Republic of the PhilippinesSupreme Court Manila EN BANC THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THEPHILIPPINES, Petitioners, - versus - RAYMOND MANALO and REYNALDO MANALO, Respondents. G.R. No. 180906 Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARESSANTIAGO, CARPIO, AUSTRIAMARTINEZ, CORONA, CARPIO MORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICONAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, REYES, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and BRION, JJ. Promulgated: October 7, 2008 x- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x DECISION PUNO, C.J.: While victims of enforced disappearances are separated from the rest of the world behind secret walls, they are not separated from the constitutional protection of their basic rights. The constitution is an overarching sky that covers all in its protection. The case at bar involves the rights to life, liberty and security in the first petition for a writ of amparo filed before this Court. This is an appeal via Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 19[1] of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, seeking to reverse and set aside on both questions of fact and law, the Decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. AMPARO No. 00001, entitled ―Raymond Manalo and Reynaldo Manalo, petitioners, versus The Secretary of National Defense, the Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines, respondents.‖ This case was originally a Petition for Prohibition, Injunction, and Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)[2] filed before this Court by herein respondents (therein petitioners) on August 23, 2007 to stop herein petitioners (therein respondents) and/or their officers and agents from depriving them of their right to liberty and other basic rights. Therein petitioners also sought ancillary remedies, Protective Custody Orders, Appointment of Commissioner, Inspection and Access Orders, and all other legal and equitable reliefs under Article VIII, Section 5(5)[3] of the 1987 Constitution and Rule 135, Section 6 of the Rules of Court. In our Resolution dated August 24, 2007, we (1) ordered the Secretary of the Department of National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the AFP, their agents, representatives, or persons acting in their stead, including but not limited to the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU) to submit their Comment; and (2) enjoined them from causing the arrest of therein petitioners, or otherwise restricting, curtailing, abridging, or depriving them of their right to life, liberty, and other basic rights as guaranteed under Article III, Section 1[4] of the 1987 Constitution.[5] While the August 23, 2007 Petition was pending, the Rule on the Writ of Amparo took effect on October 24, 2007. Forthwith, therein petitioners filed a Manifestation and Omnibus Motion to Treat Existing Petition as Amparo Petition, to Admit Supporting Affidavits, and to Grant Interim and Final Amparo Reliefs. They prayed that: (1) the petition be considered a Petition for the Writ of Amparo under Sec. 26[6] of theAmparo Rule; (2) the Court issue the writ commanding therein respondents to make a verified return within the period provided by law and containing the specific matter required by law; (3) they be granted the interim reliefs allowed by the Amparo Rule and all other reliefs prayed for in the petition but not covered by the Amparo Rule; (4) the Court, after hearing, render judgment as required in Sec. 18[7] of the Amparo Rule; and (5) all other just and equitable reliefs.[8] On October 25, 2007, the Court resolved to treat the August 23, 2007 Petition as a petition under the Amparo Rule and further resolved, viz: WHEREFORE, let a WRIT OF AMPARO be issued to respondents requiring them to file with the CA (Court of Appeals) a verified written return within five (5) working days from service of the writ. We REMAND the petition to the CA and designate the Division of Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin to conduct the summary hearing on the petition on November 8, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. and decide the petition in accordance with the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.[9] On December 26, 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision in favor of therein petitioners (herein respondents), the dispositive portion of which reads, viz: ACCORDINGLY, the PRIVILEGE AMPARO is GRANTED. OF THE WRIT OF 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 latter‘s authority to be express and made apparent on the face of the sworn compliance with this directive. SO ORDERED.[10] Hence, this appeal. In resolving this appeal, we first unfurl the facts as alleged by herein respondents: Respondent Raymond Manalo recounted that about one or two weeks before February 14, 2006, several uniformed and armed soldiers and members of the CAFGU summoned to a meeting all the residents of theirbarangay in San Idelfonso, Bulacan. Respondents were not able to attend as they were not informed of the gathering, but Raymond saw some of the soldiers when he passed by the barangay hall.[11] On February 14, 2006, Raymond was sleeping in their house in Buhol na Mangga, San Ildefonso, Bulacan. At past noon, several armed soldiers wearing white shirts, fatigue pants and army boots, entered their house and roused him. They asked him if he was Bestre, but his mother, Ester Manalo, replied that he was Raymond, not Bestre. The armed soldier slapped him on both cheeks and nudged him in the stomach. He was then handcuffed, brought to the rear of his house, and forced to the ground face down. He was kicked on the hip, ordered to stand and face up to the light, then forcibly brought near the road. He told his mother to follow him, but three soldiers stopped her and told her to stay.[12] Among the men who came to take him, Raymond recognized brothers Michael de la Cruz, Madning de la Cruz, ―Puti‖ de la Cruz, and ―Pula‖ de la Cruz, who all acted as lookout. They were all members of the CAFGU and residing in Manuzon, San Ildefonso, Bulacan. He also recognized brothers Randy Mendoza and Rudy Mendoza, also members of the CAFGU. While he was being forcibly taken, he also saw outside of his house two barangay councilors, Pablo Cunanan and Bernardo Lingasa, with some soldiers and armed men.[13] The men forced Raymond into a white L300 van. Once inside, he was blindfolded. Before being blindfolded, he saw the faces of the soldiers who took him. Later, in his 18 months of captivity, he learned their names. The one who drove the van was Rizal Hilario alias Rollie Castillo, whom he estimated was about 40 years of age or older. The leader of the team who entered his house and abducted him was ―Ganata.‖ He was tall, thin, curly-haired and a bit old. Another With the doors of their rooms left open. thin. One of those officials was tall and thin. During this time. tie. They then subjected Reynaldo to the same ordeal in another room.‖ and treat them with respect. Raymond‘s interrogators appeared to be high officials as the soldiers who beat him up would salute them.[17] On the third week of respondents‘ detention.[16] While these officials interrogated him. He spoke in Tagalog and knew much about his parents and family.[15] In the next days. and burnt some parts of his body with a burning wood. Raymond was not manhandled. Each time he answered none. they also manhandled respondents. But once they had left. Each time he said he was not. The soldiers asked him if he was a member of the New People‘s Army. They doused him with urine and hot water. they stopped. hit his stomach with a piece of wood. but he saw their faces when they arrived and before the blindfold was put on. Reynaldo was brought to his (Raymond‘s) room and it was his (Raymond‘s) turn to be beaten up in the other room. When the guards got drunk.[18] .one of his abductors was ―George‖ who was tall. how many soldiers he had killed. He noticed that the uniform of the high officials was different from those of the other soldiers. and leather shoes. slapped his forehead twice with a . two men arrived while Raymond was sleeping and beat him up. Raymond and Reynaldo were each brought to a different room. white-skinned and about 30 years old. A person was brought inside the van and made to sit beside Raymond. Raymond was fed only at night. He was questioned where his comrades were. He was in blindfolds when interrogated by the high officials. The van stopped several times until they finally arrived at a house. On the road. Both of them were beaten up. call them ―sir. When he could no longer endure the torture and could hardly breathe. Before their torturers left. they hit him. usually with left-over and rotten food. instead of combat boots. the soldier guards beat him up. he recognized the voice of the person beside him as his brother Reynaldo‘s. After which. he was hit with the butt of their guns.45 pistol. they warned Raymond that they would come back the next day and kill him. then came to a stop. and how many NPA members he had helped. wore white pants.[14] The van drove off. Raymond saw several soldiers continuously hitting his brother Reynaldo on the head and other parts of his body with the butt of their guns for about 15 minutes. punched him on the mouth. and a habeas corpus case filed in connection with the respondents‘ abduction. The following night. kicked.[20] For some weeks. they replied that they had a hard time urinating. They poured gasoline on him. One room was made into the bartolina. Their wounds were treated. including his brother Reynaldo and himself. Then a so-called ―Mam‖ or ―Madam‖ suddenly called. the respondents had a respite from all the torture. he came near a river and an Iglesia ni Kristo church. and did everything there. the respondents were detained in Fort Magsaysay. When the wounds were almost healed. When asked how they were feeling. but some soldiers spotted him. They also examined respondents and gave them medicines. He talked to some women who were doing the laundry. They were also sometimes detained in what he only knew as the ―DTU. He was told that he was in Fort Magsaysay.[23] For about three and a half months. The house was near the firing range. their stomachs were aching. The soldiers chased him and caught up with him. including urinating. two ladies in white arrived. He stayed all the time in that small room measuring 1 x 2 meters. They were kept in a small house with two rooms and a kitchen. bathing. the torture resumed. asked where he was and the road to Gapan. forcing him to run away. The next day.[21] Raymond recalled that sometime in April until May 2006. At dawn. eating and sleeping. he managed to free his hand from the chains and jumped through the window. He counted that eighteen people[22] had been detained in that bartolina. The soldiers ceased the torture and he was returned inside Fort Magsaysay where Reynaldo was detained. removing his bowels. took their urine samples and marked them.‖[24] At the DTU. then made noise with the chains put on him to see if they were still awake. a male doctor came to examine respondents. and hit with chains until his back bled. After walking through a forested area. saying that she wanted to see Raymond before he was killed. When none of them came to check on him. They brought him to another place near the entrance of what he saw was Fort Magsaysay. Raymond attempted to escape. particularly when respondents‘ guards got drunk. He checked their body and eyes. They brought with them the results of respondents‘ urine test and advised them to drink plenty of water and take their . soldiers marched by their house. amoxicillin and mefenamic acid. and they felt other pains in their body. helipad and mango trees. he was detained in a room enclosed by steel bars. He waited for the guards to get drunk.[19] He reached the highway. He was boxed repeatedly. including orasol. He passed through a helipad and firing range and stopped near a fishpond where he used stones to break his chains. Bulacan on board the Revo. ―Master‖ Del Rosario alias Carinyoso at Puti. Raymond responded that he would not be because he did not believe that Gen.brought them to their parents‘ . While there. At about 3:00 in the morning.medicine. basta‘t sundin n‘yo ang lahat ng sasabihin ko… sabihin mo sa magulang mo – huwag pumunta sa mga rali. sa hearing. Palparan: ―Sige. ―Siyempre po.[27] Raymond narrated his conversation with Gen.[26] From Pinaud. Raymond lied that he did not. San Ildefonso. While there. Rizal Hilario fetched respondents in a Revo vehicle. They. Palparan in his affidavit. He was about two arms‘ length away from respondents. Efren and the former‘s men . Gen. to which Raymond replied in the affirmative. seated. He began by asking if respondents felt well already.[25] One day. Respondents were kept in the DTU for about two weeks. Tulungan kami na kausapin si Bestre na sumuko na sa gobyerno.‖[28] Respondents agreed to do as Gen. Raymond was beaten up by Hilario‘s men. Hilario. Respondents were detained for one or two weeks in a big two-storey house. Thereafter. di ka ba natatakot sa akin?‖ Sumagot akong. medicines were sent through the ―master‖ of the DTU. San Miguel. along with Efren and several other armed men wearing fatigue suits. sa Karapatan at sa Human Right dahil niloloko lang kayo. Gen. He then asked Raymond if he would be scared if he were made to face Gen. Palparan. Sabihin sa magulang at lahat sa bahay na huwag paloko doon.the same group that abducted them . ―Ngayon na kaharap mo na ako. went to a detachment in Pinaud. Palparan was an evil man. He asked Raymond if he knew him. Palparan. Hilario and Efren stayed with them. Palparan was already waiting. Palparan talked to them. Palparan ordered him to monitor and take care of them. Palparan told them as they felt they could not do otherwise. When they arrived in Sapang. They were brought out of the house to a basketball court in the center of the compound and made to sit. viz: Tinanong ako ni Gen. bibigyan ko kayo ng isang pagkakataon na mabuhay. he met a soldier named Efren who said that Gen. The two ladies returned a few more times. They were detained in a big unfinished house inside the compound of ―Kapitan‖ for about three months. Bulacan. Hilario and Efren brought respondents to Sapang. natatakot din…‖ Sabi ni Gen. There were many soldiers. He was also ordered to clean inside the barracks. Palparan was about to leave. Raymond was then blindfolded. he called for him.[34] After about three months in Sapang. and got acquainted with other military men and civilians.[32] One of the soldiers named Arman made Raymond take the medicine left by Gen. Chains were put on him and he was kept in the barracks. Palparan told him.[30] When Gen. Raymond relayed to his parents what Gen. He said the medicine was expensive at Php35. they would never see their children again. Hilario threatened Raymond‘s parents that if they continued to join human rights rallies. He took Reynaldo and left Raymond at Sapang.[35] The next day. He was in a big white vehicle. his blindfold was removed.[33] After a few days. Raymond was shown to his parents while Reynaldo stayed in the Revo because he still could not walk. In the presence of Hilario and other soldiers.[29] When respondents arrived back in Sapang. Ganata.house. Hilario arrived again. Raymond stood outside the vehicle as Gen.[31] During his testimony. he met Sherlyn . The respondents were then brought back to Sapang. While there. After a 30-minute ride. named ―Alive. Hilario and Cabalse. Efren went with them. Palparan. Quezon. Palparan told him to gain back his strength and be healthy and to take the medicine he left for him and Reynaldo.‖ was green and yellow.‖ a military trainee from Sariaya. Raymond identified Gen. In one of the rooms therein. The ―Alive‖ made them sleep each time they took it. Arman checked if they were getting their dose of the medicine. assigned in Bulacan. Arman instructed Raymond that while in Sapang. He also said that they should prove that they are on the side of the military and warned that they would not be given another chance. hundreds of them were training.00 each. The medicine. one of the men who abducted him from his house. It was then he learned that he was in a detachment of the Rangers. Raymond‘s chains were removed and he was ordered to clean outside the barracks. He was talking with the four ―masters‖ who were there: Arman. Raymond‘s parents acceded. and would make them strong. Palparan saw Raymond. Palparan by his picture. and they felt heavy upon waking up. he saw again Ganata. Raymond was brought to Camp Tecson under the 24th Infantry Battalion. Gen. he should introduce himself as ―Oscar. As they were afraid. Raymond and Reynaldo were each given a box of this medicine and instructed to take one capsule a day. He was fetched by three unidentified men in a big white vehicle. He got acquainted with soldiers of the 24thInfantry Battalion whose names and descriptions he stated in his affidavit. Hilario arrived in Camp Tecson. 2006. She told him that she was a student of the University of the Philippines and was abducted in Hagonoy.‖ Before the hearing of November 6 or 8. 2007. They were brought to Barangay Bayanbayanan. along with Sherlyn. their parents had already left for Manila. During the day. her chains were removed and she was made to do the laundry. but were put back on at night. Raymond and Reynaldo were threatened.[36] After a week. The . Karen and Manuel were put in the room with ―Allan‖ whose name they later came to know as Donald Caigas. and Manuel. There were many huts in the camp. respondents were brought to their parents to instruct them not to attend the hearing. At times.[39] Raymond recalled that when ―Operation Lubog‖ was launched. their chains were removed. cook. two other captives. their families would all be killed. called ―master‖ or ―commander‖ by his men in the 24th Infantry Battalion. Karen Empeño and Manuel Merino.[38] On November 22. were transferred to a camp of the 24th Infantry Battalion in Limay. Bataan where he witnessed the killing of an old man doing kaingin. Two days from his arrival. Reynaldo was also brought to Camp Tecson. While there. They stayed in that camp until May 8. They stayed in that camp from September 2006 to November 2006. and Raymond was instructed to continue using the name ―Oscar‖ and holding himself out as a military trainee. Sherlyn and Karen also suffered enormous torture in the camp. Respondents were brought back to Camp Tecson. and Reynaldo was beaten up. They were all made to clean. He told the detainees that they should be thankful they were still alive and should continue along their ―renewed life. 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. Bataan. Some soldiers of the battalion stayed with them. Karen.Cadapan from Laguna. They were threatened that if they escaped. respondents. In the daytime. 2006. Raymond and Reynaldo were put in the adjoining room. Bulacan. However. Caigas and some other soldiers brought him and Manuel with them to take and kill all sympathizers of the NPA. battalion soldiers whom Raymond knew as ―Mar‖ and ―Billy‖ beat him up and hit him in the stomach with their guns. arrived.[37] On or about October 6. and help in raising livestock. 2006. A retired army soldier was in charge of the house. Kinaumagahan nakita kong mayroong sinilaban. Caigas brought the five back to the camp in Limay. Iyong gabi nakita kong pinatay nila iyong isang Ita malapit sa Post 3. may dinukot sila na dalawang Ita. sinabihan kami ni Donald (Caigas) na matulog na kami. Itinali sila sa labas ng kubo. at napakamasangsang ang amoy.[40] Another time. the five detainees were made to do errands and chores. 2007 until June 2007. Masansang ang amoy. . dinala ang mga bangkay sa labas ng bakod. ikinadena at labis na binugbog. piniringan. Raymond narrated what he witnessed and experienced in the camp. Makaraan ang isang lingo.[41] From Limay. Mayroong binuhos sa kanyang katawan at ito‘y sinunog. dalawang bangkay and ibinaba ng mga unipormadong sundalo mula sa 6 x 6 na trak at dinala sa loob ng kampo.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. in another ―Operation Lubog. Nakita kong nakatakas ang isa sa kanila at binaril siya ng sundalo ngunit hindi siya tinamaan. When they arrived. in a safehouse near the sea. Raymond. Karen. Sherlyn. Sabi ni Donald na kung mayroon man kaming makita o marinig. Reynaldo. nakita naming ang bangkay ng isa sa mga bihag na dinala sa kampo. at nilagyan ng silenser. Nakita ko si Donald na inaayos ang kanyang baril. Ibinaba ang mga bangkay mula sa pick up trak. Kinaumagahan.[42] In June 2007. and Manuel were transferred to Zambales. Caigas and some of his men stayed with them.‖ Raymond was brought to Barangay Orion in a house where NPA men stayed. Pagkalipas ng halos 1 buwan. only the old man of the house who was sick was there. Makalipas ang isa o dalawang lingo. They stayed in Zambales from May 8 or 9. sinilaban ang bangkay at ibinaon ito. walang nangyari. viz: Isang gabi. Like in Limay. Reynaldo. Naamoy ko iyon nang nililinis ang bakas. 2 pang bangkay ang dinala sa kampo. May naiwang mga bakas ng dugo habang hinihila nila ang mga bangkay. Raymond. They spared him and killed only his son right before Raymond‘s eyes. and Manuel were tasked to bring food to detainees brought to the camp. naka-kadena pa kami. hindi na kami kinakadena. Kinausap kami ni Donald.00 each. Sabi pa ni Donald na kami ni Reynaldo ay magbagong buhay at ituloy namin ni Reynaldo ang trabaho. narinig ko ang hiyaw o ungol ni Manuel.400. Nakapiring si Manuel. Kinaumagahan. Pinakain ko sila. They were also told that they could farm a small plot adjoining his land and sell their produce. Tinanggal ang aming kadena. When they had saved Php1. Iyong gabi. xxx xxx xxx Ikinadena kami ng 3 araw. They helped farm adjoining lands for which they were paid Php200. Palparan. A phone was pawned to him. They could see the highway from where they stayed. Di nagtagal.[43] On or about June 13.00 and they saved their earnings. Sinabi sa amin na kaya kami nakakadena ay dahil pinagdedesisyunan pa ng mga sundalo kung papatayin kami o hindi. Nilakasan ng mga sundalo ang tunog na galing sa istiryo ng sasakyan. Raymond asked a neighbor how he could get a cellular phone as he wanted to exchange text messages with a girl who lived nearby. ostensibly to raise poultry for Donald (Caigas). Caigas told respondents to also farm his land. Laguna.00 between them. 2007.00 or Php400. pinosasan. Sa gabi. They earned some more until they had saved Php1. Sa ikatlong araw. They were no longer put in chains and were instructed to use the names Rommel (for Raymond) and Rod (for Reynaldo) and represent themselves as cousins from Rizal. Tinanggal ang mga kadena mga 3 o 4 na araw pagkalipas. nilabas ni Lat si Manuel dahil kakausapin daw siya ni Gen. . dahil magkakasama na yung tatlo. in exchange for which.000. he would take care of the food of their family. wala siyang suot pang-itaas.May nakilala rin akong 1 retiradong koronel at 1 kasama niya. Raymond and Reynaldo were brought to Pangasinan. Sumilip ako sa isang haligi ng kamalig at nakita kong sinisilaban si Manuel. Tinanong kami kung ano ang sabi ni Manuel sa amin. inilabas sila at hindi ko na sila nakita. Sabi nila sa akin na dinukot sila sa Bataan. but he kept it first and did not use it.[44] Respondents started to plan their escape. Sabi ni Donald huwag na raw naming hanapin ang dalawang babae at si Manuel. With a . but they had a radio. He was also brought to Tondo. At one point during their detention. They used a lamp. Manila where Hilario delivered boxes of ―Alive‖ in different houses. When Raymond attempted to escape from Fort Magsaysay.m. M. Raymond and Reynaldo proceeded towards the highway. Sometimes. Molino specialized in forensic medicine and was connected with the Medical Action Group. Caigas entrusted respondents to Nonong. a friend of Hilario. He was instructed to use the name ―Rodel‖ and to represent himself as a military trainee from Meycauayan. In these trips. Bulacan and made to wait in the vehicle while Hilario was buying. He was requested by an NGO to conduct medical examinations on the respondents after their escape. Raymond turned up the volume of the radio.. Hilario brought along Reynaldo in his trips. in a mountainous area. then proceeded with the . Reynaldo was hit on the back and punched in the face until he could no longer bear the pain. When none of the guards awoke and took notice.45 caliber pistol. Benito Molino. leaving behind their sleeping guards and barking dogs.D.[45] Reynaldo also executed an affidavit affirming the contents of Raymond‘s affidavit insofar as they related to matters they witnessed together. He was kept in the house of Kapitan. del Monte. Bulacan. Raymond and Reynaldo were housed in one of them while their guards lived in the other three.There were four houses in the compound. 2006. There was no television. he was brought to a market in San Jose. they passed by Fort Magsaysay andCamp Tecson where Reynaldo saw the sign board. corroborated the accounts of respondents Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo. particularly cases where torture was involved. an organization handling cases of human rights violations. the head of the guards. Reynaldo was severely beaten up and told that they were indeed members of the NPA because Raymond escaped. He first asked them about their ordeal. but allowed to remove the blindfold once outside the province. Dr. Respondents‘ house did not have electricity. Reynaldo was separated from Raymond and brought to Pinaud by Rizal Hilario. He also named the soldiers he got acquainted with in the 18 months he was detained. Nonong and his cohorts had a drinking session. Hilario drove a black and red vehicle. In the evening of August 13. At about 1:00 a. Reynaldo added that when they were taken from their house onFebruary 14. One time. he saw the faces of his abductors before he was blindfolded with his shirt. In one of their trips.‖[46] Dr. 2007. when Raymond and Reynaldo were in Sapang. They boarded a bus bound for Manila and were thus freed from captivity. ―Welcome to Camp Tecson. Reynaldo was blindfolded while still in Bulacan.. A. viz: 13. Hermogenes Esperon. (sic) Jovito S. The respondents therein submitted a return of the writ… On July 4. 2007 Resolution of the Court. In compliance with the October 25. they filed a Return of the Writ of Amparo admitting the abduction but denying any involvement therein. held incommunicado. two days after respondents‘ escape. Jr. and on September 19.. Maj.[48] Attached to the Return of the Writ was the affidavit of therein respondent (herein petitioner) Secretary of National Defense. Maj. and the results thereof were reduced into writing. He also claimed that: . as head of the 24th Infantry Battalion. The examination was conducted on August 15. Madning dela Cruz. Jovito Palparan. namely: Michael dela Cruz. although it held that the remaining respondents were illegally detaining the Manalo brothers and ordered them to release the latter. it exonerated M/Sgt. Nueva Ecija. 2006. 2007…. In a Decision dated June 27. Philippine Army. which attested that he assumed office only on August 8. 2007 and was thus unaware of the Manalo brothers‘ alleged abduction. Esperon. 2006. Randy Mendoza and Rudy Mendoza. Petitioners Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo were not at any time arrested. Lt. Gen. Hermogenes C. Gen. This is a settled issue laid to rest in the habeas corpuscase filed in their behalf by petitioners‘ parents before the Court of Appeals in C. stationed at Fort Magsaysay. Dr. forcibly abducted. Pula dela Cruz. as Commander of the 7 th Infantry Division in Luzon. Palparan.-G. disappeared or under the custody by the military. upon a finding that no evidence was introduced to establish their personal involvement in the taking of the Manalo brothers. 94431 against M/Sgt.[47] Petitioners dispute respondents‘ account of their alleged abduction and torture. His findings showed that the scars borne by respondents were consistent with their account of physical injuries inflicted upon them. in his capacity as the Commanding General of the Philippine Army. SP No.R. the Court of Appeals dropped as party respondents Lt. Gen. then Commanding General. detained. Rizal Hilario aka Rollie Castillo for lack of evidence establishing his involvement in any capacity in the disappearance of the Manalo brothers. Molino took photographs of the scars. He testified that he followed the Istanbul Protocol in conducting the examination. and members of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU). Puti dela Cruz. 2007. Palayan City. 7th Infantry Division. Rizal Hilario aka Rollie Castillo.physical examination. then Commanding General of the Philippine Army. As currently designated Chief of Staff.7. Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). attached to the Return of the Writ. location and time of death or disappearance as well as any pattern or practice that may have brought about the death or disappearance. In connection with the Writ of Amparo issued by the Honorable Supreme Court in this case. (3) to identify witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning the death or disappearance. I have directed the Chief of Staff. manner. (4) to determine the cause. (2) to recover and preserve evidence related to the death or disappearance of the person identified in the petition which may aid in the prosecution of the person or persons responsible. attesting that he received the above directive of therein respondent Secretary of National Defense and that acting on this directive. neither does he undertake command directions of the AFP units in the field. AFP to institute immediate action in compliance with Section 9(d) of the Amparo Rule and to submit report of such compliance… Likewise. and (6) to bring the suspected offenders before a competent court. nor in any way micromanage the AFP operations. in a Memorandum Directive also dated October 31. 8.1. 2007. I have issued a policy directive addressed to the Chief of Staff.[49] Therein respondent AFP Chief of Staff also submitted his own affidavit. (5) to identify and apprehend the person or persons involved in the death or disappearance. The Secretary of National Defense does not engage in actual military directional operations. he did the following: 3. AFP that the AFP should adopt the following rules of action in the event the Writ ofAmparo is issued by a competent court against any members of the AFP: (1) to verify the identity of the aggrieved party. I have caused to be issued directive to the units of the . The principal responsibility of the Secretary of National Defense is focused in providing strategic policy direction to the Department (bureaus and agencies) including the Armed Forces of the Philippines. 3. Felipe Anontado. On the part of the Armed Forces. No. involving Cadapan. this respondent will exert earnest efforts to establish the surrounding circumstances of the disappearances of the petitioners and to bring those responsible. A Copy of the Radio Message is attached as ANNEX ―3‖ of this Affidavit. viz: 10) Upon reading the allegations in the Petition implicating the 24 Infantry Batallion detachment as detention area.AFP for the purpose of establishing the circumstances of the alleged disappearance and the recent reappearance of the petitioners.[50] Also attached to the Return of the Writ was the affidavit of Lt. to the bar of justice.2. Col. 3. another amparo case in this Court. Bataan and found no untoward incidents in the area nor any detainees by the name of Sherlyn Cadapan. when warranted by the findings and the competent evidence that may be gathered in the process. 71D PA and CO 24 IB PA). I have caused the immediate investigation and submission of the result thereof to Higher headquarters and/or direct the immediate conduct of the investigation on the matter by the concerned unit/s. which averred among others.4. CG. addressed to the Commanding General. 179994. including any military personnel if shown to have participated or had complicity in the commission of the complained acts. 3. 179994) filed at the instance of relatives of a certain Cadapan and Empeño pending before the Supreme Court. 2007. Philippine Army (Info: COMNOLCOM.R. INF (GSC) PA. A parallel investigation has been directed to the same units relative to another Petition for the Writ of Amparo (G. Empeño and Merino.3. 3. earlier filed in G. th . We undertake to provide result 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.R. dispatching Radio Message on November 05. Karen Empeño and Manuel Merino being held captive. I immediately went to the 24th IB detachment in Limay. No.5. Maj.[57] Jimenez testified that this particular investigation was initiated not by a complaint as was the usual procedure. aka Puti. Jovito Palaran.[54] On May 26.[55] through his Assistant Chief of Staff. Bulacan. Tarlac and a portion of Pangasinan. based in Fort Magsaysay. if any. and (2) the administrative liability of said auxiliaries. and other persons implicated by therein petitioners could not be secured in time for the submission of the Return and would be subsequently submitted. Pampanga. 13) I also directed Company Commander 1st Lt. Philippine Army. M/Sgt. He was directed to determine: (1) the veracity of the abduction of Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo by the alleged elements of the CAFGU auxiliaries. we made further inquiries with the Philippine National Police. Lt. Gen. Jimenez was directed by the Commanding General of the 7th Infantry Division. CAA Maximo de la Cruz. 2006. Nueva Ecija. however.11) There was neither any reports of any death of Manuel Merino in the 24th IB in Limay. Zambales also alleged to be a detention place where Sherlyn Cadapan. Romeo Publico to inquire into the alleged beachhouse in Iba. Bataan. Col. Ruben U.). Limay. Bataan regarding the alleged detentions or deaths and were informed that none was reported to their good office. Palayan City. CAA Randy Mendoza. the affidavits of Maj. Provost Marshall. no such beachhouse was used as a detention place found to have been used by armed men to detain Cadapan. namely: CAA Michael de la Cruz. but because the Commanding General saw news about the abduction of the Manalo brothers on the television. Bataan. 7th Infantry Division. Palparan (Ret. aka Pula. 12) After going to the 24th IB in Limay.[52] Herein petitioners presented a lone witness in the summary hearings. Jimenez. Gen Jovito S.[56] to investigate the alleged abduction of the respondents by CAFGU auxiliaries under his unit. As per the inquiry. Empeño and Merino.[53] The 24th Infantry Battalion is part of the 7th Infantry Division. Bataan. Rizal Hilario aka Rollie Castillo. ex-CAA Marcelo de la Cruz aka Madning. and a civilian named Rudy Mendoza. Lt.[58] . CAA Roman de la Cruz.[51] It was explained in the Return of the Writ that for lack of sufficient time. Col. The territorial jurisdiction of this Division covers Nueva Ecija. and he was concerned about what was happening within his territorial jurisdiction. Karen Empeño and Manuel Merino were detained. Aurora. Randy Mendoza and Rudy Mendoza as alleged members of the Citizen Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU).[68] As petitioners largely rely on Jimenez‘s Investigation Report dated June 1. Jimenez testified that the two signed on May 30. This pertains to the abduction of RAYMOND MANALO and REYNALDO MANALO who were forcibly taken from their respective homes in Brgy. a subordinate of his in the Office of the Provost Marshall.[60] The investigating officer.[65] Jimenez testified that all six statements were taken on May 29. not even of the Manalo family. took the individual sworn statements of all six persons on that day. dela Cruz. Buhol na Mangga. 2006. the directive to him was only to investigate the six persons.[59] The investigation started at 8:00 in the morning and finished at 10:00 in the evening. Bulacan on 14 February 2006 by unidentified armed men and thereafter were forcibly disappeared. Puti Dela Cruz. relatives of the victims filed a case for Abduction in the civil court against the herein suspects: Michael dela Cruz. 2006. aka Pula dated 29 May 2006 in (Exhibit ―B‖) states that he was at Sitio . 2006 and finished it on June 1. 2006. He began writing it in the afternoon of May 30. nor were there other witnesses summoned and investigated[61] as according to Jimenez. he personally wrote his investigation report.[62] Jimenez was beside Lingad when the latter took the statements. but the jurats of their statements indicated that they were signed on May 29. Jimenez did not propound a single question to the six persons. San Ildefonso. Pula Dela Cruz.[67] He then gave his report to the Office of the Chief of Personnel. Eduardo Lingad. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE 4. 2006. Technical Sgt. 2006 for their evidence. the report is herein substantially quoted: III.[64] During the entire time that he was beside Lingad. Madning dela Cruz. There were no other sworn statements taken.Jimenez summoned all six implicated persons for the purpose of having them execute sworn statements and conducting an investigation on May 29. 2006.[63] The six persons were not known to Jimenez as it was in fact his first time to meet them. but Marcelo Mendoza and Rudy Mendoza had to come back the next day to sign their statements as the printing of their statements was interrupted by a power failure. After the said incident.[66] When the Sworn Statements were turned over to Jimenez. a) Sworn statement of CAA Maximo F. he was at Brgy. c) Sworn Statement of CAA Randy Mendoza y Lingas dated 29 May 2006 in (Exhibit ―O‖) states that he is a resident of Brgy. together with some neighbor thereat. Bulacan doing the concrete building of a church located nearby his residence. As to the allegation that he was one of the suspects. Buhol na Mangga. That subject CAA vehemently denied any participation about the incident and claimed that they only implicated him because he is a member of the CAFGU. Brgy. Bulacan and a CAA member based at Biak na Bato Detachment. Bulacan and a member of CAFGU based at Biak na Bato Detachment. Brgy. San Ildefonso. b) Sworn statement of CAA Roman dela Cruz y Faustino Aka Puti dtd 29 May 2006 in (Exhibit ―C‖) states that he is a resident of Sitio Muzon. he claims that on February 14. Being one of the accused. That at the time of the alleged abduction of the two (2) brothers and for accusing him to be one of the suspects. San Ildefonso. He claims further that he just came only to know about the incident on other day (15 Feb 06) when he was being informed by Kagawad Pablo Kunanan. San Ildefonso.Mozon. Bulacan. 2006. he was very much aware about the background of the two (2) brothers Raymond and Reynaldo as active supporters of the CPP NPA in their Brgy. Bohol na Mangga. San Miguel. he claims that they only implicated him because he was a CAFGU and that they claimed that those who abducted the Manalo brothers are members of the Military and CAFGU. Kagawad Pablo Umayan about the abduction of the brothers Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo. he claims that on 14 February 2006. San Miguel. He claims that Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo being his neighbors are active members/sympathizers of the CPP/NPA and he also knows their elder Rolando Manalo @ KA BESTRE of being an NPA Leader operating in their province. he was being informed by Brgy. He claims further that the only reason why they implicated him was due to the fact that his mother has filed a criminal charge against their brother Rolando Manalo @ KA BESTRE who is an NPA Commander who killed his father and for that reason they implicated . he was one of those working at the concrete chapel being constructed nearby his residence. and he also knew their elder brother ―KUMANDER BESTRE‖ TN: Rolando Manalo. Subject vehemently denied any participation or involvement on the abduction of said victims. He claims that on 15 February 2006. That being a neighbor. Buhol na Mangga. Bulacan in the house of his aunt and he learned only about the incident when he arrived home in their place. Magmarate. Angat. 2006 in (Exhibit ―E‖) states that he is a resident of Brgy. Marungko. Bulacan. He alleged further that they are . He claims that Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo are familiar to him being their barrio mate. Tanod and a CAFGU member based at Biak na Bato Detachment. e) Sworn statement of Ex-CAA Marcelo dala Cruz dated 29 May 2006 in (Exhibit ―F‖) states that he is a resident of Sitio Muzon. Bulacan. He claims that he was being informed only about the incident lately and he was not aware of any reason why the two (2) brothers were being abducted by alleged members of the military and CAFGU. He claims that he knew very well the brothers Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo in their barangay for having been the Tanod Chief for twenty (20) years. he was in his residence at Sitio Muzon. Buhol na Mangga. San Ildefonso. Being one of the accused. f) Sworn statement of Michael dela Cruz y Faustino dated 29 May 2006 in (Exhibit ―G‖) states that he is a resident of Sitio Muzon. the Chief of Brgy. Being one of the accused. Marungko. San Ildefonso. He claims that Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo are familiar to him being his barriomate when he was still unmarried and he knew them since childhood. San Miguel. Bulacan. he claims that on 14 February 2006. Angat. Bulacan. He claims further that they are active supporters of CPP/NPA and that their brother Rolando Manalo @ KA BESTRE is an NPA leader. he claims that on 14 February 2006. Brgy. Bulacan. San Ildefonso. That he vehemently denied any participation of the alleged abduction of the two (2) brothers and learned only about the incident when rumors reached him by his barrio mates. He claims further that it was their brother @ KA BESTRE who killed his father and he was living witness to that incident. d) Sworn Statement of Rudy Mendoza y Lingasa dated May 29. Subject CAA vehemently denied any involvement on the abduction of said Manalo brothers. he was at his residence in Brgy. Bulacan. Subject civilian vehemently denied any involvement on the abduction of the Manalo brothers. He claims that his implication is merely fabricated because of his relationship to Roman and Maximo who are his brothers. San Miguel. The only reason he knows why they implicated him was because there are those people who are angry with their family particularly victims of summary execution (killing) done by their brother @ KA Bestre Rolando Manalo who is an NPA leader. Buhol na Mangga. Brgy.him in support of their brother. a farmer and a former CAA based at Biak na Bato. Buhol na Mangga. Brgy. Bulacan. CONCLUSION 6. this will not suffice to establish a fact that they were the ones who did the abduction as a form of revenge. Brgy. hence inside their village. Their alleged involvement theretofore to that incident is considered doubtful. V. is unsubstantiated. hence. It is therefore concluded that they are innocent of the charge. As it was also stated in the testimony of other accused claiming that the Manalos are active sympathizers/supporters of the CPP/NPA. Being their neighbors and as members of CAFGU‘s. they ought to be vigilant in protecting their village from any intervention by the leftist group. He claims further that he is truly innocent of the allegation against him as being one of the abductors and he considers everything fabricated in order to destroy his name that remains loyal to his service to the government as a CAA member. Premises considered surrounding this case shows that the alleged charges of abduction committed by the above named respondents has not been established in this investigation. it lacks merit to indict them for any administrative punishment and/or criminal liability. that in the first place. this would not also mean. they were fully aware of the activities of Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo in so far as their connection with the CPP/NPA is concerned. Though there are previous grudges between each families (sic) in the past to quote: the killing of the father of Randy and Rudy Mendoza by @ KA BESTRE TN: Rolando Manalo. Being one of the accused. Bulacan. IV. the proof of linking them to the alleged abduction and disappearance of Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo that transpired on 14 February 2006 at Sitio Muzon. Kagawad in the person of Pablo Cunanan informed him about the matter. DISCUSSION 5. no basis to indict them as charged in this investigation. .active supporters or sympathizers of the CPP/NPA and whose elder brother Rolando Manalo @ KA BESTRE is an NPA leader operating within the area. Based on the foregoing statements of respondents in this particular case. San Ildefonso. however. Hence. Buhol na Mangga. he claims that on 14 Feb 2006 he was helping in the construction of their concrete chapel in their place and he learned only about the incident which is the abduction of Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo when one of the Brgy. they were in connivance with the abductors. THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY AND GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN REQUIRING RESPONDENTS (HEREIN PETITIONERS) TO: (A) FURNISH TO THE MANALO BROTHER(S) AND TO THE COURT OF APPEALS ALL OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE INVESTIGATION UNDERTAKEN IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR CASE. 8. viz: I. RECOMMENDATIONS 7. AND (C) CAUSE TO BE PRODUCED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS ALL MEDICAL REPORTS. TO INCLUDE A LIST OF MEDICAL PERSONNEL (MILITARY AND CIVILIAN) WHO ATTENDED TO THEM FROM FEBRUARY 14. II. Randy Mendoza. and two (2) civilians Maximo F. EXCEPT THOSE ALREADY IN FILE WITH THE COURT. (B) CONFIRM IN WRITING THE PRESENT PLACES OF OFFICIAL ASSIGNMENT OF M/SGT. Upon approval.VI. petitioners question the appellate court‘s assessment of the foregoing evidence and assail the December 26. HILARIO aka ROLLIE CASTILLO AND DONALD CAIGAS. Roman dela Cruz. AND OBVIOUSLY SCRIPTED. Dela Cruz. Dela Cruz and Rudy L.