List of cases for SP

Review notes
Case list

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

Special Proceedings
1. Ampatuan vs Macaraig
- An invalid arrest may be
validated upon the denial of
writ of HB.
2. Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No.
182161, 3 December 2009
Razon
v.
Tagitis
G.R.
No.
182498
03 December 2009
PONENTE: Brion, J.
PARTIES:
1.
PETITIONERS: GEN. AVELINO I. RAZON,
JR., Chief, Philippine National Police (PNP);
Police
Chief
Superintendent
RAUL
CASTANEDA, 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
2.
RESPONDENT: MARY JEAN B. TAGITIS,
herein represented by ATTY. FELIPE P.
ARCILLA, JR., Attorney-in-Fact
NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:
Court of Appeals: Petition for the Writ of
Amparo
FACTS:
Engineer Morced N. Tagitis (Tagitis), a
consultant for the World Bank and the Senior
Honorary
Counselor
for
the
Islamic
Development
Bank
(IDB)
Scholarship

Programme, together with Arsimin Kunnong

(Kunnong), an IDB scholar, 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. Kunnong
looked for Tagitis and even sent a text message
to the latters Manila-based secretary, who
advised Kunnong to simply wait for Tagitis
return.
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. More
than a month later, or on December 28, 2007,
the respondent, May Jean Tagitis, through her
attorney-in-fact, filed a Petition for the Writ of
Amparo (petition) 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, AntiTerror Task Force Comet (collectively referred to
as petitioners), with the Court of Appeals
(CA). On the same day, the CA immediately
issued the Writ of Amparo and set the case for
hearing on January 7, 2008.
On March 7, 2008, the CA issued its decision
confirming that the disappearance of Tagitis
was an enforced disappearance under the
United Nations (UN) Declaration on the
Protection of All Persons from Enforced
Disappearances. The CA ruled that when
military
intelligence
pinpointed
the
investigative arm of the PNP (CIDG) to be
involved in the abduction, the missing-person
case qualified as an enforced disappearance.

Hence, the CA extended the privilege of the

writ to Tagitis and his family, and directed the
petitioners 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.
On March 31, 2008, the petitioners moved to
reconsider the CA decision, but the CA denied
the motion in its Resolution dated April 9,
2008. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a petition
for review with the Supreme Court.
PERTINENT ISSUES:
1.
Whether or not the requirement that
the pleader must state the ultimate facts,
i.e. complete in every detail in stating the
threatened or actual violation of a victims
rights, is indispensable in an amparo
petition.
2.
Whether or not the presentation of
substantial evidence by the petitioner to
prove her allegations is sufficient for the
court to grant the privilege of the writ.
3.
Whether or not the writ of amparo
determines guilt nor pinpoint criminal
culpability for the alleged enforced
disappearance of the subject of the petition
for the writ.
ANSWERS:
1.
No. However, it must contain details
available to the petitioner 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.
2.
Yes.
3.
No.
SUPREME COURT RULINGS:
1.
REQUIREMENTS IN AN AMPARO
PETITION
The requirement that the pleader must
state the ultimate facts must be read in

light of the nature and purpose of the

proceeding, which addresses a situation
of uncertainty 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 victims
rights. As in any other initiatory pleading, the
pleader must of course state the ultimate facts
constituting the cause of action, omitting the
evidentiary details. 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; the
petitioner 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. 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 petitioner 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. The petition should
likewise be read in its totality, rather than in
terms of its isolated component parts, 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.
2.
EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN AN AMPARO
PETITION
Burden of proof of Amparo petitioner
[T]he 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. Once a rebuttable case

