10 Secretary of Defense Vs Manalo Burgos Case MHH

Enforced Disappearances_Case Digests
MHH_3.1_Human Rights Law
1) THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE
PHILIPPINES, petitioners, vs. RAYMOND MANALO and REYNALDO MANALO, respondents
(GR No. 180906, 2008)
Respondents agreed to do as Gen. Palparan told them as they felt they could not do otherwise. They
were brought to their house for a while to talk to their parents. Out of fear, the parents acceded. They
were again detained and were made to drink Alive medicines that made them sleep thereafter.
Facts: In February 2006, several uniformed and armed soldiers and members of the CAFGU summoned
to a meeting all the residents of their barangay in San Idelfonso, Bulacan. Respondents were not able
to attend as they were not informed of the gathering. While Raymond was sleeping in his house, several
armed soldiers roused him and asked if he was Bestre, but his mother, Ester, replied that he was
Raymond, not Bestre. (The older brother, Rolando was aka Bestre allegedly of the NPA). The armed
soldier slapped him, cuffed him, kicked him on the hip, and brought him. Among the men who came to
take him, Raymond recognized members of the CAFGU. He was blindfolded and taken away in a van.
Later, in his 18 months of captivity, he learned their names. Along the way, another man was brought
inside the van. This was his brother, Reynaldo. Upon arrival at a house, they were both beaten up. The
soldiers asked him if Raymond was a member of the New People's Army. Each time he said he was not,
he was hit with the butt of their guns. He was questioned where his comrades were, how many soldiers
he had killed, and how many NPA members he had helped. Each time he answered none, they hit him.
In the next days, Raymond's interrogators appeared to be high officials. While these officials
interrogated him, Raymond was not manhandled. But once they had left, the soldier guards beat him
up. When the guards got drunk, they also manhandled respondents. During this time, Raymond was
fed only at night, usually with left-over and rotten food.
Eventually, Raymond's chains were removed and he was ordered to clean outside the barracks. It was
then he learned that he was in a detachment of the Rangers. There were many soldiers, hundreds of
them were training. He met Sherlyn Cadapan from Laguna. She told him that she was a student of the
UP and was abducted in Hagonoy, Bulacan. She confided that she had been subjected to severe torture
and raped. She was crying and longing to go home and be with her parents. During the day, her chains
were removed and she was made to do the laundry.
On the third week of respondents' detention, two men arrived while Raymond was sleeping and beat
him up. They doused him with urine and hot water, hit his stomach with a piece of wood, slapped his
forehead twice with pistol, punched him on the mouth, and burnt some parts of his body with a burning
wood. When he could no longer endure the torture and could hardly breathe, they stopped. They then
subjected Reynaldo to the same ordeal in another room. Before their torturers left, they warned
Raymond that they would come back the next day and kill him.
The following night, Raymond attempted to escape. He knew he was near Fort Magsaysay. He did but
was chased down and brought back to detention. For some weeks, the respondents had a respite from
all the torture. Their wounds were treated. When the wounds were almost healed, the torture
resumed, particularly when the guards got drunk.
Raymond narrated his conversation with Gen. Palparan in his affidavit, viz.:
Palparan: Ngayon na kaharap mo na ako, di ka ba natatakot sa akin?
Raymond: Siyempre po, natatakot din. . .
Palparan: Sige, bibigyan ko kayo ng isang pagkakataon na mabuhay, basta't sundin
n'yo ang lahat ng sasabihin ko. . . sabihin mo sa magulang mo huwag
pumunta sa mga rali, sa hearing, sa Karapatan at sa Human Right dahil
niloloko lang kayo. Sabihin sa magulang at lahat sa bahay na huwag paloko
doon. Tulungan kami na kausapin si Bestre na sumuko na sa gobyerno.
After a week, Reynaldo was also brought to Camp Tecson. Two days from his arrival, two other captives,
Karen Empeo and Manuel Merino, arrived.
When "Operation Lubog" was launched, Caigas and some other soldiers brought Raymond and Manuel
with them to take and kill all sympathizers of the NPA. They were brought to Barangay Bayan-bayanan,
Bataan where he witnessed the killing of an old man doing kaingin. The soldiers said he was killed
because he had a son who was a member of the NPA and he coddled NPA members in his house.
Series of torture and killings were made, and among the detained, only Raymond and Reynaldo
remained alive. The two were brought to Pangasinan, ostensibly to raise poultry for Donald.
Respondents started to plan their escape. They could see the highway from where they stayed. They
helped farm adjoining lands for which they were paid Php200 or Php400 and they saved their earnings.
When they had saved Php1,000 each, Raymond asked a neighbor how he could get a cellular phone as
he wanted to exchange text messages with a girl who lived nearby. A phone was pawned to him, but
he kept it first and did not use it. They earned some more until they had saved Php1,400.
One night when the guards were drunk, they escaped. They boarded a bus bound for Manila and were
thus freed from captivity.
Dr. Benito Molino, M.D., corroborated the accounts of respondents Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo.
Dr. Molino specialized in forensic medicine and was connected with the Medical Action Group, an
organization handling cases of human rights violations, particularly cases where torture was involved.
His findings showed that the scars borne by respondents were consistent with their account of physical
injuries inflicted upon them.
In compliance with the October 25, 2007 Resolution of the Court, the petitioners filed a Return of the
Writ of Amparo admitting the abduction but denying any involvement therein. Attached to the Return
of the Writ was the affidavit of the Secretary of National Defense, which attested that he assumed
office only on August 8, 2007 and was thus unaware of the Manalo brothers' alleged abduction.
Herein petitioners presented a lone witness in the summary hearings, Lt. Col. Ruben U. Jimenez.
Jimenez interrogated the 6 implicated officers but concluded that the alleged charges of abduction has
not been established, hence, it lacks merit to indict them for any administrative punishment and/or
criminal liability.

Held: The case at bar is the first decision on the application of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.
The adoption of the Amparo Rule surfaced as a recurring proposition in the recommendations that
resulted from a two-day National Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced
Disappearances sponsored by the Court on July 16-17, 2007. The Summit was "envisioned to provide a
broad and fact-based perspective on the issue of extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearances", hence "representatives from all sides of the political and social spectrum, as well as
all the stakeholders in the justice system" participated in mapping out ways to resolve the crisis.
On October 24, 2007, the Court promulgated the Amparo Rule "in light of the prevalence of extralegal
killing and enforced disappearances." It was an exercise for the first time of the Court's expanded
power to promulgate rules to protect our people's constitutional rights, which made its maiden
appearance in the 1987 Constitution in response to the Filipino experience of the martial law regime.
As the Amparo Rule was intended to address the intractable problem of "extralegal killings" and
"enforced disappearances", its coverage, in its present form, is confined to these two instances or to
threats thereof. "Extralegal killings" are "killings committed without due process of law, i.e., without
legal safeguards or judicial proceedings." On the other hand, "enforced disappearances" are "attended
by the following characteristics: an arrest, detention or abduction of a person by a government official
or organized groups or private individuals acting with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the
government; the refusal of the State to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned or a
refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which places such persons outside the protection of
law."
The writ of amparo originated in Mexico. "Amparo" literally means "protection" in Spanish. Protection
has been an important part of Mexican constitutionalism. If, after hearing, the judge determines that
a constitutional right of the petitioner is being violated, he orders the official, or the official's superiors,
to cease the violation and to take the necessary measures to restore the petitioner to the full
enjoyment of the right in question. Amparo thus combines the principles of judicial review derived
from the U.S. with the limitations on judicial power characteristic of the civil law tradition which
prevails in Mexico. It enables courts to enforce the constitution by protecting individual rights in
particular cases, but prevents them from using this power to make law for the entire nation.
The writ of amparo then spread throughout the Western Hemisphere, gradually evolving into various
forms, in response to the particular needs of each country. It became "task of conveying to the world's
legal heritage that institution which, as a shield of human dignity, her own painful history
conceived." What began as a protection against acts or omissions of public authorities in violation of
constitutional rights later evolved for several purposes: (1) amparo libertad for the protection of
personal freedom, equivalent to the habeas corpus writ; (2) amparo contra leyes for the judicial review
of the constitutionality of statutes; (3) amparo casacion for the judicial review of the constitutionality
and legality of a judicial decision; (4) amparo administrativo for the judicial review of administrative
actions; and (5) amparo agrario for the protection of peasants' rights derived from the agrarian reform
process.

In the Philippines, while the 1987 Constitution does not explicitly provide for the writ
of amparo, several of the above amparo protections are guaranteed by our charter. The second
paragraph of Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987Constitution, the Grave Abuse Clause, provides for the
judicial power "to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government." The
Clause accords a similar general protection to human rights extended by the amparo contra leyes,
amparo casacion, and amparo administrativo. Amparo libertad is comparable to the remedy of habeas
corpus found in several provisions of the 1987 Constitution. The Clause is an offspring of the U.S.
common law tradition of judicial review, which finds its roots in the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison.
While constitutional rights can be protected under the Grave Abuse Clause through remedies of
injunction or prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and a petition for habeas corpus under
Rule 102, these remedies may not be adequate to address the pestering problem of extralegal killings
and enforced disappearances. However, with the swiftness required to resolve a petition for a writ
of amparo through summary proceedings and the availability of appropriate interim and permanent
reliefs under the Amparo Rule, this hybrid writ of the common law and civil law traditions borne
out of the Latin American and Philippine experience of human rights abuses offers a better remedy
to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances and threats thereof. The remedy provides rapid
judicial relief as it partakes of a summary proceeding that requires only substantial evidence to make
the appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner; it is not an action to determine criminal guilt
requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, or liability for damages requiring preponderance of
evidence, or administrative responsibility requiring substantial evidence that will require full and
exhaustive proceedings.
The writ of amparo serves both preventive and curative roles in addressing the problem of extralegal
killings and enforced disappearances. It is preventive in that it breaks the expectation of impunity in
the commission of these offenses; it is curative in that it facilitates the subsequent punishment of
perpetrators as it will inevitably yield leads to subsequent investigation and action. In the long run, the
goal of both the preventive and curative roles is to deter the further commission of extralegal killings
and enforced disappearances.
Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides for the following causes of action, viz.:
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.
Sections 17 and 18, on the other hand, provide for the degree of proof required, viz.:
Sec. 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. The parties shall
establish their claims by substantial evidence.
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 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.
Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
After careful perusal of the evidence presented, we affirm the findings of the Court of Appeals that
respondents were abducted from their houses and were continuously detained until they escaped on
August 13, 2007. The abduction, detention, torture, and escape of the respondents were narrated by
respondent Raymond Manalo in a clear and convincing manner. His account is dotted with countless
candid details of respondents' harrowing experience and tenacious will to escape, captured through
his different senses and etched in his memory. A few examples are the following: "Sumilip ako sa isang
haligi ng kamalig at nakita kong sinisilaban si Manuel." "(N)ilakasan ng mga sundalo ang tunog na
galing sa istiryo ng sasakyan. Di nagtagal, narinig ko ang hiyaw o ungol ni Manuel." "May naiwang
mga bakas ng dugo habang hinihila nila ang mga bangkay. Naamoy ko iyon nang nililinis ang
bakas." "Tumigil ako sa may palaisdaan kung saan ginamit ko ang bato para tanggalin ang mga
kadena." "Tinanong ko sa isang kapit-bahay kung paano ako makakakuha ng cell phone; sabi ko gusto
kong i-text ang isang babae na nakatira sa malapit na lugar."
We are convinced, too, that the reason for the abduction was the suspicion that the petitioners were
either members or sympathizers of the NPA, considering that the abductors were looking for Ka Bestre,
who turned out to be Rolando, the brother of petitioners.
The efforts exerted by the Military Command to look into the abduction were, at best, merely
superficial. The investigation of the Provost Marshall of the 7th Infantry Division focused on the onesided version of the CAFGU auxiliaries involved. This one-sidedness might be due to the fact that the
Provost Marshall could delve only into the participation of military personnel, but even then the
Provost Marshall should have refrained from outrightly exculpating the CAFGU auxiliaries he
perfunctorily investigated. . .
Gen. Palparan's participation in the abduction was also established. At the very least, he was aware of
the petitioners' captivity at the hands of men in uniform assigned to his command. In fact, he or any
other officer tendered no controversion to the firm claim of Raymond that he (Gen. Palparan) met
them in person in a safehouse in Bulacan and told them what he wanted them and their parents to do
or not to be doing. Gen. Palparan's direct and personal role in the abduction might not have been
shown but his knowledge of the dire situation of the petitioners during their long captivity at the hands
of military personnel under his command bespoke of his indubitable command policy that unavoidably

