6

RAZON v TAGITIS

Topic:
Declaration of Principles & State Policies
The Incorporation Clause

GEN. AVELINO I. RAZON, JR., Chief, Philippine National Police (PNP); Police Chief Superintendent RAUL
CASTAÑEDA, Chief, Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG); Police Senior Superintendent
LEONARDO A. ESPINA, Chief, Police Anti-Crime and Emergency Response (PACER); and GEN. JOEL R.
GOLTIAO, Regional Director of ARMM, PNP, Petitioners,
v.
MARY JEAN B. TAGITIS, herein represented by ATTY. FELIPE P. ARCILLA, JR., Attorney-in-
Fact, Respondent.

G.R. No. 182498

December 3, 2009

FACTS:
On October 31, 2007, Engr. Morced Tagitis (“Tagitis”), a World Bank Consultant and a Senior Honorary
Counselor for the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) Scholarship Program, arrived in Jolo, Sulu from a
seminar in Zamboanga. He was accompanied by an IDB Scholar Arsimin Kunnong (“Kunnong”). The two
stayed at ASY Pension House. Tagitis asked Kunnong to purchase a boat ticket to Zamboanga for the
following day but when Kunnong returned from this errand, Tagitis was nowhere to be found. According to the
pension house’s receptionist, Tagitis left his room key with the desk to buy food outside. Kunnong looked for
Tagitis and contacted his phone but he could not be reached. Kunnong also contacted Tagitis’ Manila-based
staff who did not also know Tagitis’ whereabouts. Kunnong and the pension house staff then had Tagitis’ locked
room opened and they discovered that Tagitis’personal belongings including cell phones, documents and
other personal belongings were all intact. Kunnong reported the matterto the police authorities in Jolo and
the latter insinuated that Tagitis could have been possibly abducted by the Abu Sayyaf Group. After hearing
this, Kunnong immediately contacted Tagitis’ wife, Mary Jean,and other responsible officers and
coordinators of the IDB Scholarship Programme in the Philippines.

On November 4, 2007, Kunnong and Prof. Matli, a UP professor of Muslim studies and Tagitis’ fellow student
counselor at the IDB, reported Tagitis’ disappearance to the Jolo Police Station.

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

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

Mary Jean alleged the following:

-That she was referred by her Land Bank Digos colleagues to those who had contacts in the military.
-That based on reliable information that she received, her husband Tagitis is in the custody of police intelligence
operatives, specifically with the CIDG, PNP Zamboanga City, being held against his will in an earnest attempt to
involve and connect him with the different terrorist groups, particulary the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI).
-That she learned from a certain Col. Kasim that there was a confidential report linking her husband to the JI
terrorists, an information which was later retracted by Col. Kasim.
-That she filed a complaint with the PNP Police Station in the ARMM in Cotabato and in Jolo. However, instead
of providing her assistance, she was told that her husband was not missing but was with another woman.
-That she searched for her husband in different PNP headquarters in Mindanao
-ARMM Police Headquarters in Cotobato City and Davao City, Zamboanga City, Jolo and in Camp Crame,
Quezon City.
-That she had exhausted all administrative avenues and remedies but to no avail.
-That theunexplained uncooperative behavior of the police to herrequest for help and failure and refusal of the
police to extend the needed help, support and assistance in locating the whereabouts of Tagitis who was
declared missing since October 30, 2007, indicates that the police are actually in physical possession and
custody of her husband.

On the same day the petition was filed, the CA immediately issued the Writ of Amparo, set the case for hearing
on January 7, 2008, and directed the petitioners to file their verified return within seventy-two (72) hours from
service of the writ.

In their verified Return filed during the hearing of January 27, 2008, the Police 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 of action against them; were baseless and only relied on hearsay evidence. They also
claimed that they are exhausting all means, taking pro-active measures to investigate, search and locate Tagitis
and to apprehend the persons responsible for his disappearance.

The CA directed Gen.Goltiao as the officer in command of the area of the disappearance of Tagitis – to form
TASK FORCE TAGITIS.

