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 victims 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 rulemaking 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

SPECIAL PROCEDURE | B2015

CASE DIGESTS

deprivation of liberty;
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.
ii.

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].
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.

SPECIAL PROCEDURE | B2015

CASE DIGESTS

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 total violation of thesubjects 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
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
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,
6. generally, the ruling that the respondent discharged the burden of
proving the allegations of the petition by substantial evidence
ISSUES:

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;
RULING:
1. Yes;
2. Yes;
3. Yes;
4. Yes;
RATIO:
1. In questioning the sufficiency in form and substance of the respondents
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 respondents
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:

SPECIAL PROCEDURE | B2015

CASE DIGESTS

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 victims 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 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 victims 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

SPECIAL PROCEDURE | B2015

CASE DIGESTS

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 victims body--is usually
concealed to effectively thwart any investigation

The problem for the victims family is the States 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 victims
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."

SPECIAL PROCEDURE | B2015

CASE DIGESTS

b. Under this definition, 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.
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, Tagitiss and Mrs. Talbins 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.

i.

j.

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.
The Court gleans from all these admitted pieces of evidence and
developments a consistency in the governments 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.
Based on these considerations, we conclude that Col. Kasims
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 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

SPECIAL PROCEDURE | B2015

CASE DIGESTS

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
disappearance covered by the Rule on the Writ of Amparo;

an

enforced

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;
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;