidate the administrative order. [citations omitted] But
The respondent public official or employee cannot invoke the presumption that
this assurance of a desirable flexibility in administrative procedure does not go so
official duty has been regularly performed or evade responsibility or liability.
far as to justify orders without a basis in evidence having rational probative force.
Section 18. Judgment. – … If the allegations in the petition are proven by [Emphasis supplied]
substantial evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs
In Secretary of Defense v. Manalo,152 which was the Court’s first petition for a Writ
as may be proper and appropriate; otherwise, the privilege shall be denied.
of Amparo, we recognized that the full and exhaustive proceedings that the
[Emphasis supplied]
substantial evidence standard regularly requires do not need to apply due to the
These characteristics – namely, of being summary and the use of substantial summary nature of Amparo proceedings. We said:
evidence as the required level of proof (in contrast to the usual preponderance of
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.[Emphasis third witness who testified that he had spoken in prison to a man who identified
supplied] himself as Manfredo.156
Not to be forgotten in considering the evidentiary aspects of Amparo petitions are Velasquez stresses the lesson that flexibility is necessary under the unique
the unique difficulties presented by the nature of enforced disappearances, circumstances that enforced disappearance cases pose to the courts; to have an
heretofore discussed, which difficulties this Court must frontally meet if the Amparo effective remedy, the standard of evidence must be responsive to the evidentiary
Rule is to be given a chance to achieve its objectives. These evidentiary difficulties difficulties faced. On the one hand, we cannot be arbitrary in the admission and
compel the Court to adopt standards appropriate and responsive to the appreciation of evidence, as arbitrariness entails violation of rights and cannot be
circumstances, without transgressing the due process requirements that underlie used as an effective counter-measure; we only compound the problem if a wrong is
every proceeding. addressed by the commission of another wrong. On the other hand, we cannot be
very strict in our evidentiary rules and cannot consider evidence the way we do in
In the seminal case of Velasquez Rodriguez,153 the IACHR – faced with a lack of
the usual criminal and civil cases; precisely, the proceedings before us are
direct evidence that the government of Honduras was involved in Velasquez
administrative in nature where, as a rule, technical rules of evidence are not strictly
Rodriguez’ disappearance – adopted a relaxed and informal evidentiary standard,
observed. Thus, while we must follow the substantial evidence rule, we must
and established the rule that presumes governmental responsibility for a
observe flexibility in considering the evidence we shall take into account.
disappearance if it can be proven that the government carries out a general practice
of enforced disappearances and the specific case can be linked to that practice.154 The fair and proper rule, to our mind, is to consider all the pieces of evidence
 The IACHR took note of the realistic fact that enforced disappearances could be adduced in their totality, and to consider any evidence otherwise inadmissible
proven only through circumstantial or indirect evidence or by logical inference; under our usual rules to be admissible if it is consistent with the admissible
otherwise, it was impossible to prove that an individual had been made to evidence adduced. In other words, we reduce our rules to the most basic test of
disappear. It held: reason – i.e., to the relevance of the evidence to the issue at hand and its
consistency with all other pieces of adduced evidence. Thus, even hearsay evidence
130. The practice of international and domestic courts shows that direct evidence,
can be admitted if it satisfies this basic minimum test.
whether testimonial or documentary, is not the only type of evidence that may be
legitimately considered in reaching a decision. Circumstantial evidence, indicia, and We note in this regard that the use of flexibility in the consideration of evidence is
presumptions may be considered, so long as they lead to conclusions consistent not at all novel in the Philippine legal system. In child abuse cases, Section 28 of the
with the facts. Rule on Examination of a Child Witness157 is expressly recognized as an exception to
the hearsay rule. This Rule allows the admission of the hearsay testimony of a child
131. Circumstantial or presumptive evidence is especially important in allegations of
describing any act or attempted act of sexual abuse in any criminal or non-criminal
disappearances, because this type of repression is characterized by an attempt to
proceeding, subject to certain prerequisites and the right of cross-examination by
suppress all information about the kidnapping or the whereabouts and fate of the
the adverse party. The admission of the statement is determined by the court in
victim. [Emphasis supplied]
light of specified subjective and objective considerations that provide sufficient
In concluding that the disappearance of Manfredo Velásquez (Manfredo) was indicia of reliability of the child witness.158 These requisites for admission find their
carried out by agents who acted under cover of public authority, the IACHR relied on counterpart in the present case under the above-described conditions for the
circumstantial evidence including the hearsay testimony of Zenaida Velásquez, the exercise of flexibility in the consideration of evidence, including hearsay evidence, in
victim’s sister, who described Manfredo’s kidnapping on the basis of conversations extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearance cases.
