SPECIAL PROCEDURE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
Razon v. Tagitis
December 3, 2009
Brion
Paolo Q. Bernardo
If you can, please go beyond the summary-doctrine boxes; especially so you understand
the ratio of the Court. Apologies for the delay AND length; as for the length, I omitted a
lot of facts I deemed irrelevant. Lastly, please see the dispositive.
SUMMARY: Engr. Morced N. Tagitis was last seen in Jolo, Sulu. His
disappearance was reported to the Jolo Police Station. It was unacted
upon for a month and hencee Mary B. Tagitis (Tagitis), Engr. Tagitis's
wife, filed a Petition for the Writ of Amparo with the Court of Appeals
against certain members of the the PNP.
The CA issued the Writ of Amparo.
The PNP members appealed the decision of the CA to the Supreme
Court. They mainly dispute:
1. the sufficiency in form and substance of the Amparo
petition filed before the CA;
2. the sufficiency of the legal remedies the Tagitis took
before petitioning for the writ;
3. the finding that the rights to life, liberty and security
of Tagitis had been violated;
4. the sufficiency of evidence supporting the conclusion
that Tagitis was abducted;
5. the conclusion that the CIDG Zamboanga was
responsible for the abduction; and,
6. generally, the ruling that the respondent discharged
the burden of proving the allegations of the petition
by substantial evidence
DOCTRINE:
On the test for the sufficiency of a petition for writ of amparo:
To read the Rules of Court requirement on pleadings while addressing
the unique Amparo situation, the test in reading the petition should be
to determine whether it contains the details available to the one filing
the petition under the circumstances, WHILE presenting a cause of
action showing a violation of the victim’s rights to life, liberty and
security through State or private party action.
On whether enforced disappearance is a proper ground for a writ of
amparo:
The Amparo Rule expressly provides that the "writ shall cover
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
However, while the Rule covers "enforced disappearances" this
concept is neither defined nor penalized in this jurisdiction.
However, this not a stumbling block that will prevent the issuance of a
writ of amparo, because UNDERLYING every enforced disappearance
is a violation of the constitutional rights to life, liberty and security
that the Supreme Court is mandated by the Constitution to protect
through its rule-making powers.
Furthermore, the Court has surveyed international law and states 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 should be considered a
part of the law of the land, and which should act upon to the extent
already allowed under our laws and the international conventions
that bind us.
On the elements of an enforced disappearance:
Under the definition in the UN Convention, the elements that
constitute enforced disappearance are essentially fourfold:
i. arrest, detention, abduction or any form of
deprivation of liberty;
ii. carried out by agents of the State or persons or
groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or
acquiescence of the State;
iii. followed by a refusal to acknowledge the detention,
or a concealment of the fate of the disappeared person; and