encouraged and not merely tolerated the abduction of civilians without due process of law and without
probable cause.
In the habeas corpus case, the participation of Hilario in the abduction and forced disappearance of
the petitioners was established. The participation of other military personnel like Arman, Ganata,
Cabalse and Caigas, among others, was similarly established. As to the CAFGU auxiliaries,
the habeas Court found them personally involved in the abduction. We also do, for, indeed, the
evidence of their participation is overwhelming.
Raymond Manalo's familiarity with the facilities in Fort Magsaysay such as the "DTU", as shown in his
testimony and confirmed by Lt. Col. Jimenez to be the "Division Training Unit", firms up respondents'
story that they were detained for some time in said military facility.
With the secret nature of an enforced disappearance and the torture perpetrated on the victim
during detention, it logically holds that much of the information and evidence of the ordeal will come
from the victims themselves, and the veracity of their account will depend on their credibility and
candidness in their written and/or oral statements. Their statements can be corroborated by other
evidence such as physical evidence left by the torture they suffered or landmarks they can identify in
the places where they were detained. Where powerful military officers are implicated, the hesitation
of witnesses to surface and testify against them comes as no surprise.
We now come to the right of the respondents to the privilege of the writ of amparo. There is no quarrel
that the enforced disappearance of both respondents Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo has now passed
as they have escaped from captivity and surfaced. But while respondents admit that they are no longer
in detention and are physically free, they assert that they are not "free in every sense of the word" as
their "movements continue to be restricted for fear that people they have named in their Judicial
Affidavits and testified against (in the case of Raymond) are still at large and have not been held
accountable in any way. These people are directly connected to the Armed Forces of the Philippines
and are, thus, in a position to threaten respondents' rights to life, liberty and security." Respondents
claim that they are under threat of being once again abducted, kept captive or even killed, which
constitute a direct violation of their right to security of person.
Elaborating on the "right to security, in general", respondents point out that this right is "often
associated with liberty"; it is also seen as an "expansion of rights based on the prohibition against
torture and cruel and unusual punishment." Conceding that there is no right to security expressly
mentioned in Article III of the 1987 Constitution, they submit that their rights "to be kept free from
torture and from incommunicado detention and solitary detention places fall under the general
coverage of the right to security of person under the writ of Amparo." They submit that the Court ought
to give an expansive recognition of the right to security of person in view of the State Policy under
Article II of the 1987 Constitution which enunciates that, "The State values the dignity of every human
person and guarantees full respect for human rights." Finally, to justify a liberal interpretation of the
right to security of person, respondents cite the teaching in Moncupa v. Enrile that "the right to liberty
may be made more meaningful only if there is no undue restraint by the State on the exercise of that

liberty" such as a requirement to "report under unreasonable restrictions that amounted to a
deprivation of liberty" 115 or being put under "monitoring and surveillance."
In sum, respondents assert that their cause of action consists in the threat to their right to life and
liberty, and a violation of their right to security.
Let us put this right to security under the lens to determine if it has indeed been violated as
respondents assert. The right to security or the right to security of person finds a textual hook in
Article III, Section 2 of the 1987Constitution which provides, viz.:
Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge. . .
At the core of this guarantee is the immunity of one's person, including the extensions of his/her person
houses, papers, and effects against government intrusion. Section 2 not only limits the state's
power over a person's home and possessions, but more importantly, protects the privacy and sanctity
of the person himself.
While the right to life under Article III, Section 1 guarantees essentially the right to be alive upon
which the enjoyment of all other rights is preconditioned the right to security of person is a
guarantee of the secure quality of this life, viz.: "The life to which each person has a right is not a life
lived in fear that his person and property may be unreasonably violated by a powerful ruler. Rather, it
is a life lived with the assurance that the government he established and consented to, will protect the
security of his person and property. The ideal of security in life and property. . . pervades the whole
history of man. It touches every aspect of man's existence." In a broad sense, the right to security of
person "emanates in a person's legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his
health, and his reputation. It includes the right to exist, and the right to enjoyment of life while existing,
and it is invaded not only by a deprivation of life but also of those things which are necessary to the
enjoyment of life according to the nature, temperament, and lawful desires of the individual."
A closer look at the right to security of person would yield various permutations of the exercise of this
right.
First, the right to security of person is "freedom from fear". In its "whereas" clauses, the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) enunciates that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy
freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest
aspiration of the common people." Some scholars postulate that "freedom from fear" is not only an
aspirational principle, but essentially an individual international human right. It is the "right to security
of person" as the word "security" itself means "freedom from fear". Article 3 of the UDHR provides, viz.:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

In furtherance of this right declared in the UDHR, Article 9 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR) also provides for the right to security of person, viz.:
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be
subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty
except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established
by law.
The Philippines is a signatory to both the UDHR and the ICCPR.
In the context of Section 1 of the Amparo Rule, "freedom from fear" is the right and any threat to the
rights to life, liberty or security is the actionable wrong. Fear is a state of mind, a reaction; threat is a
stimulus, a cause of action. Fear caused by the same stimulus can range from being baseless to wellfounded as people react differently. The degree of fear can vary from one person to another with the
variation of the prolificacy of their imagination, strength of character or past experience with the
stimulus. Thus, in the amparo context, it is more correct to say that the "right to security" is actually
the "freedom from threat". Viewed in this light, the "threatened with violation" Clause in the latter
part of Section 1 of the Amparo Rule is a form of violation of the right to security mentioned in the
earlier part of the provision.
Second, the right to security of person is a guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity or
security. Article III, Section II of the 1987 Constitution guarantees that, as a general rule, one's body
cannot be searched or invaded without a search warrant. Physical injuries inflicted in the context of
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances constitute more than a search or invasion of the body.
It may constitute dismemberment, physical disabilities, and painful physical intrusion. As the degree of
physical injury increases, the danger to life itself escalates. Notably, in criminal law, physical injuries
constitute a crime against persons because they are an affront to the bodily integrity or security of a
person.
Physical torture, force, and violence are a severe invasion of bodily integrity. When employed to vitiate
the free will such as to force the victim to admit, reveal or fabricate incriminating information, it
constitutes an invasion of both bodily and psychological integrity as the dignity of the human person
includes the exercise of free will. Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution more specifically
proscribes bodily and psychological invasion, viz.:
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat or intimidation, or any other means which
vitiate the free will shall be used against him (any person under investigation for
the commission of an offense). Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado or
other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
Parenthetically, under this provision, threat and intimidation that vitiate the free will although
not involving invasion of bodily integrity nevertheless constitute a violation of the right to
security in the sense of "freedom from threat" as afore-discussed.
Article III, Section 12 guarantees freedom from dehumanizing abuses of persons under investigation
for the commission of an offense. Victims of enforced disappearances who are not even under such
investigation should all the more be protected from these degradations.
An overture to an interpretation of the right to security of person as a right against torture was made
by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the recent case of Popov v. Russia. 130 In this case,
the claimant, who was lawfully detained, alleged that the state authorities had physically abused him
in prison, thereby violating his right to security of person. Article 5 (1) of the European Convention on
Human Rights provides, viz.: "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be
deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by
law . . ." (emphases supplied) Article 3, on the other hand, provides that "(n)o one shall be subjected to
torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". Although the application failed on the
facts as the alleged ill-treatment was found baseless, the ECHR relied heavily on the concept of security
in holding, viz.:
. . . the applicant did not bring his allegations to the attention of domestic
authorities at the time when they could reasonably have been expected to take
measures in order to ensure his security and to investigate the circumstances in
question.
xxx xxx xxx
. . . the authorities failed to ensure his security in custody or to comply with the
procedural obligation under Art. 3 to conduct an effective investigation into his
allegations. 131 (emphasis supplied)
The U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has also made a statement
that the protection of the bodily integrity of women may also be related to the right to security and
liberty, viz.:
. . . gender-based violence which impairs or nullifies the enjoyment by women of
human rights and fundamental freedoms under general international law or under
specific human rights conventions is discrimination within the meaning of article 1
of the Convention (on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women). These rights and freedoms include . . . the right to liberty and security of
person. 132
Third, the right to security of person is a guarantee of protection of one's rights by the government. In
the context of the writ of amparo, this right is built into the guarantees of the right to life and
liberty under Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution and the right to security of person (as
freedom from threat and guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity) under Article III, Section 2.
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. 133 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. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights stressed the importance of investigation
in the Velasquez Rodriguez Case, 134 viz.:
(The duty to investigate) must be undertaken in a serious manner and not as a
mere formality preordained to be ineffective. An investigation must have an
objective and be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, not as a step taken
by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or
upon their offer of proof, without an effective search for the truth by the
government. 135
This third sense of the right to security of person as a guarantee of government protection has been
interpreted by the United Nations' Human Rights Committee 136 in not a few cases involving Article
9 137 of the ICCPR. While the right to security of person appears in conjunction with the right to liberty
under Article 9, the Committee has ruled that the right to security of person can exist independently
of the right to liberty. In other words, there need not necessarily be a deprivation of liberty for the
right to security of person to be invoked. In Delgado Paez v. Colombia, 138 a case involving death
threats to a religion teacher at a secondary school in Leticia, Colombia, whose social views differed
from those of the Apostolic Prefect of Leticia, the Committee held, viz.:
The first sentence of article 9 does not stand as a separate paragraph. Its location
as a part of paragraph one could lead to the view that the right to security arises
only in the context of arrest and detention. The travaux prparatiores indicate that
the discussions of the first sentence did indeed focus on matters dealt with in the
other provisions of article 9. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in article
3, refers to the right to life, the right to liberty and the right to security of the
person. These elements have been dealt with in separate clauses in the
Covenant. Although in the Covenant the only reference to the right of security of
person is to be found in article 9, there is no evidence that it was intended to
narrow the concept of the right to security only to situations of formal
deprivation of liberty. At the same time, States parties have undertaken to
guarantee the rights enshrined in the Covenant. It cannot be the case that, as a
matter of law, States can ignore known threats to the life of persons under their
jurisdiction, just because that he or she is not arrested or otherwise detained.
States parties are under an obligation to take reasonable and appropriate
measures to protect them. An interpretation of article 9 which would allow a
State party to ignore threats to the personal security of non-detained persons