she had with witnesses who saw Manfredo kidnapped by men in civilian clothes in
Assessment of the Evidence
broad daylight. She also told the Court that a former Honduran military official had
announced that Manfredo was kidnapped by a special military squadron acting The threshold question for our resolution is: was there an enforced disappearance
under orders of the Chief of the Armed Forces.155 The IACHR likewise considered the within the meaning of this term under the UN Declaration we have cited?
hearsay testimony of a second witness who asserted that he had been told by a
Honduran military officer about the disappearance, and a
The Convention defines enforced disappearance as "the arrest, detention, admitted the meeting with the respondent but denied giving her any information
abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by about the disappearance.
persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence
The more specific and productive source of information was Col. Kasim, whom the
of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by
respondent, together with her witness Mrs. Talbin, met in Camp Katitipan in Davao
concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place
City. To quote the relevant portions of the respondent’s testimony:
such a person outside the protection of the law."159Under this definition, the
elements that constitute enforced disappearance are essentially fourfold:160 Q: Were you able to speak to other military officials regarding the whereabouts of
your husband particularly those in charge of any records or investigation?
(a) arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty;
A: I went to Camp Katitipan in Davao City. Then one military officer, Col. Casim, told
(b) carried out by agents of the State or persons or groups of persons
me that my husband is being abducted [sic] because he is under custodial
acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State;
investigation because he is allegedly "parang liason ng J.I.", sir.
(c) followed by a refusal to acknowledge the detention, or a concealment
Q: What is J.I.?
of the fate of the disappeared person; and
A: Jema’ah Islamiah, sir.
(d) placement of the disappeared person outside the protection of the law.
[Emphasis supplied] Q: Was there any information that was read to you during one of those visits of
yours in that Camp?
We find 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 A: Col. Casim did not furnish me a copy of his report because he said those reports
after depositing his room key with the hotel desk and was never seen nor heard of are highly confidential, sir.
again. The undisputed conclusion, however, from all concerned – the petitioner, Q: Was it read to you then even though you were not furnished a copy?
Tagitis’ colleagues and even the police authorities – is that Tagistis disappeared
under mysterious circumstances and was never seen again. The respondent injected A: Yes, sir. In front of us, my friends.
the causal element in her petition and testimony, as we shall discuss below. Q: And what was the content of that highly confidential report?
We likewise find no direct evidence showing that operatives of PNP CIDG A: Those alleged activities of Engineer Tagitis, sir.161 [Emphasis supplied]
Zamboanga abducted or arrested Tagitis. If at all, only the respondent’s allegation
She confirmed this testimony in her cross-examination:
that Tagistis was under CIDG Zamboanga custody stands on record, but it is not
supported by any other evidence, direct or circumstantial. Q: You also mentioned that you went to Camp Katitipan in Davao City?

In her direct testimony, the respondent pointed to two sources of information as A: Yes, ma’am.
her bases for her allegation that Tagistis had been placed under government Q: And a certain Col. Kasim told you that your husband was abducted and under
custody (in contrast with CIDG Zamboanga custody). The first was an unnamed custodial investigation?
friend in Zamboanga (later identified as Col. Ancanan), who occupied a high position
in the military and who allegedly mentioned that Tagitis was in good hands. Nothing
came out of this claim, as both the respondent herself and her witness, Mrs. Talbin,
failed to establish that Col. Ancanan gave them any information that Tagitis was in
government custody. Col. Ancanan, for his part,
A: Yes, ma’am. A: I did not go to CIDG Zamboanga. I went to Camp Karingal instead. Enough na yun
na effort ko because I know that they would deny it, ma’am.164
Q: And you mentioned that he showed you a report?
On February 11, 2008, the respondent presented Mrs. Talbin to corroborate her
A: Yes, ma’am.
testimony that her husband was abducted and held under custodial investigation by
Q: Were you able to read the contents of that report? the PNP-CIDG Zamboanga City, viz:
A: He did not furnish me a copy of those [sic] report because those [sic] were highly Q: You said that you went to Camp Katitipan in Davao City sometime November 24,
confidential. That is a military report, ma’am. 2007, who was with you when you went there?