iv. placement of the disappeared person outside the
protection of the law.
On relaxing the general rules of evidence in amparo proceedings:
To give full meaning to our Constitution and the rights it protects, the
Court declares that courts in amparo proceedings should at least take
a close look at the available evidence to determine the correct import
of every piece of evidence; and this should include those usually
considered inadmissible under the general rules of evidence
FACTS:
Engr. Morced N. Tagitis is a consultant for the World Bank and the Senior
Honorary Counselor for the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) Scholarship
Programme
He was last seen in Jolo, Sulu.
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.
More than a month later , the Mary B. Tagitis (Tagitis), Engr. Tagitis's wife,
filed a Petition for the Writ of Amparo (petition) with the Court of Appeals
(CA).
The petition was directed against certain members of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police
(PNP):
Lt. Gen. Alexander Yano, Commanding General, Philippine
Army; Gen. Avelino I. Razon, Chief, 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 [collectively referred to as
petitioners].
SPECIAL PROCEDURE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
The petition went on to state:
Soon after the Tagitis left the room, Engr. Tagitis went out of the
pension house to take his early lunch but while out on the street, a
couple of burly men believed to be police intelligence operatives,
forcibly took him
When Kunnong could not locate Engr. Tagitis, the former sought the
help of another IDB scholar and reported the matter to the local
police agency.
Kunnong including his friends and companions in Jolo, exerted
efforts in trying to locate the whereabouts of Engr. Tagitis and when
he reported the matter to the police authorities in Jolo, he was
immediately given a ready answer that Engr. Tagitis could have been
abducted by the Abu Sayyaf group;
Information from persons in the military who do not want to be
identified stated that Engr. Tagitis is in the hands of the uniformed
men; and according to reliable information received by Tagitis,
subject Engr. Tagitis is in the custody of police intelligence
operatives, specifically with the CIDG, PNP Zamboanga City, being
held against his will in an earnest attempt of the police to involve
and connect Engr. Tagitis with the different terrorist groups.
Tagitis filed her complaint with the PNP Police Station in the ARMM
in Cotobato and in Jolo, seeking their help to find her husband, but
Tagitis's request and pleadings failed to produce any positive results.
The unexplained uncooperative behavior of the [petitioners] to
Tagitis's request for help and failure and refusal of the [petitioners]
to extend the needed help, support and assistance in locating the
whereabouts of Engr. Tagitis who had been declared missing since
October 30, 2007 which is almost two (2) months now, clearly
indicates that the [petitioners] are actually in physical possession
and custody of Engr. Tagitis.

Tagitis has exhausted all administrative avenues and remedies but to
no avail, and under the circumstances, Tagitis has no other plain,
speedy and 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 like which are in ISSUES:
total violation of thesubject’s human and constitutional rights, except
the issuance of a WRIT OF AMPARO.
On the same day the petition was filed, the CA immediately issued the Writ of
Amparo. The basis for the issuance by the Court of the Writ is as follows:
At the same time, the CA dismissed the petition against the Tagitis from the RULING:
military, Lt. Gen Alexander Yano and Gen. Ruben Rafael, based on the finding
that it was PNP-CIDG, not the military, that was involved.
Thereafter, the CA issued an ALARM WARNING that Task Force Tagitis of the
PNP did not appear to be exerting extraordinary efforts in resolving Tagitis’
RATIO:
disappearance.
Petitioners appealed the decision of the CA to the Supreme Court/They
mainly dispute:
1. the sufficiency in form and substance of the Amparo petition
filed before the CA;
2. the sufficiency of the legal remedies the Tagitis took before
petitioning for the writ;
3. the finding that the rights to life, liberty and security of
Tagitis had been violated; t
4. the sufficiency of evidence supporting the conclusion that
Tagitis was abducted;
5. the conclusion that the CIDG Zamboanga was responsible for
the abduction; and,
SPECIAL PROCEDURE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
6. generally, the ruling that the respondent discharged the
burden of proving the allegations of the petition by
substantial evidence
1. WON the petition for writ of amparo filed is sufficent in form and
substance;
2. WON an enforced disappearance is a proper ground for issuance of a
writ of amparo;
3. WON there was an enforced disappearance in this case;
4. WON the PNP may be held accountable;
1. Yes;
2. Yes;
3. Yes;
4. Yes;
1. In questioning the sufficiency in form and substance of the
respondent’s Amparo petition, the petitioners contend that the
petition violated Section 5(c), (d), and (e) of the Amparo Rule.
a. SPECIFICALLY, the petitioners allege that Tagitis failed to, in her
petition:
i. allege:
 any ACT or OMISSION the petitioners committed in
violation of Tagitis’ rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, and
SECURITY
 in a complete manner HOW Tagitis was ABDUCTED, the
persons RESPONSIBLE for his DISAPPEARANCE, and the
respondent’s SOURCE of INFORMATION;
 the abduction was committed at the petitioners’
instructions or with their consent;
 any action or inaction attributable to the petitioners in
the performance of their duties in the investigation of
Tagitis’ disappearance;

