THE NEW LIST OF CASES boat in the early morning of October 31, 2007

from a seminar in Zamboanga City. They

Fo CLASS Room immediately checked-in at ASY Pension House.
Tagitis asked Kunnong to buy him a boat ticket
for his return trip the following day to
Zamboanga. When Kunnong returned from this
errand, Tagitis was no longer around. Kunnong
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS looked for Tagitis and even sent a text message
to the latters Manila-based secretary, who
advised Kunnong to simply wait for Tagitis
return.
Special Proceedings
On November 4, 2007, Kunnong and
1. Ampatuan vs Macaraig
Muhammad Abdulnazeir N. Matli, a UP
- An invalid arrest may be
professor of Muslim studies and Tagitis fellow
validated upon the denial of
student counselor at the IDB, reported Tagitis
writ of HB.
disappearance to the Jolo Police Station. More
2. Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No.
than a month later, or on December 28, 2007,
182161, 3 December 2009
the respondent, May Jean Tagitis, through her
attorney-in-fact, filed a Petition for the Writ of
Razon v. Tagitis
Amparo (petition) directed against Lt. Gen.
G.R. No. 182498
Alexander Yano, Commanding General,
03 December 2009
Philippine Army; Gen. Avelino I. Razon, Chief,
PONENTE: Brion, J.
Philippine National Police (PNP); Gen. Edgardo
PARTIES:
M. Doromal, Chief, Criminal Investigation and
1. PETITIONERS: GEN. AVELINO I. RAZON,
Detention Group (CIDG); Sr. Supt. Leonardo A.
JR., Chief, Philippine National Police (PNP);
Espina, Chief, Police Anti-Crime and Emergency
Police Chief Superintendent RAUL
Response; Gen. Joel Goltiao, Regional Director,
CASTANEDA, Chief, Criminal Investigation
ARMM-PNP; and Gen. Ruben Rafael, Chief, Anti-
and Detection Group (CIDG); Police Senior
Terror Task Force Comet (collectively referred to
Superintendent LEONARDO A. ESPINA,
as petitioners), with the Court of Appeals
Chief, Police Anti-Crime and Emergency
(CA). On the same day, the CA immediately
Response (PACER); and GEN. JOEL R.
issued the Writ of Amparo and set the case for
GOLTIAO, Regional Director of ARMM, PNP
hearing on January 7, 2008.
2. RESPONDENT: MARY JEAN B. TAGITIS,
herein represented by ATTY. FELIPE P.
ARCILLA, JR., Attorney-in-Fact On March 7, 2008, the CA issued its decision
NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari confirming that the disappearance of Tagitis
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND: was an enforced disappearance under the
Court of Appeals: Petition for the Writ of United Nations (UN) Declaration on the
Amparo Protection of All Persons from Enforced
FACTS: Disappearances. The CA ruled that when
Engineer Morced N. Tagitis (Tagitis), a military intelligence pinpointed the
consultant for the World Bank and the Senior investigative arm of the PNP (CIDG) to be
Honorary Counselor for the Islamic involved in the abduction, the missing-person
Development Bank (IDB) Scholarship case qualified as an enforced disappearance.
Programme, together with Arsimin Kunnong Hence, the CA extended the privilege of the
(Kunnong), an IDB scholar, arrived in Jolo by writ to Tagitis and his family, and directed the
petitioners to exert extraordinary diligence and of uncertainty The framers of the Amparo
efforts to protect the life, liberty and security of Rule never intended Section 5(c) to be
Tagitis, with the obligation to provide monthly complete in every detail in stating the
reports of their actions to the CA. At the same threatened or actual violation of a victims
time, the CA dismissed the petition against the rights. As in any other initiatory pleading, the
then respondents from the military, Lt. Gen pleader must of course state the ultimate facts
Alexander Yano and Gen. Ruben Rafael, based constituting the cause of action, omitting the
on the finding that it was PNP-CIDG, not the evidentiary details. In an Amparo petition,
military, that was involved. however, this requirement must be read in light
of the nature and purpose of the proceeding,
which addresses a situation of uncertainty; the
On March 31, 2008, the petitioners moved to
petitioner may not be able to describe with
reconsider the CA decision, but the CA denied
certainty how the victim exactly disappeared,
the motion in its Resolution dated April 9,
or who actually acted to kidnap, abduct or
2008. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a petition
arrest him or her, or where the victim is
for review with the Supreme Court.