Q: But you were able to read the contents? A: Mary Jean Tagitis, sir.
A: No. But he read it in front of us, my friends, ma’am. Q: Only the two of you?
Q: How many were you when you went to see Col. Kasim? A: No. We have some other companions. We were four at that time, sir.
A: There were three of us, ma’am. Q: Who were they?
Q: Who were your companions? A: Salvacion Serrano, Mini Leong, Mrs. Tagitis and me, sir.
A: Mrs. Talbin, tapos yung dalawang friends nya from Mati City, Davao Oriental, Q: Were you able to talk, see some other officials at Camp Katitipan during that
ma’am.162 time?
xxxx A: Col. Kasim (PS Supt. Julasirim Ahadin Kasim) only, sir.
Q: When you were told that your husband is in good hands, what was your reaction Q: Were you able to talk to him?
and what did you do?
A: Yes, sir.
A: May binasa kasi sya that my husband has a parang meeting with other people na
Q: The four of you?
parang mga terorista na mga tao. Tapos at the end of the report is [sic] under
custodial investigation. So I told him "Colonel, my husband is sick. He is diabetic at A: Yes, sir.
nagmemaintain yun ng gamot. Pakisabi lang sa naghohold sa asawa ko na bigyan
Q: What information did you get from Col. Kasim during that time?
siya ng gamot, ma’am."163
A: The first time we met with [him] I asked him if he knew of the exact location, if he
xxxx
can furnish us the location of Engr. Tagitis. And he was reading this report. He told
Q: You mentioned that you received information that Engineer Tagitis is being held us that Engr. Tagitis is in good hands. He is with the military, but he is not certain
by the CIDG in Zamboanga, did you go to CIDG Zamboanga to verify that whether he is with the AFP or PNP. He has this serious case. He was charged of
information? terrorism because he was under surveillance from January 2007 up to the time that
he was abducted. He told us that he was under custodial investigation. As I’ve said
earlier, he was seen under surveillance from January. He was seen talking to
Omar Patik, a certain Santos of Bulacan who is also a Balik Islam and charged with under custodial investigation because he is allegedly ‘parang liason ng J.I.’" The
terrorism. He was seen carrying boxes of medicines. Then we asked him how long petitioners also noted that "Mrs. Talbin’s testimony imputing certain statements to
will he be in custodial investigation. He said until we can get some information. But Sr. Supt. Kasim that Engr. Tagitis is with the military, but he is not certain whether it
he also told us that he cannot give us that report because it was a raw report. It was is the PNP or AFP is not worthy of belief, since Sr. Supt. Kasim is a high ranking
not official, sir. police officer who would certainly know that the PNP is not part of the military."
Q: You said that he was reading a report, was that report in document form, in a Upon deeper consideration of these inconsistencies, however, what appears clear
piece of paper or was it in the computer or what? to us is that the petitioners never really steadfastly disputed or presented evidence
to refute the credibility of the respondent and her witness, Mrs. Talbin. The
A: As far as I can see it, sir, it is written in white bond paper. I don’t know if it was
inconsistencies the petitioners point out relate, more than anything else, to details
computerized but I’m certain that it was typewritten. I’m not sure if it used
that should not affect the credibility of the respondent and Mrs. Talbin; the
computer, fax or what, sir.
inconsistencies are not on material points.168 We note, for example, that these
Q: When he was reading it to you, was he reading it line by line or he was reading in witnesses are lay people in so far as military and police matters are concerned, and
a summary form? confusion between the police and the military is not unusual. As a rule, minor
A: Sometimes he was glancing to the report and talking to us, sir.165 inconsistencies such as these indicate truthfulness rather than prevarication169and
only tend to strengthen their probative value, in contrast to testimonies from
xxxx
various witnesses dovetailing on every detail; the latter cannot but generate
Q: Were you informed as to the place where he was being kept during that time? suspicion that the material circumstances they testified to were integral parts of a
well thought of and prefabricated story.170
A: He did not tell us where he [Tagitis] was being kept. But he mentioned this
Talipapao, Sulu, sir. Based on these considerations and the unique evidentiary situation in enforced
disappearance cases, we hold it duly established that Col. Kasim informed the
Q: After that incident, what did you do if any?