within its jurisdiction would render totally ineffective the guarantees of the
Covenant. 139 (emphasis supplied) CaEATI
The Paez ruling was reiterated in Bwalya v. Zambia, 140 which involved a political activist and prisoner
of conscience who continued to be intimidated, harassed, and restricted in his movements following
his release from detention. In a catena of cases, the ruling of the Committee was of a similar
import: Bahamonde v. Equatorial Guinea, 141 involving discrimination, intimidation and persecution
of opponents of the ruling party in that state; Tshishimbi v. Zaire, 142involving the abduction of the
complainant's husband who was a supporter of democratic reform in Zaire; Dias v.
Angola, 143 involving the murder of the complainant's partner and the harassment he (complainant)
suffered because of his investigation of the murder; and Chongwe v. Zambia, 144 involving an
assassination attempt on the chairman of an opposition alliance.
Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has interpreted the "right to security" not only
as prohibiting the State from arbitrarily depriving liberty, but imposing a positive duty on the State to
afford protection of the right to liberty. 145 The ECHR interpreted the "right to security of person"
under Article 5 (1) of the European Convention of Human Rights in the leading case on disappearance
of persons, Kurt v. Turkey. 146 In this case, the claimant's son had been arrested by state authorities
and had not been seen since. The family's requests for information and investigation regarding his
whereabouts proved futile. The claimant suggested that this was a violation of her son's right to
security of person. The ECHR ruled, viz.:
. . . any deprivation of liberty must not only have been effected in conformity with
the substantive and procedural rules of national law but must equally be in keeping
with the very purpose of Article 5, namely to protect the individual from
arbitrariness. . . Having assumed control over that individual it is incumbent on the
authorities to account for his or her whereabouts. For this reason, Article 5 must
be seen as requiring the authorities to take effective measures to safeguard
against the risk of disappearance and to conduct a prompt effective investigation
into an arguable claim that a person has been taken into custody and has not
been seen since. 147 (emphasis supplied) ESCTIA
Applying the foregoing concept of the right to security of person to the case at bar, we now determine
whether there is a continuing violation of respondents' right to security.
First, the violation of the right to security as freedom from threat to respondents' life, liberty and
security.
While respondents were detained, they were threatened that if they escaped, their families, including
them, would be killed. In Raymond's narration, he was tortured and poured with gasoline after he was
caught the first time he attempted to escape from Fort Magsaysay. A call from a certain "Mam", who
wanted to see him before he was killed, spared him.

This time, respondents have finally escaped. The condition of the threat to be killed has come to pass.
It should be stressed that they are now free from captivity not because they were released by virtue of
a lawful order or voluntarily freed by their abductors. It ought to be recalled that towards the end of
their ordeal, sometime in June 2007 when respondents were detained in a camp in Limay, Bataan,
respondents' captors even told them that they were still deciding whether they should be executed.
Respondent Raymond Manalo attested in his affidavit, viz.:
Kinaumagahan, naka-kadena pa kami. Tinanggal ang mga kadena mga 3 o 4 na
araw pagkalipas. Sinabi sa amin na kaya kami nakakadena ay dahil
pinagdedesisyunan pa ng mga sundalo kung papatayin kami o hindi. 148
The possibility of respondents being executed stared them in the eye while they were in detention.
With their escape, this continuing threat to their life is apparent, moreso now that they have surfaced
and implicated specific officers in the military not only in their own abduction and torture, but also in
those of other persons known to have disappeared such as Sherlyn Cadapan, Karen Empeo, and
Manuel Merino, among others.
Understandably, since their escape, respondents have been under concealment and protection by
private citizens because of the threat to their life, liberty and security. The threat vitiates their free will
as they are forced to limit their movements or activities. 149 Precisely because respondents are being
shielded from the perpetrators of their abduction, they cannot be expected to show evidence of overt
acts of threat such as face-to-face intimidation or written threats to their life, liberty and security.
Nonetheless, the circumstances of respondents' abduction, detention, torture and escape reasonably
support a conclusion that there is an apparent threat that they will again be abducted, tortured, and
this time, even executed. These constitute threats to their liberty, security, and life, actionable through
a petition for a writ of amparo. CacTIE
Next, the violation of the right to security as protection by the government. Apart from the failure of
military elements to provide protection to respondents by themselves perpetrating the abduction,
detention, and torture, they also miserably failed in conducting an effective investigation of
respondents' abduction as revealed by the testimony and investigation report of petitioners' own
witness, Lt. Col. Ruben Jimenez, Provost Marshall of the 7th Infantry Division.
The one-day investigation conducted by Jimenez was very limited, superficial, and one-sided. He
merely relied on the Sworn Statements of the six implicated members of the CAFGU and civilians whom
he met in the investigation for the first time. He was present at the investigation when his subordinate
Lingad was taking the sworn statements, but he did not propound a single question to ascertain the
veracity of their statements or their credibility. He did not call for other witnesses to test the alibis
given by the six implicated persons nor for the family or neighbors of the respondents.
In his affidavit, petitioner Secretary of National Defense attested that in a Memorandum Directive
dated October 31, 2007, he issued a policy directive addressed to the AFP Chief of Staff, that the AFP
should adopt rules of action in the event the writ of amparo is issued by a competent court against any
members of the AFP, which should essentially include verification of the identity of the aggrieved party;

recovery and preservation of relevant evidence; identification of witnesses and securing statements
from them; determination of the cause, manner, location and time of death or disappearance;
identification and apprehension of the person or persons involved in the death or disappearance; and
bringing of the suspected offenders before a competent court. 150 Petitioner AFP Chief of Staff also
submitted his own affidavit attesting that he received the above directive of respondent Secretary of
National Defense and that acting on this directive, he immediately caused to be issued a directive to
the units of the AFP for the purpose of establishing the circumstances of the alleged disappearance and
the recent reappearance of the respondents, and undertook to provide results of the investigations to
respondents. 151 To this day, however, almost a year after the policy directive was issued by petitioner
Secretary of National Defense on October 31, 2007, respondents have not been furnished the results
of the investigation which they now seek through the instant petition for a writ of amparo. TIEHDC
Under these circumstances, there is substantial evidence to warrant the conclusion that there is a
violation of respondents' right to security as a guarantee of protection by the government.
In sum, we conclude that respondents' right to security as "freedom from threat" is violated by the
apparent threat to their life, liberty and security of person. Their right to security as a guarantee of
protection by the government is likewise violated by the ineffective investigation and protection on
the part of the military.
Finally, we come to the reliefs granted by the Court of Appeals, which petitioners question.

apparent, but this is not true in the present case as the involvement of petitioners in the abduction has
not been shown. ISTCHE
Petitioners' arguments do not hold water. The production order under the Amparo Rule should not be
confused with a search warrant for law enforcement under Article III, Section 2 of the
1987 Constitution. This Constitutional provision is a protection of the people from the unreasonable
intrusion of the government, not a protection of the government from the demand of the people such
as respondents.
Instead, the amparo production order may be likened to the production of documents or things under
Section 1, Rule 27 of the Rules of Civil Procedure which provides in relevant part, viz.:
Section 1. Motion for production or inspection order.
Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor, the court in which an
action is pending may (a) order any party to produce and permit the inspection and
copying or photographing, by or on behalf of the moving party, of any designated
documents, papers, books of accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible
things, not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter
involved in the action and which are in his possession, custody or control. . .
Second, that petitioners confirm in writing the present places of official assignment of M/Sgt. Hilario
aka Rollie Castillo and Donald Caigas.
In Material Distributors (Phil.) Inc. v. Judge Natividad, 153 the respondent judge, under authority of
Rule 27, issued a subpoena duces tecum for the production and inspection of among others, the books
and papers of Material Distributors (Phil.) Inc. The company questioned the issuance of the subpoena
on the ground that it violated the search and seizure clause. The Court struck down the argument and
held that the subpoena pertained to a civil procedure that "cannot be identified or confused with
unreasonable searches prohibited by the Constitution. . ."
Third, that petitioners cause to be produced to the Court of Appeals all medical reports, records and
charts, and reports of any treatment given or recommended and medicines prescribed, if any, to the
Manalo brothers, to include a list of medical personnel (military and civilian) who attended to
themfrom February 14, 2006 until August 12, 2007.
Moreover, in his affidavit, petitioner AFP Chief of Staff himself undertook "to provide results of the
investigations conducted or to be conducted by the concerned unit relative to the circumstances of the
alleged disappearance of the persons in whose favor the Writ of Amparo has been sought for as soon
as the same has been furnished Higher headquarters."
With respect to the first and second reliefs, petitioners argue that the production order sought by
respondents partakes of the characteristics of a search warrant. Thus, they claim that the requisites for
the issuance of a search warrant must be complied with prior to the grant of the production order,
namely: (1) the application must be under oath or affirmation; (2) the search warrant must particularly
describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized; (3) there exists probable cause with one
specific offense; and (4) the probable cause must be personally determined by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. 152 In
the case at bar, however, petitioners point out that other than the bare, self-serving and vague
allegations made by respondent Raymond Manalo in his unverified declaration and affidavit, the
documents respondents seek to be produced are only mentioned generally by name, with no other
supporting details. They also argue that the relevancy of the documents to be produced must be
With respect to the second and third reliefs, petitioners assert that the disclosure of the present places
of assignment of M/Sgt. Hilario aka Rollie Castillo and Donald Caigas, as well as the submission of a list
of medical personnel, is irrelevant, improper, immaterial, and unnecessary in the resolution of the
petition for a writ of amparo. They add that it will unnecessarily compromise and jeopardize the
exercise of official functions and duties of military officers and even unwittingly and unnecessarily
expose them to threat of personal injury or even death. HEASaC
First, that petitioners furnish respondents all official and unofficial reports of the
investigation undertaken in connection with their case, except those already in file with the court.
On the contrary, the disclosure of the present places of assignment of M/Sgt. Hilario aka Rollie Castillo
and Donald Caigas, whom respondents both directly implicated as perpetrators behind their abduction
and detention, is relevant in ensuring the safety of respondents by avoiding their areas of territorial
jurisdiction. Such disclosure would also help ensure that these military officers can be served with
notices and court processes in relation to any investigation and action for violation of the respondents'

rights. The list of medical personnel is also relevant in securing information to create the medical
history of respondents and make appropriate medical interventions, when applicable and necessary.
In blatant violation of our hard-won guarantees to life, liberty and security, these rights are snuffed out
from victims of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. The writ of amparo is a tool that gives
voice to preys of silent guns and prisoners behind secret walls.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated December 26, 2007 is affirmed.
CA decision:
On December 26, 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision in favor of herein
respondents, the dispositive portion of which reads, viz:
ACCORDINGLY, the PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF AMPARO is GRANTED.
The respondents SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE and AFP CHIEF OF STAFF are
hereby REQUIRED:
1.
To furnish to the petitioners and to this Court within five days from notice of this
decision all official and unofficial reports of the investigation undertaken in
connection with their case, except those already on file herein;
2.
To confirm in writing the present places of official assignment of M/Sgt