detained, because these information may
PERTINENT ISSUES:
purposely be hidden or covered up by those
1. Whether or not the requirement that
who caused the disappearance. In this type of
the pleader must state the ultimate facts,
situation, to require the level of specificity,
i.e. complete in every detail in stating the
detail and precision that the petitioners
threatened or actual violation of a victims
apparently want to read into the Amparo Rule
rights, is indispensable in an amparo
is to make this Rule a token gesture of judicial
petition.
concern for violations of the constitutional
2. Whether or not the presentation of
rights to life, liberty and security. To read the
substantial evidence by the petitioner to
Rules of Court requirement on pleadings while
prove her allegations is sufficient for the
addressing the unique Amparo situation, the
court to grant the privilege of the writ.
test in reading the petition should be to
3. Whether or not the writ of amparo
determine whether it contains the details
determines guilt nor pinpoint criminal
available to the petitioner under the
culpability for the alleged enforced
circumstances, while presenting a cause of
disappearance of the subject of the petition
action showing a violation of the victims rights
for the writ.
to life, liberty and security through State or
ANSWERS:
private party action. The petition should
1. No. However, it must contain details
likewise be read in its totality, rather than in
available to the petitioner under the
terms of its isolated component parts, to
circumstances, while presenting a cause of
determine if the required elements namely, of
action showing a violation of the victims
the disappearance, the State or private action,
rights to life, liberty and security through
and the actual or threatened violations of the
State or private party action.
rights to life, liberty or security are present.
2. Yes.
2. EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN AN AMPARO
3. No.
PETITION
SUPREME COURT RULINGS:
Burden of proof of Amparo petitioner
1. REQUIREMENTS IN AN AMPARO
[T]he Amparo petitioner needs only to
PETITION
properly comply with the substance and form
The requirement that the pleader must
requirements of a Writ of Amparo petition, as
state the ultimate facts must be read in
discussed above, and prove the allegations by
light of the nature and purpose of the
substantial evidence. Once a rebuttable case
proceeding, which addresses a situation
has been proven, the respondents must then
respond and prove their defenses based on the as a reasonable mind might accept as
standard of diligence required. The rebuttable adequate to support a conclusion. The statute
case, of course, must show that an enforced provides that the rules of evidence prevailing
disappearance took place under circumstances in courts of law and equity shall not be
showing a violation of the victims controlling. The obvious purpose of this and
constitutional rights to life, liberty or security, similar provisions is to free administrative
and the failure on the part of the investigating boards from the compulsion of technical rules
authorities to appropriately respond. so that the mere admission of matter which
Substantial evidence required in amparo would be deemed incompetent in judicial
proceedings The [characteristics of amparo proceedings would not invalidate the
proceedings] namely, of being summary and administrative order. But this assurance of a
the use of substantial evidence as the required desirable flexibility in administrative procedure
level of proof (in contrast to the usual does not go so far as to justify orders without a
preponderance of evidence or proof beyond basis in evidence having rational probative
reasonable doubt in court proceedings) reveal force.
the clear intent of the framers of the Amparo Minor inconsistencies in the testimony
Rule to have the equivalent of an should not affect the credibility of the
administrative proceeding, albeit judicially witness As a rule, minor inconsistencies such
conducted, in addressing Amparo situations. as these indicate truthfulness rather than
The standard of diligence required the duty of prevarication and only tend to strengthen their
public officials and employees to observe probative value, in contrast to testimonies from
extraordinary diligence point, too, to the various witnesses dovetailing on every detail;
extraordinary measures expected in the the latter cannot but generate suspicion that
protection of constitutional rights and in the the material circumstances they testified to
consequent handling and investigation of were integral parts of a well thought of and
extra- judicial killings and enforced prefabricated story.