[70] . REHEARSED AND SELF-SERVING AFFIDAVIT/TESTIMONY OF HEREIN RESPONDENT RAYMOND MANALO. Mendoza be exonerated from the case.[69] In this appeal under Rule 45. TO THE MANALO BROTHERS. this case can be dropped and closed. dela Cruz. RECORDS AND CHARTS. UNCORROBORATED. AND REPORTS OF ANY TREATMENT GIVEN OR RECOMMENDED AND MEDICINES PRESCRIBED. IF ANY. 2007 Decision on the following grounds. That CAAs Michael F. CONTRADICTED. Maximo F. 2007. THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY AND GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN BELIEVING AND GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO THE INCREDIBLE. 2006 UNTIL AUGUST 12. which made its maiden appearance in the 1987 Constitution in response to the Filipino experience of the martial law regime.‖[73] It was an exercise for the first time of the Court‘s expanded power to promulgate rules to protect our people‘s constitutional rights. ―enforced disappearances‖ are ―attended by the following characteristics: an arrest.[77] In 1837.‖[71] hence ―representatives from all sides of the political and social spectrum.‖[75] On the other hand. 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 Court promulgated the Amparo Rule ―in light of the prevalence of extralegal killing and enforced disappearances. ―Extralegal killings‖ are ―killings committed without due process of law. 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. against attacks by the . The Summit was ―envisioned to provide a broad and factbased perspective on the issue of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. as well as all the stakeholders in the justice system‖ [72] participated in mapping out ways to resolve the crisis. without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings.‖ its coverage. i.S.The case at bar is the first decision on the application of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo (Amparo Rule). appealed to many Mexican jurists. ―Amparo‖ literally means ―protection‖ in Spanish. drafted a constitutional provision for his native state.‖[76] The writ of amparo originated in Mexico. Let us hearken to its beginning.e. viz: The federal courts shall protect any inhabitant of the Republic in the exercise and preservation of those rights granted to him by this Constitution and by laws enacted pursuant hereto.[74] As the Amparo Rule was intended to address the intractable problem of ―extralegal killings‖ and ―enforced disappearances. Manuel Crescencio Rejón.[79] which granted judges the power to protect all persons in the enjoyment of their constitutional and legal rights. Yucatan.. Its description of the practice of judicial review in the U. in its present form. On October 24. 2007. 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. is confined to these two instances or to threats thereof.[78] One of them. This idea was incorporated into the national constitution in 1847. de Tocqueville‘s Democracy in America became available in Mexico and stirred great interest. [87] In the Philippines.[80] Since then.[86] Other countries like Colombia.[85] In Latin American countries. and (5) amparo agrario for the protection of peasants‘ rights derived from the agrarian reform process. It enables courts to enforce the constitution by protecting individual rights in particular cases.S. Chile.[82] The writ of amparo then spread throughout the Western Hemisphere. in response to the particular needs of each country. several of the above amparo protections are guaranteed by . gradually evolving into various forms. in the words of a justice of theMexican Federal Supreme Court. equivalent to thehabeas corpus writ. one piece of Mexico‘s self-attributed ―task of conveying to the world‘s legal heritage that institution which. but prevents them from using this power to make law for the entire nation. (4) amparo administrativo for the judicial review of administrative actions.[83] It became. limiting themselves to granting protection in the specific case in litigation. have chosen to limit the protection of the writ of amparo only to some constitutional guarantees or fundamental rights. (2) amparo contra leyes for the judicial review of the constitutionality of statutes. Germany and Spain. to cease the violation and to take the necessary measures to restore the petitioner to the full enjoyment of the right in question. he orders the official.Legislative and Executive powers of the federal or state governments. as a shield of human dignity. except Cuba. In general. with the limitations on judicial power characteristic of the civil law tradition which prevails in Mexico. after hearing. however.[81] If. the judge determines that a constitutional right of the petitioner is being violated.‖[84] 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. making no general declaration concerning the statute or regulation that motivated the violation. while the 1987 Constitution does not explicitly provide for the writ of amparo. the writ of amparo has been constitutionally adopted to protect against human rights abuses especially committed in countries under military juntas. her own painful history conceived. or the official‘s superiors. (3) amparo casacion for the judicial review of the constitutionality and legality of a judicial decision. including socio-economic rights. these countries adopted an all-encompassing writ to protect the whole gamut of constitutional rights. Amparo thus combines the principles of judicial review derived from the U. the protection has been an important part of Mexican constitutionalism. Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution.[93] prior to the promulgation of .[90] these remedies may not be adequate to address the pestering problem of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. and Temporary Restraining Order‖[92] to stop petitioners and/or their officers and agents from depriving the respondents of their right to liberty and other basic rights on August 23. which finds its roots in the 1803 case of Marbury v. this hybrid writ of the common law and civil law traditions . and amparo administrativo. it is curative in that it facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators as it will inevitably yield leads to subsequent investigation and action. respondents initially filed an action for ―Prohibition. 2007. 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 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.S. The second paragraph of Article VIII. or administrative responsibility requiring substantial evidence that will require full and exhaustive proceedings. In the long run. or liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence. Amparo libertad is comparable to the remedy of habeas corpus found in several provisions of the 1987 Constitution. common law tradition of judicial review. However. the goal of both the preventive and curative roles is to deter the further commission of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. amparo casacion. the Grave Abuse Clause. It is preventive in that it breaks the expectation of impunity in the commission of these offenses.[91] The writ of amparo serves both preventive and curative roles in addressing the problem of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.[89] 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. Injunction.‖ The Clause accords a similar general protection to human rights extended by the amparo contra leyes.[88] The Clause is an offspring of the U. In the case at bar. it is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt.our charter. Madison. 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.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 writ shall cover extralegal killings disappearances or threats thereof. to determine whether the evidence presented is metal-strong to satisfy the degree of proof required. and obviously scripted. Inspection and Access Orders and other legal and equitable remedies under Article VIII. When the Amparo Rule came into effect onOctober 24.the Amparo Rule. xxx xxx xxx . – The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life. they moved to have their petition treated as an amparo petition as it would be more effective and suitable to the circumstances of the Manalo brothers‘ enforced disappearance. we need to mine and refine the ore of petitioners‘ cause of action. viz: Sec. Petition. (emphasis supplied) and enforced Sections 17 and 18. Appointment of Commissioner. 2007. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. or of a private individual or entity. viz: Section 1. provide for the degree of proof required. 17. on the other hand. we now come to the arguments of the petitioner. Petitioners‘ first argument in disputing the Decision of the Court of Appeals states. Section 6 of the Rules of Court. liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee. The Court granted their motion.[94] In delving into the veracity of the evidence. They also sought ancillary remedies including Protective Custody Orders. rehearsed and self-serving affidavit/testimony of herein respondent Raymond Manalo. Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides for the following causes of action. Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution and Rule 135. – The parties shall establish their claims by substantial evidence. viz: The Court of Appeals seriously and grievously erred in believing and giving full faith and credit to the incredible uncorroborated. With this backdrop. contradicted. Sec. detention. 2007. and George. Hilario. Bulacan. and the CAFGU auxiliaries. and the brothers Randy Mendoza and Rudy Mendoza. otherwise. A few examples are the following: ―Sumilip ako sa isang haligi ng kamalig at nakita kong sinisilaban si Manuel. who headed the abducting team.‖[97] ―May naiwang mga bakas ng dugo habang hinihila nila ang mga bangkay. Puti de la Cruz and Pula de la Cruz. the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate. Raymond recalled that the six armed men who barged into his house through the rear door were military men based on their attire of fatigue pants and army boots. Subsequent incidents of their long captivity. Naamoy ko iyon nang nililinis ang bakas. namely: Michael de la Cruz. narinig ko ang hiyaw o ungol ni Manuel. all members of the CAFGU and residents of Muzon. Judgment. captured through his different senses and etched in his memory. who drove the van. San Ildefonso. torture. served as lookouts during the abduction. viz: …the abduction was perpetrated by armed men who were sufficiently identified by the petitioners (herein respondents) to be military personnel and CAFGU auxiliaries. Buhol na Mangga. sabi ko gusto kong i-text ang isang babae na nakatira sa malapit na lugar. the privilege shall be denied.‖[98] ―Tumigil ako sa may palaisdaan kung saan ginamit ko ang bato para tanggalin ang mga kadena. Di nagtagal. Raymond was sure that three of the six military men were Ganata. (emphases supplied) Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. also CAFGU members. Bulacan onFebruary 14. San Ildefonso. and escape of the respondents were narrated by respondent Raymond Manalo in a clear and convincing manner. Brgy. we affirm the findings of the Court of Appeals that respondents were abducted from their houses in Sito Muzon.‖[96] ―(N)ilakasan ng mga sundalo ang tunog na galing sa istiryo ng sasakyan.‖[100] We affirm the factual findings of the appellate court. 2006 and were continuously detained until they escaped on August 13. as narrated by the . largely based on respondent Raymond Manalo‘s affidavit and testimony.‖[99] ―Tinanong ko sa isang kapit-bahay kung paano ako makakakuha ng cell phone. Madning de la Cruz.[95] After careful perusal of the evidence presented. The abduction. – … If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence. His account is dotted with countless candid details of respondents‘ harrowing experience and tenacious will to escape. 18. Santiago-Lagman.. Sr. and Romilla-Lontok. Gen. We are convinced. 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. Jr. indeed. too. Palparan‘s participation in the abduction was also established. he was aware of the petitioners‘ captivity at the hands of men in uniform assigned to his command. In fact. member.petitioners.. Hilario‘s involvement could not. This one-sidedness might be due to the fact that the Provost Marshall could delve only into the participation of military personnel.) found no clear and convincing evidence to establish that M/Sgt. Philippine Army. through the Former Special Sixth Division (Justices Buzon. who turned out to be Rolando. chairman. but even then the Provost Marshall should have refrained from outrightly exculpating the CAFGU auxiliaries he perfunctorily investigated… Gen. be then established after Evangeline Francisco. in this case. At the very least. the brother of petitioners. The investigation of the Provost Marshall of the 7th Infantry Division focused on the one-sided version of the CAFGU auxiliaries involved. p. Rizal Hilario had anything to do with the abduction or the detention. member/ponente. and their CAFGU auxiliaries. merely superficial. he or any other officer tendered no controversion to the firm claim of Raymond that he (Gen. the Court. who allegedly saw Hilario drive the van in which the petitioners were boarded and ferried following the abduction. 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. that the reason for the abduction was the suspicion that the petitioners were either members or sympathizers of the NPA. 52) However. Raymond attested that Hilario drove the white L-300 van in which the petitioners were brought away from their . validated their assertion of the participation of the elements of the 7th Infantry Division. In the habeas proceedings. considering that the abductors were looking for Ka Bestre. did not testify. (See the decision of the habeas proceedings at rollo. at best. The efforts exerted by the Military Command to look into the abduction were. Palparan conversed on the occasion when Gen. among others. where only Raymond was presented to the parents to relay the message from Gen.[101] We reject the claim of petitioners that respondent Raymond Manalo‘s statements were not corroborated by other independent and credible pieces of evidence. p. Jimenez to be the ―Division . Respondent Raymond Manalo‘s familiarity with the facilities in Fort Magsaysay such as the ―DTU. xxx xxx xxx As to the CAFGU auxiliaries.[103] also corroborate respondents‘ accounts of the torture they endured while in detention. We also do. The participation of other military personnel like Arman. rollo. for. (Exhibit D. (Exhibit D. 206) There were other occasions when the petitioners saw that Hilario had a direct hand in their torture. rollo. Molino. indeed. Palparan not to join anymore rallies. pp. therefore. was similarly established. Raymond also attested that Hilario participated in subsequent incidents during the captivity of the petitioners.houses on February 14. 205206) Hilario was also among four Master Sergeants (the others being Arman. Hilario and Efren also brought the petitioners one early morning to the house of the petitioners‘ parents. On that occasion. p.‖ as shown in his testimony and confirmed by Lt. It is clear. Ganata. San Miguel. 2006. that the participation of Hilario in the abduction and forced disappearance of the petitioners was established. Bulacan where they were detained for at least a week in a house of strong materials (Exhibit D. Bulacan on board the Revo. Col. the evidence of their participation is overwhelming. to an unfinished house inside the compound of Kapitan where they were kept for more or less three months.[102] Raymond‘s affidavit and testimony were corroborated by the affidavit of respondent Reynaldo Manalo. rollo. the habeas Court found them personally involved in the abduction. one of which was when Hilario fetched them from Fort Magsaysay on board a Revo and conveyed them to a detachment in Pinaud. and the pictures of the scars left by the physical injuries inflicted on respondents. 205) and then Hilario (along with Efren) brought them to Sapang. Palparan required Raymond to take the medicines for his health. Palparan. rollo. Hilario warned the parents that they would not again see their sons should they join any rallies to denounce human rights violations. 205) It was there where the petitioners came face to face with Gen. San Ildefonso. Cabalse and Caigas. The testimony and medical reports prepared by forensic specialist Dr. (Exhibit D. Ganata and Cabalse) with whom Gen. p. In this case. We now come to the right of the respondents to the privilege of the writ of amparo. it logically holds that much of the information and evidence of the ordeal will come from the victims themselves. which constitute a direct violation of their right to security of person. in finding that complainant Sister Diana Ortiz was abducted and tortured by agents of the Guatemalan government.[111] . in a position to threaten respondents’ rights to life.[107] She was also examined by a medical doctor whose findings showed that the 111 circular second degree burns on her back and abrasions on her cheek coincided with her account of cigarette burning and torture she suffered while in detention. Where powerful military officers are implicated. 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.[108] With the secret nature of an enforced disappearance and the torture perpetrated on the victim during detention. Guatemala. the Commission considered similar evidence.[106] These statements were supported by her recognition of portions of the route they took when she was being driven out of the military installation where she was detained. made by Sister Ortiz regarding her ordeal. 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.[105] a case decided by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. written and oral. among others. In Ortiz v. liberty and security.‖[110] (emphasis supplied) Respondents claim that they are underthreat of being once again abducted. they assert that they are not ―free in every sense of the word‖[109] 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.‖[104] firms up respondents‘ story that they were detained for some time in said military facility. the hesitation of witnesses to surface and testify against them comes as no surprise.Training Unit. Sister Ortiz was kidnapped and tortured in early November 1989. and the veracity of their account will depend on their credibility and candidness in their written and/or oral statements. thus. But while respondents admit that they are no longer in detention and are physically free. These people are directly connected to the Armed Forces of the Philippines and are. kept captive or even killed. The Commission‘s findings of fact were mostly based on the consistent and credible statements. 2. ―The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. including the extensions of his/her person – houses. protects the privacy and sanctity of the person himself. and a violation of their right to security. they submit that their rights ―to be kept free from torture and from incommunicadodetention and solitary detention places[112] fall under the general coverage of the right to security of person under the writ of Amparo. viz: [118] The purpose of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures is to prevent violations of private security in person and . and effects – against government intrusion.” respondents point out that this right is ―often associated with liberty. The right of the people to be secure in their persons.‖ it is also seen as an ―expansion of rights based on the prohibition against torture and cruel and unusual punishment. CFI of Rizal. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. papers. respondents assert that their cause of action consists in the threat to their right to life and liberty. Let us put this right to security under the lens to determine if it has indeed been violated as respondents assert.‖ 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. in general. The right to security or the right to security of person finds a textual hook in Article III. Section 2 not only limits the state‘s power over a person‘s home and possessions. viz: Sec. Branch IX.‖ Finally.‖ Conceding that there is no right to security expressly mentioned in Article III of the 1987 Constitution.‖[116] In sum. to justify a liberal interpretation of the right to security of person.Elaborating on the ―right to security. Quezon City. Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution which provides. 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. Enrile[113] 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‖[114] such as a requirement to ―report under unreasonable restrictions that amounted to a deprivation of liberty‖[115] or being put under ―monitoring and surveillance. houses. respondents cite the teaching in Moncupa v.[117] The purpose of this provision was enunciated by the Court in People v. but more importantly. 2.‖ (emphasis supplied) Some scholars postulate that ―freedom from fear‖ is not only an aspirational principle. Section 1[120] guarantees essentially the right to be alive[121] . his body. will protect the security of his person and property. the right to security of person is “freedom from fear.upon which the enjoyment of all other rights is preconditioned . The right to privacy is an essential condition to the dignity and happiness and to the peace and security of every individual. New York. (Adams v. his health.[124] It is the ―right to security of person‖ as . it is a life lived with the assurance that the government he established and consented to. Rather. whether it be of home or of persons and correspondence. It includes the right to exist.” In its ―whereas‖ clauses. the right to security of person ―emanates in a person‘s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life. 76 Phil. and the right to enjoyment of life while existing. (Tañada and Carreon. temperament. his limbs.the right to security of person is a guarantee of the secure quality of this life. First. The ideal of security in life and property… pervades the whole history of man.‖[123] A closer look at the right to security of person would yield various permutations of the exercise of this right. 858. It touches every aspect of man‘s existence. Political Law of the Philippines. and lawful desires of the individual. 192 U. 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. 637 [1946]). 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. Dizon.property and unlawful invasion of the security of the home by officers of the law acting under legislative or judicial sanction and to give remedy against such usurpation when attempted. The constitutional inviolability of this great fundamental right against unreasonable searches and seizures must be deemed absolute as nothing is closer to a man’s soul than the serenity of his privacy and the assurance of his personal security. 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. and his reputation.[119] (emphases supplied) While the right to life under Article III. Alvero v. but essentially an individual international human right.‖[122] In a broad sense.S. Any interference allowable can only be for the best causes and reasons. 139 [1962]). Vol. in criminal law. and painful physical intrusion.viz: Everyone has the right to life. Section II of the 1987 Constitution guarantees that. it constitutes an invasion of . It may constitute dismemberment. When employed to vitiate the free will such as to force the victim to admit.[128] Physical injuries inflicted in the context of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances constitute more than a search or invasion of the body. In the context of Section 1 of the Amparo Rule.” Viewed in this light. in the amparo context. it is more correct to say that the ―right to security‖ is actually the “freedom from threat. one‘s body cannot be searched or invaded without a search warrant. (emphasis supplied) The Philippines is a signatory to both the UDHR and the ICCPR. Thus.[126] (emphasis supplied) In furtherance of this right declared in the UDHR. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. viz: 1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. the right to security of person is a guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity or security. a cause of action. physical disabilities. Notably. The degree of fear can vary from one person to another with the variation of the prolificacy of their imagination. and violence are a severe invasion of bodily integrity. ―freedom from fear‖ is the right and any threat to the rights to life. strength of character or past experience with the stimulus. reveal or fabricate incriminating information. Fear caused by the same stimulus can range from being baseless to wellfounded as people react differently. liberty or security is the actionable wrong. a reaction. Article III. liberty and security of person. Fear is a state of mind. force. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. physical injuries constitute a crime against persons because they are an affront to the bodily integrity or security of a person. As the degree of physical injury increases. the danger to life itself escalates. threat is a stimulus. Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) also provides for the right to security of person. 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.the word ―security‖ itself means ―freedom from fear.[129] Physical torture.‖[125] Article 3 of the UDHR provides.[127] Second. as a general rule. thereby violating his right to security of person. threat or intimidation. alleged that the state authorities had physically abused him in prison. who was lawfully detained. Russia.. Article III. provides that ―(n)o one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. viz: ―Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. solitary. viz: . Secret detention places.. the claimant. threat and intimidation that vitiate the free will . xxx xxx xxx . or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him (any person under investigation for the commission of an offense). No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law . Victims of enforced disappearances who are not even under such investigation should all the more be protected from these degradations. viz: (2) No torture. Article III. 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. on the other hand.‖ Although the application failed on the facts as the alleged illtreatment was found baseless. force.incommunicado or other similar forms of detention are prohibited..[130] In this case.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.both bodily and psychological integrity as the dignity of the human person includes the exercise of free will.although not involving invasion of bodily integrity .‖ (emphases supplied) Article 3. Parenthetically. under this provision. Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution more specifically proscribes bodily and psychological invasion. the ECHR relied heavily on the concept of security in holding.. Section 12 guarantees freedom from dehumanizing abuses of persons under investigation for the commission of an offense.nevertheless constitute a violation of the right to security in the sense of ―freedom from threat‖ as aforediscussed. violence. Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights provides. [134] viz: (The duty to investigate) must be undertaken in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective. 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.3 to conduct an effective investigation into his allegations.[132] Third.. Protection includes conducting effective investigations. 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. .[131] (emphasis supplied) The U. In the context of the writ of amparo.N. Section 2. 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. An investigation must have an objective and be assumed by the State as its own legal duty. this right is built into the guarantees of the right to life and liberty under Article III. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights stressed the importance of investigation in the Velasquez Rodriguez Case. without an effective search for the truth by the government. the right to liberty and security of person.[135] . organization of the government apparatus to extend protection to victims of extralegal killings or enforced disappearances (or threats thereof) and/or their families.. These rights and freedoms include . Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution. 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.[133] As the government is the chief guarantor of order and security. the right to security of person is a guarantee of protection of one’s rights by the government.. 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. and bringing offenders to the bar of justice. . the authorities failed to ensure his security in custody or to comply with the procedural obligation under Art. 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). It cannot be the case that.[141] involving discrimination. In a catena of cases. At the same time. States parties are under an obligation to take reasonable and appropriate measures to protect them. Colombia.[142] involving the abduction of the complainant‘s husband who was a supporter of democratic reform in Zaire. there need not necessarily be a deprivation of liberty for the right to security of person to be invoked. Equatorial Guinea.[143] involving the murder of thecomplainant‘s partner and the harassment he (complainant) suffered because of his investigation of the murder. the right to liberty and the right to security of the person.[139] (emphasis supplied) The Paez ruling was reiterated in Bwalya v. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Angola. These elements have been dealt with in separate clauses in the Covenant. as a matter of law. Colombia.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. and restricted in his movements following his release from detention. the Committee has ruled that the right to security of person can exist independently of the right to liberty. 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. Dias v. viz: The first sentence of article 9 does not stand as a separate paragraph. in article 3. 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. 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. Tshishimbi v. 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. refers to the right to life. In Delgado Paez v. While the right to security of person appears in conjunction with the right to liberty under Article 9. In other words. The travaux préparatoiresindicate that the discussions of the first sentence did indeed focus on matters dealt with in the other provisions of article 9. States parties have undertaken to guarantee the rights enshrined in the Covenant. intimidation and persecution of opponents of the ruling party in that state.[138] a case involving death threats to a religion teacher at a secondary school in Leticia. Zaire. the ruling of the Committee was of a similar import: Bahamonde v. Although in the Covenant the only reference to the right of security of person is to be found in article 9. harassed.[140] which involved a political activist and prisoner of conscience who continued to be intimidated. the Committee held. Zambia. whose social views differed from those of the Apostolic Prefect of Leticia. The family‘s requests for information and investigation regarding his whereabouts proved futile. respondents have finally escaped. 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. they were threatened that if they escaped.‖ who wanted to see him before he was killed. viz: . Having assumed control over that individual it is incumbent on the authorities to account for his or her whereabouts. liberty and security.[147] (emphasis supplied) Applying the foregoing concept of the right to security of person to the case at bar. This time. In Raymond‘s narration. 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. he was tortured and poured with gasoline after he was caught the first time he attempted to escape from Fort Magsaysay. including them. Kurt v. The claimant suggested that this was a violation of her son‘s right to security of person. the claimant‘s son had been arrested by state authorities and had not been seen since. While respondents were detained. First. we now determine whether there is a continuing violation of respondents‘ right to security.[146] In this case. namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness.Turkey. their families. Similarly. The ECHR ruled. The condition of the threat to be killed has come to pass. the violation of the right to security as freedom from threat to respondents’ life. It should be stressed that they are now free from captivity not because they were released by virtue of a lawful order or voluntarily ..and Chongwe v. spared him.[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. Zambia. would be killed..[144] involving an assassination attempt on the chairman of an opposition alliance.. the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has interpreted the ―right to security‖ not only as prohibiting the State from arbitrarily depriving liberty.. For this reason. A call from a certain ―Mam. but imposing a positive duty on the State to afford protection of the right to liberty. even executed. viz: Kinaumagahan. Respondent Raymond Manalo attested in his affidavit. and life.[149] Precisely because respondents are being shielded from the perpetrators of their abduction. sometime in June 2007 when respondents were detained in a camp in Limay. liberty and security. naka-kadena pa kami. Provost Marshall of the 7th Infantry Division. It ought to be recalled that towards the end of their ordeal. and one-sided. but also in those of other persons known to have disappeared such as Sherlyn Cadapan. The one-day investigation conducted by Jimenez was very limited. this continuing threat to their life is apparent. Nonetheless. Apart from the failure of military elements to provide protection to respondents by themselves perpetrating the abduction. torture and escape reasonably support a conclusion that there is an apparent threat that they will again be abducted. respondents have been under concealment and protection by private citizens because of the threat to their life. He was present at the investigation when his subordinate Lingad . The threat vitiates their free will as they are forced to limit their movements or activities. Ruben Jimenez. Bataan. moreso now that they have surfaced and implicated specific officers in the military not only in their own abduction and torture. they cannot be expected to show evidence of overt acts of threat such as face-to-face intimidation or written threats to their life. and this time. the circumstances of respondents‘ abduction. With their escape. they also miserably failed in conducting an effective investigation of respondents‘ abduction as revealed by the testimony and investigation report of petitioners‘ own witness. detention.[148] The possibility of respondents being executed stared them in the eye while they were in detention.freed by their abductors. Next. the violation of the right to security as protection by the government. respondents‘ captors even told them that they were still deciding whether they should be executed. tortured. 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. Tinanggal ang mga kadena mga 3 o 4 na araw pagkalipas. detention. Understandably. actionable through a petition for a writ of amparo. among others. superficial. Lt. These constitute threats to their liberty. Col. and torture. and Manuel Merino. liberty and security. security. Karen Empeño. Sinabi sa amin na kaya kami nakakadena ay dahil pinagdedesisyunan pa ng mga sundalo kung papatayin kami o hindi. since their escape. Finally. identification of witnesses and securing statements from them. determination of the cause. and bringing of the suspected offenders before a competent court. 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. that petitioners furnish respondents all official and unofficial reports of the investigation undertaken in connection with their case. location and time of death or disappearance. First. . 2007. except those already in file with the court. however. which should essentially include verification of the identity of the aggrieved party. liberty and security of person. 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. 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. identification and apprehension of the person or persons involved in the death or disappearance. 2007.[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. but he did not propound a single question to ascertain the veracity of their statements or their credibility. we conclude that respondents‘ right to security as ―freedom from threat‖ is violated by the apparent threat to their life. 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. manner. recovery and preservation of relevant evidence.was taking the sworn statements. he issued a policy directive addressed to the AFP Chief of Staff. respondents have not been furnished the results of the investigation which they now seek through the instant petition for a writ of amparo. Under these circumstances. petitioner Secretary of National Defense attested that in a Memorandum Directive dated October 31. which petitioners question. and undertook to provide results of the investigations to respondents.[151] To this day. In his affidavit. In sum. almost a year after the policy directive was issued by petitioner Secretary of National Defense on October 31. we come to the reliefs granted by the Court of Appeals. 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. the court in which an action is pending may (a) order any party to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing. the amparo production order may be likened to the production of documents or things under Section 1. Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. with no other supporting details. petitioners argue that the production order sought by respondents partakes of the characteristics of a search warrant. namely: (1) the application must be under oath or affirmation. 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. Rule 27 of the Rules of Civil Procedure which provides in relevant part. (2) the search warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized. to include a list of medical personnel (military and civilian) who attended to them from February 14. but this is not true in the present case as the involvement of petitioners in the abduction has not been shown. This Constitutional provision is a protection of the people from the unreasonable intrusion of the government.[152] In the case at bar. With respect to the first and second reliefs. by or on behalf of . 2007. 2006 until August 12. The production order under the Amparo Rule should not be confused with a search warrant for law enforcement under Article III. self-serving and vague allegations made by respondent Raymond Manalo in his unverified declaration and affidavit. however. Hilario aka Rollie Castillo and Donald Caigas. Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor. that petitioners cause to be produced to the Court of Appeals all medical reports. and reports of any treatment given or recommended and medicines prescribed. Petitioners‘ arguments do not hold water. not a protection of the government from the demand of the people such as respondents. to the Manalo brothers. (3) there exists probable cause with one specific offense. Thus. viz: Section 1. Instead.Second. petitioners point out that other than the bare. the documents respondents seek to be produced are only mentioned generally by name. if any. They also argue that the relevancy of the documents to be produced must be apparent. that petitioners confirm in writing the present places of official assignment of M/Sgt. they claim that the requisites for the issuance of a search warrant must be complied with prior to the grant of the production order. records and charts. Third. Motion for production or inspection order. the moving party. petitioners assert that the disclosure of the present places of assignment of M/Sgt.‖ With respect to the second and third reliefs. custody or control… In Material Distributors (Phil. papers. is relevant in ensuring the safety of respondents by avoiding their areas of territorial jurisdiction. issued a subpoena duces tecum for the production and inspection of among others. when applicable and necessary. 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. immaterial. improper. of any designated documents.) Inc. objects or tangible things. is irrelevant. Hilario aka Rollie Castillo and Donald Caigas. as well as the submission of a list of medical personnel. Judge Natividad. v. in his affidavit. photographs. books of accounts.[153] the respondent judge. whom respondents both directly implicated as perpetrators behind their abduction and detention. the disclosure of the present places of assignment of M/Sgt. .) Inc. The company questioned the issuance of the subpoena on the ground that it violated the search and seizure clause. The list of medical personnel is also relevant in securing information to create the medical history of respondents and make appropriate medical interventions. under authority of Rule 27. letters. and unnecessary in the resolution of the petition for a writ of amparo. 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. the books and papers of Material Distributors (Phil. The Court struck down the argument and held that thesubpoena pertained to a civil procedure that ―cannot be identified or confused with unreasonable searches prohibited by the Constitution…‖ Moreover. not privileged. Hilario aka Rollie Castillo and Donald Caigas. On the contrary. 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. which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action and which are in his possession. these rights are snuffed out from victims of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. WHEREFORE. liberty and security. The writ of amparo is a tool that gives voice to preys of silent guns and prisoners behind secret walls. SO ORDERED. .In blatant violation of our hard-won guarantees to life. premises considered. 2007 is affirmed. the petition is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 26. MARY JEAN B. JOEL R. 182498 Present: PUNO. and GEN. Police Chief Superintendent RAUL CASTAÑEDA.J. JR. PNP.. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO. Petitioners. G. RAZON. herein represented by ATTY.. Respondent.. CARPIO. No. GOLTIAO. FELIPE P. C.. ABAD. JJ.versus - NACHURA. . Philippine National Police (PNP). Chief.. AVELINO I. Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG).EN BANC GEN. PERALTA. TAGITIS. CHICO-NAZARIO. Police Senior Superintendent LEONARDO A. VELASCO. JR. Police Anti-Crime and Emergency Response (PACER). Regional Director of ARMM. Chief. BERSAMIN. Attorney-inFact. . CORONA. DEL CASTILLO.R. ARCILLA. ESPINA. Chief. JR. JR. BRION. CARPIO MORALES. and VILLARAMA. 2009 x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x DECISION BRION.: We review in this petition for review on certiorari[1] the decision dated March 7. Mary Jean B. AMPARO No. The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads: WHEREFORE. Tagitis (Tagitis) and granted the Writ of Amparo at the petition of his wife.A-G. premises considered. . 00009. J. Tagitis (respondent).Promulgated: December 3.R. The Court hereby FINDS that this is an “enforced disappearance” within the meaning of the United Nations instruments.[2] This CA decision confirmed the enforced disappearance of Engineer Morced N. petition is hereby GRANTED. 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C. Chief. and (c) respondent SR. Philippine Army. and to submit a monthly report of their actions to this Court. (2) respondent GEN. EDGARDO M. to aid him as their superior. who should order his men. Zamboanga City. liberty and security. Police Anti-Crime and Emergency Response. as a way of PERIODIC REVIEW to enable this Court to monitor the action of respondents. It does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the disappearance. Chief. rather. Morced Tagitis. Chief. GEN. SUPERINTENDENT LEONARDO A. Morced N. ESPINA. CIDG-9 Chief. This amparo case is hereby DISMISSED as to respondent LT. Zamboanga City. PNP. Morced Tagitis and his family. Engr. in terms of operations. namely: (a) respondent GEN. chain of command and budget.