On February 4, 2008, the CA issued an ALARM WARNING that Task Force Tagitis did not appear to be
exerting extraordinary efforts in resolving Tagitis’ disappearance. This was prompted by the Court’s discovery
that it was only on January 28, 2008 that Gen. Goltiao and Col Ajirim had requested for clear photographsof
Tagitis when the information of disappearance was relayed to Goltiao as early as November 5, 2007.The CA
was baffled at how the police could look for a missing person if no clear photograph was disseminated.

CA RULING:
On March 7, 2008, the CA issued a decision confirming that the disappearance of Tagitis was an "enforced
disappearance" under the definition of the United Nations (UN) Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from
Enforced Disappearances. The CA greatly relied on the "raw report" from Col. Kasim’s asset, pointing to the
CIDG’s involvement in Tagitis’ abduction. It also questioned Col. Kasim’s belated retraction of his statement that
the military, the police, or the CIDG was involved in the abduction of Tagitis. The CA characterized as
unbelievable the police theories painting the disappearance as "intentional" on the part of Tagitis, noting that
Tagitis had no previous brushes with the law or any record of overstepping the bounds of any trust regarding
money entrusted to him; no student of the IDB 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 theory of the police 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 kidnapping for ransom by the
Abu Sayyaf or by the ARMM paramilitary as the cause for Tagitis’ disappearance, since the respondent, the
police and the military noted that there was no acknowledgment of Tagitis’ abduction or demand for payment of
ransom –the usual modus operandi of these terrorist groups.

Based on these considerations, the CA extended the privilege of the writ to Tagitis and his family, and directed
the CIDG Chief, Col. Jose Volpane Pante, PNP Chief Avelino I. Razon, Task Force Tagitis heads Gen. Joel
Goltiao and Col. Ahiron Ajirim, and PACER Chief Sr. Supt. Leonardo A. Espina to exert extraordinary diligence
and efforts to protect the life, liberty and security of Tagitis, with the obligation to provide monthly reports of their
actions to the CA. At the same time, the CA dismissed the petition against the then respondents from the
military, Lt. Gen Alexander Yano and Gen. Ruben Rafael, based on the finding that it was PNP-CIDG, not the
military, that was involved.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the privilege of the Writ of Amparo should be granted to protect Engr. Morced Tagitis?

HELD:

Yes. The disappearance of Engr. Morced Tagitis is classified as an enforced disappearance, thus, the privilege
of the Writ of Amparo applies.
Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides for the following causes of action:

Section 1. Petition. -The petition for a writ of Amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life,
liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or of a private individual or entity.

The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
(emphasis supplied)

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

Under this definition, the elements that constitute enforced disappearance are essentially fourfold:
(a) arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty;
(b) carried out by agents of the State or persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or
acquiescence of the State;
(c) followed by a refusal to acknowledge the detention, or a concealment of the fate of the disappeared person;
(d) placement of the disappeared person outside the protection of the law. The fact of Tagitis’ disappearance
was proven although there was no direct evidence indicating how he actually disappeared. He was last seen
going out of the ASY pension house but never to be seen nor heard again. The undisputed conclusion,
therefore, is that Tagitis disappeared under mysterious circumstances and was never seen again.

NOTES:

Generally accepted principles of international law can be relied upon even for purposes of interpreting municipal
legislation or issuances, as when the Supreme Court applied and adopted the International Convention for
Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance for purposes of defining the concept of enforced
disappearances, as used in the Amparo Rule. (Cruz, I., & Cruz, C., Philippine political law)

Razon v Tagitis considers not only established Philippine doctrines on human rights but provides and
astonishingly comprehensive discussion of relevant international jurisprudence and practice, including that of
regional and national bodies (including the Organization of American States, European Court of Human Rights,
and the American courts), international instruments and bodies 9the UDHR, ICCPR, International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Convention on
Enforced Disappearances 2007, and UN Human Rights Committee, and hybrid international tribunals (such as
Sierra Leone Special Court, the Special Panels for Serious Crimes in Timor-Leste, and the Extraordinary
Chambers in the Court of Cambodia). Further, the Supreme Court said that while the Philippines at the time was
not yet a party to either the Rome Statute or the Convention on Enforced Disappearance, both the definition and
prohibition on enforced disappearance are now part of customary international law so that the Philippines is
bound to observe them pursuant to Incorporation Clause. (The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Asia
and the Pacific)

The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is
violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a
private individual or entity. The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats
thereof.