GEN. AVELINO I. RAZON, JR., CHIEF, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE (PNP) VS. MARY JEAN B.

TAGITIS,
HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ATTY. FELIPE P. ARCILLA, JR., ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
G.R. NO. 182498 DECEMBER 3, 2009

FACTS:
Engineer Morced N. Tagitis (Morced), a consultant for the World Bank and the Senior Honorary
Counselor for the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) Scholarship Programme, was last seen in Jolo,
Sulu. Together with ArsiminKunnong (Arsimin), an IDB scholar, Morced 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. Morced asked Arsimin to buy him a boat ticket for his return trip the following day
to Zamboanga. When Arsimin returned from this errand, Morced was no longer around. The
receptionist related that Morced went out to buy food at around 12:30 in the afternoon and even left
his room key with the desk. Arsimin looked for Morced and even sent a text message to the latters
Manila-based secretary who did not know of Morced’s whereabouts and activities either; she advised
Arsimin to simply wait.
Arsimin and Muhammad Abdulnazeir N. Matli, reported Morced’s disappearance to the Jolo
Police Station. Arsimin executed a sworn affidavit attesting to what he knew of the circumstances
surrounding Morced’s disappearance.
On December 28, 2007, Mary Jean, the wife of Morced filed a Petition for the Writ
of Amparo with the Court of Appeals through her Attorney-in-Fact, Atty. Felipe P. Arcilla.
When Arsimin reported the said disappearance of Morced, he was immediately given a ready
answer that Engr. Morced could have been abducted by the Abu Sayyaf group and other groups known
to be fighting against the government.
Mary Jean has exhausted all administrative avenues and remedies but to no avail, the
respondent has no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy to protect and get the release of subject
Engr. MorcedTagitis from the illegal clutches of the petitioners, their intelligence operatives and the like
which are in total violation of the subjects human and constitutional rights, except the issuance of a  writ
of Amparo.
On the same day the petition was filed, the Court of Appeals 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.
Mary Jean was informed by Col. Kasim that her husband was abducted because he is under
custodial investigation for being a liaison for J.I. or Jemaah Islamiah. Col. Kasim read to a confidential
report that Engr. Tagitis was allegedly connected with different terrorist groups.
The Court of Appeals issued its decision confirming that the disappearance of Morced was an
enforced disappearance under the United Nations (UN) Declaration on the Protection of All Persons
from Enforced Disappearances.

ISSUES:
1. Is the petition sufficient in form and substance?
2. What does the Writ of Amparo cover?
3. Is the issuance of Writ of Amparo proper?
RULING:
1. Yes.   
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.  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.
 The allegations in the petition, properly pleaded ultimate facts within the pleaders knowledge
about Morced’s disappearance, the participation by agents of the State in this disappearance, the failure
of the State to release Engr. MorcedTagitis or to provide sufficient information about his whereabouts,
as well as the actual violation of his right to liberty. Thus, the petition cannot be faulted for any failure in
its statement of a cause of action. The Court rule that the respondents 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. 
2. The Amparo Rule expressly provides that the writ shall cover extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances or threats thereof. 
From the International Law perspective, involuntary or enforced disappearance is considered a
flagrant violation of human rights. It does not only violate the right to life, liberty and security of
the desaparecido; it affects their families as well through the denial of their right to information
regarding the circumstances of the disappeared family member.  
The UN General Assembly adopted the International Convention for the Protection of All
Persons from Enforced Disappearance (Convention).  Article 2 of the Convention defined enforced
disappearance as follows: For the purposes of this Convention, 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.  
While the Philippines is not yet formally bound by the terms of the Convention on enforced
disappearance, however, 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.
2. Yes.
The Court ruled that the issuance of Writ of Amparo is proper. The court conclude that Col. Kasim’s
disclosure when he read the confidential information that Morced was abducted because he is under
custodial investigation for being a liaison for J.I. or Jemaah Islamiah, was made in an unguarded
moment, unequivocally point to some government complicity in the disappearance. The evidence and
developments, particularly the Kasim evidence, already establish a concrete case of enforced
disappearance that the Amparo Rule covers.  The evidence at hand and the developments in this case
confirm the fact of the enforced disappearance and government complicity, under a background of
consistent and unfounded government denials and haphazard handling. In which case, the Writ of
Amparo is properly issued.