Lisa Marie J. Clemente
April 12, 2018
12nn
ATTY. IRENE D. VALONES
Human Rights Law, Sun., 10-
Gen. Avelino Razon, Chief, Philippine National Police (PNP),
Police Chief Superentendent Raul Castaneda, Chief, Criminal Investigation and Detection
Group (CIDG), et. al. (Petitioners)
Vs.
Mary Jean B. Tagitis (Respondent)
G.R. No. 182498
December 3, 2009
Brion, J.:
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 matter
to 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.
Lisa Marie J. Clemente
April 12, 2018
12nn
-
ATTY. IRENE D. VALONES
Human Rights Law, Sun., 10-
That the unexplained uncooperative behavior of the police to her request 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 photographs of 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.
Lisa Marie J. Clemente
April 12, 2018
12nn
ATTY. IRENE D. VALONES
Human Rights Law, Sun., 10-
Petitioners filed an appeal before the SC, questioning the CA’s decision.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the privilege of the Writ of Amparo should be granted to protect
Engr. Morced Tagitis?
2. Whether or not the Amparo petition filed by Mary Jean Tagitis is sufficient in form
and substance?
HELD:
1. Whether or not the privilege of the Writ of Amparo should be granted to protect Engr. Morced
Tagitis?
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.
2. Whether or not the Amparo petition filed by Mary Jean Tagitis is sufficient in form and
substance.
Yes.
Lisa Marie J. Clemente
April 12, 2018
12nn
ATTY. IRENE D. VALONES
Human Rights Law, Sun., 10-
The framers of the Amparo Rule never intended Section 5(c) to be complete in every detail in
stating the threatened or actual violation of a victim’s rights.
Section 5 provides:
A petition for the Writ of Amparo shall be signed and verified and shall allege, among
others (in terms of the portions the petitioners cite):
(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;
(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;
(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. (emphasis supplied)
The pleader for the grant of the privilege of the Writ of Amparo 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. In this type of situation, to require the
level of specificity, detail and precision that the petitioners apparently want to read into the
Amparo Rule is to make this Rule a token gesture of judicial concern for violations of the
constitutional rights to life, liberty and security.
The lack of supporting affidavit as required by Section 5(c) of the Amparo Rule should also not
be read as an absolute one that necessarily leads to the dismissal of the petition if not strictly
followed.
In this case, Mary Jean Tagitis substantially complied with the requirement by submitting a
verified petition sufficiently detailing the facts relied upon: knowledge about her husband’s
disappearance, the participation by agents of the State in the disappearance, the failure of the
State to release Tagitis or to provide sufficient information about his whereabouts, as well as the
actual violation to liberty.
Based on these considerations, the Court concluded that the disclosure of Col. Kasim pointed to
some government complicity in the disappearance. The Kasim evidence already established a
concrete case of enforced disappearance that the Amparo Rule covers.
To fully enforce the Amparo remedy, the Court referred the 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.