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.

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, is hereby AFFIRMED.

we DENY the petitioners’ petition for review on certiorari for lack of merit, and AFFIRM the decision
of the Court of Appeals

FACTS:
- Tagitis, here is a consultant for the World Bank and the Senior Honorary Counselor for the
Islamic Development Bank (IDB) Scholarship Programme
- He attended an Education Development Seminar  Ateneo de Zamboanga at Zamboanga
City. He was assisted by his student identified as Arsimin Kunnong of the Islamic
Development Bank who was also one of the participants of the said seminar.
- Tagitis arrived in Jolo by boat in the early morning of October 31, 2007 
- 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. 5 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 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 (on December 28, 2007) Tagitis’ Attorney-in-Fact, Atty. Felipe P.
Arcilla, filed a Petition for the Writ of Amparo (petition) with the CA
o 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 [collectively referred to as petitioners].
o [contents of the petition:]
o  Soon after the student 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 and boarded the latter on a motor
vehicle then sped away without the knowledge of his student, Kunnong;
o exerted efforts in trying to locate the whereabouts of Engr. Tagitis 
o Kunnong reported the matter to the [respondent, wife of Engr. Tagitis] by phone
and other responsible officers and coordinators of the IDB Scholarship Programme in
the Philippines, who alerted the office of the Governor of ARMM who was then
preparing to attend the OIC meeting in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
o All of these efforts of the [respondent] did not produce any positive results except the
information from persons in the military who do not want to be identified that Engr.
Tagitis is in the hands of the uniformed men;
o  [Respondent] filed her complaint with the PNP Police but  request and pleadings
failed to produce any positive results;
 o Instead of helping the [respondent], she [sic] was told of an intriguing tale by the
police that her husband, subject of the petition, was not missing but was with another
woman having good time somewhere, which is a clear indication of the [petitioners’]
refusal to help and provide police assistance in locating her missing husband;
o  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;
o respondent] was again to go to the ARMM Police Headquarters again in Cotobato
City and also to the different Police Headquarters including [those] in Davao City, in
Zamboanga City, in Jolo, and in Camp Crame, Quezon City,
o and all these places have been visited by the [respondent] in search for her
husband, which entailed expenses for her trips to these places thereby resorting her
to borrowings and beggings [sic] for financial help from friends and relatives only to
try complying [sic] to the different suggestions of these police officers, despite of
which, her efforts produced no positive results up to the present time;
o The unexplained uncooperative behavior of the [petitioners] to the [respondent’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 [respondent’s] husband, Engr. Tagitis;
o [The respondent] has exhausted all administrative avenues and remedies but to
no avail, and under the circumstances, [the respondent] 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 the subject’s human and constitutional rights, except the
issuance of a WRIT OF AMPARO
-  the CA immediately issued the Writ of Amparo
- the petitioners denied any involvement in or knowledge of Tagitis’ alleged abduction.
o 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
o Razon said he did not have any personal knowledge of, or any participation in, the
alleged disappearance
o  the PNP 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.”
-  petitioner PNP-CIDG Chief, Gen. Edgardo M. Doromal, attached to the Return of the Writ,
attesting that upon receipt of the Writ of Amparo immediately directed the Investigation
Division of this Group [CIDG] to conduct urgent investigation on the alleged enforced
disappearance of Engineer Morced Tagitis
- CA: Since the disappearance of Tagistis was practically admitted and taking note of
favorable actions so far taken on the disappearance, the CA directed Gen. Goltiao – as the
officer in command of the area of disappearance – to form TASK FORCE TAGITIS.
o CA subsequently set three hearings to monitor whether TASK FORCE TAGITIS was
exerting "extraordinary efforts" in handling the disappearance of Tagitis. 20 As
planned, (1) the first hearing would be to mobilize the CIDG, Zamboanga City; (2) the
second hearing would be to mobilize intelligence with Abu Sayyaf and ARMM; and
(3) the third hearing would be to mobilize the Chief of Police of Jolo, Sulu and the
Chief of Police of Zamboanga City and other police operatives
o TASK FORCE TAGITIS submitted to the CA an intelligence report
  intelligence report was apparently based on the sworn affidavit dated January
4, 2008 of Muhammad Abdulnazeir N. Matli (Prof. Matli), Professor of Islamic
Studies at the University of the Philippines and an Honorary Student
Counselor of the IDB Scholarship Program in the Philippines, who told the
Provincial Governor of Sulu that:
 [Based] on reliable information from the Office of Muslim Affairs in Manila,
Tagitis has reportedly taken and carried away… more or less Five Million
Pesos (P5,000,000.00) deposited and entrusted to his … [personal] bank
accounts by the Central Office of IDB, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,
which [was] intended for the … IDB Scholarship Fund.
- 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 on the
following grounds:
o it was only as late as January 28, 2008, after the hearing, that GEN. JOEL
GOLTIAO and COL. AHIRON AJIRIM had requested for clear photographs when
it should have been standard operating procedure in kidnappings or
disappearances that the first agenda was for the police to secure clear pictures of
the missing person, Engr. Morced Tagitis, for dissemination to all parts of the country
and to neighboring countries
o It had been three (3) months since GEN. JOEL GOLTIAO admitted having been
informed on November 5, 2007 of the alleged abduction of Engr. Morced Tagitis by
alleged bad elements of the CIDG.
- Testimonies for the Respondent
o She said that a friend from Zamboanga holding a high position in the military (as Lt.
Col. Pedro L. Ancanan, Jr) gave her information that allowed her to "specify" her
allegations
o This friend also told her that her husband "[was] in good hands."
o she sought the assistance of her former boss in Davao City, Land Bank Bajada
Branch Manager Rudy Salvador, who told her that "PNP CIDG is holding [her
husband], Engineer Morced Tagitis."
o she went to Camp Katitipan in Davao City where she met Col. Julasirim Ahadin
Kasim (Col. Kasim/Sr. Supt Kasim) who read to her and her friends (who were then
with her) a "highly confidential report" that contained the "alleged activities of
Engineer Tagitis" and informed her that her husband was abducted because "he
is under custodial investigation" for being a liaison for "J.I. or Jema’ah Islamiah."
o conversation with Col. Ancanan ….
o her encounter with Col. Kasim ….
 He assured me that my husband is alive and he is in the custody of the
military for custodial investigation. I told him to please take care of my
husband because he has aliments and he recently took insulin for he is a
diabetic patient.
o Col. Kasim categorically denied the statements made by the respondent in her
narrative report
 Col. Kasim emphasized that the "informal letter" he received from his
informant in Sulu did not indicate that Tagitis was in the custody of the
CIDG.59 He also stressed that the information he provided to the respondent
was merely a "raw report" sourced from "barangay intelligence" that still
needed confirmation and "follow-up" as to its veracity.
o Col. Pante further testified that the allegation that 9 RCIDU personnel were involved
in the disappearance of Tagitis was baseless, since they did not conduct any
operation in Jolo, Sulu before or after Tagitis’ reported disappearance.