ii. implead the members of PNP-CIDG regional office in
Zamboanga alleged to have custody over her husband;
iii. attach the affidavits of witnesses to support her accusations;
iv. specify what legally available efforts she took to determine
the fate or whereabouts of her husband.
b. The petitioners state that a petition for the Writ of Amparo shall
be signed and verified and shall allege, among others, as stated
in Section 5 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo:
i. “(c) The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved
party violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful
act or omission of the respondent, and how such threat or
violation is committed with the attendant circumstances
detailed in supporting affidavits;”
ii. “(d) The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the
names, personal circumstances, and addresses of the
investigating authority or individuals, as well as the manner
and conduct of the investigation, together with any report;”
iii. “(e) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to
determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party
and the identity of the person responsible for the threat, act
or omission; and”
c. The framers of the Amparo Rule never intended Section 5(c) of
the Rule to be complete in every detail in stating the threatened
or actual violation of a victim’s rights.
i. As in any other initiatory pleading,the pleader must of
course state the ultimate facts constituting the cause of
action, omitting the evidentiary details.
ii. In an Amparo petition, however, this requirement must be
read in light of the nature and purpose of the proceeding,
which addresses a situation of uncertainty; hence the one
filing the petition may not be able to describe with certainty
how the victim exactly disappeared, or who actually acted to
kidnap, abduct or arrest him or her, or where the victim is
detained, because these information may purposely be
hidden or covered up by those who caused the
disappearance.
d. To read the Rules of Court requirement on pleadings while
addressing the unique Amparo situation, the test in reading the
SPECIAL PROCEDURE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
petition should be to determine whether it contains the
details available to the one filing the petition under the
circumstances, WHILE presenting a cause of action showing
a violation of the victim’s rights to life, liberty and security
through State or private party action.
i. The petition should likewise be read in its totality, to
determine if the required elements-–-namely, of the
disappearance, the State or private action, and the actual or
threatened violations of the rights to life, liberty or
security-–- are present.
e. Applying these rules in the present case, the petition amply
recites in its paragraphs 4 to 11 the circumstances under which
Tagitis suddenly dropped out of sight after engaging in normal
activities, and thereafter was nowhere to be found despite
efforts to locate him.
i. The petition alleged, too, under its paragraph 7, in relation
to paragraphs 15 and 16, that according to reliable
information, police operatives were the perpetrators of the
abduction.
ii. It also clearly alleged how Tagitis’ rights to life, liberty and
security were violated when he was "forcibly taken and
boarded on a motor vehicle by a couple of burly men
believed to be police intelligence operatives," and then taken
"into custody by the respondents’ police intelligence
operatives since October 30, 2007, specifically by the CIDG,
PNP Zamboanga City, x x x held against his will in an earnest
attempt of the police to involve and connect [him] with
different terrorist groups."
f. If a defect can at all be attributed to the petition, this defect is its
lack of supporting affidavit, as required by Section 5(c) of the
Amparo Rule.
i. This requirement, however, should not be read as an
absolute one that necessarily leads to the dismissal of the
petition if not strictly followed.
g. Where, as in this case, the petitioner has substantially complied
with the requirement by submitting a verified petition
sufficiently detailing the facts relied upon, the strict need for the