[3] It embodies. This Decision reflects the nature of the Writ of Amparo – a protective remedy against violations or threats of violation against the rights to life. or at least accountability. Morced Tagitis. ALEXANDER YANO. Criminal Investigation and Detention Group (CIDG) who should order COL. to aid him. as a remedy. in this case. RUBEN RAFAEL.are hereby DIRECTED to exert extraordinary diligence and efforts. which is a separate and distinct organization from the police and the CIDG.as used in the Amparo Rules. the court’s directive to police agencies to undertake specified courses of action to address the disappearance of an individual. AHIRON AJIRIM. DOROMAL. and as to respondent GEN. not only to protect the life. both being with the military. Chief Anti-Terror Task Force Comet. RAZON. (b) COL. Tagitis. Regional Director of ARMM PNP. Commanding General. but also to extend the privileges of the writ of amparo to Engr. AVELINO I. for the enforced . liberty and security of Engr. Consequently: (1) respondent GEN. JOSE VOLPANE PANTE. Theprivileges of the writ of amparo are hereby extended to Engr. both head of TASK FORCE TAGITIS. JOEL GOLTIAO. it determines responsibility. Tagitis arrived in Jolo by boat in the early morning of October 31. an IDB scholar. are summarized below. Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have been established by substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way. They . or those who carry. as a work in progress. on the other hand. or who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure. but have failed to discharge. by action or omission. the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance. as a measure of the remedies this Court shall craft. 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. Accountability. so that the life of the victim is preserved and his liberty and security are restored. based on the petition and the records of the case. in an enforced disappearance. Together with Arsimin Kunnong (Kunnong). among them. may not at all be the same as the standard measures and procedures in ordinary court actions and proceedings. Sulu. the issuance of the Writ of Amparo is justified by our primary goal of addressing the disappearance. the directive to file the appropriate criminal and civil cases against the responsible parties in the proper courts. In this sense. THE FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS The background facts. We highlight this nature of a Writ of Amparo case at the outset to stress that the unique situations that call for the issuance of the writ. 2007 from a seminar in Zamboanga City. too.disappearance for purposes of imposing the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance. The established facts show that Tagitis. The AmparoRule should be read. a consultant for the World Bank and the Senior Honorary Counselor for the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) Scholarship Programme. the Rule on the Writ of Amparo[4] (Amparo Rule) issued by this Court is unique. was last seen in Jolo. In all these cases. as well as the considerations and measures necessary to address these situations. as its directions and finer points remain to evolve through time and jurisprudence and through the substantive laws that Congress may promulgate. [10] The petition was directed against Lt. forcibly took him and boarded the latter on a motor vehicle then sped away without the knowledge of his student. . When Kunnong returned from this errand. Alexander Yano. Atty. Kunnong returned to the pension house. the petition went on to state: xxxx 7. Espina. Anti-Terror Task Force Comet [collectively referred to as petitioners+. ARMM-PNP. Tagitis asked Kunnong to buy him a boat ticket for his return trip the following day to Zamboanga. reported Tagitis’ disappearance to the Jolo Police Station. Ruben Rafael. Kunnong requested for the key from the desk of the pension house who [sic] assisted him to open the room of Engr. 8. Tagitis. Joel Goltiao. 2007). Kunnong executed a sworn affidavit attesting to what he knew of the circumstances surrounding Tagitis’ disappearance. Chief.immediately checked-in at ASY Pension House. Tagitis went out of the pension house to take his early lunch but while out on the street. Regional Director. Gen. where they discovered that the personal belongings of Engr. Arsimin Kunnong. Matli. 2007. a couple of burly men believed to be police intelligence operatives. Philippine National Police (PNP). documents and other personal belongings were all intact inside the room.[7] On November 4. 2007. Chief. and was surprised to find out that subject Engr.[8] On November 7. Engr. Supt. After reciting Tagitis’ personal circumstances and the facts outlined above. Edgardo M. Chief. Commanding General. Tagitis. including cell phones. Doromal. Arcilla. Kunnong and Muhammad Abdulnazeir N.[9] More than a month later (on December 28. Chief. a UP professor of Muslim studies and Tagitis’ fellow student counselor at the IDB. Razon. Avelino I. Gen. Police Anti-Crime and Emergency Response.[6] Kunnong looked for Tagitis and even sent a text message to the latter’s Manila-based secretary who did not know of Tagitis’ whereabouts and activities either. Sr. Philippine Army. Tagitis cannot [sic] be contacted by phone and was not also around and his room was closed and locked.[5] The receptionist related that Tagitis went out to buy food at around 12:30 in the afternoon and even left his room key with the desk. and Gen. Gen. As instructed. Gen. Criminal Investigation and Detention Group (CIDG). in the late afternoon of the same day. the respondent filed a Petition for the Writ of Amparo (petition) with the CA through her Attorney-inFact. Soon after the student left the room. Leonardo A. Tagitis was no longer around. 9. she advised Kunnong to simply wait. Felipe P. despite of which. PNP Zamboanga City. Tagitis could have been abducted by the Abu Sayyaf group and other groups known to be fighting against the government. he was immediately given a ready answer that Engr. informed her that they are not the proper persons that she should approach. 14. as suggested by her friends. Tagitis with the different terrorist groups. [the respondent] was again advised by one of the [petitioners] to go to the ARMM Police Headquarters again in Cotobato City and also to the different Police Headquarters including [those] in Davao City. 19. and all these places have been visited by the [respondent] in search for her husband. seeking their help to find her husband. and/or allow *the respondent+ to visit her husband Engr. which entailed expenses for her trips to these places thereby resorting her to borrowings and beggings [sic] for financial help from friends and relatives only to try complying [sic] to the different suggestions of these police officers. 2007 which is almost two (2) months now. Digos City. When Kunnong could not locate Engr. wife of Engr. Tagitis] by phone and other responsible officers and coordinators of the IDB Scholarship Programme in the Philippines. on the other hand. [Respondent]. which is a clear indication of the *petitioners’+ refusal to help and provide police assistance in locating her missing husband. Tagitis. According to reliable information received by the [respondent]. In fact at times. xxxx 17. The continued failure and refusal of the [petitioners] to release and/or turn-over subject Engr. in Zamboanga City. approached some of her co-employees with the Land Bank in Digos branch. she [sic] was told of an intriguing tale by the police that her husband. clearly indicates that the [petitioners] are actually in physical possession and custody of [respondent’s+ husband.10. some police officers. Tagitis to his family or even to provide truthful information to [the respondent] of the subject’s whereabouts. Kunnong reported the matter to the [respondent. specifically with the CIDG. Tagitis who had been declared missing since October 30. [Respondent] filed her complaint with the PNP Police Station in the ARMM in Cotobato and in Jolo. Lately. the former sought the help of another IDB scholar and reported the matter to the local police agency. who alerted the office of the Governor of ARMM who was then preparing to attend the OIC meeting in Jeddah. Tagitis and when he reported the matter to the police authorities in Jolo. Davao del Sur who likewise sought help from some of their friends in the military who could help them find/locate the whereabouts of her husband. 20. support and assistance in locating the whereabouts of Engr. and in Camp Crame. but assured her not to worry because her husband is [sic] in good hands. 18. 21. was not missing but was with another woman having good time somewhere. The unexplained uncooperative behavior of the *petitioners+ to the *respondent’s+ request for help and failure and refusal of the [petitioners] to extend the needed help. being held against his will in an earnest attempt of the police to involve and connect Engr. who [sympathized with] the sufferings undergone by the [respondent]. in Jolo. xxxx . Saudi Arabia. Tagitis is in the hands of the uniformed men. but *respondent’s+ request and pleadings failed to produce any positive results. 15. subject Engr. Being scared with [sic] these suggestions and insinuations of the police officers. 12. subject of the petition. 22. Engr. Arsimin Kunnong including his friends and companions in Jolo. Instead of helping the [respondent]. Tagitis. Tagitis is in the custody of police intelligence operatives. Quezon City. 13. Morced Tagitis. 11. her efforts produced no positive results up to the present time. caused so much sleepless nights and serious anxieties. exerted efforts in trying to locate the whereabouts of Engr. All of these efforts of the [respondent] did not produce any positive results except the information from persons in the military who do not want to be identified that Engr. the Regional Director. coordinated with the investigators and local police. were baseless. 2007. 2007 at about 6:00 in the morning and then roamed around Jolo. speedy and adequate remedy to protect and get the release of subject Engr. The said PPO is still conducting investigation that will lead to the immediate findings of the whereabouts of the person. held case conferences. Sulu on October 31. 2007. Avelino I. at around 5:00 o’clock in the morning. or at best speculative. the victim checked-in at ASY Pension House on October 30.25. [The respondent] has exhausted all administrative avenues and remedies but to no avail. and gave the following summary:[13] xxxx 4. he was then billeted at ASY Pension House. Tagitis reportedly arrived at Jolo Sulu wharf aboard M/V Bounty Cruise. Engr. Razon. the Task Force. Later in the afternoon. the student instructed to purchase the ticket arrived at the pension house and waited for . a) On November 5. It was only after a few days when the said victim did not return that the matter was reported to Jolo MPS. but to no avail. 2007 conducted at Ateneo de Zamboanga. b) Likewise. attached to the Return. Police Regional Office ARMM submitted a report on the alleged disappearance of one Engr. 9RCIDU submitted a Progress Report to the Director. [the respondent] has no other plain. Afterwards. The said report stated among others that: subject person attended an Education Development Seminar set on October 28. set the case for hearing on January 7. the petitioners denied any involvement in or knowledge of Tagitis’ alleged abduction. the Regional Chief. rendered legal advice in connection to these cases.[11] In their verified Return filed during the hearing of January 27. According to the said report. CIDG. They argued that the allegations of the petition were incomplete and did not constitute a cause of action against them. and under the circumstances. Morced Tagitis from the illegal clutches of the [petitioners]. elements of Sulu PPO conducted a thorough investigation to trace and locate the whereabouts of the said missing person. Tagitis left the premises of ASY Pension House as stated by the cashier of the said pension house. stated that: he did not have any personal knowledge of. and were merely based on hearsay evidence. [Emphasis supplied] On the same day the petition was filed. to address concerns about extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. 2008. That on or about 10:00 o’clock in the morning. and directed the petitioners to file their verified return within seventy-two (72) hours from service of the writ. the CA immediately issued the Writ of Amparo. Matli. Zamboanga City together with a Prof. [12] The affidavit of PNP Chief Gen. 2008. Morced Tagitis. he instructed his student to purchase a fast craft ticket bound for Zamboanga City and will depart from Jolo. 2007. except the issuance of a WRIT OF AMPARO. At about 6:15 o’clock in the morning of the same date. that he had been designated by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as the head of a special body called TASK FORCE USIG. Engr. or any participation in. their intelligence operatives and the like which are in total violation of the subject’s human and constitutional rights. Sulu with an unidentified companion. On October 30. inter alia. the alleged disappearance. the Philippine National Police exhausted all possible efforts. the elements of 9RCIDU is now conducting a continuous case build up and information gathering to locate the whereabouts of Engr. Abdulnasser Matli who reported the incident to the police.Engr. attesting that upon receipt of the Writ of Amparo. who was allegedly abducted or illegally detained by covert CIDG-PNP Intelligence Operatives since October 30. 2007 and after a diligent and thorough research records show that no such person is being detained in CIDG or any of its department or divisions. That based on record. but the latter was nowhere to be found anymore. 2007. Kunnong arrived at the pension house carrying the ticket he purchased for Engr. records show that no such person is being detained in CIDG or any of its department or divisions. That nevertheless. Edgardo M. also attached to the Return of the Writ. Sulu. I immediately directed the Investigation Division of this Group [CIDG] to conduct urgent investigation on the alleged enforced disappearance of Engineer Morced Tagitis. Tagitis. Morced Tagitis [sic] alleged enforced disappearance. Tagitis instructed his student to purchase a fast craft ticket for Zamboanga City. 5. CIDG directed the conduct of the search in all divisions of the CIDG to find Engr. in order to determine the circumstances surrounding Engr. but the latter did not return. That herein [petitioner] searched all divisions and departments for a person named Engr. Tagitis. Gen. Morced Tagitis to make out a case of an enforced disappearance which presupposes a direct or indirect involvement of the government. The petitioner PNP-CIDG Chief. Leonardo A. 2007. steps and actions available under the circumstances and continuously search and investigate [sic] the instant case. however. At around six o’clock in the morning of even date. Doromal. This immense mandate. Sulu on October 30. The CIDG is not involved in the disappearance of Engr. Likewise attached to the Return of the Writ was PNP-PACER[15] Chief PS Supt. at around six o’clock in the morning he arrived at Jolo. necessitates the indispensable role of the citizenry. the undersigned had undertaken immediate investigation and will pursue investigations up to its full completion in order to aid in the prosecution of the person or persons responsible therefore. 2007 of the Resolution of the Honorable Special Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals. On October 30. On its part. Abdulnasser Matli. Patikul. Espina’s affidavit which alleged that:[16] xxxx . 2007 with [sic] unidentified companion. submitted as well his affidavit. but after diligent and thorough search. 2007 at Ateneo de Zamboanga at Zamboanga City together with Prof. Engr. Tagitis. He was assisted by his student identified as Arsimin Kunnong of the Islamic Development Bank who was also one of the participants of the said seminar. as the PNP cannot stand alone without the cooperation of the victims and witnesses to identify the perpetrators to bring them before the bar of justice and secure their conviction in court. Kunnong immediately informed Prof. Tagitis attended an Education Development Seminar on October 28. On this particular case. He checked in at ASY pension house located [sic] Kakuyagan. Tagitis. Morced N. Engr. Morced N. c) That the Director. he caused the following:[14] xxxx That immediately upon receipt on December 29. Tagitis who was allegedly abducted or illegally detained by covert CIDG-PNP Intelligence Operatives since October 30. In the afternoon of the same date. That I have exercised EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE in dealing with the WRIT OF AMPARO just issued. and reported the disappearance of Engr. 5. On November 5. TAGITS on October 30. the Police Anti-Crime and Emergency Response (PACER). scholarship coordinator of Islamic Development Bank. the PNP PRO ARMM Regional Director PC Supt. That the investigation and measures being undertaken to locate/search the subject in coordination with Police Regional Office. appeared before the Office of the Chief of Police.m. also submitted his affidavit detailing the actions that he had taken upon receipt of the report on Tagitis’ disappearance. to identify witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning the disappearance and to determine the cause. MORCED. . Jolo Police Station.That. That in compliance with my directive. TAGITIS. Goltiao). 2007 at around 3:30 p. our task is to go after kidnappers and charge them in court and to abduct or illegally detain or kidnap anyone is anathema to our mission. a special task force created for the purpose of neutralizing or eradicating kidnap-for-ransom groups which until now continue to be one of the menace of our society is a respondent in kidnapping or illegal detention case. 2007. I and our men and women in PACER vehemently deny any participation in the alleged abduction or illegally [sic] detention of ENGR. nowhere in the writ was mentioned that the alleged abduction was perpetrated by elements of PACER nor was there any indication that the alleged abduction or illegal detention of ENGR. Joel R. the Provincial Director of Sulu Police Provincial Office reported to me through Radio Message Cite No. 2007. to submit a written report regarding the disappearance of ENGR. That I further directed the chief of PACER-MOR. As a matter of fact. viz:[17] xxxx 3) For the record: 1. Manila. Finally. MORCED TAGITIS. I am the Regional Director of Police Regional Office ARMM now and during the time of the incident. the chief of PACER-MOR sent through fax his written report. xxxx 4. MORCED N. Morced Tagitis. Police Superintendent JOSE ARNALDO BRIONES JR. TAGITIS was undertaken jointly by our men and by the alleged covert CIDG-PNP intelligence operatives alleged to have abducted or illegally detained ENGR.. Simply put. an employee of Islamic Development Bank. manner. MORCED in my capacity as the chief PACER [sic] considering that our office. Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (PRO-ARMM) and Jolo Police Provincial Office (PPO) and other AFP and PNP units/agencies in the area are ongoing with the instruction not to leave any stone unturned so to speak in the investigation until the perpetrators in the instant case are brought to the bar of justice. It is my duty to look into and take appropriate measures on any cases of reported enforced disappearances and when they are being alluded to my office. a certain Abdulnasser Matli. to recover and preserve evidence related to the disappearance of ENGR. location and time of disappearance as well as any pattern or practice that may have brought about the disappearance. That right after I learned of the receipt of the WRIT OF AMPARO. locate/search the subject.. I directed the Chief of PACER Mindanao Oriental (PACER-MOR) to conduct pro-active measures to investigate. Goltiao (Gen. which may aid in the prosecution of the person or persons responsible. SPNP3-1105-07-2007 that on November 4. That I was shocked when I learned that I was implicated in the alleged disappearance of ENGR. identify and apprehend the persons responsible. e) Memorandum dated December 27. Abdulnasser Matli and Arsimin Kunnong and/or whenever necessary. to identify and apprehend the person or persons involved in the disappearance so that they shall be brought before a competent court. SPIDMS-1205-47-07 informing this office that they are still monitoring the whereabouts of Engr. Tagitis had left the premises on October 30. In compliance to our directives. Immediately after learning the incident. to identify witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning his disappearance. RIDMD-1122-07-358 dated November 22. through my Chief of the Regional Investigation and Detection Management Division. Tagitis there and when he immediately inquired at the information counter regarding his whereabouts [sic]. however. Thereafter. PRO ARMM dated December 30. This incident was properly reported to the PNP Higher Headquarters as shown in the following: . PD Sulu PPO has exerted his [sic] efforts to conduct investigation [sic] on the matter to determine the whereabouts of Engr. Tagitis and the circumstances related to his disappearance and submitted the following: a) Progress Report dated November 6. f) Memorandum from Chief. RIDMD-1128-07-361 dated November 28. 2007 around 1 o’clock p. Intelligence Division. a student scholar. 2007 directing PD Sulu PPO to conduct joint investigation with CIDG and CIDU ARMM on the matter. to recover and preserve evidence related to the disappearance of Engr. to determine the cause and manner of his disappearance. Sulu PPO. on October 30. 2007 addressed to PD Sulu PPO requiring them to submit complete investigation report regarding the case of Engr. the person in charge in the counter informed him that Engr. I called and directed the Provincial Director of Sulu Police Provincial Office and other units through phone call and text messages to conduct investigation [sic] to determine the whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the person or persons responsible for the threat. SPNP3-1106-10-2007. Tagitis. 10.m. 11. Tagibis was last seen in the company of or taken by any member of the Philippine National Police but rather he just disappeared from ASY Pension House situated at Kakuyagan Village. Tagitis by seeking the cooperation of Prof. 2007 addressed to PD Sulu PPO directing him to maximize efforts to establish clues on the whereabouts of Engr. I have caused the following directives: a) Radio Message Cite No. There was no report that Engr. 8. for them to voluntarily submit for polygraph examination with the NBI so as to expunge all clouds of doubt that they may somehow have knowledge or idea to his disappearance. Tagitis. 7. c) Investigation Report dated December 31. he no longer found Engr. 9. was requested by him to purchase a vessel ticket at the Office of Weezam Express. The last known instance of communication with him was when Arsimin Kunnong. 2007 through Radio Message Cite No. Jolo Police Station. Tagitis. and never returned back to his room. requesting assistance to investigate the cause and unknown disappearance of Engr. without any trace of forcible abduction or arrest. Sulu. b) Radio Message Cite No. when the student returned back to ASY Pension House. c) Memorandum dated December 14. Patikul. 2007 addressed to PD Sulu PPO reiterating our series of directives for investigation and directing him to undertake exhaustive coordination efforts with the owner of ASY Pension House and student scholars of IDB in order to secure corroborative statements regarding the disappearance and whereabouts of said personality. Tagitis considering that it is within their area of operational jurisdiction.6. Zamboanga City. act or omission. 2007. b) Radio Message Cite No. 2007 addressed to the Regional Chief. Village. d) Memorandum dated December 24. Police Regional Office 9. 2007 directing PD Sulu PPO to expedite compliance to my previous directive. 2007 from the Chief of Police. Criminal Investigation and Detection Group. 000. the CA directed Gen. 4) In spite of our exhaustive efforts. b) Memorandum dated November 6. Gen. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 2007 addressed to the Chief.a) Memorandum dated November 6. Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of the Philippines and an Honorary Student Counselor of the IDB Scholarship Program in the Philippines. Tagitis cannot be determined but our office is continuously intensifying the conduct of information gathering.[19] The CA subsequently set three hearings to monitor whether TASK FORCE TAGITIS was exerting “extraordinary efforts” in handling the disappearance of Tagitis. which *was+ intended for the … IDB Scholarship Fund. and (3) the third hearing would be to mobilize the Chief of Police of Jolo. Ajirim) to head TASK FORCE TAGITIS. Zamboanga City.[22] The intelligence report was apparently based on the sworn affidavit dated January 4. who told the Provincial Governor of Sulu that:[23] [Based] on reliable information from the Office of Muslim Affairs in Manila. Since the disappearance of Tagistis was practically admitted and taking note of favorable actions so far taken on the disappearance. DIDM. NHQ PNP. 2008. c) Memorandum dated December 30. .[18] Task Force Tagitis On January 11. the whereabouts of Engr.00) deposited and entrusted to his … *personal+ bank accounts by the Central Office of IDB. (2) the second hearing would be to mobilize intelligence with Abu Sayyaf and ARMM. Jeddah. Goltiao designated PS Supt. Matli (Prof. 2007 addressed to the Director. Matli). Pingay. Sulu and the Chief of Police of Zamboanga City and other police operatives. 2008 of Muhammad Abdulnazeir N. 2007 addressed to the Director.000. Goltiao – as the officer in command of the area of disappearance – to form TASK FORCE TAGITIS. the Chief of Police of the Jolo Police Station. stating a possible motive for Tagitis’ disappearance. Tagitis has reportedly taken and carried away… more or less Five Million Pesos (P5. Directorate for Investigation and Detection Management. Ahiron Ajirim (PS Supt. 2008. monitoring and coordination for the immediate solution of the case. (1) the first hearing would be to mobilize the CIDG. TASK FORCE TAGITIS submitted to the CA an intelligence report from PSL Usman S.[21] In the hearing on January 17.[20] As planned. PNP informing him of the facts of the disappearance and the action being taken by our office. It had been three (3) weeks when battle formation was ordered through Task Force Tagitis. Morced Tagitis last October 30. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 2007. our office. are continuously and religiously conducting our investigation for the resolution of this case. since November 5. on the missing person. Engr. persistently denied any knowledge or complicity in any abduction. he personally went to the CIDG office in Zamboanga City to conduct an ocular inspection/investigation. 2008. Ajirim concluded:[27] 9. on January 17. 2008. It had been three (3) months since GEN. in coordination with other law-enforcement agencies in the area. that they even talked to. AHIRON AJIRIM had requested for clear photographs when it should have been standard operating procedure in kidnappings or disappearances that the first agenda was for the police to secure clear pictures of the missing person. but failed to get any lead from the respondent in Jolo. for dissemination to all parts of the country and to neighboring countries. Engr. Gleaned from the undersigned inspection and observation at the Headquarters 9 RCIDU and the documents at hand. Morced Tagitis. JOEL GOLTIAO admitted having been informed on November 5. xxxx It is recommended that the Writ of Amparo filed against the respondents be dropped and dismissed considering on [sic] the police and military actions in the area particularly the CIDG are exerting their efforts and religiously doing their tasked [sic] in the conduct of its intelligence monitoring and investigation for the early resolution of this instant case. after the hearing. 2007. Matli be true or there might be a professional jealousy among them.[25] He further testified that prior to the hearing. 2008. PS Supt. Morced Tagitis by alleged bad elements of the CIDG. Morced Tagitis. Tagitis by the IDB central office in Jeddah. It was only on January 28. he had already mobilized and given specific instructions to their supporting units to perform their respective tasks. 2008 when the Task Force Tagitis requested for clear and recent photographs of the missing person. while helping TASK FORCE TAGITIS investigate the disappearance of Tagitis. 2007 of the alleged abduction of Engr. particularly of their detention cells. Ajirim stated that the CIDG.In the same hearing. How could the police look for someone who disappeared if no clear photograph had been disseminated? . It had been more than one (1) month since the Writ of Amparo had been issued on December 28. PS Supt. JOEL GOLTIAO and COL. it could might [sic] be done by resentment or sour grape among students who are applying for the scholar [sic] and were denied which was allegedly conducted/screened by the subject being the coordinator of said program. Morced Tagitis. it is my own initial conclusion that the 9RCIDU and other PNP units in the area had no participation neither [sic] something to do with [sic] mysterious disappearance of Engr.[24] PS Supt. It is also premature to conclude but it does or it may and [sic] presumed that the motive behind the disappearance of the subject might be due to the funds he maliciously spent for his personal interest and wanted to elude responsibilities from the institution where he belong as well as to the Islamic student scholars should the statement of Prof. 2008. Engr. Secondly. 2007. despite the Task Force Tagitis’ claim that they already had an “all points bulletin”. that GEN. 20.[26] In his submitted investigation report dated January 16. On February 4. But rest assured. the CA issued an ALARM WARNING that TASK FORCE TAGITIS did not appear to be exerting extraordinary efforts in resolving Tagitis’ disappearance on the following grounds:[28] (1) This Court FOUND that it was only as late as January 28. Ajirim testified that since the CIDG was alleged to be responsible. Since doubt has been raised regarding the emolument on the Islamic Development Bank Scholar program of IDB that was reportedly deposited in the personal account of Engr. the close contact between P/Supt KASIM and Col. 2008.”[29] This friend also told her that her husband “*was+ in good hands. 2008.m. Sulu. KASIM could have confirmed the military intelligence information that bad elements of the CIDG had abducted Engr. informed her that she had not heard from her father since the time they arranged to meet in Manila on October 31. AHIROM AJIRIM informed this Court that P/Supt KASIM was designated as Col. Tagitis was divorced from his first wife. and they have been married for thirteen years. 2007) to personally . She said that a friend from Zamboanga holding a high position in the military (whom she did not then identify) gave her information that allowed her to “specify” her allegations. Task Force Tagitis’ COL. Julasirim Ahadin Kasim (Col. 2007. Land Bank Bajada Branch Manager Rudy Salvador.”[32] On January 17. the respondent. 2007 at around 7:31 p. 15 of the Petition). who told her that “PNP CIDG is holding *her husband+. Morced Tagitis was abducted by bad elements of the CIDG (par. Kasim/Sr. through text messaging.[34] The respondent narrated that she learned of her husband’s disappearance on October 30.[35] The respondent explained that it took her a few days (or on November 5. 2007 when her stepdaughter. Yet. Testimonies for the Respondent On January 7. “particularly paragraph 15 of the petition. Tagitis was then on his way to Jolo. the respondent on cross-examination testified that she is Tagitis’ second wife. Tagitis. Mary Jean B. from Zamboanga City. Ahirom Ajirim of TASK FORCE TAGITIS should have ensured the appearance of Col. Engineer Morced Tagitis. P/Supt KASIM’s subpoena was returned to this Court unserved. KASIM in response to this court’s subpoena and COL. Since this Court was made to understand that it was P/Supt KASIM who was the petitioner’s unofficial source of the military intelligence information that Engr.(2) Furthermore.”[31] The respondent recounted that she went to Camp Katitipan in Davao City where she met Col.[33] She last communicated with her husband on October 29.”[30] The respondent also testified that she sought the assistance of her former boss in Davao City. Ahirom Ajirim’s replacement in the latter’s official designated post. Supt Kasim) who read to her and her friends (who were then with her) a “highly confidential report” that contained the “alleged activities of Engineer Tagitis” and informed her that her husband was abducted because “he is under custodial investigation” for being a liaison for “J. testified on direct examination that she went to Jolo and Zamboanga in her efforts to locate her husband.I. or Jema’ah Islamiah. Morced Tagitis. Zaynah Tagitis (Zaynah). Ancanan several times begging to tell me the exact location of my husband and who held him but he refused. His two staffs accompanied us to the mall to purchase our plane ticket going back to Davao City on November 12. Kasim that her husband was a diabetic taking maintenance medication. She met him in Camp Karingal. We immediately proceed [sic] to West Mindanao Command (WESTMINCOM). viz:[40] On November 11. Tagitis. Tagitis. He interviewed me and got information about the personal background of Engr. and asked that the Colonel relay to the persons holding him the need to give him his medication. he revealed to us the contents of text messages they got from the cellular phone of the subject Engr. Ancanan). . On that same day. we arrived at Zamboanga Airport at around 10:00 o’clock. When we arrived in Davao City on November 12. Morced N. Our flight from Davao City is 9:00 o’clock in the morning. Ancanan.[37] She also testified that she was with three other people. Marydel Talbin. 2007. Tagitis sent to his daughter Zaynah Tagitis was that she was not allowed to answer any telephone calls in his condominium unit.[38] On February 11. While we were there he did not tell us any information of the whereabouts of Engr. Marydel Martin Talbin and her two friends from Mati City. and that he would call her when he had fully-charged his cellular phone’s battery. TASK FORCE TAGITIS submitted two narrative reports. as Lt. Kasim of the PNP. when Col. Davao Oriental.ask Kunnong to report her husband’s disappearance to the Jolo Police Station. Ancanan. I called up Col. Mrs. Col. In her narrative report concerning her meeting with Col. MNLF and ASG. Jr (Col. because I contacted some of my friends who have access to the groups of MILF. Yet I did not believe his given statements of the whereabouts of my husband. Ancanan. One of the very important text messages of Engr. He assured me that my husband is alive and he’s last looked *sic] in Talipapao.[36] The respondent also identified the high-ranking military friend.[39] signed by the respondent. he treated us as guests to the city. 2008. Jolo. Tagitis. Ancanan. Davao City. we went to Zamboanga City with my friend Mrs. Zamboanga through her boss. the respondent recounted. We [were] fetched by the two staffs of Col. who gave her the information found in paragraph 15 of her petition. Kasim read to them the contents of the “highly confidential report” at Camp Katitipan. 2007 at 9:00 in the morning. Col. Ancanan and I were discussing some points through phone calls. After he gathered all information. After the said meeting with Col. 2007. namely. since she had the impression that her husband could not communicate with her because his cellular phone’s battery did not have enough power. Ancanan. She then told Col. The respondent further narrated that the report indicated that her husband met with people belonging to a terrorist group and that he was under custodial investigation. Ancanan of the Philippine Army and Col. detailing her efforts to locate her husband which led to her meetings with Col. Sulu. Pedro L. we had private conversation with Col. accompanied me to Camp Katitipan to meet Col. as follows:[41] On November 7. Ancanan. Ancanan.[42] In Zamboanga. Executive Secretary. Kasim and we had a short conversation. Kasim. Sulu on November 30. Kasim was the one who read it for us. 2007. It is also said that Engr. I appreciate the effort of Col.While I was in Jolo. It was not shown to us. Davao City to meet Mr. Col.a Balik Islam. Mr. Bajada Branch. Kasim for he has an urgent. Tagitis took place. yet Col. Ancanan on trying to solve the case of my husband Engr. Kasim read to us the confidential report that Engr. Marydel Martin Talbin (Mrs. Tagitis was allegedly connected [with] different terrorist [groups]. Salvador and my friend. but I was hesitant to pay him a visit for the reason that the Chief of Police of Jolo told me not to contact any AFP officials and he promised me that he can solve the case of my husband (Engr. the respondent presented Mrs. 2007. confidential information to reveal. 2008. Engineer Morced Tagitis was presumed to be abducted in Jolo. Kasim. On that same day. I went to Land Bank of the Philippines. Talbin) to corroborate her testimony regarding her efforts to locate her husband. On November 24. in relation particularly with the information she received from Col. Rudy Salvador. I was thinking of dropping by the office of Col. Mr. and to Davao City at Camp Katitipan to meet Col. Mrs. In my petition for writ of amparo. Salvador called me up informing me up informing me that I am to go to Camp Katitipan to meet Col. That was the time that Col. Ancanan told me that “Sana ngayon alam mo na kung saan ang kinalalagyan ng asawa mo. Jolo did not give me any information of the whereabouts of my husband. He asked a favor to me that “Please don’t quote my Name! Because this is a raw report. yet failed to do so. I emphasized the information that I got from Kasim. It was written in a long bond paper with PNP Letterhead. Kasim. Kasim.” He assured me that my husband is alive and he is in the custody of the military for custodial investigation. I told him to please take care of my husband because he has aliments and he recently took insulin for he is a diabetic patient. Tagitis) within nine days.” When I was in Zamboanga. Salvador immediately called up Camp Katitipan located in Davao City looking for high-ranking official who can help me gather reliable information behind the abduction of subject Engineer Tagitis. Sulu where the abduction of Engr. Mr. On February 11. Anna Mendoza. 2007. I told him that my husband. These are the two information that I can still remember. we went back to Camp Katitipan with my three friends. Mr. Tagitis is carrying boxes of medicines for the injured terrorists as a supplier. Talbin recounted that they met with Col. The respondent also narrated her encounter with Col. After a few weeks. who told them that there was a report and that he showed them a series of . I called him up again because the PNP. Morced Tagitis. 2007. Ancanan. Sulu on October 30. one of which he mentioned in the report was OMAR PATIK and a certain SANTOS . I asked him a favor to contact his connections in the military in Jolo. Talbin testified that she was with the respondent when she went to Zamboanga to see Col. Salvador introduced me to Col. Mrs. And he assured me that he’ll do the best he can to help me find my husband. ”[56] On February 11. Matli confirmed. Kasim categorically denied the statements made by the respondent in her narrative report. the petitioners presented Col. 2007. Kasim to rebut material portions of the respondent’s testimony.”[45] She also related that the Col. that that he had received an e-mail report[53] from Nuraya Lackian of the Office of Muslim Affairs in Manila that the IDB was seeking assistance of the office in locating the funds of IDB scholars deposited in Tagitis’ personal account. 2008 affidavit was already prepared when PS Supt. or made any accusation. Pingay. Tagitis in fact had been under surveillance since January 2007 up to the time he was abducted when he was seen talking to Omar Patik and a certain Santos of Bulacan.[51] he never told PS Supt.”[50] Prof. Col. 2008. he “was not so much aware of… *its+ contents. Kasim also told them that he could not give a copy of the report because it was a “raw report. particularly the allegation that he had stated that Tagitis was in the custody of either the military or the PNP. Tagitis was under custodial investigation because he was being charged with terrorism. Kasim.[54] On cross-examination by the respondent’s counsel. Tagitis. Kasim if he knew the exact location of Engr. specifically: (1) that Tagitis was seen carrying boxes of medicines as supplier for the injured terrorists. Kasim told them that Tagitis was in good hands. Kasim did not tell them exactly where Tagitis was being kept.[44] The respondent asked Col. however. She further recounted that based on the report Col. Pingay asked him to sign it. 2007. a “Balik Islam” charged with terrorism.text messages from Tagitis’ cellular phone. to Camp Katitipan to talk to Col. that Tagitis took away money entrusted to him. Sulu. Matli also emphasized that despite what his January 4. Col. Salvacion Serrano and Mini Leong.Prof. 2008 affidavit indicated..[43] She further narrated that sometime on November 24. although he was not certain whether he was with the PNP or with the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). (2) that Tagitis was under the custody of the military. Matli testified that his January 4.[52] Prof. since he merely said to the . which showed that Tagitis and his daughter would meet in Manila on October 30. although he mentioned Talipapao.[55] Prof Matli clarified that although he read the affidavit before signing it. she went with the respondent together with two other companions. namely. Prof. Kasim read in their presence.[57] Col.lalabas din yan. respondent that “your husband is in good hands” and is “probably taken cared of by his armed abductors. Sulu before or after Tagitis’ reported disappearance. to disprove the respondent’s allegation that Tagitis was in the custody of CIDG-Zamboanga City.[65] Col. the PNP or the CIDG Zamboanga City. since they did not conduct any operation in Jolo.[58] Col.” through a letter which he considered as “unofficial. Kasim emphasized that the “informal letter” he received from his informant in Sulu did not indicate that Tagitis was in the custody of the CIDG. Pante further testified that his investigation of Tagitis’ disappearance was unsuccessful.[69] Col. Kasim testified that the information he gave the respondent was given to him by his informant. Kasim stressed that the letter was only meant for his “consumption” and not for reading by others.[67] Col. and that the CIDG “investigates and prosecutes all cases involving violations in the Revised Penal Code particularly those considered as heinous crimes.[60] On cross-examination.[59] He also stressed that the information he provided to the respondent was merely a “raw report” sourced from “barangay intelligence” that still needed confirmation and “follow-up” as to its veracity.[70] .”[66] Col.[68] He denied that his office conducted any surveillance on Tagitis prior to the latter’s disappearance.” since they were only assigned to investigate matters and to monitor the terrorism situation.[62] He testified further that he destroyed the letter right after he read it to the respondent and her companions because “it was not important to him” and also because the information it contained had no importance in relation with the abduction of Tagitis.”[61] Col.” and (3) that Tagitis was under custodial investigation by the military. Chief of the CIDG-9. the petitioners also presented Police Senior Superintendent Jose Volpane Pante (Col. Pante further testified that the allegation that 9 RCIDU personnel were involved in the disappearance of Tagitis was baseless. who was a “civilian asset. 2008. the investigation was “still facing a blank wall” on the whereabouts of Tagitis. Pante).[64] In the same hearing on February 11. Col. Pante added that the four (4) personnel assigned to the Sulu CIDT had no capability to conduct any “operation. Pante clarified that the CIDG was the “investigative arm” of the PNP.