respondent and her friends, based on the informant’s letter, that Tagitis, reputedly
A: We just left and as I’ve mentioned, we just waited because that raw information a liaison for the JI and who had been under surveillance since January 2007, was "in
that he was reading to us [sic] after the custodial investigation, Engineer Tagitis will good hands" and under custodial investigation for complicity with the JI after he
be released. [Emphasis supplied]166 was seen talking to one Omar Patik and a certain "Santos" of Bulacan, a "Balik Islam"
Col. Kasim never denied that he met with the respondent and her friends, and that charged with terrorism. The respondent’s and Mrs. Talbin’s testimonies cannot
he provided them information based on the input of an unnamed asset. He simply simply be defeated by Col. Kasim’s plain denial and his claim that he had destroyed
claimed in his testimony that the "informal letter" he received from his informant in his informant’s letter, the critical piece of evidence that supports or negates the
Sulu did not indicate that Tagitis was in the custody of the CIDG. He also stressed parties’ conflicting claims. Col. Kasim’s admitted destruction of this letter –
that the information he provided the respondent was merely a "raw report" from effectively, a suppression of this evidence – raises the presumption that the letter, if
"barangay intelligence" that still needed confirmation and "follow up" as to its produced, would be proof of what the respondent claimed.171 For brevity, we shall
veracity.167 call the evidence of what Col. Kasim reported to the respondent to be the "Kasim
evidence."
To be sure, the respondent’s and Mrs. Talbin’s testimonies were far from perfect, as
the petitioners pointed out. The respondent mistakenly characterized Col. Kasim as Given this evidence, our next step is to decide whether we can accept this evidence,
a "military officer" who told her that "her husband is being abducted because he is in lieu of direct evidence, as proof that the disappearance of Tagitis was due to
action with government participation, knowledge or consent and that he was held
for custodial investigation. We note in this regard that Col. Kasim was never quoted
to have said that the custodial investigation was by the CIDG Zamboanga. The Kasim
evidence only implies government intervention through the use of the term
"custodial investigation," and does not at all point to CIDG Zamboanga as Tagitis’
custodian.
Strictly speaking, we are faced here with a classic case of hearsay evidence – i.e., The actual disappearance of Tagitis is as murky as his personal circumstances. While
evidence whose probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the the Amparo petition recited that he was taken away by "burly men believed to be
witnesses (the respondent, Mrs. Talbin and Col. Kasim himself) but on the police intelligence operatives," no evidence whatsoever was introduced to support
knowledge of some other person not on the witness stand (the informant).172 this allegation. Thus, the available direct evidence is that Tagitis was last seen at
12.30 p.m. of October 30, 2007 – the day he arrived in Jolo – and was never seen
To say that this piece of evidence is incompetent and inadmissible evidence of what
again.
it substantively states is to acknowledge – as the petitioners effectively suggest –
that in the absence of any direct evidence, we should simply dismiss the petition. To The Kasim evidence assumes critical materiality given the dearth of direct evidence
our mind, an immediate dismissal for this reason is no different from a statement on the above aspects of the case, as it supplies the gaps that were never looked into
that the Amparo Rule – despite its terms – is ineffective, as it cannot allow for the and clarified by police investigation. It is the evidence, too, that colors a simple
special evidentiary difficulties that are unavoidably present in Amparo situations, missing person report into an enforced disappearance case, as it injects the element
particularly in extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. The Amparo Rule of participation by agents of the State and thus brings into question how the State
was not promulgated with this intent or with the intent to make it a token gesture reacted to the disappearance.
of concern for constitutional rights. It was promulgated to provide effective and
Denials on the part of the police authorities, and frustration on the part of the
timely remedies, using and profiting from local and international experiences in
respondent, characterize the attempts to locate Tagitis. Initially in Jolo, the police
extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, as the situation may require.
informed Kunnong that Tagitis could have been taken by the Abu Sayyaf or other
Consequently, we have no choice but to meet the evidentiary difficulties inherent in
groups fighting the government. No evidence was ever offered on whether there
enforced disappearances with the flexibility that these difficulties demand.1avvphi1
was active Jolo police investigation and how and why the Jolo police arrived at this
To give full meaning to our Constitution and the rights it protects, we hold that, as in conclusion. The respondent’s own inquiry in Jolo yielded the answer that he was
Velasquez, we should at least take a close look at the available evidence to not missing but was with another woman somewhere. Again, no evidence exists
determine the correct import of every piece of evidence – even of those usually that this explanation was arrived at based on an investigation. As already related
considered inadmissible under the general rules of evidence – taking into account above, the inquiry with Col. Ancanan in Zamboanga yielded ambivalent results not
the surrounding circumstances and the test of reason that we can use as basic useful for evidentiary purposes. Thus, it was only the inquiry from Col. Kasim that
minimum admissibility requirement. In the present case, we should at least yielded positive results. Col. Kasim’s story, however, confirmed only the fact of his
determine whether the Kasim evidence before us is relevant and meaningful to the custodial investigation (and, impliedly, his arrest or abduction), without identifying
disappearance of Tagistis and reasonably consistent with other evidence in the case. his abductor/s or the party holding him in custody. The more significant part of Col.