disappearance cases. Thus, in these 3. ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES in
proceedings, the Amparo petitioner needs only relation to THE WRIT OF AMPARO
to properly comply with the substance and The writ of amparo does not determine
form requirements of a Writ of Amparo petition, guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for
as discussed above, and prove the allegations the disappearance, rather, it determines
by substantial evidence. Once a rebuttable responsibility, or at least accountability ,
case has been proven, the respondents must for the enforced disappearance for
then respond and prove their defenses based purposes of imposing the appropriate
on the standard of diligence required. The remedies to address the disappearance
rebuttable case, of course, must show that an [The writ of amparo is] a protective remedy
enforced disappearance took place under against violations or threats of violation against
circumstances showing a violation of the the rights to life, liberty and security. It
victims constitutional rights to life, liberty or embodies, as a remedy, the courts directive to
security, and the failure on the part of the police agencies to undertake specified courses
investigating authorities to appropriately of action to address the disappearance of an
respond. The landmark case of Ang Tibay v. individual, in this case, Engr. Morced N. Tagitis.
Court of Industrial Relations provided the Court It does not determine guilt nor pinpoint
its first opportunity to define the substantial criminal culpability for the disappearance;
evidence required to arrive at a valid decision rather, it determines responsibility, or at least
in administrative proceedings. To directly quote accountability, for the enforced disappearance
Ang Tibay: Substantial evidence is more than a for purposes of imposing the appropriate
mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence remedies to address the disappearance.
Responsibility refers to the extent the actors disappearances or threats thereof. We note
have been established by substantial evidence that although the writ specifically covers
to have participated in whatever way, by action enforced disappearances, this concept is
or omission, in an enforced disappearance, as a neither defined nor penalized in this
measure of the remedies this Court shall craft, jurisdiction. The records of the Supreme
among them, the directive to file the Court Committee on the Revision of Rules
appropriate criminal and civil cases against the (Committee) reveal that the drafters of the
responsible parties in the proper courts. Amparo Rule initially considered providing an
Accountability, on the other hand, refers to the elemental definition of the concept of enforced
measure of remedies that should be addressed disappearance: x x x In the end, the Committee
to those who exhibited involvement in the took cognizance of several bills filed in the
enforced disappearance without bringing the House of Representatives and in the Senate on
level of their complicity to the level of extrajudicial killings and enforced
responsibility defined above; or who are disappearances, and resolved to do away with
imputed with knowledge relating to the a clear textual definition of these terms in the
enforced disappearance and who carry the Rule. The Committee instead focused on the
burden of disclosure; or those who carry, but nature and scope of the concerns within its
have failed to discharge, the burden of power to address and provided the appropriate
extraordinary diligence in the investigation of remedy therefor, mindful that an elemental
the enforced disappearance. In all these cases, definition may intrude into the ongoing
the issuance of the Writ of Amparo is justified legislative efforts. As the law now stands,
by our primary goal of addressing the extra-judicial killings and enforced
disappearance, so that the life of the victim is disappearances in this jurisdiction are not
preserved and his liberty and security are crimes penalized separately from the
restored. component criminal acts undertaken to carry
The Amparo Rule should be read, too, as out these killings and enforced disappearances
a work in progress, as its directions and and are now penalized under the Revised Penal
finer points remain to evolve through Code and special laws. The simple reason is
time and jurisprudence and through the that the Legislature has not spoken on the
substantive laws that Congress may matter; the determination of what acts are
promulgate [T]he unique situations that call criminal and what the corresponding penalty
for the issuance of the writ, as well as the these criminal acts should carry are matters of
considerations and measures necessary to substantive law that only the Legislature has
address these situations, may not at all be the the power to enact under the countrys
same as the standard measures and constitutional scheme and power structure.