[63] He explained that he did not keep the letter because it did not contain any information regarding the whereabouts of Tagitis and the person(s) responsible for his abduction. as the police intelligence arm. The CA thus greatly relied on the “raw report” from Col. corroborated by her companion. was involved in Tagitis’ abduction came from no less than the military – an independent agency of government. Col. He had no previous brushes with the law or any record of overstepping the bounds of any trust regarding money entrusted to him. The conclusion that the CIDG was involved was based on the respondent’s testimony. Talbin. It also labeled as “suspect” Col. Jose Volpane . The CA characterized as “too farfetched and unbelievable” and “a bedlam of speculation” police theories painting the disappearance as “intentional” on the part of Tagitis. or the CIDG was involved in the abduction of Tagitis. Kasim’s subsequent and belated retraction of his statement that the military. the police and the military noted that there was no acknowledgement of Tagitis’ abduction or demand for payment of ransom – the usual modus operandi of these terrorist groups. and that there was “no issue” at all when the latter divorced his first wife in order to marry the second. no student of the IDB scholarship program ever came forward to complain that he or she did not get his or her stipend. The CA held that “raw reports” from an “asset” carried “great weight” in the intelligence world. the missing-person case qualified as an enforced disappearance. the CA thus extended the privilege of the writ to Tagitis and his family. Based on these considerations. Kasim’s asset. the CA issued its decision[71] confirming that the disappearance of Tagitis was an “enforced disappearance” under the United Nations (UN) Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances.” on the basis of the respondent’s testimony that Tagitis was a Muslim who could have many wives under the Muslim faith. the police. and directed the CIDG Chief. the CA also ruled out kidnapping for ransom by the Abu Sayyaf or by the ARMM paramilitary as the cause for Tagitis’ disappearance.THE CA RULING On March 7. The CA also found no basis for the police theory that Tagitis was “trying to escape from the clutches of his second wife.[72] The CA ruled that when military intelligence pinpointed the investigative arm of the PNP (CIDG) to be involved in the abduction. 2008. The CA noted that the information that the CIDG. Mrs. Finally. since the respondent. pointing to the CIDG’s involvement in Tagitis’ abduction. [74] THE COURT’S RULING We do not find the petition meritorious. On March 31. Joel Goltiao and Col. Supt. and.[73] THE PETITION In this Rule 45 appeal questioning the CA’s March 7. . based on the finding that it was PNP-CIDG. (d). and PACER Chief Sr. and (e) of the Amparo Rule. the petitioners allege that the respondent failed to: 1) allege any act or omission the petitioners committed in violation of Tagitis‘ rights to life. 2008. Razon. Lt. the sufficiency of the legal remedies the respondent took before petitioning for the writ. liberty and security of Tagitis had been violated. the petitioners mainly dispute the sufficiency in form and substance of the Amparo petition filed before the CA. but the CA denied the motion in its Resolution of April 9. the sufficiency of evidence supporting the conclusion that Tagitis was abducted. Ruben Rafael. not the military. the finding that the rights to life. the conclusion that the CIDG Zamboanga was responsible for the abduction. 2008 decision. 2008. the ruling that the respondent discharged the burden of proving the allegations of the petition by substantial evidence. Leonardo A. with the obligation to provide monthly reports of their actions to the CA. the petitioners moved to reconsider the CA decision. liberty and security of Tagitis. that was involved. At the same time. Gen Alexander Yano and Gen. Espina to exert extraordinary diligence and efforts to protect the life. the petitioners contend that the petition violated Section 5(c).Pante. generally. Specifically. TASK FORCE TAGITISheads Gen. liberty and security. PNP Chief Avelino I. the CA dismissed the petition against the then respondents from the military. Ahiron Ajirim. Sufficiency in Form and Substance In questioning the sufficiency in form and substance of the respondent‘s Amparo petition. liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of the respondent. and 7) specify what legally available efforts she took to determine the fate or whereabouts of her husband.2) allege in a complete manner how Tagitis was abducted. A petition for the Writ of Amparo shall be signed and verified and shall allege. among others (in terms of the portions the petitioners cite):[75] (c) The right to life. personal circumstances. 4) implead the members of CIDG regional office in Zamboanga alleged to have custody over her husband. act or omission. the persons responsible for his disappearance. (d) The investigation conducted. if any. 6) allege any action or inaction attributable to the petitioners in the performance of their duties in the investigation of Tagitis‘ disappearance. 3) allege that the abduction was committed at the petitioners‘ instructions or with their consent. and how such threat or violation is committed with the attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits. as well as the manner and conduct of the investigation. and addresses of the investigating authority or individuals. together with any report. and the respondent‘s source of information. 5) attach the affidavits of witnesses to support her accusations. specifying the names. and . (e) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of the person responsible for the threat. rather than in terms of its isolated component parts. which addresses a situation of uncertainty.The framers of the Amparo Rule never intended Section 5(c) to be complete in every detail in stating the threatened or actual violation of a victim‘s rights. while presenting a cause of action showing a violation of the victim‘s rights to life. As in any other initiatory pleading. the petitioner may not be able to describe with certainty how the victim exactly disappeared. or who actually acted to kidnap. the petition amply recites in its paragraphs 4 to 11 the circumstances under which Tagitis suddenly dropped out of sight after engaging in normal activities. police operatives were the perpetrators of the abduction. of the disappearance. to determine if the required elements – namely. in relation to paragraphs 15 and 16. liberty and security through State or private party action. and thereafter was nowhere to be found despite efforts to locate him. It also clearly alleged how Tagitis‘ rights to life. this requirement must be read in light of the nature and purpose of the proceeding. the test in reading the petition should be to determine whether it contains the details available to the petitioner under the circumstances. The petition should likewise be read in its totality. [76] In an Amparo petition. In the present case. or where the victim is detained. liberty and security were violated when he was ―forcibly taken and boarded on a . omitting the evidentiary details. liberty and security. The petition alleged. too. under its paragraph 7. because these information may purposely be hidden or covered up by those who caused the disappearance. In this type of situation. to require the level of specificity. however. detail and precision that the petitioners apparently want to read into the Amparo Rule is to make this Rule a token gesture of judicial concern for violations of the constitutional rights to life. and the actual or threatened violations of the rights to life. To read the Rules of Court requirement on pleadings while addressing the unique Amparo situation. liberty or security – are present. that according to reliable information. abduct or arrest him or her. the pleader must of course state the ultimate facts constituting the cause of action. the State or private action. with the annotation that these can be used as the affiant‘s direct testimony. Section 5(d) of the Amparo Rule requires that prior investigation of an alleged disappearance must have been made. Where. the Amparo Rule incorporated the requirement for supporting affidavits. Thus.‖[77] These allegations. We note that the failure to attach the required affidavits was fully cured when the respondent and her witness (Mrs. as in this case. the strict need for the sworn statement that an affidavit represents is essentially fulfilled. properly pleaded ultimate facts within the pleader‘s knowledge about Tagitis‘ disappearance. specifying the manner and results of the investigation. as required by Section 5(c) of the Amparo Rule. this defect is its lack of supporting affidavit. this requirement seeks to establish at the earliest opportunity the level of diligence the public authorities undertook in relation with the reported disappearance. however. x x x held against his will in an earnest attempt of the police to involve and connect [him] with different terrorist groups. the petitioner has substantially complied with the requirement by submitting averified petition sufficiently detailing the facts relied upon. PNP Zamboanga City. Owing to the summary nature of the proceedings for the writ and to facilitate the resolution of the petition. the petition cannot be faulted for any failure in its statement of a cause of action. the petition cannot be faulted. in our view. If a defect can at all be attributed to the petition. specifically by the CIDG. should not be read as an absolute one that necessarily leads to the dismissal of the petition if not strictly followed. 2007.motor vehicle by a couple of burly men believed to be police intelligence operatives. the participation by agents of the State in this disappearance. as well as the actual violation of his right to liberty.‖ and then taken ―into custody by the respondents‘ police intelligence operatives since October 30. 2008 to swear to and flesh out the allegations of the petition.[78] This requirement. Effectively.[79] . Talbin) personally testified in the CA hearings held on January 7 and 17 and February 18. the failure of the State to release Tagitis or to provide sufficient information about his whereabouts. even on this point. Thus. followed by the respondent‘s personal inquiries that yielded the factual bases for her petition. to no less than the Governor of the ARMM. Sulu as soon as they were relatively certain that he indeed had disappeared. The police. and that investigations should have followed. but she was told of ―an intriguing tale‖ by the police that her husband was having ―a good time with another woman. and addresses of the investigating authority. should not be a reflection on the completeness of the petition. personal circumstances. as well the manner and conduct of the investigation is an overly strict interpretation of Section 5(d).[81] The petitioners contend that the respondent‘s petition did not specify what ―legally available efforts were taken by the respondent. to our mind. Section 5(e) is in the Amparo Rule to prevent the use of a petition – that otherwise is not supported by sufficient allegations to constitute a proper cause of action – as a means to ―fish‖ for evidence. as the petition specifies in its paragraph 11 that Kunnong and his companions immediately reported Tagitis‘ disappearance to the police authorities in Jolo.[80] These allegations. Under these circumstances. given the respondent‘s frustrations in securing an investigation with meaningful results. gave them the ―ready answer‖ that Tagitis could have been abducted by the Abu Sayyaf group or other anti-government groups.We reject the petitioners‘ argument that the respondent‘s petition did not comply with the Section 5(d) requirements of the Amparo Rule. sufficiently specify that reports have been made to the police authorities. too.‖ and that there was an ―undue haste‖ in the filing of the petition . their failure to perform their duty to investigate. To require the respondent to elaborately specify the names. That the petition did not state the manner and results of the investigation that the Amparo Rule requires. their reported failed efforts.‖ The disappearance was alleged to have been reported. we are more than satisfied that the allegations of the petition on the investigations undertaken are sufficiently complete for purposes of bringing the petition forward. however. The respondent also alleged in paragraphs 17 and 18 of her petition that she filed a ―complaint‖ with the PNP Police Station in Cotobato and in Jolo. but rather generally stated the inaction of the police. or at the very least. exerted efforts in trying to locate the whereabouts of Engr. xxxx 7. [The respondent]. but *the respondent’s+ request and pleadings failed to produce any positive results . xxxx 10. xxxx 17. [The respondent] filed her complaint with the PNP Police Station at the ARMM in Cotobato and in Jolo. seeking their help to find her husband. When Kunnong could not locate Engr. xxxx 15. Tagitis and when he reported the matter to the police authorities in Jolo. on the other hand. Arsimin Kunnong. Tagitis went out of the pension house to take his early lunch but while out on the street. Section 5(e) merely requires that the Amparo petitioner (the respondent in the present case) allege ―the actions and recourses taken to determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of the person responsible for the threat. as suggested by her friends. instead of cooperating with authorities. he was immediately given a ready answer that Engr. Tagitis) by phone and other responsible officers and coordinators of the IDB Scholarship Programme in the Philippines who alerted the office of the Governor of ARMM who was then preparing to attend the OIC meeting in Jeddah. PNP Zamboanga City. Being scared with these suggestions and insinuations of the police officers. 13. the former sought the help of another IDB scholar and reported the matter to the local police agency. Arsimin Kunnong. specifically with the CIDG. Soon after the student left the room. Davao del Sur. Saudi Arabia. subject Engr. the respondent immediately invoked the Court‘s intervention. forcibly took him and boarded the latter on a motor vehicle then sped away without the knowledge of his student. 11. Kunnong reported the matter to the [respondent](wife of Engr.when. Digos City. including his friends and companions in Jolo. 12. Tagitis could [have been] abducted by the Abu Sayyaf group and other groups known to be fighting against the government. approached some of her co-employees with the Land Bank in Digos branch.‖ The following allegations of the respondent‘s petition duly outlined the actions she had taken and the frustrations she encountered. thus compelling her to file her petition. a couple of burly men believed to be police intelligence operatives. act or omission. According to reliable information received by the [respondent]. Engr. Tagitis with the different terrorist groups. Tagitis. We do not see the respondent‘s petition as the petitioners view it. Tagitis is in the custody of police intelligence operatives. who likewise sought help from some of their friends in the military who could help them find/locate the whereabouts of her husband. being held against his will in an earnest attempt of the police to involve and connect Engr. [respondent] was again advised by one of the [petitioners] to go to the ARMM Police Headquarters again in Cotobato City and also to the different Police Headquarters including the police headquarters in Davao City. [respondent] has no other plain. xxxx 25. For a deeper appreciation of the application of this Rule to an enforced disappearance situation. their intelligence operatives and the like which are in total violation of the subject‘s human and constitutional rights. a brief look at the historical context of the writ and enforced disappearances would be very helpful. speedy and adequate remedy to protect and get the release of subject Engr.[83] . and in Camp Crame. in Zamboanga City. The phenomenon of enforced disappearance arising from State action first attracted notice in Adolf Hitler‘s Nact und Nebel Erlass or Night and Fog Decree of December 7. in Jolo.[82] The Third Reich‘s Night and Fog Program. which entailed expenses for her trips to these places thereby resorting her to borrowings and beggings [sic] for financial help from friends and relatives only to try complying to the different suggestions of these police officers.20. and under the circumstances. despite of which. the policy prohibited government officials from providing information about the fate of these targeted persons. Quezon City. we rule that the respondent‘s 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. except the issuance of a WRIT OF AMPARO. Based on these considerations. xxxx Lately. The Desaparecidos The present case is one of first impression in the use and application of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo in an enforced disappearance situation. [The respondent] has exhausted all administrative avenues and remedies but to no avail. a State policy. and all these places have been visited by the [respondent] in search for her husband. they were transported secretly to Germany where they disappeared without a trace. 1941. was directed at persons in occupied territories ―endangering German security‖. Morced Tagitis from the illegal clutches of [the petitioners]. her efforts produced no positive results up to the present time. In order to maximize the desired intimidating effect. and the issue became an international concern when the world noted its widespread and systematic use by State security forces in that continent under Operation Condor[84] and during the Dirty War[85] in the 1970s and 1980s. were reported to have ―disappeared‖ during the military regime in Argentina. 595 remained missing. 407 remain missing. The number of enforced disappearances dropped during former President Fidel V. 108 surfaced alive and 97 were found dead. and killed as part of governments‘ counter-insurgency campaigns.‖[86] which literally means the ―disappeared ones. enforced disappearances generally fall within the first two categories. The victims of enforced disappearances were called the ―desaparecidos. 820 people were reported to have disappeared and of these.000. while the threeyear term of former President Joseph E. Ramos‘ term when only 87 cases were reported. During former President Corazon C. shocking and outraging the world when individuals. and 3) those of victims of ―salvaging‖ who have disappeared until their lifeless bodies are later discovered. As this form of political brutality became routine elsewhere in the continent. Of this number.[89] and 855 cases were recorded during the period of martial law from 1972 until 1986.000 to 24.[88] In the Philippines. 132 surfaced alive and 127 were found dead. 2) those of prisoners who are usually arrested without an appropriate warrant and held in complete isolation for weeks or months while their families are unable to discover their whereabouts and the military authorities deny having them in custody until they eventually reappear in one detention center or another. tortured. 612 cases were documented. The escalation of the practice saw political activists secretly arrested. Estrada yielded 58 reported .‖[87] In general. Of this number. there are three different kinds of ―disappearance‖ cases: 1) those of people arrested without witnesses or without positive identification of the arresting agents and are never found again. the Latin American media standardized the term ―disappearance‖ to describe the phenomenon. Enforced disappearances spread in Latin America.In the mid-1970s. Aquino‘s term. the phenomenon of enforced disappearances resurfaced. numbering anywhere from 6. 2008. should these rules include the killings. and 76 still have undetermined status. The records of the Supreme Court Committee on the Revision of Rules (Committee) reveal that the drafters of the Amparo Rule initially considered providing an elemental definition of the concept of enforced disappearance:[94] JUSTICE MARTINEZ: I believe that first and foremost we should come up or formulate a specific definition [for] extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.‖[93] We note that although the writ specifically covers ―enforced disappearances. reports that as of March 31.[90] Currently. KARAPATAN. Well. definite rules concerning the same. the disappearances which may be authored by let us say. So we‘ll have to agree among ourselves about the nature of killings and disappearances for instance. Of this number. then we can proceed to formulate the rules. 92 surfaced alive.[92] Enforced Disappearances Under Philippine Law The Amparo Rule expressly provides that the ―writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. the concept includes acts and omissions not only of state actors but also of non state actors. a local non-governmental organization. In other jurisdictions. Arroyo‘s administration. in other jurisdictions. the records show that there were a total of 193 victims of enforced disappearance under incumbent President Gloria M. there is no law penalizing extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances… so initially also we have to [come up with] the nature of these extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances [to be covered by the Rule] because our concept of killings and disappearances will define the jurisdiction of the courts. the rules only cover state actors. From that definition. the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance[91] reports 619 outstanding cases of enforced or involuntary disappearances covering the period December 1. That is an element incorporated in their concept of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. the NPAs or the leftist . 406 remained missing. 2007 to November 30. 2008. The Commission on Human Rights‘ records show a total of 636 verified cases of enforced disappearances from 1985 to 1993. more specifically in the case of the Philippines for instance. 62 were found dead.cases. CHIEF JUSTICE PUNO: … As things stand.‖ this concept is neither defined nor penalized in this jurisdiction. . can set the procedural standards and thereby directly compel the public authorities to act on actual or threatened violations of constitutional rights. Although the Court‘s power is strictly procedural and as such does not diminish.organizations and others.”[100] since extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances in this jurisdiction are not crimes penalized separately from the component criminal acts undertaken to carry out these killings and enforced disappearances and are now penalized under the Revised Penal Code and special laws. mindful that an elemental definition may intrude into the ongoing legislative efforts.[99] The simple reason is that the Legislature has not spoken on the matter. The Court. practice and procedure in all courts. pleading. the determination of what acts are criminal and what the corresponding penalty these criminal acts should carry are matters of substantive law that only the Legislature has the power to enact under the country‘s constitutional scheme and power structure. the Supreme Court is not powerless to act under its own constitutional mandate to promulgate “rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. through its procedural rules. however. The Committee instead focused on the nature and scope of the concerns within its power to address and provided the appropriate remedy therefor. again we need to define the nature of the extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances that will be covered by these rules. liberty and security. constitute State or private party violation of the constitutional rights of individuals to life. increase or modify substantive rights. and resolved to do away with a clear textual definition of these terms in the Rule. [Emphasis supplied] [95] In the end. So. the Committee took cognizance of several bills filed in the House of Representatives[96] and in the Senate[97] on extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. Even without the benefit of directly applicable substantive laws on extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.[98] As the law now stands. the legal protection that the Court can provide can be very meaningful through the procedures it sets in addressing extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. by their nature and purpose. Enforced Disappearance Under International Law From the International Law perspective. This is an issue that requires criminal action before our criminal courts based on our existing penal laws.[101] It does not only violate the right to life. so that the life of the victim is preserved and his or her liberty and security restored. The first is to ensure that all efforts at disclosure and investigation are undertaken under pain of indirect contempt from this Court when governmental efforts are less than what the individual situations require. liberty and security of thedesaparecido. in the proper case. enforced disappearances have been said to be ―a double form of torture. our orders and directives relative to the writ are continuing efforts that are not truly terminated until the extrajudicial killing or enforced disappearance is fully addressed by the complete determination of the fate and the whereabouts of the victim. involuntary or enforced disappearance is considered a flagrant violation of human rights. we clarify once again that we do not rule on any issue of criminal culpability for the extrajudicial killing or enforced disappearance. judicial intervention can make a difference – even if only procedurally – in a situation when the very same investigating public authorities may have had a hand in the threatened or actual violations of constitutional rights. under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. Lest this Court intervention be misunderstood. Our intervention is in determining whether an enforced disappearance has taken place and who is responsible or accountable for this disappearance. is twofold. The burden for the public authorities to discharge in these situations. Thus. The second is to address the disappearance.‖ with ―doubly paralyzing impact for the victims.To state the obvious. and. while family .‖ as they ―are kept ignorant of their own fates. by the commencement of criminal action against the guilty parties. In these senses. by the production of the disappeared person and the restoration of his or her liberty and security. and to define and impose the appropriate remedies to address it. it affects their families as well through the denial of their right to information regarding the circumstances of the disappeared family member. 2006). the UN General Assembly adopted the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (Convention).[102] The UN General Assembly first considered the issue of ―Disappeared Persons‖ in December 1978 under Resolution 33/173.[106] Article 2 of the Convention defined enforced disappearance as follows: For the purposes of this Convention. detention.‖ and requested the ―UN Commission on Human Rights to consider the issue of enforced disappearances with a view to making appropriate recommendations.‖[103] In 1992. or by organized groups or private individuals acting on behalf of.[104] This Declaration. enforced disappearances occur. 2007. consent or acquiescence of the Government. detained or abducted against their will or otherwise deprived of their liberty by officials of different branches or levels of Government. in the sense that persons are arrested. the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (Declaration). France on February 6. abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the . [Emphasis supplied] Fourteen years after (or on December 20. for the first time. often in a persistent manner. which places such persons outside the protection of the law. direct or indirect.[105] The Convention was opened for signature in Paris. as follows: Deeply concerned that in many countries. “enforced disappearance” is considered to be the arrest. The Resolution expressed the General Assembly‘s deep concern arising from ―reports from various parts of the world relating to enforced or involuntary disappearances.members are deprived of knowing the whereabouts of their detained loved ones‖ and suffer as well the serious economic hardship and poverty that in most cases follow the disappearance of the household breadwinner. followed by a refusal to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the persons concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of their liberty. in response to the reality that the insidious practice of enforced disappearance had become a global phenomenon. or with the support. provided in its third preambular clause a working description of enforced disappearance. sex. liberty and security that the Supreme Court is mandated by the Constitution to protect through its rule-making powers. be it a state of war. particularly the conventions touching on humans rights. followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person.[110] Lastly. support or acquiescence of the State. however. as heretofore mentioned. Under the UN Charter. It obliges State Parties to codify enforced disappearance as an offense punishable with appropriate penalties under their criminal law. which place such a person outside the protection of the law. such that statutes of limitations shall not apply until the fate and whereabouts of the victim are established.[111] Binding Effect of UN Action on the Philippines To date. is not a stumbling block for action from this Court. so that the country is not yet committed to enact any law penalizing enforced disappearance as a crime.authorization. and observance of. in acting on Amparo cases.‖[112] Although no universal agreement has been reached .[109] It also recognizes the right of relatives of the disappeared persons and of the society as a whole to know the truth on the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared and on the progress and results of the investigation. underlying every enforced disappearance is a violation of the constitutional rights to life. the Philippines pledged to ―promote universal respect for. it classifies enforced disappearance as a continuing offense. human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinctions as to race. [Emphasis supplied] The Convention is the first universal human rights instrument to assert that there is a right not to be subject to enforced disappearance[107] and that this right is non-derogable.[108] It provides that no one shall be subjected to enforced disappearance under any circumstances. or any other public emergency. Separately from the Constitution (but still pursuant to its terms). by the reality that the Philippines is a member of the UN. bound by its Charter and by the various conventions we signed and ratified. the Court is guided. language or religion. the Philippines has neither signed nor ratified the Convention. internal political instability. The absence of a specific penal law. [113] it was the UN itself that issued the Declaration on enforced disappearance. and a psychological element known as theopinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as to law or necessity). widespread. We held further:[117] [G]enerally accepted principles of international law. and consistent practice on the part of States. and this Declaration states:[114] Any act of enforced disappearance is an offence to dignity. international law can become part of the sphere of domestic law either by transformation or incorporation. by mere constitutional declaration. Duque III. Implicit in the latter element is a belief that the practice in question is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it. [Emphasis in the original] . the ban on enforced disappearance cannot but have its effects on the country. form part of the laws of the land even if they do not derive from treaty obligations. The classical formulation in international law sees those customary rules accepted as binding result from the combination [of] two elements: the established.on the precise extent of the ―human rights and fundamental freedoms‖ guaranteed to all by the Charter. given our own adherence to“generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. international law is deemed to have the force of domestic law.[116] we held that: Under the 1987 Constitution. The incorporation method applies when. by virtue of the incorporation clause of the Constitution. It is condemned as a denial of the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and as a grave and flagrant violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed and developed in international instruments in this field. [Emphasis supplied] As a matter of human right and fundamental freedom and as a policy matter made in a UN Declaration.‖[115] In the recent case of Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v. The transformation method requires that an international law be transformed into a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation. [Emphasis supplied] We characterized ―generally accepted principles of international law‖ as norms of general or customary international law that are binding on all states. Paraguay.[125] Second. State legislation.‖ which can be interpreted as establishing universal jurisdiction among the parties to the Inter-American Convention. and resolutions relating to legal questions in the UN General Assembly. Article 3 on . when the victim is a national of that State. as evidence of a general practice accepted as law. the Organization of American States (OAS) General Assembly adopted the InterAmerican Convention on Enforced Disappearance of Persons in June 1994. Colombia.[119] Sometimes referred to as ―evidence‖ of international law.[121] We note the following in these respects: First.[122] State parties undertook under this Convention ―not to practice. barely two years from the adoption of the Declaration. has applied the Convention in a way that provides ample protection for the underlying rights affected by enforced disappearance through the Convention‘s Article 2 on the right to life. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). permit. however. and ―when the alleged criminal is within its territory and it does not proceed to extradite him. the practice of international organs. Peru and Venezuela have enacted separate laws in accordance with the Inter-American Convention and have defined activities involving enforced disappearance to be criminal.‖[123] One of the key provisions includes the States‘ obligation to enact the crime of forced disappearance in their respective national criminal laws and to establish jurisdiction over such cases when the crime was committed within their jurisdiction. a pattern of treaties in the same form.[124] At present.The most widely accepted statement of sources of international law today is Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.[120] these sources identify the substance and content of the obligations of States and are indicative of the ―State practice‖ and ―opinio juris‖ requirements of international law. or tolerate the forced disappearance of persons.‖[118] The material sources of custom include State practice. even in states of emergency or suspension of individual guarantees. the European Convention on Human Rights has no explicit provision dealing with the protection against enforced disappearance. recitals in treaties and other international instruments. Guatemala. which provides that the Court shall apply ―international custom. international and national judicial decisions. in Europe. The court further elaborated on the significance of UN declarations. PenaIrala[130] that the prohibition on torture had attained the status of customary international law. Since their adoption. Turkey. it has been observed that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "no longer fits into the dichotomy of ‗binding treaty‘ against ‗non-binding pronouncement.N. a U. paragraph 1 on the right to a fair trial." Indeed. and "insofar as the expectation is gradually justified by State practice. according to one authoritative definition. as a result of the silence of the authorities and the inadequate character of the investigations undertaken. declarations are significant because they specify with great precision the obligations of member nations under the Charter. as follows: These U.‖ Moreover. it practices.the prohibition of torture. in the United States. as a matter of State policy. the status of the prohibition on enforced disappearance as part of customary international law is recognized in the most recent edition of Restatement of the Law: The Third. encourages. suitable for rare occasions when principles of great and lasting importance are being enunciated. a Declaration creates an expectation of adherence.N. or condones… (3) the murder or causing the disappearance of individuals." Thus. The ECHR also saw the lack of any meaningful investigation by the State as a violation of Article 13. several commentators have concluded that . "(m)embers can no longer contend that they do not know what human rights they promised in the Charter to promote. a declaration may by custom become recognized as laying down rules binding upon the States. Declaration is. Article 6.[128] which provides that ―[a] State violates international law if.‖[129] We significantly note that in a related matter that finds close identification with enforced disappearance – the matter of torture – the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Court held in Filartiga v. A leading example demonstrating the protection afforded by the European Convention is Kurt v. Article 5 on the right to liberty and security. It further found the applicant (the disappeared person‘s mother) to be a victim of a violation of Article 3.' but is rather an authoritative statement of the international community.‖ Accordingly.[126] where the ECHR found a violation of the right to liberty and security of the disappeared person when the applicant‘s son disappeared after being taken into custody by Turkish forces in the Kurdish village of Agilli in November 1993.[127] Third. and Article 13 on the right to an effective remedy. "a formal and solemn instrument. and the act may also amount to a crime against humanity. the UN Human Rights Committee. paragraph 1 of the 1998 Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) also covers enforced disappearances insofar as they are defined as crimes against humanity. Article 7. including Sierra Leone Special Court. inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) and 9 (right to liberty and security of the person) of the ICCPR.[133] the Philippines is still merely a signatory and has not yet ratified it. 7 (prohibition on torture.[135] While the Philippines is not yet formally bound by the terms of the Convention on enforced disappearance (or by the specific terms of the Rome Statute) and has not formally declared enforced disappearance as a specific crime. the above recital shows that enforced disappearance as a State practice has been repudiated by the international community. in toto. [Citations omitted] Fourth. so that the ban on it is now a generally accepted principle of international law. customary international law. We note that Article 7(1) of the Rome Statute has been incorporated in the statutes of other international and hybrid tribunals. a part of binding.” While more than 100 countries have ratified the Rome Statute.[134] In addition. has stated that the act of enforced disappearance violates Articles 6 (right to life). and which we should act upon to the extent already allowed under our laws and the international conventions that bind us. . and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. under the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. crimes “committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population. cruel..[132] i.the Universal Declaration has become. which we should consider a part of the law of the land. to which the Philippines is both a signatory and a State Party. in interpreting Article 2 (right to an effective domestic remedy) of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).e. with knowledge of the attack. the implementing legislation of State Parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC has given rise to a number of national criminal provisions also covering enforced disappearance. the Special Panels for Serious Crimes in Timor-Leste.[131] Fifth. and 12) the right to education [Emphasis supplied] Article 2 of the ICCPR. 7) the right to an effective remedy. 4) the right to life. 8) the right to know the truth regarding the circumstances of a disappearance. Social and Cultural Rights (ICESR) may be infringed in the course of a disappearance:[136] 1) the right to recognition as a person before the law. 10) the right to an adequate standard of living. when the disappeared person is killed. 3) the right not to be subjected to torture and other cruel. including reparation and compensation. provides: Article 2 3. 6) the right to a fair trial and to judicial guarantees. 5) the right to an identity. . which binds the Philippines as a state party. 11) the right to health.The following civil or political rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 2) the right to liberty and security of the person. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy. the ICCPR and the International Convention on Economic. inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 9) the right to protection and assistance to the family. 31. (c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State. administrative or legislative authorities. [Emphasis supplied] In General Comment No. Article 2. and effectively. viz:[137] 15.notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity. the UN Human Rights Committee opined that the right to an effective remedy under Article 2 of the ICCPR includes the obligation of the State to investigate ICCPR violations promptly. thoroughly. A failure by a State Party to investigate allegations of violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy. [Emphasis supplied] . (b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial. thoroughly and effectively through independent and impartial bodies. paragraph 3. requires that in addition to effective protection of Covenant rights. Cessation of an ongoing violation is an essential element of the right to an effective remedy. States Parties must ensure that individuals also have accessible and effective remedies to vindicate those rights… The Committee attaches importance to States Parties' establishing appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing claims of rights violations under domestic law… Administrative mechanisms are particularly required to give effect to thegeneral obligation to investigate allegations of violations promptly. may well be an important contributing element in the recurrence of the violations. frequently.[139] this Court. 31 that failure to investigate as well as failure to bring to justice the perpetrators of ICCPR violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. These obligations arise notably in respect of those violations recognized as criminal under either domestic or international law. failure to bring to justice perpetrators of such violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. When committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack on a civilian population. thus:[138] 18. Manalo. held that: 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. As with failure to investigate. liberty and security of person is rendered ineffective if . summary and arbitrary killing (article 6) and enforced disappearance (articles 7 and 9 and. in ruling that the right to security of persons is a guarantee of the protection of one’s right by the government. the problem of impunity for these violations.The UN Human Rights Committee further stated in the same General Comment No. States Parties must ensure that those responsible are brought to justice. inhuman and degrading treatment (article 7). 6). the Constitutional guarantee of the rights to life. these violations of the Covenant are crimes against humanity (see Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. As the government is the chief guarantor of order and security. Where the investigations referred to in paragraph 15 reveal violations of certain Covenant rights. a matter of sustained concern by the Committee. article 7). [Emphasis supplied] In Secretary of National Defense v. such as torture and similar cruel. Indeed. Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution. and bringing offenders to the bar of justice. 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. [Emphasis supplied] Manalo significantly cited Kurt v. namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness. Having assumed control over that individual. without an effective search for the truth by the government. organization of the government apparatus to extend protection to victims of extralegal killings or enforced disappearances (or threats thereof) and/or their families. [Emphasis supplied] . For this reason. Protection includes conducting effective investigations. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights stressed the importance of investigation in the Velasquez Rodriguez Case. it is incumbent on the authorities to account for his or her whereabouts. The Court notably quoted the following ECHR ruling: [A]ny 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.. but also as the imposition of a positive duty to afford protection to the right to liberty. Turkey.. 