RAZON V. TAGITIS, G.R. NO.

182498, DECEMBER 3, 2009

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,
VS.
MARY JEAN B. TAGITIS, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ATTY. FELIPE P. ARCILLA, JR.,
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, RESPONDENT

FACTS:
The petitioners dispute the sufficiency in form and substance of the Amparo petition filed before
the CA; the sufficiency of the legal remedies the respondent took before petitioning for the writ;
the finding that the rights to life, liberty and security of Tagitis had been violated; the sufficiency of
evidence supporting the conclusion that Tagitis was abducted; the conclusion that the CIDG
Zamboanga was responsible for the abduction; and, generally, the ruling that the respondent
discharged the burden of proving the allegations of the petition by substantial evidence.

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

On November 4, 2007, Kunnong and Muhammad Abdulnazeir N. Matli, a UP professor of Muslim

studies and Tagitis’ fellow student counselor at the IDB, reported Tagitis’ disappearance to the
Jolo Police Station.8 On November 7, 2007, Kunnong executed a sworn affidavit attesting to what
he knew of the circumstances surrounding Tagitis’ disappearance.

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. Felipe P. Arcilla.10 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.

According to reliable information received by the [respondent], subject Engr. Tagitis is in the
custody of police intelligence operatives, specifically with the CIDG, PNP Zamboanga City, being
held against his will in an earnest attempt of the police to involve and connect Engr. Tagitis with
the different terrorist groups;

The continued failure and refusal of the [petitioners] to release and/or turn-over subject Engr.
Tagitis to his family or even to provide truthful information to [the 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 anxieties;

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 petitioners 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, or
at best speculative; and were merely based on hearsay evidence.

The Philippine National Police exhausted all possible efforts, steps and actions available under
the circumstances and continuously search and investigate [sic] the instant case. This immense
mandate, however, necessitates the indispensable role of the citizenry, as the PNP cannot stand
alone without the cooperation of the victims and witnesses to identify the perpetrators to bring
them before the bar of justice and secure their conviction in court.

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 Writ of Amparo, he caused
That immediately upon receipt on December 29, 2007 of the Resolution of the Honorable Special
Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals, I immediately directed the Investigation Division of this
Group [CIDG] to conduct urgent investigation on the alleged enforced disappearance of Engineer
Morced Tagitis and that the investigation and measures being undertaken to locate/search the
subject in coordination with Police Regional Office, Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao
(PRO-ARMM) and Jolo Police Provincial Office (PPO) and other AFP and PNP units/agencies in
the area are ongoing with the instruction not to leave any stone unturned so to speak in the
investigation until the perpetrators in the instant case are brought to the bar of justice. Further he
said that he have exercised EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE in dealing with the WRIT OF
AMPARO just issued.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Amparo petition filed before the CA is sufficiency in form and substance; and
Whether the respondent has discharged the burden of proving the allegations of the petition for
the Writ of Amparo by the degree of proof required by the Amparo Rule.
RULING:

The petition was found meritorious and there is Sufficiency in Form and Substance.

From the International Law perspective, involuntary or enforced disappearance is considered a

flagrant violation of human rights. It does not only violate the right to life, liberty and security of
the desaparecido; it affects their families as well through the denial of their right to information
regarding the circumstances of the disappeared family member.
Thus, enforced disappearances have been said to be "a double form of torture," with "doubly
paralyzing impact for the victims," as they "are kept ignorant of their own fates, while family
members are deprived of knowing the whereabouts of their detained loved ones" and suffer as
well the serious economic hardship and poverty that in most cases follow the disappearance of
the household breadwinner.1
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 was AFFIRMED.

The petitioners’ petition for review on certiorari for lack of merit, and AFFIRM the decision of the
Court of Appeals dated March 7, 2008 was DENIED under the following terms.

a) Recognition that the disappearance of Engineer Morced N. Tagitis is an enforced

disappearance covered by the Rule on the Writ of Amparo;
b) Without any specific pronouncement on exact authorship and responsibility, declaring the
government (through the PNP and the PNP-CIDG) and Colonel Julasirim Ahadin Kasim
accountable for the enforced disappearance of Engineer Morced N. Tagitis;
c) Confirmation of the validity of the Writ of Amparo the Court of Appeals issued;
d) Holding the PNP, through the PNP Chief, and the PNP-CIDG, through its Chief, directly
responsible for the disclosure of material facts known to the government and to their
offices regarding the disappearance of Engineer Morced N. Tagitis, and for the conduct of
proper investigations using extraordinary diligence, with the obligation to show
investigation results acceptable to this Court;
e) Ordering Colonel Julasirim Ahadin Kasim impleaded in the case and holding him
accountable with the obligation to disclose information known to him and to his "assets" in
relation with the enforced disappearance of Engineer Morced N. Tagitis;
f) Referring this case back to the Court of Appeals for appropriate proceedings directed at
the monitoring of the PNP and PNP-CIDG investigations, actions and the validation of
their results; the PNP and the PNP-CIDG shall initially present to the Court of Appeals a
plan of action for further investigation, periodically reporting their results to the Court of
Appeals for consideration and action;
g) Requiring the Court of Appeals to submit 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;