has been proven, the respondents must then
respond and prove their defenses based on the
standard of diligence required. The rebuttable
case, of course, must show that an enforced
disappearance took place under circumstances
showing
a
violation
of
the
victims
constitutional rights to life, liberty or security,
and the failure on the part of the investigating
authorities to appropriately respond.
Substantial evidence required in amparo
proceedings The [characteristics of amparo
proceedings] namely, of being summary and
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) reveal
the clear intent of the framers of the Amparo
Rule
to
have
the
equivalent
of
an
administrative proceeding, albeit judicially
conducted, in addressing Amparo situations.
The standard of diligence required the duty of
public officials and employees to observe
extraordinary diligence point, too, to the
extraordinary measures expected in the
protection of constitutional rights and in the
consequent handling and investigation of
extrajudicial
killings
and
enforced
disappearance
cases.
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. Once a rebuttable
case has been proven, the respondents must
then respond and prove their defenses based
on the standard of diligence required. The
rebuttable case, of course, must show that an
enforced disappearance took place under
circumstances showing a violation of the
victims constitutional rights to life, liberty or
security, and the failure on the part of the
investigating authorities to appropriately
respond. The landmark case of Ang Tibay v.
Court of Industrial Relations provided the Court
its first opportunity to define the substantial
evidence required to arrive at a valid decision
in administrative proceedings. To directly quote

Ang Tibay: Substantial evidence is more than a

mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion. The statute
provides that the rules of evidence prevailing
in courts of law and equity shall not be
controlling. The obvious purpose of this and
similar provisions is to free administrative
boards from the compulsion of technical rules
so that the mere admission of matter which
would be deemed incompetent in judicial
proceedings
would
not
invalidate
the
administrative order. But this assurance of a
desirable flexibility in administrative procedure
does not go so far as to justify orders without a
basis in evidence having rational probative
force.
Minor inconsistencies in the testimony
should not affect the credibility of the
witness As a rule, minor inconsistencies such
as these indicate truthfulness rather than
prevarication and only tend to strengthen their
probative value, in contrast to testimonies from
various witnesses dovetailing on every detail;
the latter cannot but generate suspicion that
the material circumstances they testified to
were integral parts of a well thought of and
prefabricated story.
3.
ENFORCED
DISAPPEARANCES
in
relation to THE WRIT OF AMPARO
The writ of amparo does not determine
guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for
the disappearance, rather, it determines
responsibility, or at least accountability ,
for the enforced disappearance for
purposes of imposing the appropriate
remedies to address the disappearance
[The writ of amparo is] a protective remedy
against violations or threats of violation against
the rights to life, liberty and security. It
embodies, as a remedy, the courts directive to
police agencies to undertake specified courses
of action to address the disappearance of an
individual, in this case, Engr. Morced N. Tagitis.
It does not determine guilt nor pinpoint
criminal culpability for the disappearance;
rather, it determines responsibility, or at least
accountability, for the enforced disappearance

for purposes of imposing the appropriate

remedies to address the disappearance.
Responsibility refers to the extent the actors
have been established by substantial evidence
to have participated in whatever way, by action
or omission, in an enforced disappearance, as a
measure of the remedies this Court shall craft,
among them, the directive to file the
appropriate criminal and civil cases against the
responsible parties in the proper courts.
Accountability, on the other hand, refers to the
measure of remedies that should be addressed
to those who exhibited involvement in the
enforced disappearance without bringing the
level of their complicity to the level of
responsibility defined above; or who are
imputed with knowledge relating to the
enforced disappearance and who carry the
burden of disclosure; or those who carry, but
have failed to discharge, the burden of
extraordinary diligence in the investigation of
the enforced disappearance. In all these cases,
the issuance of the Writ of Amparo is justified
by our primary goal of addressing the
disappearance, so that the life of the victim is
preserved and his liberty and security are
restored.
The Amparo Rule should be read, too, as
a work in progress, as its directions and
finer points remain to evolve through
time and jurisprudence and through the
substantive laws that Congress may
promulgate [T]he unique situations that call
for the issuance of the writ, as well as the
considerations and measures necessary to
address these situations, may not at all be the
same as the standard measures and
procedures in ordinary court actions and
proceedings. In this sense, the Rule on the Writ
of Amparo (Amparo Rule) issued by this Court
is unique. The Amparo Rule should be read,
too, as a work in progress, as its directions and
finer points remain to evolve through time and
jurisprudence and through the substantive laws
that Congress may promulgate.
The
concept
of
enforced
disappearances is neither defined nor
penalized in this jurisdiction The Amparo