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. An investigation must have an objective and be assumed by the State as its own legal duty.government does not afford protection to these rights especially when they are under threat. viz: (The duty to investigate) must be undertaken in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective.[140] where the ECHR interpreted the “right to security” not only as a prohibition on the State against arbitrary deprivation of liberty. there may be a deliberate concealment of the identities of the direct perpetrators. highly-secret bodies within the armed or security forces. liberty and security that underlie every enforced disappearance. the Court can provide remedies and protect the constitutional rights to life.[141] Experts note that abductors are well organized. Past experiences in other jurisdictions show that the evidentiary difficulties are generally threefold. First.‖ the materials cited above. Evidentiary Difficulties Posed by the Unique Nature of an Enforced Disappearance Before going into the issue of whether the respondent has discharged the burden of proving the allegations of the petition for the Writ of Amparo by the degree of proof required by the Amparo Rule. through the medium of the Amparo Rule. Although the Amparo Rule still has gaps waiting to be filled through substantive law. clandestine chain of . which the Court made effective on October 24. thus: The victim is generally arrested by the security forces or by persons acting under some form of governmental authority. as evidenced primarily by the lack of a concrete definition of ―enforced disappearance. provide ample guidance and standards on how. among others. we shall discuss briefly the unique evidentiary difficulties presented by enforced disappearance cases. armed and usually members of the military or police forces. these difficulties form part of the setting that the implementation of the Amparo Rule shall encounter. In many countries the units that plan. These difficulties largely arise because the State itself – the party whose involvement is alleged – investigates enforced disappearances.These rulings effectively serve as the backdrop for the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. They are generally directed through a separate. 2007. implement and execute the program are generally specialized. [149] Experience shows that government officials typically respond to requests for information about desaparecidos by saying that they are not aware of any disappearance. these witnesses are usually afraid to speak out publicly or to testify on the disappearance out of fear for their own lives. Manalo[144] when we acknowledged that ―where powerful military officers are implicated. that the missing people may have fled the country.‖ Second. the corpus delicti or the victim’s body – is usually concealed to effectively thwart the start of any investigation or the progress of one that may have begun.[150] . The IACHR described the concealment as a clear attempt by the State to commit the perfect crime.[145] The problem for the victim’s family is the State’s virtual monopoly of access to pertinent evidence.. These authorities take their victims to secret detention centers where they subject them to interrogation and torture without fear of judicial or other controls. there are usually no witnesses to the crime. as the absence of any proven disappearance makes it easier to escape the application of legal standards ensuring the victim’s human rights. the State authorities deliberately deny that the enforced disappearance ever [148] occurred. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) observed in the landmark case of Velasquez Rodriguez[146] that inherent to the practice of enforced disappearance is the deliberate use of the State’s power to destroy the pertinent evidence.[143] We have had occasion to note this difficulty in Secretary of Defense v. if there are.[147] Third is the element of denial. deliberate concealment of pertinent evidence of the disappearance is a distinct possibility.e. but they have the necessary credentials to avoid or prevent any interference by the "legal" police forces. in many cases. or that their names have merely been invented. “Deniability” is central to the policy of enforced disappearances. the hesitation of witnesses to surface and testify against them comes as no surprise.command. the central piece of evidence in an enforced disappearance – i.[142] In addition. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. [Emphasis supplied] . – … If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence. justice or judge may call for a preliminary conference to simplify the issues and determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations and admissions from the parties. 17 and 18 of the Amparo Rule define the nature of an Amparo proceeding and the degree and burden of proof the parties to the case carry. the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate. as these are the difficulties we confront. The hearing on the petition shall be summary. Section 18. xxxx Section 17. in one form or another. rules and regulations was observed in the performance of duty. The respondent who is a private individual must prove that ordinary diligence as required by applicable laws. in our consideration of this case.These considerations are alive in our minds. the court. However. the privilege shall be denied. Evidence and Burden of Proof in Enforced Disappearances Cases Sections 13. otherwise. rules and regulations was observed in the performance of duty. – The parties shall establish their claims by substantial evidence. as follows: Section 13. Summary Hearing. The respondent who is a public official or employee must prove that extraordinary diligence as required by applicable laws. Judgment. The respondent public official or employee cannot invoke the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed or evade responsibility or liability. The landmark case of Ang Tibay v. To directly quote Ang Tibay: Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. [citations omitted] But this assurance of a desirable flexibility in administrative procedure does not go so far as to justify orders without a basis in evidence having rational probative force. to the extraordinary measures expected in the protection of constitutional rights and in the consequent handling and investigation of extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearance cases. of being summary and the use of substantial evidence as the required level of proof (in contrast to the usual preponderance of evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt in court proceedings) – reveal the clear intent of the framers of the Amparo Rule to have the equivalent of an administrative proceeding.‘ The obvious purpose of this and similar provisions is to free administrative boards from the compulsion of technical rules so that the mere admission of matter which would be deemed incompetent in judicial proceedings would not invalidate the administrative order. albeit judicially conducted. the Amparo petitioner needs only to properly comply with the substance and form requirements of a Writ of Amparo petition. Once a rebuttable case has been proven. The standard of diligence required – the duty of public officials and employees to observe extraordinary diligence – point. Court of Industrial Relations[151] provided the Court its first opportunity to define the substantial evidence required to arrive at a valid decision in administrative proceedings. and the failure on the part of the investigating authorities to appropriately respond. too. [citations omitted] The statute provides that ‗the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be controlling. as discussed above.These characteristics – namely. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Thus. The rebuttable case. in addressing Amparo situations. the respondents must then respond and prove their defenses based on the standard of diligence required. in these proceedings. [Emphasis supplied] . of course. must show that an enforced disappearance took place under circumstances showing a violation of the victim‘s constitutional rights to life. and prove the allegations by substantial evidence. liberty or security. it is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt. or administrative responsibility requiring substantial evidence that will require full and exhaustive proceedings. which difficulties this Court must frontally meet if the Amparo Rule is to be given a chance to achieve its objectives.[Emphasis supplied] Not to be forgotten in considering the evidentiary aspects of Amparo petitions are the unique difficulties presented by the nature of enforced disappearances. Manalo. and presumptions may be . Circumstantial evidence. or liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence. The practice of international and domestic courts shows that direct evidence.[154] The IACHR took note of the realistic fact that enforced disappearances could be proven only through circumstantial or indirect evidence or by logical inference. whether testimonial or documentary.[153] the IACHR – faced with a lack of direct evidence that the government of Honduras was involved in Velasquez Rodriguez‘ disappearance – adopted a relaxed and informal evidentiary standard. is not the only type of evidence that may be legitimately considered in reaching a decision. otherwise. without transgressing the due process requirements that underlie every proceeding. We said: The remedy [of the writ of amparo] 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. we recognized that the full and exhaustive proceedings that the substantial evidence standard regularly requires do not need to apply due to the summary nature of Amparo proceedings. and established the rule that presumes governmental responsibility for a disappearance if it can be proven that the government carries out a general practice of enforced disappearances and the specific case can be linked to that practice. it was impossible to prove that an individual had been made to disappear. indicia. These evidentiary difficulties compel the Court to adopt standards appropriate and responsive to the circumstances. It held: 130. heretofore discussed.In Secretary of Defense v.[152] which was the Court‘s first petition for a Writ of Amparo. In the seminal case of Velasquez Rodriguez. because this type of repression is characterized by an attempt to suppress all information about the kidnapping or the whereabouts and fate of the victim. we must observe flexibility in considering the evidence we shall take into account. technical rules of evidence are not strictly observed. On the one hand.[156] Velasquez stresses the lesson that flexibility is necessary under the unique circumstances that enforced disappearance cases pose to the courts. we only compound the problem if a wrong is addressed by the commission of another wrong.[155] The IACHR likewise considered the hearsay testimony of a second witness who asserted that he had been told by a Honduran military officer about the disappearance. to have an effective remedy. we cannot be very strict in our evidentiary rules and cannot consider evidence the way we do in the usual criminal and civil cases. She also told the Court that a former Honduran military official had announced that Manfredo was kidnapped by a special military squadron acting under orders of the Chief of the Armed Forces. [Emphasis supplied] In concluding that the disappearance of Manfredo Velásquez (Manfredo) was carried out by agents who acted under cover of public authority. the victim’s sister. On the other hand. as a rule. as arbitrariness entails violation of rights and cannot be used as an effective counter-measure. Thus. so long as they lead to conclusions consistent with the facts. Circumstantial or presumptive evidence is especially important in allegations of disappearances. precisely. we cannot be arbitrary in the admission and appreciation of evidence. 131. who described Manfredo’s kidnapping on the basis of conversations she had with witnesses who saw Manfredo kidnapped by men in civilian clothes in broad daylight. while we must follow the substantial evidence rule. and a third witness who testified that he had spoken in prison to a man who identified himself as Manfredo.considered. the standard of evidence must be responsive to the evidentiary difficulties faced. . the IACHR relied on circumstantial evidence including the hearsay testimony of Zenaida Velásquez. the proceedings before us are administrative in nature where. [158] These requisites for admission find their counterpart in the present case under the above-described conditions for the exercise of flexibility in the consideration of evidence. in extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearance cases. to the relevance of the evidence to the issue at hand and its consistency with all other pieces of adduced evidence. Assessment of the Evidence The threshold question for our resolution is: was there an enforced disappearance within the meaning of this term under the UN Declaration we have cited? The Convention defines enforced disappearance as ―the arrest. The admission of the statement is determined by the court in light of specified subjective and objective considerations that provide sufficient indicia of reliability of the child witness.. detention. This Rule allows the admission of the hearsay testimony of a child describing any act or attempted act of sexual abuse in any criminal or non-criminal proceeding. We note in this regard that the use of flexibility in the consideration of evidence is not at all novel in the Philippine legal system.The fair and proper rule. even hearsay evidence can be admitted if it satisfies this basic minimum test. followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by . we reduce our rules to the most basic test of reason – i.e. subject to certain prerequisites and the right of cross-examination by the adverse party. Thus. is to consider all the pieces of evidence adduced in their totality. In other words. support or acquiescence of the State. to our mind. including hearsay evidence. 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. Section 28 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness[157]is expressly recognized as an exception to the hearsay rule. and to consider any evidence otherwise inadmissible under our usual rules to be admissible if it is consistent with the admissible evidence adduced. In child abuse cases. Ancanan gave them any information that Tagitis was in government custody.concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person. abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty. Tagitis‘ colleagues and even the police authorities – is that Tagistis disappeared under mysterious circumstances and was never seen again. The direct evidence at hand only shows that Tagitis went out of the ASY Pension House after depositing his room key with the hotel desk and was never seen nor heard of again. The undisputed conclusion. Talbin. but it is not supported by any other evidence. the respondent pointed to two sources of information as her bases for her allegation that Tagistis had been placed under government custody (in contrast with CIDG Zamboanga custody). direct or circumstantial. support or acquiescence of the State. Mrs. and (d) placement of the disappeared person outside the protection of the law. Nothing came out of this claim. for his part. . detention. The respondent injected the causal element in her petition and testimony. from all concerned – the petitioner. only the respondent‘s allegation that Tagistis was under CIDG Zamboanga custody stands on record. however. [Emphasis supplied] We find no direct evidence indicating how the victim actually disappeared. Col. failed to establish that Col. The first was an unnamed friend in Zamboanga (later identified as Col. (c) followed by a refusal to acknowledge the detention.‖[159] Under this definition. (b) carried out by agents of the State or persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization. Ancanan. as both the respondent herself and her witness. the elements that constitute enforced disappearance are essentially fourfold:[160] (a) arrest. If at all. which place such a person outside the protection of the law. as we shall discuss below. Ancanan). who occupied a high position in the military and who allegedly mentioned that Tagitis was in good hands. In her direct testimony. We likewise find no direct evidence showing that operatives of PNP CIDG Zamboanga abducted or arrested Tagitis. or a concealment of the fate of the disappeared person. The more specific and productive source of information was Col. whom the respondent.I. met in Camp Katitipan in Davao City. To quote the relevant portions of the respondent‘s testimony: Q: Were you able to speak to other military officials regarding the whereabouts of your husband particularly those in charge of any records or investigation? A: I went to Camp Katitipan in Davao City.”. Kasim. together with her witness Mrs. . Col. sir. Q: Was there any information that was read to you during one of those visits of yours in that Camp? A: Col. Q: What is J.admitted the meeting with the respondent but denied giving her any information about the disappearance. Then one military officer. told me that my husband is being abducted [sic] because he is under custodial investigation because he is allegedly “parang liason ng J.? A: Jema’ah Islamiah.I. Casim. sir. Talbin. Casim did not furnish me a copy of his report because he said those reports are highly confidential. sir. ma’am. ma’am. Kasim told you that your husband was abducted and under custodial investigation? A: Yes. my friends.Q: Was it read to you then even though you were not furnished a copy? A: Yes. In front of us. sir. Q: And you mentioned that he showed you a report? A: Yes. . sir.[161] [Emphasis supplied] She confirmed this testimony in her cross-examination: Q: You also mentioned that you went to Camp Katitipan in Davao City? A: Yes. Q: And what was the content of that highly confidential report? A: Those alleged activities of Engineer Tagitis. ma’am. Q: And a certain Col. Q: How many were you when you went to see Col. Kasim? A: There were three of us. But he read it in front of us. Talbin. ma’am. That is a military report. Q: Who were your companions? A: Mrs.Q: Were you able to read the contents of that report? A: He did not furnish me a copy of those [sic] report because those [sic] were highly confidential. ma’am. tapos yung dalawang friends nya from Mati City. my friends.[162] x x x Q: When you were told that your husband is in good hands. Davao Oriental. ma’am. Q: But you were able to read the contents? A: No. ma’am. what was your reaction and what did you do? x . A: May binasa kasi sya that my husband has a parang meeting with other people na parang mga terorista na mga tao. I went to Camp Karingal instead. who was with you when you went there? . 2007. Pakisabi lang sa naghohold sa asawa ko na bigyan siya ng gamot. 2008. So I told him “Colonel. ma’am. ma’am.”[163] xxxx Q: You mentioned that you received information that Engineer Tagitis is being held by the CIDG in Zamboanga. the respondent presented Mrs. my husband is sick. Talbin to corroborate her testimony that her husband was abducted and held under custodial investigation by the PNP-CIDG Zamboanga City. Tapos at the end of the report is [sic] under custodial investigation. viz: Q: You said that you went to Camp Katitipan in Davao City sometime November 24. did you go to CIDG Zamboanga to verify that information? A: I did not go to CIDG Zamboanga. Enough na yun na effort ko because I know that they would deny it.[164] On February 11. He is diabetic at nagmemaintain yun ng gamot. Q: What information did you get from Col.A: Mary Jean Tagitis. Kasim during that time? . Q: Who were they? A: Salvacion Serrano. see some other officials at Camp Katitipan during that time? A: Col. Q: Were you able to talk. Kasim (PS Supt. Mrs. sir. We have some other companions. Q: Only the two of you? A: No. sir. Julasirim Ahadin Kasim) only. Q: Were you able to talk to him? A: Yes. sir. We were four at that time. sir. Q: The four of you? A: Yes. sir. sir. Tagitis and me. Mini Leong. A: The first time we met with [him] I asked him if he knew of the exact location. sir. in a piece of paper or was it in the computer or what? A: As far as I can see it. It was not official. sir. but he is not certain whether he is with the AFP or PNP. I don’t know if it was computerized but I’m certain that it was typewritten. He has this serious case. Tagitis is in good hands. fax or what. if he can furnish us the location of Engr. As I’ve said earlier. He was seen carrying boxes of medicines. it is written in white bond paper. was that report in document form. a certain Santos of Bulacan who is also a Balik Islam and charged with terrorism. He is with the military. he was seen under surveillance from January. He was charged of terrorism because he was under surveillance from January 2007 up to the time that he was abducted. sir. But he also told us that he cannot give us that report because it was a raw report. He was seen talking to Omar Patik. Then we asked him how long will he be in custodial investigation. Q: When he was reading it to you. I’m not sure if it used computer. He told us that Engr. Tagitis. And he was reading this report. Q: You said that he was reading a report. was he reading it line by line or he was reading in a summary form? . He said until we can get some information. He told us that he was under custodial investigation. the respondent‘s and Mrs. He also stressed that the information he provided the respondent was merely a ―raw report‖ from ―barangayintelligence‖ that still needed confirmation and ―follow up‖ as to its veracity. Engineer Tagitis will be released. The respondent mistakenly characterized Col. as the petitioners pointed out.[167] To be sure. Q: After that incident. sir. we just waited because that raw information that he was reading to us [sic] after the custodial investigation. [Emphasis supplied][166] Col. and that he provided them information based on the input of an unnamed asset. sir. He simply claimed in his testimony that the ―informal letter‖ he received from his informant in Sulu did not indicate that Tagitis was in the custody of the CIDG.[165] x x x x Q: Were you informed as to the place where he was being kept during that time? A: He did not tell us where he [Tagitis] was being kept. Talbin‘s testimonies were far from perfect. Kasim never denied that he met with the respondent and her friends. But he mentioned this Talipapao. what did you do if any? A: We just left and as I’ve mentioned. Sulu. Kasim as a ―military officer‖ who told her that ―her husband is being abducted .A: Sometimes he was glancing to the report and talking to us. since Sr. Talbin‘s testimonies cannot simply be defeated by Col. what appears clear to us is that the petitioners never really steadfastly disputed or presented evidence to refute the credibility of the respondent and her witness. Supt.[170] Based on these considerations and the unique evidentiary situation in enforced disappearance cases. Talbin‘s testimony imputing certain statements to Sr. the inconsistencies are not on material points. but he is not certain whether it is the PNP or AFP is not worthy of belief. however. The inconsistencies the petitioners point out relate. reputedly a liaison for the JI and who had been under surveillance since January 2007. was “in good hands” and under custodial investigation for complicity with the JI after he was seen talking to one Omar Patik and a certain “Santos” of Bulacan.I.[168] We note. Kasim‘s plain denial and his claim that he had destroyed his informant‘s letter. Talbin. a “Balik Islam” charged with terrorism.‖ Upon deeper consideration of these inconsistencies. Supt. Tagitis is with the military. the critical piece of evidence that supports or negates the parties‘ conflicting claims. based on the informant’s letter. Kasim that Engr. we hold it duly established that Col. in contrast to testimonies from various witnesses dovetailing on every detail. Kasim informed the respondent and her friends. that Tagitis. would be proof of . Mrs.because he is under custodial investigation because he is allegedly ‗parang liason ng J. Talbin. that these witnesses are lay people in so far as military and police matters are concerned. and confusion between the police and the military is not unusual. As a rule. to details that should not affect the credibility of the respondent and Mrs. the latter cannot but generate suspicion that the material circumstances they testified to were integral parts of a well thought of and prefabricated story.‘‖ The petitioners also noted that ―Mrs. more than anything else. Kasim is a high ranking police officer who would certainly know that the PNP is not part of the military. a suppression of this evidence – raises the presumption that the letter. minor inconsistencies such as these indicate truthfulness rather than prevarication[169]and only tend to strengthen their probative value. Kasim‘s admitted destruction of this letter – effectively. for example. Col. if produced. The respondent‘s and Mrs. Kasim was never quoted to have said that the custodial investigation was by the CIDG Zamboanga. Strictly speaking. an immediate dismissal for this reason is no different from a statement that the Amparo Rule – despite its terms – is ineffective. we have no choice but to meet the evidentiary difficulties inherent in enforced disappearances with the flexibility that these difficulties demand. To our mind. as the situation may require.[172] To say that this piece of evidence is incompetent and inadmissible evidence of what it substantively states is to acknowledge – as the petitioners effectively suggest – that in the absence of any direct evidence. particularly in extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. using and profiting from local and international experiences in extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. we are faced here with a classic case of hearsay evidence – i. To give full meaning to our Constitution and the rights it protects.[171] For brevity. Kasim reported to the respondent to be the ―Kasim evidence.what the respondent claimed. Mrs. Kasim himself) but on the knowledge of some other person not on the witness stand (the informant).. we hold that. our next step is to decide whether we can accept this evidence. as proof that the disappearance of Tagitis was due to action with government participation. We note in this regard that Col.‖ Given this evidence. we shall call the evidence of what Col. It was promulgated to provide effective and timely remedies. Talbin and Col. as it cannot allow for the special evidentiary difficulties that are unavoidably present in Amparo situations.e. The Amparo Rule was not promulgated with this intent or with the intent to make it a token gesture of concern for constitutional rights. knowledge or consent and that he was held for custodial investigation. Consequently. as in Velasquez. we should at least take a close look at the available evidence . in lieu of direct evidence.‖ and does not at all point to CIDG Zamboanga as Tagitis‘ custodian. we should simply dismiss the petition. evidence whose probative value is not based on the personal knowledge of the witnesses (the respondent. The Kasim evidence only implies government intervention through the use of the term ―custodial investigation. He was reputedly a consultant of the World Bank and a Senior Honorary Counselor for the IDB who attended a seminar in Zamboanga and thereafter proceded to Jolo for an overnight stay. although he confirmed that the IDB was seeking assistance in locating funds of IDB scholars deposited in Tagitis‘ personal account. Prof. The Kasim evidence assumes critical materiality given the dearth of direct evidence on the above aspects of the case. we should at least determine whether the Kasim evidence before us is relevant and meaningful to the disappearance of Tagistis and reasonably consistent with other evidence in the case. The actual disappearance of Tagitis is as murky as his personal circumstances. It is the evidence. Nothing in the records indicates the purpose of his overnight sojourn in Jolo.30 p.‖ no evidence whatsoever was introduced to support this allegation.m. The evidence about Tagitis‘ personal circumstances surrounded him with an air of mystery. indicated by his request to Kunnong for the purchase of a return ticket to Zamboanga the day after he arrived in Jolo. In the present case. A colleague in the IDB.to determine the correct import of every piece of evidence – even of those usually considered inadmissible under the general rules of evidence – taking into account the surrounding circumstances and the test of reason that we can use as basic minimum admissibility requirement. 2007 – the day he arrived in Jolo – and was never seen again. too. Prof Matli later on stated that he never accused Tagitis of taking away money held in trust. early on informed the Jolo police that Tagitis may have taken funds given to him in trust for IDB scholars. Thus. Matli. Other than these pieces of evidence. While the Amparo petition recited that he was taken away by ―burly men believed to be police intelligence operatives. of October 30. the available direct evidence is that Tagitis was last seen at 12. that colors a simple missing person report into an enforced disappearance case. no other information exists in the records relating to the personal circumstances of Tagitis. as it injects the . as it supplies the gaps that were never looked into and clarified by police investigation. The respondent‘s own inquiry in Jolo yielded the answer that he was not missing but was with another woman somewhere. Ancanan in Zamboanga yielded ambivalent results not useful for evidentiary purposes. Denials on the part of the police authorities. a ―Balik Islam‖ charged with terrorism. More denials were manifested in the Returns on the writ to the CA made by the petitioners. the police informed Kunnong that Tagitis could have been taken by the Abu Sayyaf or other groups fighting the government. characterize the attempts to locate Tagitis. Again. Col. Kasim that yielded positive results. As already related above. None of the police agencies participating in the investigation ever pursued these leads. Avelino I. TASK FORCE TAGITIS to which this information was relayed did not appear to have lifted a finger to pursue these aspects of the case. however. .‖ PNP-CIDG Chief General Edgardo M. . and these reports merely reiterated the open-ended initial report of the disappearance. Thus. Razon merely reported the directives he sent to the ARMM Regional Director and the Regional Chief of the CIDG on Tagitis. his arrest or abduction). and frustration on the part of the respondent. Doromal. Mrs. Talbin mentioned. too. the inquiry with Col. without identifying his abductor/s or the party holding him in custody. Notably. and after a diligent and thorough research. that Tagitis was being held at Talipapao. no evidence exists that this explanation was arrived at based on an investigation. records show that no such person is being detained in the CIDG . Tagitis . Sulu. Morced N. No evidence was ever offered on whether there was active Jolo police investigation and how and why the Jolo police arrived at this conclusion. it was only the inquiry from Col. The CIDG directed a search in all of its divisions with negative results.element of participation by agents of the State and thus brings into question how the State reacted to the disappearance. Kasim‘s story. constituted the exhaustion ―of all possible efforts. These. confirmed only the fact of his custodial investigation (and. for his part. Initially in Jolo. Kasim‘s story is that the abduction came after Tagitis was seen talking with Omar Patik and a certain Santos of Bulacan. also reported negative results after searching ―all divisions and departments [of the CIDG] for a person named Engr. impliedly. The more significant part of Col. Then PNP Chief Gen. to the PNP Chief. however. We glean from all these pieces of evidence and developments a consistency in the government’s denial of any complicity in the disappearance of Tagitis. as they essentially reported the results of their directives to their units to search for Tagitis.or any of its department or divisions. Aside from the previously mentioned ―retraction‖ that Prof. he likewise considered it premature to conclude that Tagitis simply ran away with the money in his custody. Ajirim reiterated in his testimony that the CIDG consistently denied any knowledge or complicity in any abduction and said that there was no basis to conclude that the CIDG or any police unit had anything to do with the disappearance of Tagitis. Leonardo A. Col. The negative results reflected in the Returns on the writ were again replicated during the three hearings the CA scheduled. Kasim‘s ―asset‖ and what he indeed wrote. No investigation – even an internal one – appeared to have been made to inquire into the identity of Col. Matli made to correct his accusation that Tagitis took money held in trust for students. Kasim was not then questioned. Goltiao did no better in their affidavits-returns. Espina and PNP PRO ARMM Regional Director PC Superintendent Joel R. Sulu. despite the fact that he was designated as Ajirim‘s replacement in the latter‘s last post. Col. Kasim. PS Supt. Even Col. As already noted above. the TASK FORCE notably did not pursue any investigation about the personal circumstances of Tagitis. with specific directives on what to do. Kasim could not attend the trial because his subpoena was not served. These omissions and negative results were aggravated by the CA findings that it was only as late as January 28. his background in relation to the IDB and the background and activities of this Bank itself. Thus. and the reported sighting of Tagistis with terrorists and his alleged custody in Talipapao. 2008 or three months after the disappearance that the police authorities requested for clear pictures of Tagitis. No attempt appears to have ever been made to look into the alleged IDB funds that Tagitis held in trust. disrupted only by the report made by Col. or to tap any of the ―assets‖ who are indispensable in investigations of this nature. The extent to which the police authorities acted was fully tested when the CA constituted TASK FORCE TAGITIS. eventually denied that he ever . Kasim to the respondent at Camp Katitipan.‖ PNP-PACER Chief PS Supt. or equal detailed investigative reports of the activities undertaken to search for Tagitis. The returns and reports made to the CA fared no better. The consistent but unfounded denials and the haphazard investigations cannot but point to this conclusion. too. unequivocally point to some government complicity in the disappearance.made the disclosure that Tagitis was under custodial investigation for complicity in terrorism. the police authorities from the very beginning failed to come up to the extraordinary diligence that the Amparo Rule requires. starting from the initial response by the Jolo police to Kunnong‘s initial reports of the disappearance. no record of custody would ever appear in the CIDG records. As the CA found through TASK FORCE TAGITIS. as the CIDG efforts themselves were confined to searching for custodial records of Tagitis in their various departments and divisions. to the responses made to the respondent when she herself reported and inquired about her husband‘s disappearance. the investigation was at best haphazard since the authorities were looking for a man whose picture they initially did not even secure. would not be detained in the usual police or CIDG detention places. none of the reports on record contains any meaningful results or details on the depth and extent of the investigation made. Kasim‘s disclosure. For why would the government and its officials engage in their chorus of concealment if the intent had not been to deny what they already knew of the disappearance? Would not an indepth and thorough investigation that at least credibly determined the fate of . and even at TASK FORCE TAGITIS itself. To be sure. To point out the obvious. made in an unguarded moment. CONCLUSIONS AND THE AMPARO REMEDY Based on these considerations. Indisputably. Another distinctive trait that runs through these developments is the government’s dismissive approach to the disappearance. In sum. reports of top police officials indicating the personnel and units they directed to investigate can never constitute exhaustive and meaningful investigation. if the abduction of Tagitis was a ―black‖ operation because it was unrecorded or officially unauthorized. we conclude that Col. Tagitis. From the prism of the UN Declaration. Although there was no eyewitness evidence of the apprehension or subsequent detainment. including the right to life (Article 2) and the rights to liberty and security of a person (Article 5). the evidence and developments.[174] a case decided by ECHR. the facts of this case run very close to those of Timurtas v. The European tribunal in that case acted on the basis of the photocopy of a ―post-operation report‖ in finding that Abdulvahap Timurtas (Abdulvahap) was abducted and later detained by agents (gendarmes) of the government of Turkey. . The report included a description of Abdulvahap's arrest and the result of a subsequent interrogation during detention where he was accused of being a leader of the PKK in the Silopi region. Turkey was held responsible for Abdulvahap‘s enforced disappearance. gendarmes first detained Abdulvahap and then transferred him to another detainment facility. According to the father. including a photocopy of a post-operation report signed by the commander of gendarme operations in Silopi. the applicant presented evidence corroborating his version of events. While the facts are not exactly the same. heretofore cited and quoted. already establish a concrete case of enforced disappearance that the Amparo Rule covers. Turkey. particularly the Kasim evidence. The victim's father in this case brought a claim against Turkey for numerous violations of the European Convention. On this basis. The petition was filed in southeast Turkey nearly six and one half years after the apprehension. 1993. gendarmes apprehended his son. Abdulvahap for being a leader of the Kurdish Workers‘ Party (PKK) in the Silopi region. Turkey. The applicant contended that on August 14.Tagitis be a feather in the government‘s cap under the circumstances of the disappearance? From this perspective. This kind of fact situation and the conclusion reached are not without precedent in international enforced disappearance rulings. The disappearance as well effectively placed Tagitis outside the protection of the law – a situation that will subsist unless this Court acts. under a background of consistent and unfounded government denials and haphazard handling.[173] the evidence at hand and the developments in this case confirm the fact of the enforced disappearance and government complicity. effect the arrest of criminal offenders. should be held fully accountable for the enforced disappearance of Tagitis. For purposes of these investigations. the CA shall pass upon: the need for the PNP and the PNP-CIDG to make disclosures of matters known to them as indicated in this Decision and as further CA hearings may indicate. Jose Volpane Pante (then Chief of CIDG Region 9) testified.‖[175] specifies the PNP as the governmental office with the mandate ―to investigate and prevent crimes. through the PNP and the PNP-CIDG. The PNP and CIDG are accountable because Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6975. the PNP/PNP-CIDG shall initially present to the CA a plan of action for further investigation. and the validation of their results through hearings the CA may deem appropriate to conduct. particularly those considered as heinous crimes. otherwise known as the ―PNP Law. as applied to the unique facts and developments of this case – we believe and so hold that the government in general. the PNP and PNP-CIDG officials and members were the ones who were remiss in their duties when the government completely failed to exercise the extral'>To fully enforce the Amparoremedy. unless the President assigns the case exclusively to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). and in particular. Given their mandates.[177] No indication exists in this case showing that the President ever directly intervened by assigning the investigation of Tagitis‘ disappearance exclusively to the NBI. bring offenders to justice and assist in their prosecution.‖ The PNP-CIDG. Kasim.‖[176] Under the PNP organizational structure. as Col.adjusted to the Philippine legal setting and the Amparo remedy this Court has established. the Chiefs of these organizations together with Col. we refer this case back to the CA for appropriate proceedings directed at the monitoring of the PNP and the PNP-CIDG investigations and actions. On behalf of this Court. the PNP-CIDG is tasked to investigate all major crimes involving violations of the Revised Penal Code and operates against organized crime groups. the sufficiency of their . is the ―investigative arm‖ of the PNP and is mandated to ―investigate and prosecute all cases involving violations of the Revised Penal Code.Following the lead of this Turkish experience . periodically reporting the detailed results of its investigation to the CA for its consideration and action. the petitioners‘ submissions. Tagitis. through its Chief. Without any specific pronouncement on exact authorship and responsibility. Tagitis. Tagitis. Confirmation of the validity of the Writ of Amparo the Court of Appeals issued. The PNP and the PNP-CIDG shall have one (1) full year to undertake their investigation. b. c. directly responsible for the disclosure of material facts known to the government and to their offices regarding the disappearance of Engineer Morced N. Holding the PNP. actions and the validation of their results. 2008 under the following terms: a. and the PNP-CIDG. Tagitis is an enforced disappearance covered by the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. the PNP and . WHEREFORE. Referring this case back to the Court of Appeals for appropriate proceedings directed at the monitoring of the PNP and PNP-CIDG investigations. e. Ordering Colonel Julasirim Ahadin Kasim impleaded in this case and holding him accountable with the obligation to disclose information known to him and to his ―assets‖ in relation with the enforced disappearance of Engineer Morced N. and AFFIRM the decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 7. The CA shall submit its full report for the consideration of this Court at the end of the 4th quarter counted from the finality of this Decision. and submit to this Court a quarterly report containing its actions and recommendations. premises considered. with the obligation to show investigation results acceptable to this Court. through the PNP Chief.investigative efforts. and for the conduct of proper investigations using extraordinary diligence. Recognition that the disappearance of Engineer Morced N. copy furnished the petitioners and the respondent. f. with the first report due at the end of the first quarter counted from the finality of this Decision. we DENY the petitioners‘ petition for review on certiorari for lack of merit. d. declaring the government (through the PNP and the PNP-CIDG) and Colonel Julasirim Ahadin Kasim accountable for the enforced disappearance of Engineer Morced N. periodically reporting their results to the Court of Appeals for consideration and action. Zamboanga City. these directives – particularly. the Court of Appeals shall submit its full report for the consideration of this Court at the end of the 4 th quarter counted from the finality of this Decision. . with the first report due at the end of the first quarter counted from the finality of this Decision. and General Ruben Rafael. Anti-Terrorism Task Force Comet. Chief. Commanding General. Philippine Army. SO ORDERED. copy furnished the incumbent PNP and PNP-CIDG Chiefs as petitioners and the respondent. The PNP and the PNP-CIDG shall have one (1) full year to undertake their investigations. Given the unique nature of Amparo cases and their varying attendant circumstances. the PNP-CIDG shall initially present to the Court of Appeals a plan of action for further investigation. the referral back to and monitoring by the CA – are specific to this case and are not standard remedies that can be applied to every Amparo situation. and shall be directly enforceable against. The dismissal of the Amparo petition with respect to General Alexander Yano. These directives and those of the Court of Appeals‘ made pursuant to this Decision shall be given to. is hereby AFFIRMED. under pain of contempt from this Court when the initiatives and efforts at disclosure and investigation constitute less than the extraordinary diligence that the Rule on the Writ of Amparo and the circumstances of this case demand. whoever may be the incumbent Chiefs of the Philippine National Police and its Criminal Investigation and Detection Group. Requiring the Court of Appeals to submit to this Court a quarterly report with its recommendations.g. h. and MARY JOY RUBRICO CARBONEL. ARSENIO C. RUBRICO. GOMEZ. PERALTA. ANGELO CUARESMA. HERMOGENES ESPERON. JR.