THE CA RULING
- 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.
 o 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.
- CA thus 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.

SC
- We do not find the petition meritorious.
- Sufficiency in Form and Substance
o 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):
o (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;

o (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;

- 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. As in any other initiatory
pleading, the pleader must of course state the ultimate facts constituting the cause of
action, omitting the evidentiary details
- 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 victim’s rights to life, liberty and security through State or private
party action
o 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. 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. 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."
- These allegations, in our view, properly pleaded ultimate facts within the pleader’s
knowledge about Tagitis’ disappearance, the participation by agents of the State in this
disappearance, the failure of the State to release Tagitis or to provide sufficient information
about his whereabouts, as well as the actual violation of his rights to liberty.
o Thus, the petition cannot be faulted for any failure in its statement of a cause of
action.
- These allegations, to our mind, sufficiently specify that reports have been made to the
police authorities, and that investigations should have followed.
- The petitioners contend that the respondent’s petition did not specify what "legally
available efforts were taken by the respondent," and that there was an "undue haste" in the
filing of the petition when, instead of cooperating with authorities, the respondent
immediately invoked the Court’s intervention.
- [Based on these considerations, we rule that the respondent’s petition for the Writ of Amparo
is sufficient in form and substance and that the Court of Appeals had every reason to
proceed with its consideration of the case.]
- Desaparecidos [history of Writ of Amparo]
- 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. T
- The SC also discussed the meaning of Enforced Disappearance Under International Law
o “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”
o enforced disappearance" is considered to be 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.
- the Philippines has neither signed nor ratified the Convention, so that the country is not
yet committed to enact any law penalizing enforced disappearance as a crime.
o 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."
- Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the sphere of domestic
law either by transformation ( local legislation) or incorporation.(constitutional declaration)
- While 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
- International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
- Article 2 of the ICCPR, which binds the Philippines as a state party, provides:
o 3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
 (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein
recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding
that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official
capacity;
 (b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right
thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative
authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal
system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;
 (c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies
when granted
- The right to security of person in this third sense is a corollary of the policy that the State
"guarantees full respect for human rights" under Article II, Section 11 of the 1987
Constitution. As the government is the chief guarantor of order and security, the
Constitutional guarantee of the rights to life, liberty and security of person is rendered
ineffective if government does not afford protection to these rights especially when they are
under threat. Protection includes conducting effective investigations, organization of
the government apparatus to extend protection to victims of extralegal killings or
enforced disappearances (or threats thereof) and/or their families, and bringing
offenders to the bar of justice. 
- These rulings effectively serve as the backdrop for the Rule on the Writ of Amparo,
which the Court made effective on October 24, 2007. 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 materials cited above, among others,
provide ample guidance and standards on how, through the medium of the Amparo Rule, the
Court can provide remedies and protect the constitutional rights to life, liberty and security
that underlie every enforced disappearance.
 - Evidentiary Difficulties Posed by the Unique Nature of an Enforced Disappearance
- because the State itself – the party whose involvement is alleged – investigates enforced
disappearances.
o there may be a deliberate concealment of the identities of the direct perpetrators.
victim is generally arrested by the security forces or by persons acting under some
form of governmental authority
 there are usually no witnesses to the crime; if there are, they are scared to
speak.
o Second, deliberate concealment of pertinent evidence of the disappearance is a
distinct possibility
o Third is the element of denial; 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

