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

MARY JEAN B. TAGITIS, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ATTY. FELIPE P. ARCILLA,

JR., ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
G.R. NO. 182498 DECEMBER 3, 2009
BRION, J.:

FACTS:
Engineer Morced N. Tagitis (Morced), a consultant for the World Bank and the
Senior Honorary Counselor for the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) Scholarship
Programme, was last seen in Jolo, Sulu. Together with Arsimin Kunnong (Arsimin), an
IDB scholar, Morced arrived in Jolo by boat in the early morning of October 31, 2007 from
a seminar in Zamboanga City. They immediately checked-in at ASY Pension
House. Morced asked Arsimin to buy him a boat ticket for his return trip the following day
to Zamboanga. When Arsimin returned from this errand, Morced was no longer
around. The receptionist related that Morced went out to buy food at around 12:30 in the
afternoon and even left his room key with the desk. Arsimin looked for Morced and even
sent a text message to the latters Manila-based secretary who did not know of Morced’s
whereabouts and activities either; she advised Arsimin to simply wait.
Arsimin and Muhammad Abdulnazeir N. Matli, reported Morced’s disappearance
to the Jolo Police Station. Arsimin executed a sworn affidavit attesting to what he knew
of the circumstances surrounding Morced’s disappearance.
On December 28, 2007, Mary Jean, the wife of Morced filed a Petition for the Writ
of Amparo with the Court of Appeals through her Attorney-in-Fact, Atty. Felipe P. Arcilla.
When Arsimin reported the said disappearance of Morced, he was immediately
given a ready answer that Engr. Morced could have been abducted by the Abu Sayyaf
group and other groups known to be fighting against the government.
Mary Jean has exhausted all administrative avenues and remedies but to no avail,
the respondent has no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy to protect and get the
release of subject Engr. Morced Tagitis from the illegal clutches of the petitioners, their
intelligence operatives and the like which are in total violation of the subjects human and
constitutional rights, except the issuance of a writ of Amparo.
On the same day the petition was filed, the Court of Appeals immediately issued
the writ of Amparo, set the case for hearing on January 7, 2008, and directed the
petitioners to file their verified return within seventy-two (72) hours from service of the
writ.
Mary Jean was informed by Col. Kasim that her husband was abducted because
he is under custodial investigation for being a liaison for J.I. or Jemaah Islamiah. Col.
Kasim read to a confidential report that Engr. Tagitis was allegedly connected with
different terrorist groups.
The Court of Appeals issued its decision confirming that the disappearance of Morced
was an enforced disappearance under the United Nations (UN) Declaration on the
Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances.
ISSUES:
1. Is the petition sufficient in form and substance?
2. What does the Writ of Amparo cover?
3. Is the issuance of Writ of Amparo proper?

RULING:
1. Yes.
The framers of the Amparo Rule never intended Section 5(c) to be complete in
every detail in stating the threatened or actual violation of a victims rights. As in any other
initiatory pleading, the pleader must of course state the ultimate facts constituting the
cause of action, omitting the evidentiary details. The petitioner may not be able to
describe with certainty how the victim exactly disappeared, or who actually acted to
kidnap, abduct or arrest him or her, or where the victim is detained, because these
information may purposely be hidden or covered up by those who caused the
disappearance.
The allegations in the petition, properly pleaded ultimate facts within the pleaders
knowledge about Morced’s disappearance, the participation by agents of the State in this
disappearance, the failure of the State to release Engr. Morced Tagitis or to provide
sufficient information about his whereabouts, as well as the actual violation of his right to
liberty. Thus, the petition cannot be faulted for any failure in its statement of a cause of
action. The Court rule that the respondents petition for the Writ of Amparo is sufficient in
form and substance and that the Court of Appeals had every reason to proceed with its
consideration of the case.
2. The Amparo Rule expressly provides that the writ shall cover extralegal
killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
From the International Law perspective, involuntary or enforced disappearance is
considered a flagrant violation of human rights. It does not only violate the right to life,
liberty and security of the desaparecido; it affects their families as well through the denial
of their right to information regarding the circumstances of the disappeared family
member.
The UN General Assembly adopted the International Convention for the Protection
of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (Convention). Article 2 of the Convention
defined enforced disappearance as follows: For the purposes of this
Convention, enforced disappearance is considered to be the arrest, detention, abduction
or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups
of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed
by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or
whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection
of the law.
While the Philippines is not yet formally bound by the terms of the Convention on
enforced disappearance, however, enforced disappearance as a State practice has been
repudiated by the international community, so that the ban on it is now a generally
accepted principle of international law, which we should consider a part of the law of the
land, and which we should act upon to the extent already allowed under our laws and the
international conventions that bind us.
2. Yes.
The Court ruled that the issuance of Writ of Amparo is proper. The court conclude
that Col. Kasim’s disclosure when he read the confidential information that Morced was
abducted because he is under custodial investigation for being a liaison for J.I. or Jemaah
Islamiah, was made in an unguarded moment, unequivocally point to some government
complicity in the disappearance. The evidence and developments, particularly the Kasim
evidence, already establish a concrete case of enforced disappearance that
the Amparo Rule covers. The evidence at hand and the developments in this case
confirm the fact of the enforced disappearance and government complicity, under a
background of consistent and unfounded government denials and haphazard handling. In
which case, the Writ of Amparo is properly issued.