procedures in ordinary court actions and Source of the power of the Supreme Court to
proceedings. In this sense, the Rule on the Writ act on extrajudicial killings and enforced
of Amparo (Amparo Rule) issued by this Court disappearances Even without the benefit of
is unique. The Amparo Rule should be read, directly applicable substantive laws on extra-
too, as a work in progress, as its directions and judicial killings and enforced disappearances,
finer points remain to evolve through time and however, the Supreme Court is not powerless
jurisprudence and through the substantive laws to act under its own constitutional mandate to
that Congress may promulgate. promulgate rules concerning the protection
The concept of enforced and enforcement of constitutional rights,
disappearances is neither defined nor pleading, practice and procedure in all courts,
penalized in this jurisdiction The Amparo since extrajudicial killings and enforced
Rule expressly provides that the writ shall disappearances, by their nature and purpose,
cover extralegal killings and enforced constitute State or private party violation of the
constitutional rights of individuals to life, liberty disclose information known to him and to
and security. Although the Courts power is his assets in relation with the enforced
strictly procedural and as such does not disappearance of Engineer Morced N.
diminish, increase or modify substantive rights, Tagitis;
the legal protection that the Court can provide 6. Referring this case back to the Court of
can be very meaningful through the procedures Appeals for appropriate proceedings
it sets in addressing extrajudicial killings and directed at the monitoring of the PNP and
enforced disappearances. The Court, through PNP-CIDG investigations, actions and the
its procedural rules, can set the procedural validation of their results; the PNP and the
standards and thereby directly compel the PNP-CIDG shall initially present to the Court
public authorities to act on actual or of Appeals a plan of action for further
threatened violations of constitutional rights. To investigation, periodically reporting their
state the obvious, judicial intervention can results to the Court of Appeals for
make a difference even if only procedurally consideration and action;
in a situation when the very same investigating 7. Requiring the Court of Appeals to
public authorities may have had a hand in the submit to this Court a quarterly report with
threatened or actual violations of constitutional its recommendations, copy furnished the
rights. incumbent PNP and PNP-CIDG Chiefs as
DISPOSITIVE: The Supreme Court affirmed petitioners and the respondent, with the
the decision of the Court of Appeals dated first report due at the end of the first
March 7, 2008 under the following terms: quarter counted from the finality of this
1. Recognition that the disappearance of Decision;
Engineer Morced N. Tagitis is an enforced 8. The PNP and the PNP-CIDG shall have
disappearance covered by the Rule on the one (1) full year to undertake their
Writ of Amparo; investigations; the Court of Appeals shall
2. Without any specific pronouncement on submit its full report for the consideration
exact authorship and responsibility, of this Court at the end of the 4th quarter
declaring the government (through the PNP counted from the finality of this Decision;
and the PNP-CIDG) and Colonel Julasirim The abovementioned directives and those of
Ahadin Kasim accountable for the enforced the Court of Appeals made pursuant to this
disappearance of Engineer Morced N. Decision were given to, and were directly
Tagitis; enforceable against, whoever may be the
3. Confirmation of the validity of the Writ incumbent Chiefs of the Philippine National
of Amparo the Court of Appeals issued; Police and its Criminal Investigation and
4. Holding the PNP, through the PNP Detection Group, under pain of contempt from
Chief, and the PNP-CIDG, through its Chief, the Supreme Court when the initiatives and
directly responsible for the disclosure of efforts at disclosure and investigation
material facts known to the government constitute less than the extraordinary diligence
and to their offices regarding the that the Rule on the Writ of Amparo and the
disappearance of Engineer Morced N. circumstances of this case demand.
Tagitis, and for the conduct of proper
investigations using extraordinary Given the unique nature of Amparo cases and
diligence, with the obligation to show their varying attendant circumstances, the
investigation results acceptable to this aforementioned directives particularly, the
Court; referral back to and monitoring by the CA are
5. Ordering Colonel Julasirim Ahadin specific to this case and are not standard
Kasim impleaded in this case and holding
him accountable with the obligation to
remedies that can be applied to every Amparo 3.
situation.

The Supreme Court likewise affirmed the

dismissal of the Amparo petition with respect
to General Alexander Yano, Commanding
General, Philippine Army, and General Ruben
Rafael, Chief, Anti-Terrorism Task Force Comet,
Zamboanga City.