PIL PRINCIPLE:
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.
The writ shall be served upon the respondent by a judicial officer or by a person deputized by the
court, justice or judge who shall retain a copy on which to make a return of service. In case the
writ cannot be served personally on the respondent, the rules on substituted service shall apply.
Return Contents. Within seventy-two (72) hours after service of the writ, the respondent shall file
a verified written return together with supporting affidavits which shall, among other things, contain
the following:
A) The lawful defenses to show that the respondent did not violate or threaten with violation
the right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party, through any act or omission; (b)
The steps or actions taken by the respondent to determine the fate or whereabouts of the
aggrieved party and the person or persons responsible for the threat, act or omission; (c)
All relevant information in the possession of the respondent pertaining to the threat, act or
omission against the aggrieved party; and (d) If the respondent is a public official or
employee, the return shall further state the actions that have been or will still be taken: (i)
to verify the identity of the aggrieved party; (ii) to recover and preserve evidence related
to the death or disappearance of the person identified in the petition which may aid in the
prosecution of the person or persons responsible; (iii) to identify witnesses and obtain
statements from them concerning the death or disappearance; (iv) to determine the cause,
manner, location and time of death or disappearance as well as any pattern or practice
that may have brought about the death or disappearance; (v) to identify and apprehend
the person or persons involved in the death or disappearance; and (vi) to bring the
suspected offenders before a competent court.
SEC. 16. Contempt. The court, justice or judge may order the respondent who refuses to make a
return, or who makes a false return, or any person who otherwise disobeys or resists a lawful
process or order of the court to be punished for contempt. The contemnor may be imprisoned or
imposed a fine.

The UN itself that issued the Declaration on enforced disappearance, and this Declaration states:

Any act of enforced disappearance is an offence to dignity. It is condemned as a denial of the

purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and as a grave and flagrant violation of human
rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
reaffirmed and developed in international instruments in this field. [Emphasis supplied]

As a matter of human right and fundamental freedom and as a policy matter made in a UN
Declaration, the ban on enforced disappearance cannot but have its effects on the country, given
our own adherence to "generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the
land."

This is an issue that requires criminal action before our criminal 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 for this disappearance, and to define and impose the
appropriate remedies to address it. The burden for the public authorities to discharge in these
situations, under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, is twofold. The first is to ensure that all efforts
at disclosure and investigation are undertaken under pain of indirect contempt from this Court
when governmental efforts are less than what the individual situations require. The second is to
address the disappearance, so that the life of the victim is preserved and his or her liberty and
security restored. In these senses, our orders and directives relative to the writ are continuing
efforts that are not truly terminated until the extrajudicial killing or enforced disappearance is fully
addressed by the complete determination of the fate and the whereabouts of the victim, by the
production of the disappeared person and the restoration of his or her liberty and security, and, in
the proper case, by the commencement of criminal action against the guilty parties.
From the International Law perspective, involuntary or enforced disappearance is considered a
flagrant violation of human rights.101 It does not only violate the right to life, liberty and security of
the desaparecido; it affects their families as well through the denial of their right to information
regarding the circumstances of the disappeared family member. Thus, enforced disappearances
have been said to be "a double form of torture," with "doubly paralyzing impact for the victims,"
as they "are kept ignorant of their own fates, while family members are deprived of knowing the
whereabouts of their detained loved ones" and suffer as well the serious economic hardship and
poverty that in most cases follow the disappearance of the household breadwinner.1

The Philippines is not yet formally bound by the terms of the Convention on enforced
disappearance (or by the specific terms of the Rome Statute) and has not formally declared
enforced disappearance as a specific crime, the above recital shows that enforced disappearance
as a State practice has been repudiated by the international community, so that the ban on it is
now a generally accepted principle of international law, which we should consider a part of the
law of the land, and which we should act upon to the extent already allowed under our laws and
the international conventions that bind us.

The following civil or political rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ICCPR
and the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESR) may be
infringed in the course of a disappearance:136

1) the right to recognition as a person before the law;

2) the right to liberty and security of the person;

3) the right not to be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment;

4) the right to life, when the disappeared person is killed;

5) the right to an identity;

6) the right to a fair trial and to judicial guarantees;

7) the right to an effective remedy, including reparation and compensation;

8) the right to know the truth regarding the circumstances of a disappearance.

9) the right to protection and assistance to the family;

10) the right to an adequate standard of living;

11) the right to health; and

 12) the right to education [Emphasis supplied]

Following the lead of this Turkish experience - adjusted to the Philippine legal setting and the
Amparo remedy this Court has established, as applied to the unique 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 organizations together with Col. Kasim, should be
held fully accountable for the enforced disappearance of Tagitis.