Hilario aka Rollie Castillo and Donald Caigas within five days from notice of this
decision.
3. To cause to be produced to this Court all medical reports, records and charts,
reports of any treatment given or recommended and medicines prescribed, if
any, to the petitioners, to include a list of medical and (sic) personnel (military
and civilian) who attended to them from February 14, 2006 until August 12, 2007
within five days from notice of this decision.
The compliance with this decision shall be made under the signature and oath of
respondent AFP Chief of Staff or his duly authorized deputy, the latters authority to
be express and made apparent on the face of the sworn compliance with this
directive.

2) EDITA T. BURGOS, petitioner, vs. GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., LT. GEN. ROMEO P.
TOLENTINO, MAJ. GEN. JUANITO GOMEZ, MAJ. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, LT. COL. NOEL CLEMENT, LT.
COL. MELQUIADES FELICIANO, and DIRECTOR GENERAL OSCAR CALDERON, respondents
(GR No. 178497, 2014)
EDITA T. BURGOS, petitioner, vs. GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., LT. GEN. ROMEO P. TOLENTINO,
MAJ. GEN. JUANITO GOMEZ, MAJ. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, LT. COL. NOEL CLEMENT, LT. COL.
MELQUIADES FELICIANO, and DIRECTOR GENERAL OSCAR CALDERON, respondents
(GR No. 183711, 2014)
EDITA T. BURGOS, petitioner, vs. GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., LT. GEN. ROMEO P. TOLENTINO,
MAJ. GEN. JUANITO GOMEZ, LT. COL. MELQUIADES FELICIANO, and LT. COL. NOEL
CLEMENT, respondents (GR No. 183712, 2014)
EDITA T. BURGOS, petitioner, vs. CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, GEN.
HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR.; Commanding General of the Philippine Army, LT. GEN. ALEXANDER
YANO; and Chief of the Philippine National Police, DIRECTOR GENERAL AVELINO RAZON,
JR., respondents (GR No. 183713, 2014)
We resolve in this Resolution all the pending incidents in this case, specifically:
(a) The determination of the relevance and advisability of the public disclosure of
the documents submitted by respondents President Gloria MacapagalArroyo, Lt. Gen. Romeo P. Tolentino, Maj. Gen. Juanito Gomez, Maj. Gen.
Delfin Bangit, Lt. Col. Noel Clement, Lt. Col. Melquiades Feliciano, Director
General Oscar Calderon, Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, Jr.; Commanding General of the
Philippine Army, Lt. Gen. Alexander Yano; and Chief of the Philippine
National Police, Director General Avelino Razon, Jr. to this Court per
paragraph III (i) of the fallo of our July 5, 2011 Resolution; and
(b) The Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela 1 (together with sealed
attachments) filed by petitioner Edita T. Burgos praying that the Court: (1)
order the persons named in the sealed documents impleaded in CA-G.R.
SP No. 00008-WA and G.R. No. 183713; (2) issue a writ of Amparo on the
basis of the newly discovered evidence (the sealed attachments to the
motion); and (3) refer the cases to the Court of Appeals (CA) for further
hearings on the newly discovered evidence. aTEAHc
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
A. The Court's June 22, 2010 Resolution
These incidents stemmed from our June 22, 2010 Resolution referring the present case to the
Commission on Human Rights (CHR) as the Court's directly commissioned agency, tasked with the
continuation of the investigation of Jonas Joseph T. Burgos' abduction with the obligation to report its
factual findings and recommendations to this Court. This referral was necessary as the investigation by
the Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group(PNP-CIDG), by the Armed
Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Provost Marshal, and even the initial CHR investigation had been less
than complete. In all of them, there were significant lapses in the handling of the investigation. In
particular, we highlighted the PNP-CIDG's failure to identify the cartographic sketches of two (one
male and one female) of the five abductors of Jonas, based on their interview with the eyewitnesses
to the abduction.
In this same Resolution, we also affirmed the CA's dismissal of the petitions for Contempt and issuance
of a Writ of Amparo with respect to President Macapagal-Arroyo who was then entitled, as President,
to immunity from suit.
The March 15, 2011 CHR Report
On March 15, 2011, the CHR submitted to the Court its Investigation Report on the Enforced
Disappearance of Jonas Burgos (CHR Report), in compliance with our June 22, 2010 Resolution. On the
basis of the gathered evidence, the CHR submitted the following findings: ICAcaH
Based on the facts developed by evidence obtaining in this case, the CHR finds that
the enforced disappearance of Jonas Joseph T. Burgos had transpired; and that
his constitutional rights to life liberty and security were violated by the
Government have been fully determined.
Jeffrey Cabintoy and Elsa Agasang have witnessed on that fateful day of April 28,
2007 the forcible abduction of Jonas Burgos by a group of about seven (7) men
and a woman from the extension portion of Hapag Kainan Restaurant, located at
the ground floor of Ever Gotesco Mall, Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City.
xxx xxx xxx
The eyewitnesses mentioned above were Jeffrey Cabintoy (Jeffrey) and Elsa
Agasang (Elsa), who at the time of the abduction were working as busboy and
Trainee-Supervisor, respectively, at Hapag Kainan Restaurant.
In his Sinumpaang Salaysay, Jeffrey had a clear recollection of the face of HARRY
AGAGEN BALIAGA, JR. as one of the principal abductors, apart from the faces of
the two abductors in the cartographic sketches that he described to the police,
after he was shown by the Team the pictures in the PMA Year Book of Batch
Sanghaya 2000 and group pictures of men taken some years thereafter.

The same group of pictures were shown to detained former 56th IB Army trooper
Edmond M. Dag-uman (Dag-uman), who also positively identified Lt. Harry
Baliaga, Jr. Daguman's Sinumpaang Salaysay states that he came to know Lt.
Baliaga as a Company Commander in the 56th IB while he was still in the military
service (with Serial No. 800693, from 1997 to 2002) also with the 56th IB but
under 1Lt. Usmalik Tayaban, the Commander of Bravo Company. When he was
arrested and brought to the 56th IB Camp in April 2005, he did not see Lt. Baliaga
anymore at the said camp. The similar reaction that the pictures elicited from both
Jeffrey and Daguman did not pass unnoticed by theTeam. Both men always look
pensive, probably because of the pathetic plight they are in right now. It came as a
surprise therefore to the Team when they could hardly hide their smile upon seeing
the face of Baliaga, as if they know the man very well. ISDHcT
Moreover, when the Team asked how certain Jeffrey was or [sic] that it was indeed
Baliaga that he saw as among those who actually participated in Jonas' abduction.
Jeffrey was able to give a graphic description and spontaneously, to boot, the blow
by blow account of the incident, including the initial positioning of the actors,
specially Baliaga, who even approached, talked to, and prevented him from
interfering in their criminal act.
A Rebel-returnee (RR) named Maria Vita Lozada y Villegas @KA MY, has identified
the face of the female in the cartographic sketch as a certain Lt. Fernando. While
Lozada refuses to include her identification of Lt. Fernando in her Sinumpaang
Salaysay for fear of a backlash, she told the Team that she was certain it was Lt.
Fernando in the cartographic sketch since both of them were involved in counterinsurgency operations at the 56th IB, while she was under the care of the battalion
from March 2006 until she left the 56th IB Headquarters in October 2007. Lozada's
involvement in counter-insurgency operations together with Lt. Fernando was
among the facts gathered by the CHR Regional Office 3 Investigators, whose
investigation into the enforced disappearance of Jonas Joseph Burgos was
documented by way of an After Mission Report dated August 13, 2008.
Most if not all the actual abductors would have been identified had it not been
for what is otherwise called as evidentiary difficulties shamelessly put up by some
police and military elites. The deliberate refusal of TJAG Roa to provide the CHR
with the requested documents does not only defy the Supreme Court directive
to the AFP but ipso facto created a disputable presumption that AFP personnel
were responsible for the abduction and that their superiors would be found
accountable, if not responsible, for the crime committed. This observation finds
support in the disputable presumption "That evidence willfully suppressed would
be adverse if produced." (Paragraph (e), Section 3, Rule 131 on Burden of Proof and
Presumptions, Revised Rules on Evidence of the Rules of Court of the
Philippines). ISCaDH