sworn statement that an affidavit represents is essentially
fulfilled.
h. Section 5(d) of the Amparo Rule requires that prior investigation
of an alleged disappearance must have been made, specifying the
manner and results of the investigation.
i. The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the
Tagitis's petition did not comply with the Section 5(d)
requirements of the Amparo Rule, as the petition specifies in
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
certain that he indeed had disappeared.
2. The present case is one of first impression in the use and application
of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo in an ENFORCED
DISAPPEARANCE situation.
a. The Amparo Rule expressly provides that the "writ shall cover
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats
thereof."
i. However, while the Rule covers "enforced
disappearances" this concept is neither defined nor
penalized in this jurisdiction.
b. The Court clarifies that it does not rule on any issue of criminal
culpability for the extrajudicial killing or enforced
disappearance. This is an issue that requires criminal action
before our criminal courts based on existing penal laws.
i. Its 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.
c. The burden for the public authorities to discharge in these
situations, under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, is twofold.
i. 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.
SPECIAL PROCEDURE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
ii. The second is to address the disappearance, so that the life
of the victim is preserved and his or her liberty and security
restored.
d. The absence of a specific penal law in the Philippines,
however, is not a stumbling block for action from this Court
through the issuance of a writ of amparo.
i. Because UNDERLYING every enforced disappearance is
a violation of the constitutional rights to life, liberty and
security that the Supreme Court is mandated by the
Constitution to protect through its rule-making powers.
e. Furthermore, the Court has surveyed international law and
states 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
should be considered 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.
i. This should serve as the backdrop for the Rule on the Writ of
Amparo.
f. Although the Amparo Rule still has gaps waiting to be filled
through substantive law, as evidenced primarily by the lack of a
concrete definition of "enforced disappearance," the some
material, among others, provide ample guidance and standards
on how, through the medium of the Amparo Rule, the Court can
provide remedies.
g. The Court also states that certain evidentiary difficulties are
present in the Amparo proceeding:
i. First, there may be a deliberate concealment of the identities
of the direct perpetrators.
 Experts note that abductors are well organized, armed
and usually members of the military or police forces.
ii. Second, deliberate concealment of pertinent evidence of the
disappearance;
 The central piece of evidence in an enforced
disappearance-–-i.e., the corpus delicti or the victim’s
body-–-is usually concealed to effectively thwart any
investigation

 The problem for the victim’s family is the State’s virtual
monopoly of access to pertinent evidence.
iii. Third is the element of denial;
 In many cases, the State authorities deliberately deny
that the enforced disappearance ever occurred.
 "Deniability" is central to the policy of enforced
disappearances, as the absence of any proven
disappearance makes it easier to escape the application
of legal standards ensuring the victim’s human rights.
h. The characteristics an amparo proceeding of being
summary and of the use of substantial evidence as the
required level of proof (in contrast to the usual
preponderance of evidence or proof beyond reasonable
doubt in court proceedings) reveals the clear intent of the
framers of the Amparo Rule to have it become similar to an
administrative proceeding.
i. Thus, in these proceedings, the Amparo petitioner needs only to
properly comply with the substance and form requirements of a
Writ of Amparo petition, as discussed above, and prove the
allegations by substantial evidence.
3. The threshold question for our resolution is: was there an enforced
disappearance within the meaning of this term under the UN
Declaration we have cited?
a. The Convention defines 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."
b. Under this definition, the elements that constitute enforced
disappearance are essentially fourfold:
i. arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation
of liberty;
SPECIAL PROCEDURE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
ii. carried out by agents of the State or persons or groups
of persons acting with the authorization, support or
acquiescence of the State;
iii. followed by a refusal to acknowledge the detention, or a
concealment of the fate of the disappeared person; and
iv. placement of the disappeared person outside the
protection of the law.
c. There is no DIRECT evidence indicating how the victim actually
disappeared. The direct evidence at hand only shows that Tagitis
went out of the ASY Pension House after depositing his room key
with the hotel desk and was never seen nor heard of again.
d. The undisputed conclusion, however, from all concerned-–-the
petitioner, Engr. Tagitis’ colleagues and even the police
authorities-–-is that Engr Tagistis disappeared under mysterious
circumstances and was never seen again.
e. Likewise, there is no direct evidence showing that operatives of
PNP CIDG Zamboanga abducted or arrested Tagitis.
f. Col. Kasim never denied that he met with the Tatigits and her
friends, and that he provided them information that Tagitis was
being held by police officials.
i. However, this is based on the input of an unnamed asset.
ii. He simply claimed in his testimony that the "informal letter"
he received from his informant in Sulu did not indicate that
Tagitis was in the custody of the CIDG.
iii. He also stressed that the information he provided the
respondent was merely a "raw report" from "barangay
intelligence" that still needed confirmation and "follow up"
as to its veracity.
g. To be sure, Tagitis’s and Mrs. Talbin’s testimonies were far from
perfect, as the petitioners pointed out.
i. The inconsistencies the petitioners point out relate, more
than anything else, to details that should not affect the
credibility of the respondent and Mrs. Talbin; the
inconsistencies are not on material points.
h. To consider also that some pieces of evidence are incompetent
and inadmissible evidence of is to state that in the absence of
any direct evidence, a court should dismiss the petition.