Evidence and Burden of Proof in Enforced Disappearances Cases

- Section 13. Summary Hearing. The hearing on the petition shall be summary. However,
the court, justice or judge may call for a preliminary conference to simplify the issues and
determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations and admissions from the parties.
- Section 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. – The parties shall
establish their claims by substantial evidence.
o The respondent who is a private individual must prove that ordinary diligence as
required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was observed in the performance
of duty.
o The respondent who is a public official or employee must prove that
extraordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations was
observed in the performance of duty.
o The respondent public official or employee cannot invoke the presumption that
official duty has been regularly performed or evade responsibility or liability.
- Section 18. Judgment. – … If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial
evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper
and appropriate; otherwise, the privilege shall be denied.
- These characteristics – 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 extra-judicial 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 victim’s
constitutional rights to life, liberty or security, and the failure on the part of the investigating
authorities to appropriately respond.

- the elements that constitute enforced disappearance are essentially fourfold:160

o (a) arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty;

o (b) carried out by agents of the State or persons or groups of persons acting with the
authorization, support or acquiescence of the State;
 o (c) followed by a refusal to acknowledge the detention, or a concealment of the fate
of the disappeared person; and

o (d) placement of the disappeared person outside the protection of the law

- We find 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. The
undisputed conclusion, however, from all concerned – the petitioner, Tagitis’ colleagues and
even the police authorities – is that Tagistis disappeared under mysterious circumstances
and was never seen again. The respondent injected the causal element in her petition and
testimony, as we shall discuss below.
- likewise find no direct evidence showing that operatives of PNP CIDG Zamboanga abducted
or arrested Tagitis. If at all, only the respondent’s allegation that Tagistis was under CIDG
Zamboanga custody stands on record, but it is not supported by any other evidence, direct
or circumstantial.
o In her direct testimony, the respondent pointed to two sources of information as
her bases for her allegation that Tagistis had been placed under government custody
(in contrast with CIDG Zamboanga custody). The first was an unnamed friend in
Zamboanga (later identified as Col. Ancanan), who occupied a high position in the
military and who allegedly mentioned that Tagitis was in good hands.
o Nothing came out of this claim, as both the respondent herself and her witness, Mrs.
Talbin, failed to establish that Col. Ancanan gave them any information that Tagitis
was in government custody. Col. Ancanan, for his part, admitted the meeting with the
respondent but denied giving her any information about the disappearance.
o The more specific and productive source of information was Col. Kasim, whom the
respondent, together with her witness Mrs. Talbin, met in Camp Katitipan in Davao
City
o Col Kashim never denied he met with respondent. 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. 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
- Based on these considerations and the unique evidentiary situation in enforced
disappearance cases, we hold it duly established that Col. Kasim informed the respondent
and her friends, based on the informant’s letter, that Tagitis, reputedly a liaison for the JI
and who had been under surveillance since January 2007, was "in good hands" and under
custodial investigation for complicity with the JI after he was seen talking to one Omar Patik
and a certain "Santos" of Bulacan, a "Balik Islam" charged with terrorism. The respondent’s
and Mrs. Talbin’s testimonies cannot simply be defeated by Col. Kasim’s plain denial
and his claim that he had destroyed his informant’s letter, the critical piece of evidence that
supports or negates the parties’ conflicting claims. Col. Kasim’s admitted destruction of this
letter – effectively, a suppression of this evidence – raises the presumption that the letter,
if produced, would be proof of what the respondent claimed. 171 For brevity, we shall call the
evidence of what Col. Kasim reported to the respondent to be the "Kasim evidence.
- Given this evidence, our next step is to decide whether we can accept this evidence, in
lieu of direct evidence, as proof that the disappearance of Tagitis was due to action with
government participation, knowledge or consent and that he was held for custodial
investigation. We note in this regard that Col. Kasim was never quoted to have said that the
custodial investigation was by the CIDG Zamboanga. The Kasim evidence only implies
government intervention through the use of the term "custodial investigation," and does not
at all point to CIDG Zamboanga as Tagitis’ custodian