In saying that the requested document is irrelevant, the Team has deemed that
the requested documents and profiles would help ascertain the true identities of
the cartographic sketches of two abductors because a certain Virgilio Eustaquio
has claimed that one of the intelligence operatives involved in the 2007 ERAP 5
case fits the description of his abductor.
As regards the PNP CIDG, the positive identification of former 56th IB officer Lt.
HARRY A. BALIAGA, JR. as one of the principal abductors has effectively crushed
the theory of the CIDG witnesses that the NPAs abducted Jonas. Baliaga's true
identity and affiliation with the military have been established by overwhelming
evidence corroborated by detained former Army trooper Dag-uman.
For lack of material time, the Commission will continue to investigate the enforced
disappearance of Jonas Burgos as an independent body and pursuant to its
mandate under the 1987 Constitution. Of particular importance are the identities
and locations of the persons appearing in the cartographic sketches; the
allegations that CIDG Witnesses Emerito G. Lipio and Meliza Concepcion-Reyes are
AFP enlisted personnel and the alleged participation of Delfin De Guzman @ Ka
Baste in the abduction of Jonas Burgos whose case for Murder and Attempted
Murder was dismissed by the court for failure of the lone witness, an army man of
the 56th IB to testify against him. DHTECc
Interview with Virgilio Eustaquio, Chairman of the Union Masses for Democracy
and Justice (UMDJ), revealed that the male abductor of Jonas Burgos appearing
in the cartographic sketch was among the raiders who abducted him and four
others, identified as Jim Cabauatan, Jose Curament, Ruben Dionisio and Dennis
Ibona otherwise known as ERAP FIVE.
10

the CA in order to allow Lt. Harry A. Baliaga, Jr. and the present Amparo respondents to file their
Comments on the CHR Report; and ordering Lt. Baliaga to be impleaded as a party to
the Amparo petition; and (3) affirming the dismissal of the petitioner's petition for Contempt, without
prejudice to the re-filing of the contempt charge as may be warranted by the results of the subsequent
CHR investigation. To quote the exact wording of our Resolution:
WHEREFORE, in the interest of justice and for the foregoing reasons,
we RESOLVE to:
I. IN G.R. NO. 183711 (HABEAS CORPUS PETITION, CA-G.R. SP No. 99839)
a. ISSUE a Writ of Habeas Corpus anew, returnable to the Presiding Justice
of the Court of Appeals who shall immediately refer the writ to
the
same
Division
that
decided
the
habeas
corpus petition; DAaEIc
b. ORDER Lt. Harry A. Baliaga, Jr. impleaded in CA-G.R. SP No. 99839 and
G.R. No. 183711, and REQUIRE him, together with the incumbent
Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines; the incumbent
Commanding General, Philippine Army; and the Commanding
Officer of the 56th IB, 7th Infantry Division, Philippine Army at
the time of the disappearance of Jonas Joseph T. Burgos, Lt. Col.
Melquiades Feliciano, to produce the person of Jonas Joseph T.
Burgos under the terms the Court of Appeals shall prescribe, and
to show cause why Jonas Joseph T. Burgos should not be released
from detention;
Unfortunately, and as already pointed out above, The Judge Advocate General
(TJAG) turned down the request of the Team for a profile of the operatives in the
so-called "Erap 5" abduction on the ground of relevancy and branded the request
as a fishing expedition per its Disposition Form dated September 21, 2010. HCaDIS
c. REFER back the petition for habeas corpus to the same Division of the
Court of Appeals which shall continue to hear this case after the
required Returns shall have been filed and render a new decision
within thirty (30) days after the case is submitted for decision;
and
Efforts to contact Virgilio Eustaquio to secure his affidavit proved futile, as his
present whereabouts cannot be determined. And due to lack of material time, the
Commission decided to pursue the same and determine the whereabouts of the
other members of the "Erap 5" on its own time and authority as an independent
body. 2
d. ORDER the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the
Commanding General of the Philippine Army to be impleaded as
parties, separate from the original respondents impleaded in the
petition, and the dropping or deletion of President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo as party-respondent.
B. The Court's July 5, 2011 Resolution

On July 5, 2011, in light of the new evidence and leads the CHR uncovered, we issued a Resolution: (1)
issuing anew a Writ of Habeas Corpus and referring the habeas corpus petition to the CA; (2) holding
in abeyance our ruling on the merits of the Amparo aspect of the case; referring back the same to
II. IN G.R. NO. 183712 (CONTEMPT OF COURT CHARGE, CA-G.R. SP No.

100230)
e. AFFIRM the dismissal of the petitioner's petition for Contempt in CAG.R. SP No. 100230, without prejudice to the re-filing of the
contempt charge as may be warranted by the results of the

subsequent CHR investigation this Court has ordered;
and TEacSA
f. ORDER the dropping or deletion of former President Gloria MacapagalArroyo as party-respondent, in light of the unconditional
dismissal of the contempt charge against her.
III. IN G.R. NO. 183713 (WRIT OF AMPARO PETITION, CA-G.R. SP No.
00008-WA)
g. ORDER Lt. Harry A. Baliaga, Jr., impleaded in CA-G.R. SP No. 00008-WA
and G.R. No. 183713, without prejudice to similar directives we
may issue with respect to others whose identities and
participation may be disclosed in future investigations and
proceedings;
h. DIRECT Lt. Harry A. Baliaga, Jr., and the present Amparo respondents
to file their Comments on the CHR report with the Court of
Appeals, within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from
receipt of this Resolution.
i. REQUIRE General Roa of the Office of the Judge Advocate General, AFP;
the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, JI, AFP, at the time of our
June 22, 2010 Resolution; and then Chief of Staff, AFP, Gen.
Ricardo David, (a) to show cause and explain to this Court, within
a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from receipt of this
Resolution, why they should not be held in contempt of this
Court for their defiance of our June 22, 2010 Resolution; and (b)
to submit to this Court, within a non-extendible period of fifteen
(15) days from receipt of this Resolution, a copy of the
documents requested by the CHR, particularly:
1) The profile and Summary of Information and pictures of T/Sgt.
Jason Roxas (Philippine Army); Cpl. Maria Joana
Francisco (Philippine Air Force); M/Sgt. Aron Arroyo
(Philippine Air Force); an alias T.L. all reportedly
assigned with Military Intelligence Group 15 of
Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines and 2Lt. Fernando, a lady officer involved
in the counter-insurgency operations of the 56th IB in
2006 to 2007; EcHIAC
2) Copies of the records of the 2007 ERAP 5 incident in Kamuning,
Quezon City and the complete list of the intelligence
11
operatives involved in that said covert military

operation, including their respective Summary of
Information and individual pictures; and
3) Complete list of the officers, women and men assigned at the
56th and 69th Infantry Battalion and the 7th Infantry
Division from January 1, 2004 to June 30, 2007 with
their respective profiles, Summary of Information and
pictures; including the list of captured rebels and rebels
who surrendered to the said camps and their
corresponding pictures and copies of their Tactical
Interrogation Reports and the cases filed against them,
if any.
These documents shall be released exclusively to this Court for our examination
to determine their relevance to the present case and the advisability of their
public disclosure.
j. ORDER the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the
Commanding General of the Philippine Army to be impleaded as
parties, in representation of their respective organizations,
separately from the original respondents impleaded in the
petition; and the dropping of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
as party-respondent; ADSTCI
k. REFER witnesses Jeffrey T. Cabintoy and Elsa B. Agasang to the
Department of Justice for admission to the Witness Protection
Security and Benefit Program, subject to the requirements
of Republic Act No. 6981; and
l. NOTE the criminal complaint filed by the petitioner with the DOJ which
the latter may investigate and act upon on its own pursuant to
Section 21 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. 3
C. The Court's August 23, 2011 Resolution
On August 23, 2011, we issued a Resolution resolving among others:
(a) to NOTE the Explanation separately filed by Brigadier Gen. Gilberto Jose C. Roa,
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), General Ricardo A. David, Jr., APP
(ret.), and Rear Admiral Cornelio A. dela Cruz, Jr., AFP; aEACcS
xxx xxx xxx
(c) to LIMIT the documents to be submitted to this Court to those assigned at the
56th Infantry Battalion (IB) from January 1, 2004 to June 30, 2007, and

to SUBMIT these materials within ten (10) days from notice of this
Resolution, without prejudice to the submission of the other documents
required under the Court's July 5, 2011 Resolution, pertaining to those
assigned at the other units of the AFP, should the relevance of these
documents be established during the Court of Appeal's hearing;
(d) to REQUIRE the submission, within ten (10) days from notice of this Resolution,
of the Summary of Information and individual pictures of the intelligence
operatives involved in the ERAP 5 incident, in compliance with the Court's
July 5, 2011 Resolution;
(e) to REQUIRE the submission, within ten (10) days from notice of this Resolution,
of the profile and Summary of Information and pictures of an alias T.L.,
reportedly assigned with Military Intelligence Group 15 of the Intelligence
Service of the AFP and of a 2Lt. Fernando, a lady officer in the counterinsurgency operations of the 56th IB in 2006 to 2007, in compliance with
the Court's July 5, 2011 Resolution. 4
The
Respondents'
and Motion
September
12
23,
2011
Manifestation
On September 23, 2011, the respondents submitted a Manifestation and Motion in compliance with
the Court's August 23, 2011 Resolution. Attached to this Manifestation and Motion are the following
documents: TAcDHS
E. The Court's October 11, 2011 Resolution

On October 11, 2011, we issued a Resolution requiring the CHR to secure Virgilio Eustaquio's affidavit,
and to submit a report of its ongoing investigation of Jonas' abduction, viz.: ITAaCc
(1) REQUIRE the Commission on Human Rights to undertake all available measures
to obtain the affidavit of witness Virgilio Eustaquio in connection with his
allegation that one of the male abductors of Jonas Joseph T. Burgos,
appearing in the cartographic sketch, was among the "raiders" who
abducted him and four others, identified as Jim Cabauatan, Jose
Curament, Ruben Dionisio and Dennis Ibona (otherwise known as the
"ERAP FIVE");
(2) DIRECT the Commission on Human Rights to submit to this Court, within thirty
(30) days from receipt of this Resolution, a Report, with its
recommendations of its ongoing investigation of Burgos' abduction, and
the affidavit of Virgilio Eustaquio, if any, copy furnished the petitioner, the
Court of Appeals, the incumbent Chiefs of the AFP, the PNP and the PNPCIDG, and all the present respondents before the Court of Appeals. 7
F. The Court's November 29, 2011 Resolution
On November 2, 2011, we received a letter dated October 28, 2011 from Commissioner Jose Manuel
S. Mamauag, Team Leader, CHR Special Investigation Team, requesting photocopies of the following
documents:
a. The Summary of Information (SOI) of the officers and enlisted personnel of the
56th IB, 7th ID from January 1, 2004 to June 30, 2007;
i. SOI of the officers and enlisted personnel of the 56th IB, 7th ID from January 1,
2004 to June 30, 2007;
b. The Summary of Information (SOI) of the intelligence operatives who were

involved in the ERAP 5 incident; and
ii. SOI of the intelligence operatives who were involved in the ERAP 5 incident;
and EHaCTA
c. The Summary of Information (SOI) of 2Lt. Fernando, who was a member of the
56th IB, 7th ID. 5
iii. SOI of 2Lt. Fernando who was a member of the 56th IB, 7th ID. 8
D. The Court's September 6, 2011 Resolution