i. An immediate dismissal for this reason would make the
Amparo Rule ineffective, since it cannot allow for the special
evidentiary difficulties that are unavoidably present in
Amparo situations, particularly in extrajudicial killings and
enforced disappearances.
ii. To give full meaning to our Constitution and the rights it
protects, the Court declares that courts in amparo
proceedings should at least take a close look at the
available evidence to determine the correct import of
every piece of evidence; and this should include those
usually considered inadmissible under the general rules
of evidence
 But the Court must take into account the surrounding
circumstances and the test of reason which shall be used
as a basic minimum admissibility requirement.
i. The Court gleans from all these admitted pieces of evidence and
developments a consistency in the government’s denial of any
complicity in the disappearance of Tagitis, which is disrupted
only by the report made by Col. Kasim to Tagitis about her
husband. Even Col. Kasim, however, eventually denied that he
ever made the disclosure that Tagitis was under custodial
investigation for complicity in terrorism.
j. Based on these considerations, we conclude that Col. Kasim’s
disclosure, made in an unguarded moment, unequivocally point
to some government complicity in the disappearance.
4. The PNP and CIDG are accountable because Section 24 of Republic
Act No. 6975, otherwise known as the "PNP Law," specifies the PNP
as the governmental office with the mandate "to investigate and
prevent crimes, effect the arrest of criminal offenders, bring
offenders to justice and assist in their prosecution."
a. The PNP-CIDG is the "investigative arm" of the PNP and is
mandated to "investigate and prosecute all cases involving
violations of the Revised Penal Code, particularly those
considered as heinous crimes."
b. Under the PNP organizational structure, the PNP-CIDG is tasked
to investigate all major crimes involving violations of the
Revised Penal Code and operates against organized crime
SPECIAL PROCEDURE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
groups, unless the President assigns the case exclusively to the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
c. Given their mandates, the PNP and PNP-CIDG officials and
members were the ones who were remiss in their duties when
the government completely failed to exercise its duties in
entertaining the complaints of Tagitis.
d. To fully enforce the Amparo remedy, the Court refers this case
back to the CA for appropriate proceedings directed at the
monitoring of the PNP and the PNP-CIDG investigations and
actions, and the validation of their results through hearings the
CA may deem appropriate to conduct.
DISPOSITIVE:
The Court:
a. Ruled that the disapperance of Engr. Tagitis is an enforced
disappearance covered by the Rule on the Writ of Amparo;
b. Without any specific pronouncement on exact authorship and
responsibility, declaring the government accountable for the
enforced disappearance of Engr.Tagitis;
c. Holding the PNP directly responsible for the disclosure of material
facts known to the government and to their offices regarding the
disappearance of Engr. Morced N. Tagitis, and for the conduct of
proper investigations using extraordinary diligence, with the
obligation to show investigation results acceptable to this Court;
d. Ordering Col. Kasim impleaded in this 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 Engr. Tagitis;
e. Referring this case back to the CA for appropriate proceedings
directed at the monitoring of the PNP investigations, actions and the
validation of their results;
 SPECIAL PROCEDURE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS

f. Requiring the CA to submit to this Court a quarterly report with its

recommendations,

g. The PNP shall have one (1) full year to undertake their
investigations; the CA 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;