* BERSAMIN. GEN.R. a certain JONATHAN. Respondents.J. ROQUERO. No. CAPT.versus - G. DARWIN SY a. MAJ.Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC LOURDES D. GEN. EDGAR B.a. Petitioners. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO. VELASCO. DEL CASTILLO. . NACHURA. P/SUPT. 183871 Present: PUNO. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO. RUBEN ALFARO. AVELINO RAZON.. .k. CORONA. C. BRION. CARPIO MORALES. JEAN RUBRICO APRUEBO. JIMMY SANTANA.. P/DIR. CARPIO. DARWIN REYES. and OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN. 2007 was originally filed before this Court. PEREZ. VILLARAMA. Lourdes D. JR. SP No. After issuing the desired writ and directing the respondents to file a verified written return. J. The petition for the writ of amparo dated October 25. Promulgated: February 18. and MENDOZA.: In this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 19[1] of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo[2] (Amparo Rule).ABAD. 2010 x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x DECISION VELASCO. and Mary Joy Rubrico Carbonel assail and seek to set aside the Decision[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated July 31.R. JR. 2008 in CAG. Jean Rubrico Apruebo. the following allegations: . Rubrico. The petition and its attachments contained. 00003. in substance. JJ. a petition commenced under the Amparo Rule... the Court referred the petition to the CA for summary hearing and appropriate action. Fernando Air Base and Maj.conducted alternately by hooded individuals . coming in the form of being tailed on at least two occasions at different places. continued. Gomez). Lourdes has filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a criminal complaint for kidnapping and arbitrary detention and administrative complaint for gross abuse of authority and grave misconduct against Capt. for short) based in Fernando Air Base in Lipa City abducted Lourdes D. then attending a Lenten pabasa in Bagong Bayan. by motorcycle-riding men in bonnets. Jimmy Santana (Santana) and a certain Jonathan. the air base without charges. Mary Joy R. Lourdes. failed to make an investigation even after Lourdes’ disappearance had been made known to him.1. armed men belonging to the 301 st Air Intelligence and Security Squadron (AISS. Dasmariñas. Insp. Cavite and Baclaran in Pasay City. P/Sr. 2007. 4. Angelo Cuaresma (Cuaresma). Dasmariñas. A week after Lourdes’ release. During the time Lourdes was missing. On April 3.and what amounts to verbal abuse and mental harassment. another daughter. Sy/Reyes with address at No. After Lourdes‘ release.. Arsenio Gomez (P/Insp. and brought to. c/o Headquarters 301st AISS. Ruben Alfaro (Alfaro). Apruebo (Jean). 2. an alliance of human rights organizations. however. Carbonel (Mary Joy). Cavite. Jean R. then sub-station commander of Bagong Bayan. the harassment. Following a week of relentless interrogation . was released at Dasmariñas. 09 . He. Cavite. Cavite. Dasmariñas. 3. her hometown. i. and detained at. was constrained to leave their house because of the presence of men watching them. but only after being made to sign a statement that she would be a military asset. chair of the Ugnayan ng Maralita para sa Gawa Adhikan. bringing her to beaches and asking her questions about Karapatan.e. kept sending text messages to Lourdes’ daughter. Rubrico (Lourdes). Karapatan conducted an investigation on the incidents. and the threats and harassment incidents have been reported to the Dasmariñas municipal and Cavite provincial police stations. respondents President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Before the CA. namely Capt. and the OMB (answering respondents. The petition prayed that a writ of amparo issue. collectively) filed.) Avelino Razon. Parañaque City.. then Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief. Police Superintendent (P/Supt. but nothing has happened. Darwin Sy/Reyes. Two of the four witnesses to Lourdes’ abduction went into hiding after being visited by government agents in civilian clothes. Merville Subd.) Roquero of the Cavite Police Provincial Office. and 5. Santana. It also prayed for damages and for respondents to produce documents submitted to any of them on the case of Lourdes. Cuaresma of the PAF. led the abduction of Lourdes. that unknown to the abductors. but nothing eventful resulted from their respective investigations. Cuaresma of the Philippine Air Force (PAF). Jonathan and Maj. now retired. through the Office of the Solicitor . Gen. Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Gomez.. The investigation would indicate that men belonging to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). Gen. ordering the individual respondents to desist from performing any threatening act against the security of the petitioners and for the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) to immediately file an information for kidnapping qualified with the aggravating circumstance of gender of the offended party. Alfaro. Hermogenes Esperon. then Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Chief of Staff. Lourdes was able to pilfer a “mission order” which was addressed to CA Ruben Alfaro and signed by Capt. Police Director-General (P/Dir.Amsterdam Ext. pursuant to a directive of then Secretary of National Defense (SND) Gilberto C. also undertook a parallel action.. and Sy/Reyes. Esperon – attested that. containing their respective affirmative defenses and/or statements of what they had undertaken or committed to undertake regarding the claimed disappearance of Lourdes and the harassments made to bear on her and her daughters: 1. namely: Cuaresma. as it fails to indicate the matters required by Sec. with information to all concerned units.[4] Attached to the return were the affidavits of the following.[5] . And by way of general affirmative defenses. Esperon manifested his resolve to provide the CA with material results of the investigation. to the bar of justice when warranted by the findings and the competent evidence that may be gathered in the investigation process by those mandated to look into the matter. Santana. Alfaro. 5(d) and (e) of the Amparo Rule. he ordered the Commanding General of the PAF. Gen. and (2) the petition is incomplete. to continue with the probe on the alleged abduction of Lourdes and to bring those responsible. Gen. for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations’ truth. among other public officials. AFP. Jonathan.General (OSG). a joint return on the writ specifically denying the material inculpatory averments against them. Jr. Teodoro. including military personnel. to conduct an investigation to establish the circumstances behind the disappearance and the reappearance of Lourdes insofar as the involvement of alleged personnel/unit is concerned. The OSG also denied the allegations against the following impleaded persons. The Provost Marshall General and the Office of the Judge Advocate General (JAGO). answering respondents interposed the following defenses: (1) the President may not be sued during her incumbency. Muga. however.[6] 3. which plate was issued for a Mitsubishi van to AK Cottage Industry with address at 9 Amsterdam St. Merville Subd. at the same time. Gen. observing that neither Lourdes nor her relatives provided the police with relevant information. Razon . The person residing in the apartment on that given address is one Darius/Erwin See @ Darius Reyes allegedly working. 2007 and dragged aboard a Toyota Revo with plate number XRR 428. and that a background verification with the PNP Personnel Accounting and Information System disclosed that the names Santana. Alfaro.2. Gen. Roquero – stated conducting. an investigation and submitting the corresponding report to the PNP Calabarzon. Parañaque City. Nonetheless. . bemoaned the fact that Mrs. in Camp Aguinaldo. P/Dir. Razon disclosed.stated that an investigation he immediately ordered upon receiving a copy of the petition is on-going vis-à-vis Lourdes’ abduction. per the latter’s house helper. P/Dir. he manifested that the PNP is ready to assist and protect the petitioners and the key witnesses from threats. upon receipt of Lourdes’ complaint. although the PNP files carry the name of Darwin Reyes Y. Gen. Per the initial investigation report of the Dasmariñas municipal police station. P/Dir. P/Supt. although she is in the best position to establish the identity of her abductors and/or provide positive description through composite sketching. Rubrico never contacted nor coordinated with the local police or other investigating units of the PNP after her release. Lourdes was abducted by six armed men in the afternoon of April 3.. harassments and intimidation from whatever source and. Cuaresma and one Jonathan do not appear in the police personnel records. Razon.. to assist the Court in the implementation of its orders. Gomez – alleged that Lourdes. and 5. P/Insp. Overall Deputy Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro . petitioners pointed out that the return was no more than a general denial of averments in the petition. At the hearing of November 20. owing to their failure to secure the current address of the latter five and thus submit. The hearing started on November 13. Santana. Capt. And with leave of court. respectively. proof of service of the petition on them. as the CA required. thus. 2007. Cuaresma. the CA granted petitioners‘ motion that the petition and writ be served by the court‘s process server on Darwin Sy/Reyes. . and Jonathan. petitioners‘ counsel prayed for the issuance of a temporary protection order (TPO) against the answering respondents on the basis of the allegations in the petition. Alfaro. have been filed with. Alfaro. proper coordination was made with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and other Law Enforcement Offices (MOLEO) where the subject criminal and administrative complaints were filed. Darwin Sy.4. pleaded to be allowed to present evidence ex parte against the President. Santana. they also asked to serve notice of the petition through publication. Cuaresma.[7] In that setting. and are under preliminary investigation by the OMB against those believed to be involved in Lourdes’ kidnapping. and Jonathan.alleged that cases for violation of Articles 267 and 124. 2007. that upon receipt of the petition for a writ of amparo. They. or kidnapping and arbitrary detention. her kin and witnesses refused to cooperate with the investigating Cavite PNP. Capt. Commenting on the return. The Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and P/Dir. The bottom line is that. partial judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the instant petition with respect to respondent Gen. Avelino Razon. by separate resolutions.[8] After due proceedings. and the issuance of a TPO are not of decisive pertinence in this recital. denied the motion for a TPO for the court’s want of authority to issue it in the tenor sought by petitioners. subject of this review. Insp. disposing of the petition but only insofar as the answering respondents were concerned. the heads of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police are directed to ensure that the investigations already commenced are diligently pursued to bring the perpetrators to justice. premises considered. Avelino Razon are directed to regularly update petitioners and this Court on the status of their investigation. Roquero. Nevertheless. 17.) and the Office of the Ombudsman. P/Sr. Supt. Arsenio C. . Gen. in order that petitioners’ complaint will not end up as another unsolved case. on July 31. 2008.The legal skirmishes that followed over the propriety of excluding President Arroyo from the petition. Gen. the CA dropped the President as respondent in the case. petitioners’ motions for service by publication. Edgar B. the CA rendered. its partial judgment. and effectively denied the motion for notice by publication owing to petitioners’ failure to submit the affidavit required under Sec. Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. Gomez (ret. The fallo of the CA decision reads as follows: WHEREFORE. Hermogenes Esperon. P/Dir. petitioners formulate the issue for resolution in the following wise: WHETHER OR NOT the [CA] committed reversible error in dismissing [their] Petition and dropping President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as party respondent. the Head of State. hindrance or distraction to enable him to fully attend to the performance of his official duties and functions. if he can be dragged into court litigations while serving as such. The presidential immunity from suit remains preserved under our system of government. S. Petitioners are mistaken. Unlike the legislative . The 1987 Constitution. Furthermore. Macapagal-Arroyo.SO ORDERED.[9] The Court subsequently made it abundantly clear in David v. and why this must be so: Settled is the doctrine that the President. and there is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or law. It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President. so they claim. has removed such immunity heretofore enjoyed by the chief executive under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. it is important that he be freed from any form of harassment. observed that it was already understood in jurisprudence that the President may not be sued during his or her tenure. a case likewise resolved under the umbrella of the 1987 Constitution. during his tenure of office or actual incumbency. Addressing a concern of his co-members in the 1986 Constitutional Commission on the absence of an express provision on the matter. In this recourse.J. that indeed the President enjoys immunity during her incumbency. may not be sued in any civil or criminal case. Joaquin Bernas. Petitioners first take issue on the President‘s purported lack of immunity from suit during her term of office. albeit not expressly reserved in the present constitution. Fr. Esperon and P/Dir. Razon is incorrect if viewed against the . were responsible for the unlawful acts allegedly committed by their subordinates against petitioners. the dismissal by the CA of the case as against Gen. None of the four individual respondents immediately referred to above has been implicated as being connected to. Esperon and P/Dir. members of the military or the police force.[13] As explained by the CA. Razon. and the OMB. Gen. Esperon and P/Dir. While in a qualified sense tenable. Razon for the simple reason that petitioners have not presented evidence showing that those who allegedly abducted and illegally detained Lourdes and later threatened her and her family were. as commanders. The same goes for the respective Sinumpaang Salaysay and/or Karagdagang Sinumpaang Salaysay of Jean[12] and Mary Joy. Gen. P/Supt. the CA‘s holding broadly hinted. P/Insp. Gomez. would have been accountable for the abduction and threats if the actual malefactors were members of the AFP or PNP. the petition is simply bereft of any allegation as to what specific presidential act or omission violated or threatened to violate petitioners‘ protected rights. Esperon. in fact.[10] x x x And lest it be overlooked.‖ The two generals. This brings us to the correctness of the assailed dismissal of the petition with respect to Gen. P/Dir.and judicial branch. Gen. albeit there were allegations against P/Insp. ―the privilege of the writ of amparo must be denied as against Gen. Gen. Gomez of acts constituting threats against Mary Joy. As regards the three other answering respondents. Their names were not even mentioned in Lourdes‘ Sinumpaang Salaysay[11] of April 2007. Razon were included in the case on the theory that they. Gen. let alone as being behind. the alleged abduction and harassment of petitioner Lourdes. Roquero. To the appellate court. only one constitutes the executive branch and anything which impairs his usefulness in the discharge of the many great and important duties imposed upon him by the Constitution necessarily impairs the operation of the Government. they were impleaded because they allegedly had not exerted the required extraordinary diligence in investigating and satisfactorily resolving Lourdes‘ disappearance or bringing to justice the actual perpetrators of what amounted to a criminal act. developed. if at all.. or threats.[15] foreshadowing the present-day precept of holding a superior accountable for the atrocities committed by his subordinates should he be remiss in his duty of control over them. Bernas. since the Senate has yet to extend concurrence in its ratification. According to Fr. The doctrine has recently been codified in the Rome Statute[17] of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to which the Philippines is signatory. has little. bearing in amparo proceedings. [20] It may plausibly be contended that command responsibility. command responsibility is ―an omission mode of individual criminal liability. command responsibility. The evolution of the command responsibility doctrine finds its context in the development of laws of war and armed combats. as a concept defined. and applied under international law. Sec. for individual respondents‘ criminal liability. The country is. as legal basis to hold military/police commanders liable for extra-legal killings. if there be any. The Court assumes the latter stance owing to the fact that command responsibility. enforced disappearances. may be made applicable to this jurisdiction on the theory that the command responsibility doctrine now constitutes a principle of international law or customary international law in accordance with the incorporation clause of the Constitution.e.‖ in its simplest terms.backdrop of the stated rationale underpinning the assailed decision vis-à-vis the two generals. command responsibility is properly a form of criminal complicity. means the ―responsibility of commanders for crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other persons subject to their control in international wars or domestic conflict. as the CA seemed to have done. 28 of the Statute imposes individual responsibility on military commanders for crimes committed by forces under their control. As then formulated. however.‖[14] In this sense.[18] While there are several pending bills on command responsibility. not yet formally bound by the terms and provisions embodied in this treaty-statute.[19] there is still no Philippine law that provides for criminal liability under that doctrine. The Hague Conventions of 1907 adopted the doctrine of command responsibility. i. ―command responsibility.[21] Still.‖ whereby the superior is made responsible for crimes committed by his subordinates for failing to prevent or punish the perpetrators[16] (as opposed to crimes he ordered). as a form of criminal complicity through omission. is beyond the reach . it would be inappropriate to apply to these proceedings the doctrine of command responsibility. As intimated earlier. or as a prelude to administrative disciplinary proceedings under existing administrative issuances. Tagitis: It does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the disappearance [threats thereof or extra-judicial killings]. or at least accountability. the determination of what acts are criminal x x x are matters of substantive law that only the Legislature has the power to enact. extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances in this jurisdiction are not crimes penalized separately from the component criminal acts undertaken to carry out these killings and enforced disappearances and are now penalized under the Revised Penal Code and special laws. In other words. the Court does not rule in such proceedings on any issue of criminal culpability. As the Court stressed in Secretary of National Defense v.‖[23] Of the same tenor.[24] x x x If command responsibility were to be invoked and applied to these proceedings.of amparo. xxxx As the law now stands. however. at the first instance. and by way of expounding on the nature and role of amparo. it determines responsibility. is accountable for. ―is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt x x x or administrative liability requiring substantial evidence that will require full and exhaustive proceedings. is what the Court said in Razon v. and security of persons. if there be any. it should. the disappearance and harassments complained of. the corresponding amparo suit. be only to determine the author who. liberty. for the enforced disappearance [threats thereof or extra-judicial killings] for purposes of imposing the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance [or extra-judicial killings]. The simple reason is that the Legislature has not spoken on the matter. however. the determination should not be pursued to fix criminal liability on respondents preparatory to criminal prosecution. and has the duty to address. .[22] the writ of amparo was conceived to provide expeditious and effective procedural relief against violations or threats of violation of the basic rights to life. at most. so as to enable the Court to devise remedial measures that may be appropriate under the premises to protect rights covered by the writ of amparo. even if incidentally a crime or an infraction of an administrative rule may have been committed. Manalo (Manalo). k. if taken together. were not members of the PNP. the other alleged abductors. a verification with the Personnel Accounting and Information System of the PNP yielded the information that. Santana. her being forcibly dragged to a vehicle blindfolded and then being brought to a place where the sounds of planes taking off and landing could be heard. Romano.. Air Force Adjutant. Petitioners. To a concrete point. would tend to show a link. namely Cuaresma. between the license plate (XRR 428) of the vehicle allegedly used in the abduction of Lourdes and the address of Darwin Reyes/Sy. when given the opportunity to identify Police Officer 1 Darwin Reyes y Muga. however. and Sy/Reyes. per the certification[28] of Col. Neither were they members of any unit of the Philippine Air Force. logically point to military involvement in the alleged disappearance of Lourdes. as the CA has declared.‖ Still and all. except for a certain Darwin Reyes y Muga. A preliminary police investigation report. have not successfully controverted answering respondents‘ documentary evidence. none of the alleged abductors of Lourdesbelonged to the 301st AISS based in San Fernando Air Base. Santana and Jonathan. Darwin Reyes a. petitioners have not shown that the actual perpetrators of the abduction and the harassments that followed formally or informally formed part of either the military or the police chain of command. there were affidavits and testimonies on events that transpired which. respectively.a. however hazy. Cuaresma. Darwin Sy they were implicating in Lourdes’ abduction. too.Petitioners. made no effort to confirm if he was the same Maj. the identities and links to the AFP or the PNP of the alleged abductors. Based on the separate sworn statements of Maj. adduced to debunk the former‘s allegations directly linking Lourdes‘ abductors and tormentors to the military or the police . her abduction in broad daylight. Alfaro. have not adduced substantial evidence pointing to government involvement in the disappearance of Lourdes. such as. who was alleged to be working in Camp Aguinaldo. have yet to be established. but not limited to. i. Petitioners. And as stated in the challenged CA decision. Jonathan. Raul Dimatactac.[27] officer-in-charge and a staff of the 301st AISS.[25] Then. to be sure. Mention may also be made of the fact thatLourdes was asked about her membership in the Communist Party and of being released when she agreed to become an ―asset. Alfaro.e. Paul Ciano[26] and Technical Sergeant John N. [29] The Court is. [31] it is more than a scintilla of evidence. It means such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. But it is precisely for this reason that the Court should take care too that no wrong message is sent. when queried on cross-examination. The Court finds no compelling reason to disturb the appellate court‘s determination of the answering respondents‘ role in the alleged enforced disappearance of petitioner Lourdes and the threats to her family‘s security. (Emphasis added. Sec.) Substantial evidence is more than a mere imputation of wrongdoing or violation that would warrant a finding of liability against the person charged. Razon. aware of what was referred to inRazon[30] as the ―evidentiary difficulties‖ presented by the nature of. 17. in fact. as complemented by Sec. consisting of the testimonies and affidavits of the three Rubrico women and five other individuals.[32] Per the CA‘s evaluation of their evidence. in issuing directives to the concerned units in their respective commands for a thorough probe of the case and . In a very real sense. even the outlandish. We note. expressly prescribes the minimum evidentiary substantiation requirement and norm to support a cause of action under the Rule. would suffice to secure amparo remedies and protection.— The parties shall establish their claims by substantial evidence. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required. lost no time. the privilege shall be denied. and encountered by petitioners in. lest one conclude that any kind or degree of evidence. 18. thus: Sec. petitioners have not satisfactorily hurdled the evidentiary bar required of and assigned to them under the Amparo Rule. the Court notes that both Gen. 18 of the Amparo Rule. Judgment. that Lourdes. Notwithstanding the foregoing findings. even if other equally reasonable minds might opine otherwise. the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate. per their separate affidavits. upon their receipt of the order to make a return on the writ. of course. otherwise. enforced disappearance cases. the burden of evidence never even shifted to answering respondents. 17. Esperon and P/Dir. expressed the belief that Sy/Reyes was an NBI agent. Gen.establishment. xxxx Sec.—x x x If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence. make any headway. The seeming reluctance on the part of the Rubricos or their witnesses to cooperate ought not to pose a hindrance to the police in pursuing. ―[They] do not trust the government agencies to protect them. ineffective––investigation by the military or the police of reported cases under their jurisdiction. enforced disappearances. her family. the investigations have yet to be concluded with some definite findings and recommendation. the right to security of persons is a guarantee of the protection of one‘s right by the government. and like details of the disappearance. including P/Supt. such as the Toyota Revo vehicle with plate number XRR 428.[33] the right to security. As police officers. and following evidentiary leads. however. As of this date. manner. Atty. is breached by the superficial and one-sided––hence. They could not. As we said in Manalo. Petitioners‘ counsel. though. and securing and preserving evidence related to the abduction and the threats that may aid in the prosecution of the person/s responsible.in providing the investigators the necessary support. An . Gomez. and her witnesses to cooperate. as the case may be. As found by the CA. Rex J. As regards P/Supt. Fernandez.M. provided a plausible explanation for his clients and their witnesses‘ attitude. To repeat what the Court said in Manalo. a duty that would include looking into the cause. Gomez. identifying witnesses and obtaining statements from them. the Court is more than satisfied that they have no direct or indirect hand in the alleged enforced disappearance of Lourdes and the threats against her daughters. And this protection includes conducting effective investigations of extra-legal killings. however. the local police stations concerned. theirs was the duty to thoroughly investigate the abduction of Lourdes. is alleged to be the same party who investigates it is understandable.[35] in which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights pronounced: [The duty to investigate] must be undertaken in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective. The nature and importance of an investigation are captured in the Velasquez Rodriguez case. as a guarantee of protection by the government. Roquero and P/Insp. Romero and P/Insp. owing to what was perceived to be the refusal of Lourdes. on its own initiative.A. did conduct a preliminary fact-finding on petitioners‘ complaint.‖[34] The difficulty arising from a situation where the party whose complicity in extra-judicial killing or enforced disappearance. though. or threats of the same kind. the investigation in question to its natural end. We cite with approval the following self-explanatory excerpt from the appealed CA decision: In fact. Gomez (ret) committed against her or her mother and sister. regardless of whether the perpetrator of the unlawful act or omission is a public official or employee or a private individual. during her cross-examination. Alfaro. With the view we take of this incident. and Sy/Reyes. there is nothing concrete to support the charge. The requisite orders for the submission of counter-affidavits and verified position papers had been sent out. Alfaro. The privilege of the writ of amparo.investigation must have an objective and be assumed by the State as its own legal duty. without an effective search for the truth by the government. Jonathan.) This brings us to Mary Joy‘s charge of having been harassed by respondent P/Insp. Gomez. The mailed envelopes containing the petition for a writ of amparo individually addressed to each of them have all been returned unopened. Mary Joy replied ―None …‖[36] Similarly. respectively. the OMB has taken the necessary appropriate action on said complaint. At this juncture. As culled from the affidavit[37] of the Deputy Overall Ombudsman and the joint affidavits[38] of the designated investigators. all dated November 7. there appears to be no basis for petitioners‘ allegations about the OMB failing to act on their complaint against those who allegedly abducted and illegally detained Lourdes. 2007. Santana. commenced criminal[39] and administrative[40] proceedings. And petitioners‘ motion interposed before the appellate court for notice or service via publication has not been accompanied by supporting affidavits as . Jonathan. on the basis of said complaint. is a remedy available to victims of extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances or threats of similar nature. against Cuaresma. when asked what specific act or threat P/Sr. it bears to state that petitioners have not provided the CA with the correct addresses of respondents Cuaresma. save for Mary Joy‘s bare allegations of harassment. and Sy/Reyes. Santana. (Emphasis added. to reiterate. the OMB had. Contrary to petitioners‘ contention. docketed as OMB-P-C-07-0602-E and OMB-P-A 07-567-E. not a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon offer of proof. i. by showing that they acted with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the government. liberty. 20 of the Amparo Rule on archiving and reviving cases. or personal security. or security.. lest the ideal sought by the Amparo Rule be diluted and undermined by the indiscriminate filing of amparo petitions for purposes less than the desire to secure amparo reliefs and protection and/or on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. against responding respondents. Accordingly. that petitioners‘ allegation on the fact of the abduction incident or harassment is necessarily contrived. that the Court order the impleaded respondents ―to immediately desist from doing any acts that would threaten or seem to threaten the security of the Petitioners and to desist from approaching Petitioners. or in case identification is not possible. In their petition for a writ of amparo. the remedy ought to be resorted to and granted judiciously. the appealed CA partial judgment–– disposing of the underlying petition for a writ of amparo without (1) pronouncement as to the accountability. The reality on the ground.e. liberty. as their main prayer. the adverted harassments and threats to their life.[42] It is an extraordinary writ conceptualized and adopted in light of and in response to the prevalence of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.[43] Accordingly. of the four non-answering respondents or (2) outright dismissal of the same petition as to them––hews to the prescription of Sec. is that the military or police connection has not been adequately proved either by identifying the malefactors as components of the AFP or PNP. as responsible for the disappearance and harassments complained of.required by the Rules of Court. and security of persons. petitioners asked. This is not to say.[41]Parenthetically. failed to adduce the threshold substantive evidence to establish the predicate facts to support their cause of action.‖ Petitioners. however. liberty. the petition did not allege ultimate facts as would link the OMB in any manner to the violation or threat of violation of the petitioners‘ rights to life. The privilege of the writ of amparo is envisioned basically to protect and guarantee the rights to life. free from fears and threats that vitiate the quality of this life. the Court is unable to ascribe the authorship of and responsibility for the alleged enforced disappearance of Lourdes and the . however. x x x their residences and offices where they are working under pain of contempt of [this] Court. or lack of it. For this reason. however. Apart from the foregoing considerations. petitioners have also not furnished this Court with sufficient data as to where the afore-named respondents may be served a copy of their petition for review. At this stage. The protection came in the form of directives specifically to Gen. accordingly. Esperon in his capacity as head of the AFP and. First. the dismissal of the case against them is correct and must. Esperon and P/Dir. under them on the complaints of Lourdes and her daughters are being pursued with urgency to bring to justice the perpetrators of the acts complained of. alternatively. Gen. that the police and the military take specific measures for the protection of petitioners‘ right or threatened right to liberty or security. respectively. The directives obviously go to Gen. The usual initial steps to determine the existence of a prima facie case against the five (5) impleaded individuals suspected to be actually involved in the detention of Lourdes have been set in motion. Consider: the appellate court decreed. Esperon and P/Dir. are hereby given to. As the CA.harassment and threats on her daughters to individual respondents. the CA directives. a crime-preventing. in a sense. and rightly so. Gen. and shall be directly enforceable against. the Court distinctly notes that the appealed decision veritably extended the privilege of the writ of amparo to petitioners when it granted what to us are amparo reliefs. Gen. To this extent. On the other hand. requiring each of them (1) to ensure that the investigations already commenced by the AFP and PNP units. formulated its directives. a regular report on the progress and status of the investigations. It also failed to consider Gen. respectively. and arresting institution. two postulates and their implications need highlighting for a proper disposition of this case. that . and (2) to submit to the CA. whoever sits as the commanding general of the AFP and the PNP. a criminal complaint for kidnapping and. Razon is called upon to perform a duty pertaining to the PNP. docketed as OMB-P-C-O70602-E. Prescinding from the above considerations. however. no definitive time frame was set in its decision for the completion of the investigation and the reportorial requirements. for arbitrary detention rooted in the same acts and incidents leading to the filing of the subject amparo petition has been instituted with the OMB. chief guarantor of order and security in the country. Accordingly. as hereinafter redefined and amplified to fully enforce the amparo remedies. investigatory. copy furnished the petitioners. though. Razon. P/Dir. Razon‘s imminent compulsory retirement from the military and police services. It must be pointed out. be sustained. has dismissed the petition. as complainant in OMB-P-C-O7-0602-E.the filing[44] of the OMB complaint came before the effectivity of the Amparo Rule on October 24. Second. the OMB shall be given easy access to all pertinent documents and evidence. and (3) the complaint in OMB-P-C-O7-0602-E named as respondents only those believed to be the actual abductors of Lourdes. Under the terms of said Sec. Withal. in the meanwhile. should be allowed. Then. 22. But as things stand. been commenced. in addition. the present petition ought to have been dismissed at the outset. the acts and/or omissions subject of the criminal complaint and the amparo petition are so linked as to call for the consolidation of both proceedings to obviate the mischief inherent in a multiplicity-of-suits situation. Yet. 23. Given the above perspective and to fully apply the beneficial nature of the writ of amparo as an inexpensive and effective tool to protect certain rights violated or threatened to be violated. The succeeding Sec. Lourdes. provides that when the criminal suit is filed subsequent to a petition for amparo. the outright dismissal of the petition by force of that section is no longer technically feasible in light of the interplay of the following factual mix: (1) the Court has. while the instant petition impleaded. but not on the basis of Sec. 22[45] of the Amparo Rule proscribes the filing of an amparo petition should a criminal action have. to amend her basic criminal complaint if the consolidation of cases is to be fully effective. the petition shall be consolidated with the criminal action where the Amparo Rule shall nonetheless govern the disposition of the relief under the Rule. pursuant to Sec. 2007. 22 and 23 of the Amparo Rule to fittingly address the situation obtaining under the premises. too. (2) the CA. already issued ex parte the writ of amparo. two things are at once indicated: (1) the consolidation of the probe and fact-finding aspects of the instant petition with the investigation of the criminal complaint before the OMB. Necessarily. adduced before the CA. and (2) the incorporation in the same criminal complaint of the allegations in this petition bearing on the threats to the right to security. if any.[46] on the other hand. 6[47] of the Rule. the OMB should be furnished copies of the investigation reports to aid that body in its own investigation and eventual resolution of OMB-P-C-O7-0602-E. if so minded. . after a summary hearing. the Court hereby adjusts to a degree the literal application of Secs. Sec. those tasked to investigate the kidnapping and detention incidents and their superiors at the top. 22. [48] Towards this end. (b) Pursue with extraordinary diligence the evidentiary leads relating to Maj. Angelo Cuaresma. in particular. Ruben Alfaro.k. to do the following: (a) Determine based on records. Gen. Capt. as then AFP Chief of Staff and then PNP Chief. Darwin Reyes. past and present. the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS this petition for review and makes a decision: (1) Affirming the dropping of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from the petition for a writ of amparo. the CA. and the incumbent Director-General of the PNP. Avelino Razon. XRR 428. or his successor. 17[49] of the Amparo Rule. to attach accountability and responsibility to them. AFP. a. Darwin Sy. and .WHEREFORE. Jimmy Santana. and submit certifications of this determination to the OMB with copy furnished to petitioners. Hermogenes Esperon. (2) Affirming the dismissal of the amparo case as against Gen. The dismissal of the petition with respect to the OMB is also affirmed for failure of the petition to allege ultimate facts as to make out a case against that body for the enforced disappearance of Lourdes and the threats and harassment that followed. under the command responsibility principle. and (3) Directing the incumbent Chief of Staff. for the alleged enforced disappearance of Lourdes and the ensuing harassments allegedly committed against petitioners. to ensure that the investigations already commenced by their respective units on the alleged abduction of Lourdes Rubrico and the alleged harassments and threats she and her daughters were made to endure are pursued with extraordinary diligence as required by Sec. or his successor. insofar as it tended. Darwin Sy and the Toyota Revo vehicle with Plate No. the identities and locations of respondents Maj. and this Court. and P/Dir. They shall order their subordinate officials. and one Jonathan.a. Ruben Alfaro. and within thirty (30) days after completion of the investigations.(c) Prepare. Jimmy Santana. Angelo Cuaresma. the Chief of Staff of the AFP and the Director-General of the PNP shall submit a full report of the results of the investigations to the Court. The investigations shall be completed not later than six (6) months from receipt of this Decision. with the assistance of petitioners and/or witnesses. and a certain Jonathan to aid in positively identifying and locating them. the OMB. Capt. 2008 of the CA. the CA. Sy/Reyes. the Court AFFIRMS the partial judgment dated July 31. and petitioners. This case is accordingly referred back to the CA for the purpose of monitoring the investigations and the actions of the AFP and the PNP. SO ORDERED. cartographic sketches of respondents Maj. Subject to the foregoing modifications. . No. (RET. 184495 CONCEPCION E.) GEN. COL. CADAPAN AND CONCEPCION E. P/DIR.R. EMPEÑO.versus - ERLINDA T. x------------------------------------x ERLINDA T. (RET. Petitioners. COL. . No. Respondents. LT.R.) GEN. ROMEO TOLENTINO. ROGELIO BOAC. Petitioners. LT. CADAPAN AND CONCEPCION E. ROGELIO BOAC. 184461-62 COL.versus - GEN.GEN. Respondents. FELIPE ANOTADO AND LT. FRANCIS MIRABELLE SAMSON. Nos. AVELINO RAZON. G. ET AL.EN BANC LT. FELIPE ANOTADO. 187109 Present: . HERMOGENES ESPERON. CADAPAN AND G. G. x-------------------------------x ERLINDA T. EMPEÑO. EMPEÑO. . COL.. JOVITO PALPARAN.R. LT. Petitioners. . 2006. CORONA..... 173228. A. (RET. their respective families scoured nearby police precincts and military camps in the hope of finding them but the same yielded nothing. of June 26. ROGELIO BOAC..** JJ. AVELINO RAZON. Francis Mirabelle Samson (Lt. CARPIO... Col.. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO. CARPIO MORALES...* ABAD... and MENDOZA.... armed men abducted Sherlyn Cadapan (Sherlyn). Palparan).... Col.. Karen and Merino.m. FELIPE ANOTADO. JR. COL.. Lt.) GEN.K.versus - GLORIA MACAPAGALARROYO..** VILLARAMA. 2011 x..x DECISION CARPIO MORALES.. Karen Empeño (Karen) and Manuel Merino (Merino) from a house in San Miguel. C. LT. Bulacan. Rogelio Boac (Lt...: At 2:00 a. PERALTA. PEREZ.. spouses Asher and Erlinda Cadapan and Concepcion Empeño filed a petition for habeas corpus[1] before the Court... . impleading then Generals Romeo Tolentino and Jovito Palparan (Gen. DEL CASTILLO. ARNEL ENRIQUEZ AND LT... Arnel Enriquez and Lt. ALAN OR ALVIN.... NACHURA. GEN...GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON. On July 17.. Promulgated: May 31...A.. LT. FRANCIS MIRABELLE SAMSON. Mirabelle) as respondents..) GEN.. VELASCO.. JOVITO PALPARAN.. The three were herded onto a jeep bearing license plate RTF 597 that sped towards an undisclosed location. Hagonoy. Boac).. No. J. BERSAMIN.. P/DIR. 2006.. Having thereafter heard nothing from Sherlyn.. docketed as G. ROMEO TOLENTINO. (RET. Respondents.. BRION.. COL.J.. DONALD CAIGAS.. By Resolution of July 19.R.. and that tied and blindfolded. while he was inside his house in Hagonoy. that onboard a stainless jeep bearing plate number RTF 597. Hagonoy and was asked by one Enriquez if he knew ―Sierra. repaired to his house. while he was sleeping in his house.‖ ―Tanya. recounted that on June 26. Also appended to the Return was a certification from the Land Transportation Office (LTO) that plate number RTF 597 had not yet been manufactured as of July 26.[5] Another witness. whom he was familiar with as the two had previously slept in his house.2006. he saw two women fitting the descriptions of Sherlyn and Karen. the three were boarded on a jeep and taken towards Iba in Hagonoy. 2006. returnable to the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals. Karen and Merino are in the custody of the military. and also saw Merino. who all attested that they do not know Sherlyn. he witnessed armed men wearing bonnets abduct Sherlyn and Karen from his house and also abduct Merino on their way out.[6] . 2006.[4] Witness Alberto Ramirez (Ramirez) recalled that on June 28. Witness Wilfredo Ramos.‖ ―Vincent‖ and ―Lisa‖. SP No. 2006. he (Ramirez) was taken to a place in Mercado. he was awakened by Merino who. and that Enriquez described the appearance of two ladies which matched those of Sherlyn and Karen. Trial thereupon ensued at the appellate court. Karen and Merino.R. 95303.