On August 19, 2011, the petitioner filed a Manifestation and a Motion for Clarificatory Order praying
among others that she be allowed to examine the documents submitted to the Court pursuant to
paragraph III (i) of the Court's July 5, 2011 Resolution. In our September 6, 2011 Resolution, we
resolved, among others, to:
(3) DENY the petitioner's request to be allowed to examine the documents
submitted to this Court per paragraph (i) of the fallo of our July 5, 2011
Resolution, without prejudice to our later determination of the relevance
and of the advisability of public disclosure of those
documents/materials; 6
In our November 29, 2011 Resolution, we denied the CHR's request considering the confidential nature
of the requested documents and because the relevance of these documents to the present case had
not been established. We referred the CHR to our July 5, 2011 Resolution where we pointedly stated
that these documents shall be "released exclusively to this Court for our examination to determine
their relevance to the present case and the advisability of their public disclosure." 9 ETCcSa
We held that "[w]e see no reason at this time to release these confidential documents since their
relevance to the present case has not been established to our satisfaction. It is precisely for this reason
that we issued our October 24, 2011 Resolution and directed the CHR to submit to this Court, within
thirty (30) days from receipt of the Resolution, a Report with its recommendations of its ongoing
investigation of Jonas Burgos' abduction, and the affidavit of Virgilio Eustaquio, if any. Simply stated, it

is only after the CHR's faithful compliance with our October 24, 2011 Resolution that we will be able to
determine the relevance of the requested documents to the present case." 10
G. The March 20, 2012 CHR Progress Report and Eustaquio's Affidavit
On March 20, 2012, the CHR submitted its Progress Report detailing its efforts to secure the affidavit
of witness Eustaquio in relation with his allegation that one of the male abductors of Jonas, appearing
in the cartographic sketch, was among the raiders who abducted him and four others, identified as Jim
Cabauatan, Jose Curament, Ruben Dionisio and Dennis Ibona (otherwise known as the "ERAP FIVE").
Attached to this Report is Eustaquio's sworn affidavit dated March 16, 2012, which pertinently stated:
1. I was one of the victims in the abduction incident on May 22, 2006 otherwise
known as ERAP 5 and because of that, we filed a case with the
Ombudsman against Commodore Leonardo Calderon, et al., all then ISAFP
elements, docketed as OMB-P-C-06-04050-E for Arbitrary Detention,
Unlawful Arrest, Maltreatment of Prisoners, Grave Threats, Incriminatory
Machination, and Robbery.
2. On March 16, 2012, I was approached again by the CHR Special Investigation
Team regarding the information I have previously relayed to them
sometime in September 2010 as to the resemblance of the cartographic
sketch of the man as described by the two eyewitnesses Elsa Agasang and
Jeffrey Cabintoy in the abduction case of Jonas Burgos; AHSEaD
3. I can say that the male abductor of Jonas Burgos appearing in the cartographic
sketch is among the raiders who abducted me and my four other
companions because the cartographic sketch almost exactly matched
and/or resembled to the cartographic sketch that I also provided and
described in relation to the said incident at my rented house in Kamuning,
Quezon City on May 22, 2006.
4. I am executing this affidavit voluntarily, freely and attest to the truth of the
foregoing. 11 STIEHc
H. The March 18, 2013 CA Decision
On March 18, 2013, the CA issued its decision pursuant to the Court's July 5, 2011 Resolution referring
the Amparo and Habeas Corpus aspects of the case to the CA for appropriate hearings and ruling on
the merits of the petitions.
Petition for Habeas Corpus
The CA held that the issue in the petition for habeas corpus is not the illegal confinement or detention
of Jonas, but his enforced disappearance. Considering that Jonas was a victim of enforced
disappearance, the present case is beyond the ambit of a petition for habeas corpus.
13
Petition for the Writ of Amparo
Based on its finding that Jonas was a victim of enforced disappearance, the CA concluded that the
present case falls within the ambit of the Writ of Amparo. The CA found that the totality of the evidence
supports the petitioner's allegation that the military was involved in the enforced disappearance of
Jonas. The CA took note of Jeffrey Cabintoy's positive identification of Lt. Baliaga as one of the
abductors who approached him and told him not to interfere because the man being arrested had been
under surveillance for drugs; he also remembered the face of Lt. Baliaga the face he identified in the
pictures because he resembles his friend Raven. The CA also held that Lt. Baliaga's alibi and
corroborative evidence cannot prevail over Cabintoy's positive identification, considering especially the
absence of any indication that he was impelled by hatred or any improper motive to testify against Lt.
Baliaga. Thus, the CA held that Lt. Baliaga was responsible and the AFP and the PNP were accountable
for the enforced disappearance of Jonas.
Based on these considerations, the CA resolved to: SDAcaT
1) RECOGNIZING the abduction of Jonas Burgos as an enforced disappearance
covered by the Rule on the Writ of Amparo;
2) With regard to authorship,
a) DECLARING Maj. Harry A. Baliaga, Jr. RESPONSIBLE for the enforced
disappearance of Jonas Burgos; and
b) DECLARING the Armed Forces of the Philippines and elements of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines, particularly the Philippine
Army, ACCOUNTABLE for the enforced disappearance of Jonas
Burgos;
3) DECLARING the Philippine National Police ACCOUNTABLE for the conduct of an
exhaustive investigation of the enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos.
To this end, the PNP through its investigative arm, the PNP-CIDG, is
directed to exercise extraordinary diligence to identify and locate the
abductors of Jonas Burgos who are still at large and to establish the link
between the abductors of Jonas Burgos and those involved in the ERAP 5
incident.
(4) DIRECTING the incumbent Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
and the Director General of the Philippine National Police, and their
successors, to ensure the continuance of their investigation and
coordination on the enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos until the
persons found responsible are brought before the bar of justice; ASHICc
(5) DIRECTING the Commission on Human Rights to continue with its own
independent investigation on the enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos

with the same degree of diligence required under the Rule on the Writ
of Amparo; and
(6) DIRECTING the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National
Police to extend full assistance to the Commission on Human Rights in the
conduct of the latter's investigation.
The Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Director General,
Philippine National Police and the Chairman, Commission on Human Rights are
hereby DIRECTED to submit a quarterly report to this Court on the results of their
respective investigation.
The filing of petitioner's Affidavit-Complaint against Maj. Harry A. Baliaga, Jr., et
al. before the Department of Justice on June 9, 2011 is NOTED. Petitioner
is DIRECTED to immediately inform this Court of any development regarding the
outcome of the case. 12
The
Respondent's
Reconsideration
April
14
3,
2013
Motion
for
7. The Chief of Staff, AFP, also respectfully takes exception to the finding of the
Honorable Court "recognizing the abduction of Jonas Burgos as an enforced
disappearance." aTICAc
xxx xxx xxx
That the Honorable Court found a member of the Philippine Army or even a group
of military men to be responsible for the abduction of Jonas Burgos, does not
necessarily make the same a case of "enforced disappearance" involving the State.
There is dearth of evidence to show that the government is involved. Respondent
Baliaga's alleged participation in the abduction and his previous membership in the
56th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army, by themselves, do not prove the
participation or acquiescence of the State. 13
I. The CA Resolution dated May 23, 2013
Partial
The Solicitor General, in behalf of the public respondents (the AFP Chief of Staff and the PNP Director
General), filed a motion for partial reconsideration of the March 18, 2013 CA decision. The motion
made the following submissions:
5. . . . [T]he Director General, PNP, respectfully takes exception to the Honorable
Court's findings that the PNP, specifically the CIDG, "failed to exercise
extraordinary diligence in the conduct of its investigation." . . . [T]hat this
Honorable Court arrived at a conclusion different from that of the CIDG, or
accorded different credence to the statements of the witnesses presented by the
parties, does not necessarily translate to the CIDG's failure to exercise
extraordinary diligence.
6. The Chief of Staff, AFP also takes exception to the Honorable Court's findings
that the "Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Commanding
General should be held accountable for Jonas Burgos disappearance for failing to
exercise extraordinary diligence in conducting an internal investigation on the
matter. The unwillingness of the respondent officers of the 56th IB to cooperate in
the investigation conducted by the CHR is a persuasive proof of the alleged cover
up of the military's involvement in the enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos."
The AFP and the Philippine Army conducted a thorough investigation to determine
the veracity of the allegations implicating some of its officers and personnel. After
the conduct of the same, it is the conclusion of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
and the Philippine Army, based on the evidence they obtained, that Jonas Burgos
has never been in custody.
On May 23, 2013, the CA issued its resolution denying the respondents' motion for partial
reconsideration. The CA ruled that as far as the PNP was concerned, its failure to elicit leads and
information from Cabintoy who witnessed Jonas' abduction is eloquent proof of its failure to exercise
extraordinary diligence in the conduct of its investigation. As far as the AFP was concerned, the CA held
that the fact that Lt. Baliaga of the Philippine Army was positively identified as one of the abductors of
Jonas, coupled with the AFP's lack of serious effort to conduct further investigation, spoke loudly of the
AFP leadership's accountability. ASaTCE
To date, the respondents have not appealed to this Court, as provided under Section 19 of the Rule
on the Writ of Amparo. 14
J. The Petitioner's Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela dated April 1, 2013
On April 1, 2013, the petitioner filed an Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela asking the Court to: (1)
order the persons named in the sealed documents to be impleaded in CA-G.R. SP No. 00008-WA and
G.R. No. 183713; (2) issue a writ ofAmparo on the basis of the newly discovered evidence (the sealed
attachment to the motion); and (3) refer the cases to the CA for further hearing on the newly
discovered evidence.
The petitioner alleged that she received from a source (who requested to remain anonymous)
documentary evidence proving that an intelligence unit of the 7th Infantry Division of the Philippine
Army and 56th Infantry Battalion, operating together, captured Jonas on April 28, 2007 at Ever Gotesco
Mall, Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City. This documentary evidence consists of: (1) After
Apprehension Report dated April 30, 2007; (2) Psycho Social Processing Report dated April 28, 2007;
and (3) Autobiography of Jonas. The petitioner also claimed that these are copies of confidential official
reports on file with the Philippine Army. TCaEIc
i. After Apprehension Report dated April 30, 2007

This report is a photocopy consisting six pages dated April 30, 2007, addressed to the Commanding
Officer, 7MIB, 7ID, LA, Fort Magsaysay, NE. The report detailed the planning and the objective of
apprehending target communist leaders, among them, one alias "Ramon" who was captured at Ever
Gotesco Mall, Commonwealth, Quezon City on April 28, 2007 by joint elements of the 72 MICO and S2,
56th IB. This report also listed the names of the military personnel belonging to task organization 72
MICO and 56th IB who conducted the operation.
ii. Psycho Social Processing Report dated April 28, 2007
This report details Jonas' abduction and "neutralization"; the results of his interrogation and the
intelligence gathered on his significant involvements/activities within the CPP/NPA/NDF organization.
iii. Undated Autobiography
This autobiography narrates how Jonas started as a student activist, his recruitment and eventual
ascent in the CPP/NPA as an intelligence officer.
K. The Court's April 11, 2013 Resolution
In our April 11, 2013 Resolution, the Court resolved to require the respondents to Comment on the
petitioner's Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela and its attachments, within ten (10) days
from receipt of the Resolution. In the same Resolution, the Court: SEDaAH
(1) required BGen. Roa and Lt. Gen. Emmanuel T. Bautista to fully comply with the
terms of Section III (i) of the dispositive portion of our July 5, 2011
Resolution within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the resolution;
(2) required Lt. Gen. Emmanuel T. Bautista to submit a written assurance within
fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Resolution that the military personnel
listed in the submitted After Apprehension Report can be located and be
served with the processes that the Court may serve;
(3) issued a Temporary Protection Order in favor of the petitioner and all the
members of her immediate family;
(4) directed the DOJ and the NBI to provide security and protection to the
petitioner and her immediate family and to submit a confidential
memorandum on the security arrangements made;
(5) directed the NBI to coordinate and provide direct investigative assistance to the
CHR as it may require pursuant to the authority granted under the Court's
June 22, 2010 Resolution. 15
i. The respondents' Comment from the petitioner's Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex
Abundanti Cautela dated June 6, 2013
15

