Razon v.

Tagitis
Facts:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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, Anti-Terror 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
TOPICAL ISSUES:

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.
o 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.
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.
o Yes.
Whether or not the writ of amparo determines guilt or pinpoint criminal
culpability for the alleged enforced disappearance of the subject of the
petition for the writ.
o No.

RATIO:
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

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.
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 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 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
It 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 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 extra-judicial 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;
9. 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.