[2] the Court issued a writ ofhabeas corpus.[3] the respondents in the habeas corpus petition denied that Sherlyn. except Enriquez. owner of the house where the three were abducted. To the Return were attached affidavits from the respondents. and that the military does not own nor possess a stainless steel jeep with plate number RTF 597. who was himself previously abducted by armed men and detained for five months. testified that when he was detained in Fort Magsaysay in Nueva Ecija. his kumpare. 2006. that they had inquired from their subordinates about the reported abduction and disappearance of the three but their inquiry yielded nothing. in the company of a group of unidentified armed men. The habeas corpus petition was docketed at the appellate court as CA-G. By Return of the Writ dated July 21. Oscar Leuterio. Col. Karen and Merino. declared that he conducted an inquiry on the abduction of Sherlyn. denied that his office manufactured and issued a plate number bearing number RTF 597. Mirabelle. Palparan testified that during a debate in a televised program. and another one. Karen and Merino but his subordinates denied knowledge thereof.[8] Roberto Se. Plate Number and Supply Units of the LTO. Karen and Merino nor any order to investigate the matter.[11] When pressed to elaborate.[9] On rebuttal. Your Honor. and that he ordered Lt. Mirabelle testified that she did not receive any report on the abduction of Sherlyn. he mentioned the names of Ka Lisa and Ka Tanya as the ones involved in revolutionary tax activities. the then division adjutant of the Philippine Army‘s 7th Infantry Division in Fort Magsaysay. Palparan to investigate the disappearance of Sherlyn. Col. Lt. I mean. Boac to conduct an investigation on the disappearance of Sherlyn. Boac and Gen. Col. Lt.[10] Gen.”[12] By Decision of March 29. that incident happened in Hagonoy.Lt. a supervisor of the Equipment. his assistance in locating the missing persons was sought by the mayor of Hagonoy. That was the report coming from the people in the area. Boac. the then commander of Task Force Malolos. Palparan took the witness stand as hostile witnesses. 2007. Major Dominador Dingle. And she denied knowing anything about the abduction of Ramirez nor who were Ka Tanya or Ka Lisa.[7] While he denied having received any order from Gen. a special operations team tasked to neutralize the intelligence network of communists and other armed groups. denied that a certain Arnel Enriquez is a member of his infantry as in fact his name did not appear in the roster of troops. Bulacan was the abduction of Ka Lisa and Ka Tanya. he stated: “I said that I got the report that it stated that it was Ka Tanya and Ka Lisa that.[13] the Court of Appeals dismissed the habeas corpus petition in this wise: . Karen and Merino. Lt. It being the situation. means and resources to conduct an investigation. In the case of Martinez v. the National Bureau of Investigation and the Philippine National Police for their appropriate actions. the proper remedy is not a habeas corpus proceeding but criminal proceedings by initiating criminal suit for abduction or kidnapping as a crime punishable by law. The reason therefor is that the courts have limited powers. x x x. 95303 moved for a reconsideration of the appellate court‘s decision. there being no strong evidence that the missing persons are in the custody of the respondents. supra. SP No. the present petition for habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy since the main office or function of the habeas corpus is to inquire into the legality of one’s detention which presupposes that respondents have actual custody of the persons subject of the petition. They also moved to present newly discovered evidence consisting of the testimonies of Adoracion Paulino.R. The Court. (emphasis and underscoring supplied) Petitioners in CA-G. Mendoza. however.As Sherlyn Cadapan. the National Bureau of Investigation and the Philippine National Police for separate investigations and appropriate actions as may be warranted by their findings and to furnish the Court with their separate reports on the outcome of their investigations and the actions taken thereon. further resolves to refer the case to the Commission on Human Rights. the petition for habeas corpus is hereby DISMISSED. Let copies of this decision be furnished the Commission on Human Rights. the Supreme Court restated the doctrine that habeas corpus may not be used as a means of obtaining evidence on the whereabouts of a person. (emphasis and underscoring supplied) Thus the appellate court disposed: WHEREFORE. Sherlyn‘s mother-in-law who . or as a means of finding out who has specifically abducted or caused the disappearance of a certain person. SO ORDERED. Karen Empeño and Manuel Merino are indeed missing. No. Pinaod. 24th Infantry Batallion at Limay. National Police (PNP) Chief Gen. 179994. Col. Col.R. Bolinao. Bulacan The Resthouse of Donald Caigas alias Allan or Alvin of the 24th Infantry Batallion at Barangay Banog. Petitioners in G. Hagonoy. Avelino Razon (Gen. Beach House [at] Iba. Zambales used as a safehouse with a retired military personnel as a caretaker. Karen and Merino in the course of his detention at a military camp. Bulacan Camp Tecson. Bulacan 7. Bulacan 8. Hagonoy. 95303. Anotado) and Donald Caigas. 2007. Army Detachment inside Valmocina Farm. then Phil. 5. Nueva Ecija 2. and Raymond Manalo who allegedly met Sherlyn. Bataan 3. Lt. San Miguel. with the addition of then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. 7th Infantry Division at Fort Magsaysay.was allegedly threatened by soldiers.. Army Detachment at Barangay Mercado. . Laur. During the pendency of the motion for reconsideration in CA-G. then Armed Forces of the Phil. Erlinda Cadapan and Concepcion Empeño filed before this Court a Petition for Writ of Amparo[14] With Prayers for Inspection of Place and Production of Documents dated October 24.R. 56th Infantry Batallion Headquarters at Iba.R. Then President Arroyo was eventually dropped as respondent in light of her immunity from suit while in office. Razon). (AFP) Chief of Staff Hermogenes Esperon Jr. 179994 also prayed that they be allowed to inspect the detention areas of the following places: 1. 4. docketed as G. SP No. The petition impleaded the same respondents in the habeas corpus petition. San Ildefonso. No. Felipe Anotado (Lt. Pangasinan 6. By Resolution of October 25. petitioners called on Adoracion Paulino and Raymond Manalo to testify during the trial. accompanied by two men and three women whom she believed were soldiers.[17] Police Director General Avelino Razon narrated that he ordered the compilation of pertinent records. Mirabelle reiterated their earlier narrations in the habeas corpus case.[15] In the Return. stated in the Return that he immediately caused to investigate and verify the identities of the missing persons and was aware of the earlier decision of the appellate court ordering the police. Hermogenes Esperon Jr. She averred that she did not report the incident to the police nor inform Sherlyn‘s mother about the visit.R. Felipe Anotado.[19] Raymond Manalo (Manalo) claimed that he met the three abducted persons when he was illegally detained by military men in Camp Tecson in San Miguel. Col. Gen. He also claimed that there was no report of the death of Merino per his inquiry with the local police. the Commission on Human Rights and the National Bureau of Investigation to take further action on the matter. Boac and Lt. Col. No. Bataan. and that the police exhausted all possible actions available under the circumstances.[16] Lt. Lt. Docketed as CA-G. Adoracion Paulino recalled that her daughter-in-law Sherlyn showed up at home on April 11.R. respondents in the amparo case. through the Solicitor General. the then battalion commander of the 24th Infantry Battalion based in Balanga City. 2007. Palparan. 179994 a writ of amparo returnable to the Special Former Eleventh Division of the appellate court. 2007. Lt. papers and other documents of the PNP on the abduction of the three. Col. While the 24th Infantry Battalion detachment was reported to be a detention site of the missing persons. 002. 2007. SP No.[18] In addition to the witnesses already presented in the habeas corpus case. Anotado claimed that he found no untoward incident when he visited said detachment. Gen. and ordered the consolidation of the amparopetition with the pending habeas corpus petition. . denied any involvement in the abduction. the Court issued in G. filed their Return of the Writ on November 6. Sino ang mga nakilala mo sa Camp Tecson? Dito sa Camp Tecson naming nakilala si ‗Allan Alvin‘ (maya-maya nalaman naming na siya pala si Donald Caigas).[21] Manalo recounted: xxxx 59. Sa isang kwarto sa loob ng barracks. Anotado was the one who interrogated him while in detention. ng 24th IB. Sinabi niya sa akin na dinukot si[ya] sa Hagonoy. Pagkalipas ng 2 araw matapos dalhin si Reynaldo sa Camp Tecson dumating sina Karen Empeño at Manuel Merino na mga bihag din. dinala ako sa Camp Tecson sa ilalim ng 24th IB. Sabi niya sa akin ang buong pangalan niya ay Sherlyn Cadapan. Sa ikatlo o ikaapat na araw. pinagbawalan akong makipag-usap sa kanya. Sabi niya gusto niyang umuwi at makasama ang kanyang magulang. Col. Bataan. Saan ka dinala mula sa Sapang? Pagkalipas ng humigit kumulang 3 buwan sa Sapang. Sa araw tinatanggal ang kanyang kadena at inuutusan si Sherlyn na maglaba. He recalled that Lt. Ipinapalinis din sa akin ang loob ng barracks. xxxx Sa loob ng barracks ko nakilala si Sherlyn Cadapan.Bulacan. Bulacan at matindi ang tortyur na dinaranas niya. Umiiyak siya. nakausap ko yung babaeng nagngangalang Sherlyn. 61. Binigyan ko siya ng pagkain. Inilagay si Karen at Manuel sa kwarto ni . na tinatawag na ‗master‘ o ‗commander‘ ng kanyang mga tauhan. mula sa Laguna. isang estudyante ng UP. x x x x. may nakita akong babae na nakakadena[.[20] In his Sinumpaang Salaysay. His group was later taken to a camp in Limay.] Noong una. xxxx xxxx Kaming lima (ako. xxxx 63. x x x x (underscoring supplied. si Sherlyn at si [Merino] sa isang stainless na jeep. kasama si Sherlyn. Si Sherlyn ang pinahirapan nina Mickey. x x x x xxxx 66. xxxx Kaming mga lalake (ako. He posited that Manalo recognized him because he was very active in conducting lectures in Bataan and even appeared on television regarding an incident involving the 24th Infantry . Bataan? Mula sa Limay. Sabi ni Sherlyn sa akin na siya‘y ginahasa. si Reynaldo. habang sina Sherlyn at Karen ay ginawang labandera. si Reynaldo. kaming 5 (ako. Col. tabi ng dagat. si Sherlyn. Sinakay ako. Lt. Eduardo Boyles Davalan were called to the witness stand. italics and emphasis in the original) On rebuttal. Anotado and Col.]‘ Kami naman ni Reynaldo ay nasa katabing kwarto. Anotado denied seeing or meeting Manalo. Si Karen ay isinakay sa itim na sasakyan ni Donald Caigas. si Karen at si [Merino]) ang dinala sa Limay. Donald at Billy. Col. Lt. Si Karen at si Manuel) ay dinala sa isang safehouse sa Zambales. xxxx 62. si Reynaldo.‗Allan[. si Sherlyn. si Reynaldo at si Manuel) ay ginawang utusan. Saan pa kayo dinala mula sa Limay. Sherlyn. the then chief of staff of the First Scout Ranger Regiment in Camp Tecson. SP NO.[23] the appellate court granted the Motion for Reconsideration in CA-G. from detention the persons of Sher[lyn] Cadapan. SP No. 2008. the petitioners have been able to convincingly prove the fact of their detention by some elements in the military. SP NO. Karen and Merino to be detained in the Limay detachment which had no detention area. the appellate court relied heavily on the testimony of Manalo in this wise: With the additional testimony of Raymond Manalo. SO ORDERED.[22] By Decision of September 17. He contended that it was impossible for Manalo. 95303 (Habeas Corpus case) and in CA-G. 95303 (the habeas corpus case) and ordered the immediate release of Sherlyn. testified that the camp is not a detention facility. SP No. in CA-G.R.R. Karen Empeño and Manuel Merino.R. SP NO.R. the respondents are thereby ordered to immediately RELEASE. 00002 (Amparo case). Thus it disposed: WHEREFORE. the Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. 00002 (the amparo case). nor does it conduct military operations as it only serves as a training facility for scout rangers.Batallion. or cause the release. 95303 (Habeas Corpus case).R. In reconsidering its earlier Decision in the habeas corpus case. Karen and Merino in CA-G. He averred that his regiment does not have any command relation with either the 7th Infantry Division or the 24th Infantry Battalion. Respondent Director General Avelino Razon is hereby ordered to resume [the] PNP‘s unfinished investigation so that the truth will be fully ascertained and appropriate charges filed against those truly responsible. in both CA-G. His testimony is a first hand account that military and civilian personnel under the 7th Infantry Division were responsible for the abduction of Sherlyn . Eduardo Boyles Davalan. Accordingly. Col. they should be immediately released from detention. xxxx The additional testimonies of Lt. In the absence of confirmatory proof. the three desaparecidos. their averments were the same negative ones which cannot prevail over those of Raymond Manalo. are being detained in military camps and bases under the 7th Infantry Division. the Court will presume that he is still alive. Raymond Manalo saw the three with his very own eyes as they were detained and tortured together. constitute more than substantial evidence warranting an order that the three be released from detention if they are not being held for a lawful cause. Indeed. Karen and Merino]. taken together. His narration and those of the earlier witnesses. emphasis and underscoring supplied) . xxxx In view of the foregoing.Cadapan. however. he claimed to be a witness to the burning of Manuel Merino. In fact. and talking to. His testimony on those points was no hearsay. They may be moved from place to place but still they are considered under detention and custody of the respondents. there is now a clear and credible evidence that the three missing persons. [Sherlyn. (italic in the original. Being not held for a lawful cause. Karen Empeño and Manuel Merino. He also confirmed the claim of Oscar Leuterio that the latter was detained in FortMagsaysay. Again. Eduardo Boyles Davalan were of no help either. consistent and convincing. The testimony of Raymond Manalo can no longer be ignored and brushed aside. His testimony was clear. Col. Even Raymond Manalo noticed it but the camp‘s use for purposes other than training cannot be discounted. His testimony that Leuterio saw Manuel Merino in Fort Magsaysay may be hearsay but not with respect to his meeting with. Camp Tecson has been utilized as a training camp for army scout rangers. It was there where he (Leuterio) saw Manuel Merino. x x x. Felipe Anotado and Col. subject of the present Decision.Meanwhile. ordered the respondents ―to immediately RELEASE. No. The appellate court went on to direct the PNP to proceed further with its investigation since there were enough leads as indicated in the records to ascertain the truth and file the appropriate charges against those responsible for the abduction and detention of the three. 2008 Decision of the appellate court. the second above-captioned case.R. Col. By Resolution of June 15. . the first above-captioned case. Nos. 184495 with G. or cause the release.R. liberty and security was being violated. the appellate court deemed it a superfluity to issue any inspection order or production order in light of the release order. was redocketed as G. 1844461-62. No. Erlinda Cadapan and Concepcion Empeño. challenged before this Court. the need to immediately release them. As it earlier ruled in the habeas corpus case. docketed as G. et al. By Resolution of March 5. it found that the three detainees‘ right to life. in the dispositive portion. x x x. 184461-62. or cause their release. Erlinda Cadapan and Concepcion Empeño filed before the appellate court a Motion to Cite Respondents in Contempt of Court for failure of the respondents in the amparo and habeas corpus cases to comply with the directive of the appellate court to immediately release the three missing persons.R. on the other hand. Nos. 179994.[25] the appellate court denied the motion. the Court ordered the consolidation of G.R. ratiocinating thus: While the Court. Rogelio Boac.‖ the decision is not ipso facto executory. from detention the persons of Sherlyn Cadapan. Their petition. via petition for review. in the amparo case. The use of the term ―immediately‖ does not mean that that it is automatically executory. 2009. No. hence. This was docketed as G. 184495.[24] Meanwhile.R. 2008 Decision of the appellate court only insofar as the amparo aspect is concerned. Karen Empeño and Manuel Merino. Lt. the September 17. 2010. filed their own petition for review also challenging the same September 17. There is nothing in the Rule on the Writ of Amparo which states that a decision rendered is immediately executory. II THE PETITION[S] FOR HABEAS CORPUS AND WRIT OF AMPARO SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE RESPONDENTS FAILED TO PROVE BY THE REQUIRED QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE THAT PETITIONERS HAVE SHERLYN CADAPAN. Col.[27] The whereabouts of Donald Caigas remain unknown. Nos. x x x. x x x. the Court has no basis. Only Lt.R. 2009 before this Court. the last above-captioned case subject of the present Decision. Anotado and Lt. There being no motion. The petitioners did not file a motion for execution pending appeal under Section 2 of Rule 39. III PETITIONERS‘ DENIALS PER SE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN AGAINST THEM BECAUSE THEY DID NOT .[28] In G. the Court could not have issued. 184461-62.[26] The AFP has denied that Arnel Enriquez was a member of the Philippine Army. Erlinda Cadapan and Concepcion Empeño challenged the appellate court‘s March 5. KAREN EMPEÑO AND MANUEL MERINO ARE IN THEIR CUSTODY. 187109.Neither did the decision become final and executory considering that both parties questioned the Decision/Resolution before the Supreme Court. 2009 Resolution denying their motion to cite respondents in contempt. Besides. and did not issue. (underscoring supplied) Via a petition for certiorari filed on March 30.R. The petition was docketed as G. No. a writ of execution. Mirabelle remained of the original respondents in the amparo and habeas corpus cases as the other respondents had retired from government service. petitioners posit as follows: I …THE COURT OF APPEALS GROSSLY MISAPPRECIATED THE VALUE OF THE TESTIMONY OF RAYMOND MANALO. Philippine Army and the Seventh Infantry Division of the Philippine Army to enforcibly disappear [sic] the aggrieved parties… 9. The Court of Appeals erred in not granting the Interim Relief for Inspection of Places. V THE COURT OF APPEALS IGNORED AND FAILED TO RULE UPON THE FATAL PROCEDURAL INFIRMITIES IN THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF AMPARO.R. Avelino Razon did not make extraordinary diligence in investigating the enforced disappearance of the aggrieved parties… 8. The Court of Appeals erred in dropping President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as party respondent in this case. THE SUPPOSED INCONSISTENCIES IN THEIR TESTIMONIES ARE ON POINTS IRRELEVANT TO THE PETITION. 10. 184495.[29] In G. petitioners posit as follows: 5. The Court of Appeals erred in not finding that the Police Director Gen. No. The Court of Appeals erred in not finding that President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo had command responsibility in the enforced . 7. The Court of Appeals erred in not finding that this was not the command coming from the highest echelon of powers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. MOREOVER. 6. IV THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF THE ASSAILED DECISION IS VAGUE AND INCONGRUENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. The Court of Appeals erred in not granting the Interim Relief for Production of Documents.REALLY HAVE ANY INVOLVEMENT IN THE ALLEGED ABDUCTION. ][31] Essentially. viz: a) whether the testimony of Raymond Manalo is credible. Karen and Merino. contend that the appellate court erred in giving full credence to the testimony of Manalo who could not even accurately describe the structures of Camp Tecson where he claimed to have been detained along with Sherlyn. Boac. No. They underscore that Camp Tecson is not under the jurisdiction of the 24th Infantry Batallion and that Manalo‘s testimony is incredible and full of inconsistencies. et al. Col. the consolidated petitions present three primary issues. the commanding general of the Philippine Army.R. as well as the heads of the concerned units had command responsibility over the abduction and detention of Sherlyn. b) whether the chief of the AFP. and c) whether there is a need to file a motion for execution to cause the release of the aggrieved parties.[32] . G.R. 184461-62 Petitioners Lt. The Court of Appeals erred in not finding that the Armed Forces Chief of Staff then Hermogenes Esperon and the Present Chief of Staff as having command responsibility in the enforced disappearance and continued detention of the three aggrieved parties…[30] In G.] [2] Whether…there is a need to file a motion for execution in a Habeas Corpus decision or in an Amparo decision[. Karen and Merino.] [3] Whether…an appeal can stay the decision of a Habeas Corpus [case] [or] an Amparo case[.disappearance and continued detention of the three aggrieved parties… 11. petitioners raise the following issues: [1] Whether… the decision in the Court of Appeals has become final and executory[. 187109. Nos. the Court in the immediately cited case synthesized his tale as follows: The next day. Kara and Merino while on detention. he met Sherlyn Cadapan from Laguna. viz: x x x x. the Court ruled on the truthfulness and veracity of the personal account of Manalo which included his encounter with Sherlyn. Jimenez to be the ―Division Training Unit.‖ firms up respondents‘ story that they were detained for some time in said military facility. . In one of the rooms therein.[33] an original petition for Prohibition. Molino. said Rule having taken effect during the pendency of the petition. The testimony and medical reports prepared by forensic specialist Dr. He was also ordered to clean inside the barracks. largely based on respondent Raymond Manalo’s affidavit and testimony. Karen and Merino while on detention.In Secretary of National Defense v. Thus it held: We affirm the factual findings of the appellate court. She told him that she was a student of the University of the Philippines and was abducted in Hagonoy. Raymond‘s affidavit and testimony were corroborated by the affidavit of respondent Reynaldo Manalo. Col. hundreds of them were training. and the pictures of the scars left by the physical injuries inflicted on respondents. She confided that she had been subjected to severe torture and raped. (citations omitted.‖ as shown in his testimony and confirmed by Lt. Manalo. Raymond‘s chains were removed and he was ordered to clean outside the barracks. She was crying and longing to go home and be with her parents. We reject the claim of petitioners that respondent Raymond Manalo’s statements were not corroborated by other independent and credible pieces of evidence. Bulacan. also corroborate respondents‘ accounts of the torture they endured while in detention. There were many soldiers. Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order which was treated as a petition under the Amparo Rule. It was then he learned that he was in a detachment of the Rangers. During the day. Respondent Raymond Manalo‘s familiarity with the facilities in Fort Magsaysay such as the ―DTU. her chains were removed and she was made to do the laundry. emphasis and underscoring supplied) On Manalo‘s having allegedly encountered Sherlyn. When . were transferred to a camp of the 24 th Infantry Battalion in Limay. 2006. and Reynaldo was beaten up. Another time. On or about October 6. two other captives. Raymond and Reynaldo were put in the adjoining room. and Manuel. their parents had already left for Manila. 2006. Bataanwhere he witnessed the killing of an old man doing kaingin. Bataan. cook. Raymond recalled that when ―Operation Lubog‖ was launched. Karen Empeño and Manuel Merino. Reynaldo was also brought to Camp Tecson. Hilario arrived in Camp Tecson. Respondents were brought back to Camp Tecson.After a week. He got acquainted with soldiers of the 24th Infantry Battalion whose names and descriptions he stated in his affidavit. They stayed in that camp until May 8. Karen and Manuel were put in the room with ―Allan‖ whose name they later came to know as Donald Caigas. In the daytime. However. Caigas and some other soldiers brought him and Manuel with them to take and kill all sympathizers of the NPA. Karen. 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. Sherlyn and Karen also suffered enormous torture in the camp. but were put back on at night. along with Sherlyn. respondents were brought to their parents to instruct them not to attend the hearing. their families would all be killed. Raymond and Reynaldo were threatened. They were all made to clean. Some soldiers of the battalion stayed with them. their chains were removed. battalion soldiers whom Raymond knew as ―Mar‖ and ―Billy‖ beat him up and hit him in the stomach with their guns. They were threatened that if they escaped. and help in raising livestock. At times.‖ Raymond was brought to Barangay Orion in a house where NPA men stayed. He told the detainees that they should be thankful they were still alive and should continue along their ―renewed life. in another ―Operation Lubog. While there. called ―master‖ or ―commander‖ by his men in the 24th Infantry Battalion. They were brought to Barangay Bayan-bayanan. Two days from his arrival.‖ Before the hearing of November 6 or 8. There were many huts in the camp. 2006. 2007. On November 22. and Raymond was instructed to continue using the name ―Oscar‖ and holding himself out as a military trainee. respondents. They stayed in that camp from September 2006 to November 2006. arrived. in a safehouse near the sea. Raymond. while the appellate court referred to the perpetrators as ―misguided and self-righteous civilian and military elements of the 7th Infantry Division. so they contend. the five detainees were made to do errands and chores. Tolentino and Palparan have already retired from the service and thus have no more control of any military camp or base in the country. in the same case. Caigas and some of his men stayed with them. Sherlyn. Raymond narrated what he witnessed and experienced in the camp. There is thus no compelling reason for the Court. to disturb its appreciation in Manalo‘s testimony. In its . and Manuel were transferred to Zambales.‖ it failed to identify who these perpetrators are. They stayed in Zambales from May 8 or 9. only the old man of the house who was sick was there. Col. Boac. Reynaldo. viz: x x x x. They spared him and killed only his son right before Raymond‘s eyes. as well as Manalo‘s graphic description of the detention area.they arrived. 2007 until June 2007. in the present case. Karen and Merino. Caigas brought the five back to the camp in Limay. Moreover. and Manuel were tasked to bring food to detainees brought to the camp. and of the corroborative testimonies. In June 2007. They furthermore point out that their copetitioners Generals Esperon. of Manalo‘s brother Reynaldo and a forensic specialist. From Limay. A retired army soldier was in charge of the house.[36] There is nothing vague and/or incongruent about the categorical order of the appellate court for petitioners to release Sherlyn. Petitioners go on to point out that the assailed Decision of the appellate court is ―vague and incongruent with [its] findings‖ for. et al. Karen. Raymond.[34] (emphasis and underscoring supplied) The Court takes judicial notice of its Decision in the just cited Secretary of National Defense v. petitioners assert that Donald Caigas and Arnel Enriquez are not members of the AFP. Manalo[35] which assessed the account of Manalo to be a candid and forthright narrative of his and his brother Reynaldo‘s abduction by the military in 2006. Like in Limay. Reynaldo. The outright denial of petitioners Lt. thus crumbles. descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity. namely: the spouse. children and parents of the aggrieved party. in a habeas corpus proceeding.[40] .‖[39] The Court notes that the parents of Sherlyn and Karen also filed the petition for habeas corpus on Merino‘s behalf. organization. The order of priority is not without reason—―to prevent the indiscriminate and groundless filing of petitions for amparo which may even prejudice the right to life. Indeed. any person may apply for the writ on behalf of the aggrieved party. liberty or security of the aggrieved party. in default of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The exclusive and successive order mandated by the above-quoted provision must be followed.‖ Nowhere did it specifically refer to the members of the 7thInfantry Division as the ―misguided self-righteous‖ ones. the parents of Sherlyn and Karen failed to allege that there were no known members of the immediate family or relatives of Merino. association or institution. No objection was raised therein for. if there is no known member of the immediate family or relative of the aggrieved party.discourse.[37] Section 2 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo[38] provides: The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party or by any qualified person or entity in the following order: (a) Any member of the immediate family. They call attention to the fact that in the amparo petition. the parents of Sherlyn and Karen merely indicated that they were ―concerned with Manuel Merino‖ as basis for filing the petition on his behalf. Petitioners finally point out that the parents of Sherlyn and Karen do not have the requisite standing to file the amparo petition on behalf of Merino. (b) Any ascendant. the appellate court merely referred to ―a few misguided self-righteous people who resort to the extrajudicial process of neutralizing those who disagree with the country‘s democratic system of government. or (c) Any concerned citizen. R." In this sense. a brief discussion of the concept of command responsibility and its application insofar asamparo cases already decided by the Court is in order. 184495 Preliminarily. means the "responsibility of commanders for crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other persons subject to their control in international wars or domestic conflict. On the issue of whether a military commander may be held liable for the acts of his subordinates in an amparo proceeding. if he can be dragged into court litigations while serving as such. the Court finds the appellate court‘s dismissal of the petitions against then President Arroyo well-taken. "command responsibility. Macapagal Arroyo[43] expounded on the concept of command responsibility as follows: The evolution of the command responsibility doctrine finds its context in the development of laws of war and armed combats. command responsibility is properly a form of criminal complicity. hindrance or distraction to enable him to fully attend to the performance of his official duties and functions. x x x [42] Parenthetically. may not be sued in any civil or criminal case. owing to her immunity from suit at the time the habeas corpus and amparo petitions were filed." in its simplest terms. it is important that he be freed from any form of harassment. the Head of State. The . the petitions are bereft of any allegation that then President Arroyo permitted. and there is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or law. only one constitutes the executive branch and anything which impairs his usefulness in the discharge of the many great and important duties imposed upon him by the Constitution necessarily impairs the operation of the Government. during his tenure of office or actual incumbency. G. Unlike the legislative and judicial branch. Rubrico v. According to Fr. Bernas. No. condoned or performed any wrongdoing against the three missing persons. Furthermore. It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President.[41] Settled is the doctrine that the President.It is thus only with respect to the amparo petition that the parents of Sherlyn and Karen are precluded from filing the application on Merino‘s behalf as they are not authorized parties under the Rule. by action or omission. refers to the measure and .[45] and thus a substantive rule that points to criminal or administrative liability. in an enforced disappearance. as a measure of the remedies this Court shall craft. or at least accountability. (citations omitted.[47] Thus Razon Jr. the directive to file the appropriate criminal and civil cases against the responsible parties in the proper courts.[46] Rather. Accountability. command responsibility is "an omission mode of individual criminal liability. for the enforced disappearance…for purposes of imposing the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance…[49] (emphasis and underscoring supplied) Further. emphasis in the original. it determines responsibility.Hague Conventions of 1907 adopted the doctrine of command responsibility. Neither does it partake of a civil or administrative suit. on the other hand. Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have been established by substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way. As then formulated.‖ viz: what constitutes ―responsibility‖ x x x." whereby the superior is made responsible for crimes committed by his subordinates for failing to prevent or punish the perpetrators (as opposed to crimes he ordered). liberty and security of aggrieved individuals. underscoring supplied)[44] It bears stressing that command responsibility is properly a form of criminal complicity. Tagitis defines ―accountability. foreshadowing the present-day precept of holding a superior accountable for the atrocities committed by his subordinates should he be remiss in his duty of control over them. it is a remedialmeasure designed to direct specified courses of action to government agencies to safeguard the constitutional right to life. An amparo proceeding is not criminal in nature nor does it ascertain the criminal liability of individuals or entities involved. among them. v. Tagitis [48] enlightens: [An amparo proceeding] does nor determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the disappearance [threats thereof or extrajudicial killings]. of remedies that should be addressed to those who exhibited involvement in the enforced disappearance without bringing the level of their complicity to the level of responsibility defined above; or who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure; or those who carry, but have failed to discharge, the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance. In all these cases, the issuance of the Writ of Amparo is justified by our primary goal of addressing the disappearance, so that the life of the victim is preserved and his liberty and security are restored.[50] (emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied) Rubrico categorically denies the application of command responsibility in amparo cases to determine criminal liability.[51] The Court maintains its adherence to this pronouncement as far as amparo cases are concerned. Rubrico, however, recognizes a preliminary yet limited application of command responsibility in amparo cases to instances of determining the responsible or accountable individuals or entities that are duty-bound to abate any transgression on the life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party. If command responsibility were to be invoked and applied to these proceedings, it should, at most, be only to determine the author who, at the first instance, is accountable for, and has the duty to address, the disappearance and harassments complained of, so as to enable the Court to devise remedial measures that may be appropriate under the premises to protect rights covered by the writ of amparo. As intimated earlier, however, the determination should not be pursued to fix criminal liability on respondents preparatory to criminal prosecution, or as a prelude to administrative disciplinary proceedings under existing administrative issuances, if there be any.[52] (emphasis and underscoring supplied) In other words, command responsibility may be loosely applied in amparo cases in order to identify those accountable individuals that have the power to effectively implement whatever processes an amparo court would issue.[53] In such application, the amparo court does not impute criminal responsibility but merely pinpoint the superiors it considers to be in the best position to protect the rights of the aggrieved party. Such identification of the responsible and accountable superiors may well be a preliminary determination of criminal liability which, of course, is still subject to further investigation by the appropriate government agency. Relatedly, the legislature came up with Republic Act No. 9851 [54] (RA 9851) to include command responsibility as a form of criminal complicity in crimes against international humanitarian law, genocide and other crimes.[55] RA 9851 is thus the substantive law that definitively imputes criminal liability to those superiors who, despite their position, still fail to take all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to prevent or repress the commission of illegal acts or to submit these matters to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution. The Court finds that the appellate court erred when it did not specifically name the respondents that it found to be responsible for the abduction and continued detention of Sherlyn, Karen and Merino. For, from the records, it appears that the responsible and accountable individuals are Lt. Col. Anotado, Lt. Mirabelle, Gen. Palparan, Lt. Col. Boac, Arnel Enriquez and Donald Caigas. They should thus be made to comply with the September 17, 2008 Decision of the appellate court to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE Sherlyn, Karen and Merino. The petitions against Generals Esperon, Razon and Tolentino should be dismissed for lack of merit as there is no showing that they were even remotely accountable and responsible for the abduction and continued detention of Sherlyn, Karen and Merino. G.R. No. 187109. Contrary to the ruling of the appellate court, there is no need to file a motion for execution for an amparo or habeas corpus decision. Since the right to life, liberty and security of a person is at stake, the proceedings should not be delayed and execution of any decision thereon must be expedited as soon as possible since any form of delay, even for a day, may jeopardize the very rights that these writs seek to immediately protect. The Solicitor General‘s argument that the Rules of Court supplement the Rule on the Writ of Amparo is misplaced. The Rules of Court only find suppletory application in an amparo proceeding if the Rules strengthen, rather than weaken, the procedural efficacy of the writ. As it is, the Rule dispenses with dilatory motions in view of the urgency in securing the life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party. Suffice it to state that a motion for execution is inconsistent with the extraordinary and expeditious remedy being offered by an amparo proceeding. In fine, the appellate court erred in ruling that its directive to immediately release Sherlyn, Karen and Merino was not automatically executory. For that would defeat the very purpose of having summary proceedings[56] in amparo petitions. Summary proceedings, it bears emphasis, are immediately executory without prejudice to further appeals that may be taken therefrom.[57] WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing discussions, the Court renders the following judgment: 1. The Petitions in G.R. Nos. 184461-62 and G.R. No. 184495 are DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 17, 2008 is AFFIRMED with modification in that respondents in G.R. No. 184495, namely Lt. Col. Felipe Anotado, Lt. Francis Mirabelle Samson, Gen. Jovito Palparan, Lt. Col. Rogelio Boac, Arnel Enriquez and Donald Caigas are ordered to immediately release Sherlyn Cadapan, Karen Empeño and Manuel Merino from detention. The petitions against Generals Esperon, Razon and Tolentino are DISMISSED. 2. The petition in G.R. No. 187109 is GRANTED. The named respondents are directed to forthwith comply with the September 17, 2008 Decision of the appellate court. Owing to the retirement and/or reassignment to other places of assignment of some of the respondents herein and in G.R. No. 184495, the incumbent commanding general of the 7th Infantry Division and the incumbent battalion commander of the 24thInfantry Battalion, both of the Philippine Army, are enjoined to fully ensure the release of Sherlyn Cadapan, Karen Empeño and Manuel Merino from detention. Respondents Lt. Col. Felipe Anotado, Lt. Francis Mirabelle Samson, Gen. Jovito Palparan, Lt. Col. Rogelio Boac, Arnel Enriquez and Donald Caigas shall remain personally impleaded in the petitions to answer for any responsibilities and/or accountabilities they may have incurred during their incumbencies. Let copies of this Decision and the records of these cases be furnished the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) for further investigation to determine the respective criminal and administrative liabilities of respondents. All the present petitions are REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action, directed at monitoring of the DOJ, PNP and AFP investigations and the validation of their results. SO ORDERED. Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila EN BANC . IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ, NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, - versus - GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN. VICTOR S. IBRADO, PDG JESUS AME VERSOZA, LT. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, MAJ. GEN. NESTOR Z. OCHOA, P/CSUPT. AMETO G. TOLENTINO, P/SSUPT. JUDE W. SANTOS, COL. REMIGIO M. DE VERA, an officer named MATUTINA, LT. COL. MINA, CALOG, GEORGE PALACPAC under the name “HARRY,” ANTONIO CRUZ, ALDWIN “BONG” PASICOLAN and VINCENT CALLAGAN, Respondents. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x G.R. No. 191805 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ, G.R. No. 193160 POLICE DIR. GEN. JESUS A. VERSOZA, P/SSUPT. JUDE W. SANTOS, BGEN. REMEGIO M. DE VERA, 1ST LT. RYAN S. MATUTINA, LT. COL. LAURENCE E. MINA, ANTONIO C. CRUZ, ALDWIN C. PASICOLAN and VICENTE A. CALLAGAN, CORONA, C.J., Petitioners, Present: CARPIO, VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, - versus - DEL CASTILLO,* ABAD, VILLARAMA, JR., PEREZ, NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ, MENDOZA, Respondent. SERENO, REYES, and PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ. Promulgated: November 15, 2011 x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x DECISION SERENO, J.: Before this Court are two consolidated cases, namely, (1) Petition for Partial Review on Certiorari dated 20 April 2010 (G.R. No. 191805), and (2) Petition for Review on Certiorari dated 19 August 2010 (G.R. No. 193160).[1] Both Petitions assail the 12 April 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the petition for writ of amparo and writ of habeas data is GRANTED. Respondents Gen. Victor S. Ibrado, Lt. Gen. Delfin Bangit, Maj. Gen. Nestor Z. Ochoa, PCSupt. Ameto G. Tolentino, PSSupt. Jude W. Santos, Col. Remigio M. De Vera, Lt. Col. Laurence E. Mina and 1Lt. Ryan S. Matutina, or their replacements in their official posts if they have already vacated the same, are ORDERED to furnish this Court within five (5) days from notice of this decision, official or unofficial reports pertaining to petitioner – covering but not limited to intelligence reports, operation reports and provost marshal reports prior to, during and subsequent to September 6, 2009 – made by the 5th Infantry Division, Philippine Army, its branches and subsidiaries, including the 17th Infantry Battalion, Philippine Army. The above-named respondents are also DIRECTED to refrain from using the said reports in any transaction or operation of the military. Necessarily, the afore-named respondents are ORDERED to expunge from the records of the military all documents having any reference to petitioner. Likewise, the afore-named respondents, as well as respondents Police Director General Jesus Ame Versoza, Antonio Cruz, Aldwin Pasicolan and Vicente Callagan are DIRECTED to ensure that no further violation of petitioner’s rights to life, liberty and security is committed against the latter or any member of his family. The petition is DISMISSED with respect to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on account of her presidential immunity from suit. Similarly, the petition is DISMISSED with respect to respondents Calog and George Palacpac or Harry for lack of merit. Petitioner’s prayer for issuance of a temporary protection order and inspection order is DENIED. Noriel Rodriguez (Rodriguez) is petitioner in G.R. No. 191805 and respondent in G.R. No. 193160. He is a member of Alyansa Dagiti Mannalon Iti Cagayan (Kagimungan), a peasant organization affiliated withKilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP). On the other hand, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (former President Arroyo), Police Director General (PDG.) Jesus A. Verzosa, Police Senior Superintendent (P/SSupt.) Jude W. Santos, Brigadier General (Brig. Gen.) Remegio M. De Vera, First Lieutenant (1st Lt.) Ryan S. Matutina, Lieutenant Colonel (Lt. Col.) Laurence E. Mina, Antonio C. Cruz (Cruz), Aldwin C. Pasicolan (Pasicolan) and Vicente A. Callagan (Callagan) are respondents in G.R. No. 191805 and petitioners in G.R. No. 193160. At the time the events relevant to the present Petitions occurred, former President Arroyo was the President of the Philippines. PDG. Verzosa, P/SSupt. Santos, Brig. Gen. De Vera, 1st Lt. Matutina and Lt. Col. Mina were officers of the Philippine National Police (PNP). Cruz, Pasicolan and Callagan were Special Investigators of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) in Region II. Antecedent Facts Rodriguez claims that the military tagged KMP as an enemy of the State under the Oplan Bantay Laya, making its members targets of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.