Kasim’s story is that the abduction came after Tagitis was seen talking with Omar
The evidence about Tagitis’ personal circumstances surrounded him with an air of
Patik and a certain Santos of Bulacan, a "Balik Islam" charged with terrorism. Mrs.
mystery. He was reputedly a consultant of the World Bank and a Senior Honorary
Talbin mentioned, too, that Tagitis was being held at Talipapao, Sulu. None of the
Counselor for the IDB who attended a seminar in Zamboanga and thereafter
police agencies participating in the investigation ever pursued these leads. Notably,
proceded to Jolo for an overnight stay, indicated by his request to Kunnong for the
Task Force Tagitis to which this information was relayed did not appear to have
purchase of a return ticket to Zamboanga the day after he arrived in Jolo. Nothing in
lifted a finger to pursue these aspects of the case.
the records indicates the purpose of his overnight sojourn in Jolo. A colleague in the
IDB, Prof. Matli, early on informed the Jolo police that Tagitis may have taken funds More denials were manifested in the Returns on the writ to the CA made by the
given to him in trust for IDB scholars. Prof Matli later on stated that he never petitioners. Then PNP Chief Gen. Avelino I. Razon merely reported the directives he
accused Tagitis of taking away money held in trust, although he confirmed that the sent to the ARMM Regional Director and the Regional Chief of the CIDG on Tagitis,
IDB was seeking assistance in locating funds of IDB scholars deposited in Tagitis’ and these reports merely reiterated the open-ended initial report of the
personal account. Other than these pieces of evidence, no other information exists disappearance. The CIDG directed a search in all of its divisions with negative
in the records relating to the personal circumstances of Tagitis. results. These, to the PNP Chief, constituted the exhaustion "of all possible efforts."
PNP-CIDG Chief General Edgardo M. Doromal, for his part, also reported negative
results after searching "all divisions and departments [of the CIDG] for a person
named Engr. Morced N. Tagitis . . . and after a diligent and thorough research,
records show that no such person is being detained in the CIDG or any of its even secure. The returns and reports made to the CA fared no better, as the CIDG
department or divisions." PNP-PACER Chief PS Supt. Leonardo A. Espina and PNP efforts themselves were confined to searching for custodial records of Tagitis in
PRO ARMM Regional Director PC Superintendent Joel R. Goltiao did no better in their various departments and divisions. To point out the obvious, if the abduction
their affidavits-returns, as they essentially reported the results of their directives to of Tagitis was a "black" operation because it was unrecorded or officially
their units to search for Tagitis. unauthorized, no record of custody would ever appear in the CIDG records; Tagitis,
too, would not be detained in the usual police or CIDG detention places. In sum,
The extent to which the police authorities acted was fully tested when the CA
none of the reports on record contains any meaningful results or details on the
constituted Task Force Tagitis, with specific directives on what to do. The negative
depth and extent of the investigation made. To be sure, reports of top police
results reflected in the Returns on the writ were again replicated during the three
officials indicating the personnel and units they directed to investigate can never
hearings the CA scheduled. Aside from the previously mentioned "retraction" that
constitute exhaustive and meaningful investigation, or equal detailed investigative
Prof. Matli made to correct his accusation that Tagitis took money held in trust for
reports of the activities undertaken to search for Tagitis. Indisputably, the police
students, PS Supt. Ajirim reiterated in his testimony that the CIDG consistently
authorities from the very beginning failed to come up to the extraordinary diligence
denied any knowledge or complicity in any abduction and said that there was no
that the Amparo Rule requires.