On June 6, 2013, the respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed their comments on
the petitioner's Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela. SHDAEC
First, the respondents alleged that the documents submitted by the petitioner do not exist in the
concerned military units' respective records, nor are they in the custody or possession of their
respective units. To support their allegations, the respondents submitted the following:
a. Certification dated May 29, 2013 from Maj. Gen. Gregorio Pio P. Catapang, Jr.
Commander, 7th Infantry Division, Philippine Army stating that the
documents 16 submitted by the petitioner "do not exist nor in the
possession/custody of this Headquarters."
b. Certification dated May 29, 2013, from Lt. Col. Louie D.S. Villanueva, Assistant
Chief of Staff, Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Personnel, G1, 7th
Infantry Division, Philippine Army stating that the documents submitted
by the petitioner "could not be found nor do they exist in the records of
this Command."
c. Certification dated May 24, 2013 from Lt. Col. Bernardo M. Ona, Commanding
Officer, 56th Infantry Battalion, 7th Infantry Division, Philippine Army
stating that the documents submitted by the petitioner "do not exist at
this unit."
d. Certification dated May 24, 2013 from 1Lt. Donal S. Frias, Acting Commanding
Officer, 72nd Military Intelligence Company, 7th Military Intelligence
Battalion, 7th Infantry Division, Philippine Army stating that the
documents submitted by the petitioner "do not exist at the records or in
the possession of this unit." 17
The respondents also submitted the affidavits of Lt. Col. Melquiades Feliciano, Maj. Allan M. Margarata
and Cpl. Ruby Benedicto, viz.:
a. In his June 3, 2013 Affidavit, Col. Feliciano stated:
1. That I was assigned as Battalion Commander of 56th Infantry Division, 7th
Infantry Division, PA last 17 January 2007 to 17 August 2007.
2. That I was showed a photocopy of the After Apprehension Report dated 30 April
2007 wherein members of 56th IB, 7ID, PA were included therein.
3. I vehemently oppose to (sic) the existence of the said document and the
participation of my men listed thereat. There were no military operations
that I have authorized or approved regarding Jonas Burgos. The contents
thereof are false and utter fabrication of facts. ACTESI
b. In his May 31, 2013 Affidavit, Maj. Margarata stated:

1. That I was assigned at 72nd Military Intelligence Company (72MICO), 7th
Infantry Division, PA from 01 July 2006 to 01 July 2008.
2. That I was showed a photocopy of the Psycho-Social Processing Report dated 28
April 2007 and After Apprehension Report dated 30 April 2007, both of
which purportedly came from 72MICO, 7th Infantry Division, Philippine
Army and that on the last page of the Psycho-Social Processing Report
appears my name therein.
16
Lastly, the respondents argue that since the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and CHR are
conducting their own investigations of the case, the petitioner's motion at this point is premature; the
proceedings to be conducted by the CA will be at the very least redundant.
ii. The Respondents' Compliance dated June 7, 2013
On June 7, 2013, the respondents, through the Office of Judge Advocate General, complied with our
April 11, 2013 Resolution by submitting the following documents:
3. I vehemently oppose to (sic) the existence of the said documents and the
implication of my name in the said documents. The contents thereof are
purely a product of wild imagination. I have never seen such document
until now. AIHECa
a. Profile/Summary of Information (SOI) with pictures of the personnel of 56th

Infantry Battalion (IB), 69th IB, and 7th Infantry Division, Philippine Army
(PA). These documents were submitted by the 7th ID in sealed nine (9)
small and three (3) big boxes (total of twelve (12) sealed boxes);
4. I can only surmise that these are plainly a fishing expedition on the part of Mrs.
Edita Burgos. A ploy to implicate any military personnel especially those
belonging to the 7th Infantry Division, Philippine Army.
b. Investigation Report of the Intelligence Service, Armed Forces of the Philippines

(ISAFP) on the 2007 "ERAP 5" incident in Kamuning, Quezon City;
Profile/Summary of Information (SOI) with pictures of the Intel Operatives
involved in the"ERAP 5" incident; and certification issued by the
Command Adjutant of ISAFP concerning T/Sgt. Jason Roxas (Philippine
Army), Cpl. Maria Joana Francisco (Philippine Air Force), M/Sgt. Aron
Arroyo (Philippine Air Force), an alias T.L., all reportedly assigned with the
Military Intelligence Group 15 of the Intelligence Service, AFP (MIG 15,
ISAFP). These documents were submitted by ISAFP in a sealed envelope;
c. In her May 31, 2013 Affidavit, Cpl. Benedicto stated:

1. That I was never assigned at 72nd Military Intelligence Company, 7th Infantry
Division, PA.
2. That I was showed a photocopy of the Psycho-Social Processing Report dated 28
April 2007 and After Apprehension Report dated 30 April 2007, both of
which purportedly came from 72MICO, 7th Infantry Division, Philippine
Army and that on the last page of the Psycho-Social Processing Report
appears my name therein.
3. I vehemently oppose to (sic) the existence of the said documents and the
implication of my name in the said documents. The contents thereof are
false and utter fabrication of facts. How can I ever be at 72MICO if I was
never assigned thereat.
4. I have never been an interrogator in my entire military service. I have never been
a member of any operation which involves the name of Jonas Burgos or
any other military operation for that matter. I have never seen such
document until now.
5. Furthermore, I have never worked with Maj. Allan Margarata or of his unit,
72MICO. 18 ECSaAc
Second, the respondents note that none of the documents submitted by the petitioner were signed; a
writ of Amparo cannot be issued and the investigation cannot progress on the basis of false documents
and false information.
c. Profile/Summary of Information (SOI) with a picture of 2LT Fernando PA. This

document was submitted by Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, G1, PA
in a sealed envelope;
d.
certification issued by 56IB and

captured/surrendered rebels; DHSCEc
69IB,
7ID,
PA
concerning
e. A certification stating the present location and whereabouts of military

personnel listed in the submitted After Apprehension Report, dated April
30, 2007, allegedly identified as members of the Task Organization -72
MICO and 56th IBwith the inclusion of four (4) separate certifications from
Commander, 7ID, PA, Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Personnel,
G1, 7ID, PA, Commanding Officer, 72 MICO, and 56Ib, 71ID, PA,
respectively, stating the non-existence of the following documents:
Psycho-Social Processing Report dated 28 April 2007; After-Apprehension
Report dated 30 April 2007; Autobiography of Jonas Burgos; and Picture
of Jonas Burgos;
f. Affidavit of Compliance of General Emmanuel T. Bautista, AFP, the Chief of Staff,
assuring that the active military personnel mentioned in the purported

apprehension report can be located at their given locations and be served
with the processes that may be issued by the Honorable Court. 19
OUR RULING
A. On the relevancy and disclosure of the documents submitted to this Court per paragraph III (i)
of the fallo of our July 5, 2011 Resolution
The directive for the submission of the above-mentioned documents arose from our determination in
our June 22, 2010 Resolution that the PNP-CIDG failed to identify the cartographic sketches of two (one
male and one female) of the five abductors of Jonas, based on their interview with eyewitnesses to the
abduction. For this reason, the Court directly commissioned the CHR to continue the investigation of
Jonas' abduction and the gathering of evidence. DTEIaC
Based on its March 15, 2011 Report, the CHR uncovered a lead a claim made by Eustaquio, Chairman
of the Union Masses for Democracy and Justice, that the male abductor of Jonas appearing in the
cartographic sketch was among the raiders who abducted him and four others, known as the "ERAP
FIVE."
This prompted the CHR to request copies of the documents embodied in par. III (i) of the fallo of the
Court's July 5, 2011 Resolution from General Gilberto Jose C. Roa of the Office of the Judge Advocate
General, AFP. Gen. Roa initially denied this request but eventually complied with the Court's directive
of July 5, 2011 to submit the documents via the September 23, 2011 Manifestation and Motion and
the June 7, 2013 Compliance. In the same July 5, 2011 Resolution, the Court made it plain that these
documents shall be released exclusively to the Court for its examination to determine their relevance
to the present case and the advisability of their public disclosure.
Pursuant to the Court's October 11, 2011 Resolution, the CHR submitted its March 20, 2012 Progress
Report on its continuing investigation of Jonas' abduction. Attached to this Progress Report was Virgilio
Eustaquio's sworn affidavit stating that: (1) he was one of the victims of the abduction incident on May
22, 2006, otherwise known as the "ERAP FIVE" incident; (2) as a result of this incident, they filed a case
with the Ombudsman against Commodore Leonardo Calderon and other members of the Intelligence
Service, AFP (ISAFP) for arbitrary detention, unlawful arrest, maltreatment of prisoners, grave threats,
incriminatory machination and robbery; and (3) the male abductor of Jonas appearing in the
cartographic sketch shown to him by the CHR was among the raiders who abducted him and his four
companions because it resembled the cartographic sketch he described in relation to the ERAP FIVE
incident on May 22, 2006. HEDCAS
17
that establishes the relevance of the requested documents to the present case. We note that this lead
may help the CHR ascertain the identities of those depicted in the cartographic sketches as two of
Jonas' abductors (one male and one female) who, to this day, remain unidentified.
In view of the sensitive and confidential nature of the requested documents, we direct the Clerk of
Court of the Supreme Court to allow the duly-authorized representatives of the CHR to inspect the
requested documents in camera within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution. The documents
shall be examined and compared with the cartographic sketches of the two abductors of Jonas, without
copying and without bringing the documents outside the premises of the Office of the Clerk of Court
of the Supreme Court. The inspection of the documents shall be within office hours and for a
reasonable period of time sufficient to allow the CHR to comprehensively investigate the lead provided
by Eustaquio. cDHCAE
To fully fulfill the objective of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, further investigation using the standard
of extraordinary diligence should be undertaken by the CHR to pursue the lead provided by Eustaquio.
We take judicial notice of the ongoing investigation being conducted by the Department of
Justice (DOJ), through the NBI, on the disappearance of Jonas. 22 In this regard, we direct the NBI to
coordinate and provide direct investigative assistance to the CHR as the latter may require, pursuant
to the authority granted under the Court's June 22, 2010 Resolution.
For this purpose, we require the CHR to submit a supplemental investigation report to the DOJ, copy
furnished the petitioner, the NBI, the incumbent Chiefs of the AFP, the PNP and the PNP-CIDG, and all
the respondents within sixty days (60) days from receipt of this Resolution.
B. On the Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela
After reviewing the newly discovered evidence submitted by the petitioner and considering all the
developments of the case, including the March 18, 2013 CA decision that confirmed the validity of the
issuance of the Writ of Amparo in the present case, we resolve to deny the petitioner's Urgent Ex
Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela.
After reviewing the submissions of both the respondents 20 and the CHR 21 pursuant to the Court's
July 5, 2011, August 23, 2011 and October 11, 2011 Resolutions, we resolve to grant the CHR access to
these requested documents to allow them the opportunity to ascertain the true identities of the
persons depicted in the cartographic sketches.
We note and conclude, based on the developments highlighted above, that the beneficial purpose of
the Writ of Amparo has been served in the present case. As we held in Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis, 23 the writ
merely embodies the Court's directives to police agencies to undertake specified courses of action to
address the enforced disappearance of an individual. The Writ of Amparo serves both a preventive and
a curative role. It is curative as it facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators through the
investigation and remedial action that it directs. 24 The focus is on procedural curative remedies rather
than on the tracking of a specific criminal or the resolution of administrative liabilities. The unique
nature of Amparo proceedings has led us to define terms or concepts specific to what the proceedings
seek to achieve. In Razon Jr. v. Tagitis, 25 we defined what the terms "responsibility" and
"accountability" signify in an Amparo case. We said:
At this point, we emphasize that the sworn affidavit of Eustaquio (that attests to the resemblance of
one of Jonas' abductors to the abductors of the ERAP FIVE) constitutes the sought-after missing link
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. 26 SHCaDA
In the present case, while Jonas remains missing, the series of calculated directives issued by the Court
outlined above and the extraordinary diligence the CHR demonstrated in its investigations resulted in
the criminal prosecution of Lt. Baliaga. We take judicial notice of the fact that the Regional Trial Court,
Quezon City, Branch 216, has already found probable cause for arbitrary detention against Lt. Baliaga
and has ordered his arrest in connection with Jonas' disappearance. 27
We also emphasize that the CA in its March 18, 2013 decision already ruled with finality on the entities
responsible and accountable (as these terms are defined in Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis) for the enforced
disappearance of Jonas. In its March 18, 2013 decision, the CA found, by substantial evidence, that Lt.
Baliaga participated in the abduction on the basis of Cabintoy's positive identification that he was one
of the abductors of Jonas who told him not to interfere because the latter had been under surveillance
for drugs. In the same Decision, the CA also held the AFP and the PNP accountable for having failed to
discharge the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance of
Jonas. Thus, the CA issued the following directives to address the enforced disappearance of Jonas:
(1) DIRECT the PNP through its investigative arm, the PNP-CIDG, to identify and
locate the abductors of Jonas Burgos who are still at large and to establish
the link between the abductors of Jonas Burgos and those involved in the
ERAP 5 incident;
(2) DIRECT the incumbent Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and
the Director General of the Philippines National Police, and their
successors, to ensure the continuance of their investigation and
coordination on the enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos until the
persons found responsible are brought before the bar of justice;
(3) DIRECT the Commission on Human Rights to continue with its own independent
investigation on the enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos with the
same degree of diligence required under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo;
(4) DIRECT the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police
to extend full assistance to the Commission on Human Rights in the
conduct of the latter's investigation; and
18