Rule expressly provides that the writ shall

cover
extralegal
killings
and
enforced
disappearances or threats thereof. We note
that although the writ specifically covers
enforced disappearances, this concept is
neither defined nor penalized in this
jurisdiction.
The records of the Supreme
Court Committee on the Revision of Rules
(Committee) reveal that the drafters of the
Amparo Rule initially considered providing an
elemental definition of the concept of enforced
disappearance: x x x In the end, the Committee
took cognizance of several bills filed in the
House of Representatives and in the Senate on
extrajudicial
killings
and
enforced
disappearances, and resolved to do away with
a clear textual definition of these terms in the
Rule. The Committee instead focused on the
nature and scope of the concerns within its
power to address and provided the appropriate
remedy therefor, mindful that an elemental
definition may intrude into the ongoing
legislative efforts. As the law now stands,
extra-judicial
killings
and
enforced
disappearances in this jurisdiction are not
crimes
penalized
separately
from
the
component criminal acts undertaken to carry
out these killings and enforced disappearances
and are now penalized under the Revised Penal
Code and special laws. The simple reason is
that the Legislature has not spoken on the
matter; the determination of what acts are
criminal and what the corresponding penalty
these criminal acts should carry are matters of
substantive law that only the Legislature has
the power to enact under the countrys
constitutional scheme and power structure.
Source of the power of the Supreme Court to
act on extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearances Even without the benefit of
directly applicable substantive laws on extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances,
however, the Supreme Court is not powerless
to act under its own constitutional mandate to
promulgate rules concerning the protection
and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice and procedure in all courts,
since extrajudicial killings and enforced

disappearances, by their nature and purpose,

constitute State or private party violation of the
constitutional rights of individuals to life, liberty
and security. Although the Courts power is
strictly procedural and as such does not
diminish, increase or modify substantive rights,
the legal protection that the Court can provide
can be very meaningful through the procedures
it sets in addressing extrajudicial killings and
enforced disappearances. The Court, through
its procedural rules, can set the procedural
standards and thereby directly compel the
public authorities to act on actual or
threatened violations of constitutional rights. To
state the obvious, judicial intervention can
make a difference even if only procedurally
in a situation when the very same investigating
public authorities may have had a hand in the
threatened or actual violations of constitutional
rights.
DISPOSITIVE: The Supreme Court affirmed
the decision of the Court of Appeals dated
March 7, 2008 under the following terms:
1.
Recognition that the disappearance of
Engineer Morced N. Tagitis is an enforced
disappearance covered by the Rule on the
Writ of Amparo;
2.
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;
3.
Confirmation of the validity of the Writ
of Amparo the Court of Appeals issued;
4.
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;

5.

Ordering Colonel Julasirim Ahadin

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 Engineer Morced N.
Tagitis;
6.
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;
7.
Requiring the Court of Appeals to
submit to this Court 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;
8.
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;
The abovementioned directives and those of
the Court of Appeals made pursuant to this
Decision were given to, and were directly
enforceable against, whoever may be the
incumbent Chiefs of the Philippine National
Police and its Criminal Investigation and
Detection Group, under pain of contempt from
the Supreme Court when the initiatives and
efforts
at
disclosure
and
investigation
constitute less than the extraordinary diligence
that the Rule on the Writ of Amparo and the
circumstances of this case demand.
Given the unique nature of Amparo cases and
their varying attendant circumstances, the
aforementioned directives particularly, the

referral back to and monitoring by the CA are

specific to this case and are not standard
remedies that can be applied to every Amparo
situation.
The Supreme Court likewise affirmed 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.

3.