basis to conclude that the CIDG or any police unit had anything to do with the
disappearance of Tagitis; he likewise considered it premature to conclude that CONCLUSIONS AND THE AMPARO REMEDY
Tagitis simply ran away with the money in his custody. As already noted above, the
Based on these considerations, we conclude that Col. Kasim’s disclosure, made in an
Task Force notably did not pursue any investigation about the personal
unguarded moment, unequivocally point to some government complicity in the
circumstances of Tagitis, his background in relation to the IDB and the background
disappearance. The consistent but unfounded denials and the haphazard
and activities of this Bank itself, and the reported sighting of Tagistis with terrorists
investigations cannot but point to this conclusion. For why would the government
and his alleged custody in Talipapao, Sulu. No attempt appears to have ever been
and its officials engage in their chorus of concealment if the intent had not been to
made to look into the alleged IDB funds that Tagitis held in trust, or to tap any of the
deny what they already knew of the disappearance? Would not an in-depth and
"assets" who are indispensable in investigations of this nature. These omissions and
thorough investigation that at least credibly determined the fate of Tagitis be a
negative results were aggravated by the CA findings that it was only as late as
feather in the government’s cap under the circumstances of the disappearance?
January 28, 2008 or three months after the disappearance that the police
From this perspective, the evidence and developments, particularly the Kasim
authorities requested for clear pictures of Tagitis. Col. Kasim could not attend the
evidence, already establish a concrete case of enforced disappearance that the
trial because his subpoena was not served, despite the fact that he was designated
Amparo Rule covers. From the prism of the UN Declaration, heretofore cited and
as Ajirim’s replacement in the latter’s last post. Thus, Col. Kasim was not then
quoted,173the evidence at hand and the developments in this case confirm the fact
questioned. No investigation – even an internal one – appeared to have been made
of the enforced disappearance and government complicity, under a background of
to inquire into the identity of Col. Kasim’s "asset" and what he indeed wrote.
consistent and unfounded government denials and haphazard handling. The
We glean from all these pieces of evidence and developments a consistency in the disappearance as well effectively placed Tagitis outside the protection of the law – a
government’s denial of any complicity in the disappearance of Tagitis, disrupted situation that will subsist unless this Court acts.
only by the report made by Col. Kasim to the respondent at Camp Katitipan. Even
This kind of fact situation and the conclusion reached are not without precedent in
Col. Kasim, however, eventually denied that he ever made the disclosure that
international enforced disappearance rulings. While the facts are not exactly the
Tagitis was under custodial investigation for complicity in terrorism. Another
same, the facts of this case run very close to those of Timurtas v. Turkey,174 a case
distinctive trait that runs through these developments is the government’s
decided by ECHR. The European tribunal in that case acted on the basis of the
dismissive approach to the disappearance, starting from the initial response by the
photocopy of a "post-operation report" in finding that Abdulvahap Timurtas
Jolo police to Kunnong’s initial reports of the disappearance, to the responses made
(Abdulvahap) was abducted and later detained by agents (gendarmes) of the
to the respondent when she herself reported and inquired about her husband’s
government of Turkey. The victim's father in this case brought a claim against
disappearance, and even at Task Force Tagitis itself.
Turkey for numerous violations of the European Convention, including the right to
As the CA found through Task Force Tagitis, the investigation was at best haphazard life (Article 2) and the rights to liberty and security of a person (Article 5). The
since the authorities were looking for a man whose picture they initially did not applicant contended that on August 14, 1993, gendarmes apprehended his son,
Abdulvahap for being a leader of the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK) in the Silopi them as indicated in this Decision and as further CA hearings may indicate; the
region. The petition was filed in southeast Turkey nearly six and one half years after petitioners’ submissions; the sufficiency of their investigative efforts; and submit to
the apprehension. According to the father, gendarmes first detained Abdulvahap this Court a quarterly report containing its actions and recommendations, copy
and then transferred him to another detainment facility. Although there was no furnished the petitioners and the respondent, with the first report due at the end of
eyewitness evidence of the apprehension or subsequent detainment, the applicant the first quarter counted from the finality of this Decision. The PNP and the PNP-
presented evidence corroborating his version of events, including a photocopy of a CIDG shall have one (1) full year to undertake their investigation. The CA shall
post-operation report signed by the commander of gendarme operations in Silopi, submit its full report for the consideration of this Court at the end of the 4th quarter
Turkey. The report included a description of Abdulvahap's arrest and the result of a counted from the finality of this Decision.
subsequent interrogation during detention where he was accused of being a leader
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY the petitioners’ petition for review on
of the PKK in the Silopi region. On this basis, Turkey was held responsible for
certiorari for lack of merit, and AFFIRM the decision of the Court of Appeals dated
Abdulvahap’s enforced disappearance.