(5) DIRECT the Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Director General,
Philippine National Police and the Chairman, Commission on Human
Rights to submit a quarterly report to the Court on the results of their
respective investigation. 28
We note that the respondents did not appeal the March 18, 2013 CA decision and the May 23, 2013
CA resolution denying their motion for partial reconsideration.
Based on the above considerations, in particular, the final ruling of the CA that confirmed the validity
of the issuance of the Writ of Amparo and its determination of the entities responsible for the enforced
disappearance of Jonas, we resolve to deny the petitioner's prayer to issue the writ of Amparo anew
and to refer the case to the CA based on the newly discovered evidence. We so conclude as the
petitioner's request for the reissuance of the writ and for the rehearing of the case by the CA would be
redundant and superfluous in light of: (1) the ongoing investigation being conducted by the DOJ
through the NBI; (2) the CHR investigation directed by the Court in this Resolution; and (3) the
continuing investigation directed by the CA in its March 18, 2013 decision.
We emphasize that while the Rule on the Writ of Amparo accords the Court a wide latitude in crafting
remedies to address an enforced disappearance, it cannot (without violating the nature of the writ
of Amparo as a summary remedy that provides rapid judicial relief) grant remedies that would
complicate and prolong rather than expedite the investigations already ongoing. Note that the CA has
already determined with finality that Jonas was a victim of enforced disappearance. aEcDTC
We clarify that by denying the petitioner's motion, we do not thereby rule on the admissibility or the
merits of the newly discovered evidence submitted by the petitioner. We likewise do not foreclose any
investigation by the proper investigative and prosecutory agencies of the other entities whose
identities and participation in the enforced disappearance of Jonas may be disclosed in future
investigations and proceedings. Considering that the present case has already reached the prosecution
stage, the petitioner's motion should have been filed with the proper investigative and prosecutory
agencies of the government.
To expedite proceedings, we refer the petitioner's motion, this Resolution and its covered cases to the
DOJ for investigation, for the purpose of filing the appropriate criminal charges in the proper courts
against the proper parties, if warranted, based on the gathered evidence. For this purpose, we direct
the petitioner to furnish the DOJ and the NBI copies of her Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti
Cautela, together with the sealed attachments to the Motion, within five (5) days from receipt of this
Resolution.
As mentioned, we take judicial notice of the ongoing investigation by the DOJ, through the NBI, of the
disappearance of Jonas. This DOJ investigation is without prejudice to the Office of the Ombudsman's
exercise of its primary jurisdiction over the investigation of the criminal aspect of this case should the
case be determined to be cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. 29

As we direct below, further investigation for purposes of the present proceedings shall continue to be
undertaken by the CHR, in close coordination with the NBI, for the completion of the investigation
under the terms of our June 22, 2010 Resolution and the additional directives under the present
Resolution.
As a final note, we emphasize that our ROLE in a writ of Amparo proceeding is merely to determine
whether an enforced disappearance has taken place; to determine who is responsible or accountable;
and to define and impose the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance.
As shown above, the beneficial purpose of the Writ of Amparo has been served in the present case
with the CA's final determination of the persons responsible and accountable for the enforced
disappearance of Jonas and the commencement of criminal action against Lt. Baliaga. At this stage,
criminal, investigation and prosecution proceedings are already beyond the reach of the Writ
of Amparo proceeding now before us.
Based on the above developments, we now hold that the full extent of the remedies envisioned by the
Rule on the Writ of Amparo has been served and exhausted.
Considering the foregoing, the Court RESOLVES to:
(1) DENY petitioner Edita Burgos' Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela;
(2) REFER the petitioner's Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela, this
Resolution and its covered cases to the Department of Justice for
investigation for the purpose of filing the appropriate criminal charges in
the proper courts against the proper parties if such action is warranted by
the gathered evidence. The referral to the Department of Justice is
without prejudice to the Office of the Ombudsman's exercise of its
primary jurisdiction over the investigation should the case be determined
to be cognizable by the Sandiganbayan;
(3) DIRECT the petitioner to furnish the Department of Justice and the National
Bureau of Investigation copies of her Urgent Ex Parte Motion Ex
Abundanti Cautela, together with the sealed attachments to the Motion,
within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution;
(4) DIRECT the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court to allow the duly-authorized
representatives of the Commission on Human Rights to inspect the
requested documents in camera within five (5) days from receipt of this
Resolution. For this purpose, the documents shall be examined and
compared with the cartographic sketches of the two abductors of Jonas
Burgos without copying and bringing the documents outside the premises
of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court. The inspection of
the documents shall be conducted within office hours and for a
reasonable period of time that would allow the Commission on Human
19
Rights to comprehensively investigate the lead provided by Virgilio

Eustaquio;
(5) DIRECT the National Bureau of Investigation to coordinate and provide direct
investigative assistance to the Commission on Human Rights as the latter
may require, pursuant to the authority granted under the Court's June 22,
2010 Resolution. DTIaHE
(6) REQUIRE the Commission on Human Rights to submit a supplemental
investigation report to the Department of Justice, copy furnished the
petitioner, the National Bureau of Investigation, the incumbent Chiefs of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Philippine National Police and the
Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group,
and all the respondents, within sixty (60) days from receipt of this
Resolution.
(7) DECLARE this Writ of Amparo proceeding closed and terminated, without
prejudice to the concerned parties' compliance with the above directives
and subject to the Court's continuing jurisdiction to enforce compliance
with this Resolution.
SO ORDERED.
||| (Burgos v. Esperon, Jr., G.R. Nos. 178497, 183711, 183712, 183713 (Resolution), [February 4,
2014])

10 Secretary of Defense Vs Manalo Burgos Case MHH

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 Secretary of Defense Vs Manalo Burgos Case MHH

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Enforced Disappearances_Case Digests

MHH_3.1_Human Rights Law

Enforced Disappearances_Case Digests

MHH_3.1_Human Rights Law

Enforced Disappearances_Case Digests

MHH_3.1_Human Rights Law

Enforced Disappearances_Case Digests

MHH_3.1_Human Rights Law

Enforced Disappearances_Case Digests

MHH_3.1_Human Rights Law

Enforced Disappearances_Case Digests

MHH_3.1_Human Rights Law

Enforced Disappearances_Case Digests

MHH_3.1_Human Rights Law

Enforced Disappearances_Case Digests

To confirm in writing the present places of official assignment of M/Sgt

MHH_3.1_Human Rights Law

Enforced Disappearances_Case Digests

MHH_3.1_Human Rights Law

Enforced Disappearances_Case Digests

MHH_3.1_Human Rights Law

B. The Court's July 5, 2011 Resolution

II. IN G.R. NO. 183712 (CONTEMPT OF COURT CHARGE, CA-G.R. SP No.

Enforced Disappearances_Case Digests

MHH_3.1_Human Rights Law

operatives involved in that said covert military

Enforced Disappearances_Case Digests

MHH_3.1_Human Rights Law

E. The Court's October 11, 2011 Resolution

b. The Summary of Information (SOI) of the intelligence operatives who were

D. The Court's September 6, 2011 Resolution

Enforced Disappearances_Case Digests

MHH_3.1_Human Rights Law

Enforced Disappearances_Case Digests

MHH_3.1_Human Rights Law

Enforced Disappearances_Case Digests

MHH_3.1_Human Rights Law

Enforced Disappearances_Case Digests

MHH_3.1_Human Rights Law

a. Profile/Summary of Information (SOI) with pictures of the personnel of 56th

b. Investigation Report of the Intelligence Service, Armed Forces of the Philippines

c. In her May 31, 2013 Affidavit, Cpl. Benedicto stated:

c. Profile/Summary of Information (SOI) with a picture of 2LT Fernando PA. This

certification issued by 56IB and

e. A certification stating the present location and whereabouts of military

Enforced Disappearances_Case Digests

MHH_3.1_Human Rights Law

Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have been established by

Enforced Disappearances_Case Digests

MHH_3.1_Human Rights Law

Enforced Disappearances_Case Digests

MHH_3.1_Human Rights Law

Rights to comprehensively investigate the lead provided by Virgilio

You might also like