March 7, 2008 under the following terms:
Following the lead of this Turkish experience - adjusted to the Philippine legal
a. Recognition that the disappearance of Engineer Morced N. Tagitis is an
setting and the Amparo remedy this Court has established, as applied to the unique
enforced disappearance covered by the Rule on the Writ of Amparo;
facts and developments of this case – we believe and so hold that the government
in general, through the PNP and the PNP-CIDG, and in particular, the Chiefs of these b. Without any specific pronouncement on exact authorship and
organizations together with Col. Kasim, should be held fully accountable for the responsibility, declaring the government (through the PNP and the PNP-
enforced disappearance of Tagitis. CIDG) and Colonel Julasirim Ahadin Kasim accountable for the enforced
disappearance of Engineer Morced N. Tagitis;
The PNP and CIDG are accountable because Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6975,
otherwise known as the "PNP Law,"175 specifies the PNP as the governmental office c. Confirmation of the validity of the Writ of Amparo the Court of Appeals
with the mandate "to investigate and prevent crimes, effect the arrest of criminal issued;
offenders, bring offenders to justice and assist in their prosecution." The PNP-CIDG, d. Holding the PNP, through the PNP Chief, and the PNP-CIDG, through its
as Col. Jose Volpane Pante (then Chief of CIDG Region 9) testified, is the Chief, directly responsible for the disclosure of material facts known to the
"investigative arm" of the PNP and is mandated to "investigate and prosecute all government and to their offices regarding the disappearance of Engineer
cases involving violations of the Revised Penal Code, particularly those considered Morced N. Tagitis, and for the conduct of proper investigations using
as heinous crimes."176 Under the PNP organizational structure, the PNP-CIDG is extraordinary diligence, with the obligation to show investigation results
tasked to investigate all major crimes involving violations of the Revised Penal Code acceptable to this Court;
and operates against organized crime groups, unless the President assigns the case
exclusively to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).177 No indication exists in e. Ordering Colonel Julasirim Ahadin Kasim impleaded in this case and
this case showing that the President ever directly intervened by assigning the holding him accountable with the obligation to disclose information known
investigation of Tagitis’ disappearance exclusively to the NBI. to him and to his "assets" in relation with the enforced disappearance of
Engineer Morced N. Tagitis;
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 f. Referring this case back to the Court of Appeals for appropriate
the extral'>To fully enforce the Amparo remedy, we refer this case back to the CA proceedings directed at the monitoring of the PNP and PNP-CIDG
for appropriate proceedings directed at the monitoring of the PNP and the PNP- investigations, actions and the validation of their results; the PNP and the
CIDG investigations and actions, and the validation of their results through hearings PNP-CIDG shall initially present to the Court of Appeals a plan of action for
the CA may deem appropriate to conduct. For purposes of these investigations, the further investigation, periodically reporting their results to the Court of
PNP/PNP-CIDG shall initially present to the CA a plan of action for further Appeals for consideration and action;
investigation, periodically reporting the detailed results of its investigation to the CA
for its consideration and action. On behalf of this Court, the CA shall pass upon: the
need for the PNP and the PNP-CIDG to make disclosures of matters known to
 g. Requiring the Court of Appeals to submit to this Court a quarterly report
with its recommendations, copy furnished the incumbent PNP and PNP-
CIDG Chiefs as petitioners and the respondent, with the first report due at
the end of the first quarter counted from the finality of this Decision;
h. The PNP and the PNP-CIDG shall have one (1) full year to undertake their
investigations; the Court of Appeals 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;
These directives and those of the Court of Appeals’ made pursuant to this Decision
shall be given to, and shall be directly enforceable against, whoever may be the
incumbent Chiefs of the Philippine National Police and its Criminal Investigation and
Detection Group, under pain of contempt from this Court when the initiatives and
efforts at disclosure and investigation constitute less than the extraordinary
diligence that the Rule on the Writ of Amparo and the circumstances of this case
demand. Given the unique nature of Amparo cases and their varying attendant
circumstances, these directives – particularly, the referral back to and monitoring by
the CA – are specific to this case and are not standard remedies that can be applied
to every Amparo situation.
The dismissal of the Amparo petition with respect to General Alexander Yano,
Commanding General, Philippine Army, and General Ruben Rafael, Chief, Anti-
Terrorism Task Force Comet, Zamboanga City, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.