[2] On 6 September 2009, at 5:00 p.m., Rodriguez had just reached Barangay Tapel, Cagayan onboard a tricycle driven by Hermie Antonio Carlos (Carlos), when four men forcibly took him and forced him into a car. Inside the vehicle were several men in civilian clothes, one of whom was holding a .45 caliber pistol. Subsequently, three more persons arrived, and one of them carried a gun at his side. Two men boarded the car, while the others rode on the tricycle.[3] Rodriguez later on learned that the camp belonged to the 17th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army.m. Thereafter. After the interrogation. Due to his exhaustion. As a result.. blindfolded him and made him board a vehicle. which brought them to Bugey and Mission. a soldier pointed a gun to his head and threatened to kill him and his family. Fearing that the food might be poisoned. Teresita-Mission and moved around the area until about 2:00 a. the soldiers brought him to a room. The car travelled towards the direction of Sta. When the car stopped after about ten minutes. the soldiers repeatedly hit him in the head and threatened to kill him. The vehicle returned to the military camp at past 1:00 p. but did not allow him to sleep. where he was again subjected to tactical interrogation about the location of an NPA camp and his alleged NPA comrades. he refused to eat anything. and forced him to confess to being a member of the NPA. He suffered incessant mauling every time he failed to answer. was an NPA member who had surrendered to the military.[5] In the morning of 7 September 2009. he was detained inside the room for the entire day. and there was a banner with the word “Bravo” written on it. removed his blindfold. While passing houses along the way. sat on his back and started punching him.[4] Rodriguez was brought to a canteen. but he remained silent. the men hit him on the head to wake him up. Because he remained silent.[6] On 8 September 2009. He slept on the papag while being tied to it at the waist. the men tied the hands of Rodriguez.m. where six men confronted him. the soldiers repeatedly hit him on the head. During the interrogation. two of the men guarded him.[7] At dawn on 9 September 2009. During the drive. the men forced Rodriguez to confess to being a member of the New People’s Army (NPA). When he failed to answer. There were soldiers all over the area. The car then entered a place that appeared to be a military camp. Harry pointed to Rodriguez and . While they were in transit. Accompanying them was a man named Harry. according to the soldiers. the soldiers beat him and tied him up. the men forced Rodriguez into a vehicle. and gave him rice and viand. The soldiers tied his stomach to a papag. who.The men tied the hands of Rodriguez. ordered him to lie on his stomach. he unintentionally fell asleep. soldiers armed with rifles took Rodriguez and made him their guide on their way to an NPA camp in Birao. the men asked him if his contacts lived in those houses. ordering him to confess to his membership in the NPA. The soldiers and Rodriguez spent the next three nights in the mountains. but did so using a different signature to show that he was merely coerced.called him a member of the NPA.[9] On 12 September 2009. he received another beating. They brought the two to the mountains. The soldiers forced Rodriguez to convince Elvis to disclose the location of the NPA camp. The soldiers. they let him rest and gave him an Alaxan tablet. and that the soldiers did not shoot him because he became a military asset in May. however. where both were threatened with death. They repeatedly punched and kicked him. he fell asleep due to over-fatigue and extreme body pain. he noticed a soldier with the name tag “Matutina. and two soldiers mauled him again. Upon arrival therein. they brought him to the same room where he had first been detained. the soldiers forced Rodriguez to sign documents declaring that he had surrendered in an encounter in Cumao. He also heard Harry tell the soldiers that the latter knew the area well and was acquainted with a man named Elvis. hit him again. In the afternoon. the soldiers maltreated him once more. they ordered him to write down his request for rice from the people. the soldiers again hit Rodriguez and forced him to identify the location of the NPA camp. Bugey. The soldiers loaded Rodriguez into a military truck and drove to Tabbak. He was blindfolded and warned to get ready because they would beat him up again in the military camp.”[8] Upon reaching Birao on foot. Thereafter. that day.” who appeared to be an official because the other soldiers addressed him as “sir. he was compelled to sign. the soldiers looked for and was able to locate a certain Elvis and told him that Rodriguez had identified his whereabouts location.[11] . Rodriguez told them that he would reveal the location of the NPA camp if they let Elvis go home. While he was walking with the soldiers. They finally released Elvis around 3:00 p.m. After giving him a pen and a piece of paper.[10] On 13 September 2009. When he refused. When the soldiers punched Elvis. When he refused to sign the document. Thus. Later. Thereafter. He was then brought to the Enrile Medical Center. the soldiers let Rodriguez eat with several military officials and took pictures of him while he was eating with them. When he told them that he did not recognize the individuals on the photos.[12] At 11:00 p.The soldiers showed Rodriguez photographs of different persons and asked him if he knew the men appearing therein. Afterwards. They all spent the night there. chest and sternum. Juliet Ramil (Dr.m. The soldiers asked him to take a bath and wear a white polo shirt handed to him. the soldiers forced him down. on 17 September 2009. Dr. the soldiers and Rodriguez started their descent. They also asked him to point to a map in front of him and again took his photograph. but he declined. where he was ordered to sign a piece of paper stating that he was a surrenderee and was never beaten up. making it appear that he was the one who had written it. Ramil’s medical certificate indicated that he suffered from four hematomas in the epigastric area.[14]When the doctor asked him why he had bruises and contusions. The soldiers then wrote something on the paper. Rodriguez was brought to another military camp. The torture lasted for about an hour. he signed the paper and was warned not to report anything to the media.[15] Back at the camp. The soldiers took photographs of him while he was signing. Scared and desperate to end his ordeal. and forced him to sign the document. the soldiers instructed petitioner to take a bath. where Dr. the two soldiers guarding him repeatedly reminded him not to disclose . on 15 September 2009. When they stopped. They gave him a pair of jeans and perfume. they all returned to the military camp. they told him [16] that he would finally see his mother.[17] Around 6:00 a.[13] In the morning of 16 September 2009. the soldiers instructed him to write down the name of his school and organization. Ramil) examined him.m. and sat on his feet. the soldiers took his photograph and asked him to name the location of the NPA camp. held his hands. he lied and told her that he sustained them when he slipped. as he noticed a soldier observing him. but was also electrocuted. He did not only receive another beating. the soldiers brought Rodriguez to a military operation in the mountains. While he was having breakfast. where he saw Matutina again. his family. The soldiers also told them that the latter will be taken to the Tuguegarao Airport and guarded until they reached home. Mina.m. 1st Lt. Subsequently. talked to Lt. Respondent Calog also approached Rodriguez and Rodel and asked them to become military assets. A certain Alan approached Rodriguez and handed him a cellphone with a SIM card. Callagan and two soldiers went inside the house. Ana. on the same day. Afraid and desperate to return home. the mother and the brother of Rodriguez arrived surrounded by several men. Upon seeing Rodriguez. Cruz advised him not to file a case against his abductors because they had already freed him. The CHR personnel then led him and his family to the CHR Toyota Tamaraw FX service vehicle. Matutina and two other soldiers transferred to an orange Toyota Revo with plate number WTG 579. Matutina boarded the vehicle. on 18 September 2010. He noticed that a vehicle with soldiers on board followed them. namely. and one of the CHR employees took photographs of his bruises. Col.m. the soldiers accompanied them to the CHR office. Cruz instructed him to lift up his shirt.[18] At 9:00 a. Upon reaching the boundary of Nueva Ecija and Nueva Viscaya. the soldiers reminded them to refrain from facing the media.[19] A soldier tried to convince Wilma to let Rodriguez stay in the camp for another two weeks to supposedly prevent the NPA from taking revenge on him. Cruz and Callagan.[21] The Tamaraw FX pulled over and respondent 1st Lt. Callagan.[20] Rodriguez and his family missed their flight. Rodriguez heard one of the soldiers tell Wilma that he had surrendered to the military and had long been its asset. Rodel refused and insisted that they take Rodriguez home to Manila. he was forced to sign the document. Manila at 3:00 a. 1st Lt. The soldiers explained that the photos and videos would . The latter and his family then left and resumed their journey back home. where Rodriguez was made to sign an affidavit stating that he was neither abducted nor tortured. Rodriguez. Rodel Rodriguez (Rodel).[22] Rodriguez reached his house in Sta. Again. Wilma Rodriguez (Wilma). Pasicolan. Matutina alighted and called Rodriguez to a diner. Upon reaching a mall in Isabela. informed him that the men accompanying them were from the CHR. His brother. and took photographs and a video footage thereof.to the media his experience in the camp and to say instead that he had surrendered to the military. His mother. [25] On 7 December 2009. George Palacpac (Palacpac).m. 1st Lt. on 3 November 2010.[23] On 19 September 2009. they still continued and only left thirty minutes later. Despite Rodriguez’s efforts to confront the soldiers about their acts. The issuance of the writ of amparo ordering respondents to desist from violating Rodriguez’s right to life. The issuance of an order to enjoin respondents from doing harm to or approaching Rodriguez. Gen. Major General (Maj. Lt.serve as evidence of the fact that Rodriguez and his family were able to arrive home safely. P/CSupt. noticed that several suspicious-looking men followed them at the Metro Rail Transit (MRT). Matutina. Gonzaga. . Calog. Reginaldo Pamugas. examined Rodriguez and issued a Medical Certificate stating that the latter had been a victim of torture. c. Inspection of Place.[26] The petition was filed against former President Arroyo. Cruz. Col. Tolentino. liberty and security. Aileen Hazel Robles. De Vera. Ochoa. Bangit. Rodriguez filed before this Court a Petition for the Writ of Amparo and Petition for the Writ of Habeas Data with Prayers for Protection Orders. Dr. Gen. Rodriguez and his girlfriend. and Production of Documents and Personal Properties dated 2 December 2009. The petition prayed for the following reliefs: a. 5th Infantry Division. Ibrado. a physician trained by the International Committee on Torture and Rehabilitation. Pasicolan and Callagan. Santos. including operation reports and provost marshall reports of the 5th Infantry Division. Maguing. Allowing the inspection of the detention areas of the Headquarters of Bravo Co. PDG. Ordering respondents to produce documents submitted to them regarding any report on Rodriguez. Cagayan and another place near where Rodriguez was brought. Gen. on and subsequent to 6 September 2009. prior to. his family and his witnesses. P/SSupt. d.. in the streets and on a jeepney.) Nestor Z. b. the Special Operations Group of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).[24] Around 7:00 a. Versoza. returning to the NPA to gather information. we directed the Court of Appeals to hear the petition on 4 January 2010 and decide on the case within 10 days after its submission for decision. we granted the respective writs after finding that the petition sufficiently alleged that Rodriguez had been abducted. the Court of Appeals required the parties to submit affidavits and other pieces of evidence at the next scheduled hearing on 27 January 2010. Cabaccan and Cpl. respondents therein.e. disabused. which are in the custody of respondents. filed their Return of the Writ.) Rodel B.[35] Upon his voluntary surrender on 28 May 2009. Rodriguez was made to sign an Oath of Loyalty and an Agent’s Agreement/Contract. showing his willingness to return to society and become a military asset.[29] Finally.[27] On 15 December 2009.[36]Since then. Navarro that he would help the military in exchange for his protection.[34] Wanting to bolt from the NPA. Navarro. with his knowledge and consent.[31] On 8 January 2010.[38] Thus. respondents therein alleged that Rodriguez had surrendered to the military on 28 May 2009 after he had been put under surveillance and identified as “Ka Pepito” by former rebels. Cabaccan and Cpl. Ordering records pertinent or in any way connected to Rodriguez. and forever barred from being used.[33] According to his military handlers.[32] In their Return. Julius P. the soldiers planned to stage a sham abduction . he feared that his NPA comrades were beginning to suspect him of being an infiltrator. Rodriguez was a former member of the NPA operating in Cagayan Valley. tortured and later released by members of the 17th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army. to be expunged. he acted as a double agent. Corporal (Cpl.[28] We likewise ordered respondents therein to file a verified return on the writs on or before 22 December 2009 and to comment on the petition on or before 4 January 2010.[37] However. he told Cpl.[30] During the initial hearing on 4 January 2010. through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). which was likewise considered as their comment on the petition. Mina. Pasicolan and Callagan to accompany Wilma to the 17th Infantry Division.[44] When the CHR officers.to erase any suspicion about him being a double agent. Rodriguez was released to his family. Brigade Commander Col. facilitating his safe turnover to his family and securing their journey back home to Manila. More specifically. Alcala. During the signing of the document. Col.[48] Neither was there any force or intimidation when the soldiers took pictures of his house. Cruz made phone calls to the military and law enforcement agencies to determine his location. after Wilma sought their assistance in ascertaining the whereabouts of her son. Cruz asked him to raise his shirt to see if he had been subjected to any maltreatment. Mina alleged that Rodriguez had become one of their assets. Matutina.[41] alleging that they had exercised extraordinary diligence in locating Rodriguez.[45] The CHR officers observed his casual and cordial demeanor with the soldiers. arrived at the 17 Infantry Battalion at Masin. de Vera and Battalion Commander Lt. Thereafter. along with Wilma and Rodel. as the taking of photographs was performed with Wilma’s consent.[43] This information was transmitted to CHR Regional Director Atty.[49] . they alleged that. the CHR officers observed that he was very much at ease with his military escorts. who confirmed that Rodriguez was in their custody. herein CHR officers did not witness any threat. Col. as evidenced by the Summary on the Surrender of Noriel Rodriguez and the latter’s Contract as Agent. especially with 1st Lt. on 16 September 2009. in turn. [47] th During their journey back to the home of Rodriguez.[40] Meanwhile. Jimmy P. Pasicolan and Callagan filed a Consolidated Return of the Writ dated 15 January 2010. Cruz and Pasicolan did not see any traces of torture. Baliga. and they were made to sign a certification to this effect. Cagayan.[39] Hence. ordered Cruz.[46] In any case. Cruz. He. the abduction subject of the instant petition was conducted. intimidation or force employed against Rodriguez or his family.[42] Cruz was able to speak with Lt. . . respondents therein filed their Motion for Reconsideration. as she may not be sued in any case during her tenure of office or actual incumbency. The Court of Appeals erred in not granting the Interim Relief for temporary protection order. Rodriguez filed the instant Petition for Partial Review on Certiorari (G. which has the effect of enjoining the commission by respondents of violation to petitioner’s right to life. the Court of Appeals rendered its assailed Decision. liberty and security.[50] On 12 April 2010. averred: a. The Court of Appeals erred in not finding that respondent Gloria Macapagal Arroyo had command responsibility. The Court of Appeals erred in saying: “(H)owever. the parties agreed to file additional affidavits and position papers and to have the case considered submitted for decision after the filing of these pleadings.During the hearing on 27 January 2010.[51] Subsequently. . b. raising the following assignment of errors: a. in their Comment dated 30 July 2010. even in the absence of an order preventing respondent from approaching petitioner. 191805).[53] On the other hand.R. the safety of petitioner is ensured with the issuance of the writ. respondents therein. No. given the nature of the writ of amparo.[52] Before the Court of Appeals could resolve this Motion for Reconsideration. on 28 April 2010.” c. The Court of Appeals properly dropped then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as a party-respondent. as well as his right to privacy. inspection order. must less substantial evidence. he is not entitled to the privilege of the writs of amparo and habeas data and their corresponding interim reliefs (i. production order and temporary protection order) provided under the rule on the writ of amparo and the rule on the writ of habeas data. Whether the doctrine of command responsibility can be used in amparo and habeas data cases. Santos. BGen.e.[55] They alleged that Rodriguez – Has not presented any adequate and competent evidence. Verzosa. Matutina. Col. liberty and security. liberty and security. No. Hence. Mina. P/SSupt. seeking the reversal of the 12 April 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals. to establish his claim that petitioners have violated. he was not entitled to the privilege of the writs of amparo and habeas data or to the corresponding interim reliefs (i. Whether the interim reliefs prayed for by Rodriguez may be granted after the writs of amparo and habeas data have already been issued in his favor. production order and temporary protection order) provided under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo and the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data.e..[54] On 19 August 2010. much less substantial evidence. the following issues must be resolved: I. inspection order. Cruz. as well as his right to privacy. Whether the rights to life. 191805. 1st Lt. IV.b. De Vera. III. are violating or threatening with violation his rights to life. liberty and property of Rodriguez were violated or threatened by respondents in G. II.[56] In ascertaining whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in issuing its assailed Decision and Resolution.R. to establish his claim that public respondents had violated. Lt. . Whether former President Arroyo should be dropped as a respondent on the basis of the presidential immunity from suit. Petitioner had not presented any adequate and competent evidence. Pasicolan and Callagan filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari. were violating or threatening to violate his rights to life. hence. PDG. [63] It is preventive in that it breaks the expectation of impunity in the commission of these offenses. liberty and security. or administrative responsibility requiring substantial evidence that will require full and exhaustive proceedings.[59] and the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data on 2 February 2008. If the allegations in the petition are proven through substantial evidence.[62] Rather. destruction or rectification. it must be emphasized that the writs of amparo and habeas data were promulgated to ensure the protection of the people’s rights to life. or liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence. (b) enjoin the act complained of.[65] As an independent and summary remedy to protect the right to privacy – especially the right to informational privacy[66] – the proceedings for the issuance of the writ of habeas data does not entail any finding of criminal. the writ of habeas data provides a judicial remedy to protect a person’s right to control information regarding oneself.[67] First issue: Grant of interim reliefs . then the Court may (a) grant access to the database or information.[61] It is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt.[58] The Rule on the Writ of Amparo took effect on 24 October 2007.[60] The writ of amparo is an extraordinary and independent remedy that provides rapid judicial relief. civil or administrative culpability.At the outset. it serves both preventive and curative roles in addressing the problem of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.[57] The rules on these writs were issued in light of the alarming prevalence of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. order its deletion. or (c) in case the database or information contains erroneous data or information. particularly in instances where such information is being collected through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends.[64] Meanwhile. as it partakes of a summary proceeding that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate interim and permanent reliefs available to the petitioner. and it is curative in that it facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators by inevitably leading to subsequent investigation and action. Section 14 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo clearly provides: Interim Reliefs. If the petitioner is an organization. justice or judge. (a) Inspection Order. justice or judge. – Upon filing of the petition or at anytime before final judgment. upon verified motion and after due hearing. 191805. The motion shall state in detail the place or places to be inspected. justice or judge. measuring. The Supreme Court shall accredit the persons and private institutions that shall extend temporary protection to the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any member of the immediate family. Rodriguez prays for the issuance of a temporary protection order. in accordance with guidelines which it shall issue. upon motion or motu proprio. may order that the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any member of the immediate family be protected in a government agency or by an accredited person or private institution capable of keeping and securing their safety. The accredited persons and private institutions shall comply with the rules and conditions that may be imposed by the court. No. – The court. – The court. justice or judge may grant any of the following reliefs: Temporary Protection Order. to permit entry for the purpose of inspecting. It shall be supported by affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge of the enforced disappearance or whereabouts of the aggrieved party. the court. association or institution referred to in Section 3(c) of this Rule.In the petition in G. surveying. . It must be underscored that this interim relief is only available before final judgment.R. the protection may be extended to the officers involved. may order any person in possession or control of a designated land or other property. or photographing the property or any relevant object or operation thereon. place and manner of making the inspection and may prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional rights of all parties. justice or judge may conduct a hearing in chambers to determine the merit of the opposition. books. may order any person in possession. accounts. Security and Benefit Program. to produce and permit their inspection. custody or control of any designated documents. the court. photographs. may refer the witnesses to the Department of Justice for admission to the Witness Protection. justice. upon motion or motu proprio. upon verified motion and after due hearing. The order shall expire five (5) days after the date of its issuance. justice or judge. or judge. objects or tangible things. The inspection order shall specify the person or persons authorized to make the inspection and the date. – The court. justice or judge shall prescribe other conditions to protect the constitutional rights of all the parties. papers. copying or photographing by or on behalf of the movant. . unless extended for justifiable reasons. 6981. or objects in digitized or electronic form. letters. (b) Production Order. justice or judge may conduct a hearing in chambers to determine the merit of the opposition. pursuant to Republic Act No. The motion may be opposed on the ground of national security or of the privileged nature of the information. The movant must show that the inspection order is necessary to establish the right of the aggrieved party alleged to be threatened or violated. The court. which constitute or contain evidence relevant to the petition or the return. (c) Witness Protection Order.If the motion is opposed on the ground of national security or of the privileged nature of the information. in which case the court. time. – The court. Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have been established by substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way. The order restricting respondents from going near Rodriguez is subsumed under the privilege of the writ. Tagitis:[69] It does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the disappearance. the burden of extraordinary diligence in the . rather. since we grant petitioner the privilege of the writ of amparo. Sanchez[68] that “*t+hese provisional reliefs are intended to assist the court before it arrives at a judicious determination of the amparo petition. As we held in Razon v. or at least accountability. civil or criminal liability in amparo and habeas data proceedings. it determines responsibility. among them. or to accredited persons or private institutions capable of keeping and securing their safety. once granted. or who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure. it must be underscored that the privilege of the writ of amparo. the directive to file the appropriate criminal and civil cases against the responsible parties in the proper courts. 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. courts can only go as far as ascertaining responsibility or accountability for the enforced disappearance or extrajudicial killing.The court. (Emphasis supplied) We held in Yano v. necessarily entails the protection of the aggrieved party. Second issue: Presidential immunity from suit It bears stressing that since there is no determination of administrative. Accountability. justice or judge may also refer the witnesses to other government agencies. by action or omission. for the enforced disappearance for purposes of imposing the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance. they can only be granted before a final adjudication of the case is made. but have failed to discharge. in an enforced disappearance. there is no need to issue a temporary protection order independently of the former. or those who carry. as a measure of the remedies this Court shall craft.” Being interim reliefs. Thus. In any case. investigation of the enforced disappearance. In all these cases, the issuance of the Writ of Amparo is justified by our primary goal of addressing the disappearance, so that the life of the victim is preserved and his liberty and security are restored. [70] (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, in the case at bar, the Court of Appeals, in its Decision[71] found respondents in G.R. No. 191805 – with the exception of Calog, Palacpac or Harry – to be accountable for the violations of Rodriguez’s right to life, liberty and security committed by the 17th Infantry Battalion, 5th Infantry Division of the Philippine Army. [72] The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition with respect to former President Arroyo on account of her presidential immunity from suit. Rodriguez contends, though, that she should remain a respondent in this case to enable the courts to determine whether she is responsible or accountable therefor. In this regard, it must be clarified that the Court of Appeals’ rationale for dropping her from the list of respondents no longer stands since her presidential immunity is limited only to her incumbency. In Estrada v. Desierto,[73] we clarified the doctrine that a non-sitting President does not enjoy immunity from suit, even for acts committed during the latter’s tenure. We emphasize our ruling therein that courts should look with disfavor upon the presidential privilege of immunity, especially when it impedes the search for truth or impairs the vindication of a right, to wit: We reject *Estrada’s+ argument that he cannot be prosecuted for the reason that he must first be convicted in the impeachment proceedings. The impeachment trial of petitioner Estrada was aborted by the walkout of the prosecutors and by the events that led to his loss of the presidency. Indeed, on February 7, 2001, the Senate passed Senate Resolution No. 83 “Recognizing that the Impeachment Court is Functus Officio.” Since the Impeachment Court is now functus officio, it is untenable for petitioner to demand that he should first be impeached and then convicted before he can be prosecuted. The plea if granted, would put a perpetual bar against his prosecution. Such a submission has nothing to commend itself for it will place him in a better situation than a non-sitting President who has not been subjected to impeachment proceedings and yet can be the object of a criminal prosecution. To be sure, the debates in the Constitutional Commission make it clear that when impeachment proceedings have become moot due to the resignation of the President, the proper criminal and civil cases may already be filed against him, viz: “xxx xxx xxx Mr. Aquino. On another point, if an impeachment proceeding has been filed against the President, for example, and the President resigns before judgment of conviction has been rendered by the impeachment court or by the body, how does it affect the impeachment proceeding? Will it be necessarily dropped? Mr. Romulo. If we decide the purpose of impeachment to remove one from office, then his resignation would render the case moot and academic. However, as the provision says, the criminal and civil aspects of it may continue in the ordinary courts.” This is in accord with our ruling in In Re: Saturnino Bermudez that “incumbent Presidents are immune from suit or from being brought to court during the period of their incumbency and tenure” but not beyond. xxx We now come to the scope of immunity that can be claimed by petitioner as a non-sitting President. The cases filed against petitioner Estrada are criminal in character. They involve plunder, bribery and graft and corruption. By no stretch of the imagination can these crimes, especially plunder which carries the death penalty, be covered by the alleged mantle of immunity of a non-sitting president. Petitioner cannot cite any decision of this Court licensing the President to commit criminal acts and wrapping him with post-tenure immunity from liability. It will be anomalous to hold that immunity is an inoculation from liability for unlawful acts and omissions. The rule is that unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the State and the officer who acts illegally is not acting as such but stands in the same footing as any other trespasser. Indeed, a critical reading of current literature on executive immunity will reveal a judicial disinclination to expand the privilege especially when it impedes the search for truth or impairs the vindication of a right. In the 1974 case of US v. Nixon, US President Richard Nixon, a sitting President, was subpoenaed to produce certain recordings and documents relating to his conversations with aids and advisers. Seven advisers of President Nixon's associates were facing charges of conspiracy to obstruct justice and other offenses which were committed in a burglary of the Democratic National Headquarters in Washington's Watergate Hotel during the 1972 presidential campaign. President Nixon himself was named an unindicted co-conspirator. President Nixon moved to quash the subpoena on the ground, among others, that the President was not subject to judicial process and that he should first be impeached and removed from office before he could be made amenable to judicial proceedings. The claim was rejected by the US Supreme Court. It concluded that “when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice.” In the 1982 case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the US Supreme Court further held that the immunity of the President from civil damages covers only “official acts.” Recently, the US Supreme Court had the occasion to reiterate this doctrine in the case of Clinton v. Jones where it held that the US President's immunity from suits for money damages arising out of their official acts is inapplicable to unofficial conduct. [74] (Emphasis supplied) Further, in our Resolution in Estrada v. Desierto,[75] we reiterated that the presidential immunity from suit exists only in concurrence with the president’s incumbency: Petitioner stubbornly clings to the contention that he is entitled to absolute immunity from suit. His arguments are merely recycled and we need not prolong the longevity of the debate on the subject. In our Decision, we exhaustively traced the origin of executive immunity in our jurisdiction and its bends and turns up to the present time. We held that given the intent of the 1987 Constitution to breathe life to the policy that a public office is a public trust, the petitioner, as a non-sitting President, cannot claim executive immunity for his alleged criminal acts committed while a sitting President. Petitioner's rehashed arguments including their thinly disguised new spins are based on the rejected contention that he is still President, albeit, a President on leave. His stance that his immunity covers his entire term of office or until June 30, 2004 disregards the reality that he has relinquished the presidency and there is now a new de jure President. Petitioner goes a step further and avers that even a non-sitting President enjoys immunity from suit during his term of office. He buttresses his position with the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, viz: “Mr. Suarez. Thank you. The last question is with reference to the Committee's omitting in the draft proposal the immunity provision for the President. I agree with Commissioner Nolledo that the Committee did very well in striking out this second sentence, at the very least, of the original provision on immunity from suit under the 1973 Constitution. But would the Committee members not agree to a restoration of at least the first sentence that the president shall be immune from suit during his tenure, considering that if we do not provide him that kind of an immunity, he might be spending all his time facing litigations, as the President-in-exile in Hawaii is now facing litigations almost daily? Fr. Bernas: The reason for the omission is that we consider it understood in present jurisprudence that during his tenure he is immune from suit. Mr. Suarez: So there is no need to express it here. Fr. Bernas: There is no need. It was that way before. The only innovation made by the 1973 Constitution was to make that explicit and to add other things. Mr. Suarez: On the understanding, I will not press for any more query, madam President. I thank the Commissioner for the clarification.” Petitioner, however, fails to distinguish between term and tenure. The term means the time during which the officer may claim to hold the office as of right, and fixes the interval after which the several incumbents shall succeed one another. The tenure represents the term during which the incumbent actually holds office. The tenure may be shorter than the term for reasons within or beyond the power of the incumbent. From the deliberations, the intent of the framers is clear that the immunity of the president from [76] suit is concurrent only with his tenure and not his term. (Emphasis supplied) Applying the foregoing rationale to the case at bar, it is clear that former President Arroyo cannot use the presidential immunity from suit to shield herself from judicial scrutiny that would assess whether, within the context of amparo proceedings, she was responsible or accountable for the abduction of Rodriguez. Third issue: Command in amparo proceedings responsibility To attribute responsibility or accountability to former President Arroyo, Rodriguez contends that the doctrine of command responsibility may be applied. As we explained in Rubrico v. Arroyo,[77] command responsibility pertains to the “responsibility of commanders for crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other persons subject to their control in international wars or domestic conflict.”[78]Although originally used for ascertaining criminal complicity, the command responsibility doctrine has also found application in civil cases for human rights abuses.[79] In the United States, for example, command responsibility was used in Ford v. Garcia and Romagoza v. Garcia – civil actions filed under the Alien Tort Claims Act and the Torture Victim Protection Act.[80] This development in the use of command responsibility in civil proceedings shows that the application of this doctrine has been liberally extended even to cases not criminal in nature. Thus, it is our view that command responsibility may likewise find application in proceedings seeking the privilege of the writ of amparo. As we held in Rubrico: It may plausibly be contended that command responsibility, as legal basis to hold military/police commanders liable for extra-legal killings, enforced disappearances, or threats, may be made applicable to this jurisdiction on the theory that the command responsibility doctrine now constitutes a principle of international law or customary international law in accordance with the incorporation clause of the Constitution. … … … If command responsibility were to be invoked and applied to these proceedings, it should, at most, be only to determine the author who, at the first instance, is accountable for, and has the duty to address, the disappearance and harassments complained of, so as to enable the Court to devise remedial measures that may be appropriate under the premises to protect rights covered by the writ of amparo. As intimated earlier, however, the determination should not be pursued to fix criminal liability on respondents preparatory to criminal prosecution, or as a prelude to administrative disciplinary proceedings under existing administrative issuances, if there [81] be any. (Emphasis supplied.) Precisely in the case at bar, the doctrine of command responsibility may be used to determine whether respondents are accountable for and have the duty to address the abduction of Rodriguez in order to enable the courts to devise remedial measures to protect his rights. Clearly, nothing precludes this Court from applying the doctrine of command responsibility in amparo proceedings to ascertain responsibility and accountability in extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. In this regard, the Separate Opinion of Justice Conchita CarpioMorales in Rubrico is worth noting, thus: That proceedings under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo do not determine criminal, civil or administrative liability should not abate the applicability of the doctrine of command responsibility. Taking Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo and Razon v. Tagitis in proper context, they do not preclude the application of the doctrine of command responsibility to Amparo cases. Manalo was actually emphatic on the importance of the right to security of person and its contemporary signification as a guarantee of protection of one‘s rights by the government. It further stated that 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. Tagitis, on the other hand, cannot be more categorical on the application, at least in principle, of the doctrine of command responsibility: Given their mandates, the PNP and PNP-CIDG officials and members were the ones who were remiss in their duties when the government completely failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence that the Amparo Rule requires. We hold these organizations accountable through their incumbent Chiefs who, under this Decision, shall carry the personal responsibility of seeing to it that extraordinary diligence, in the manner the Amparo Rule requires, is applied in addressing the enforced disappearance of Tagitis. Neither does Republic Act No. 9851 emasculate the applicability of the command responsibility doctrine to Amparo cases. The short title of the law is the “Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity.” Obviously, it should, as it did, only treat of superior responsibility as a ground for criminal responsibility for the crimes covered. Such limited treatment, however, is merely in keeping with the statute‘s purpose and not intended to rule out the application of the doctrine of command responsibility to other appropriate cases. Indeed, one can imagine the innumerable dangers of insulating high-ranking military and police officers from the coverage of reliefs available under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. The explicit adoption of I submit that the Court should take this opportunity to state what the law ought to be if it truly wants to make the Writ of Amparo an effective remedy for victims of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. if there be any. the ponencia‘s hesitant application of the doctrine itself is replete with implications abhorrent to the rationale behind the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. Rubrico. As intimated earlier. While there is a genuine dearth of evidence to hold respondents Gen. wherein this Court ruled: Rubrico categorically denies the application of command responsibility in amparo cases to determine criminal liability. Gen. Avelino Razon accountable under the command responsibility doctrine. Hermogenes Esperon and P/Dir. and has the duty to address. liberty or security of the aggrieved party.the doctrine of command responsibility in the present case will only bring Manalo and Tagitis to their logical conclusion. it should. recognizes a preliminary yet limited application of command responsibility in amparo cases to instances of determining the responsible or accountable individuals or entities that are duty-bound to abate any transgression on the life.) This Separate Opinion was reiterated in the recently decided case of Boac v. so as to enable the Court to devise remedial measures that may be appropriate under the premises to protect rights covered by the writ of amparo. The Court maintains its adherence to this pronouncement as far as amparo cases are concerned. If command responsibility were to be invoked and applied to these proceedings.[83] likewise penned by Justice Carpio-Morales.[82] (Emphasis supplied. at the first instance. however. at most. In fine. is accountable for. or as a prelude to administrative disciplinary proceedings under existing administrative issuances. the disappearance and harassments complained of. . however. Cadapan. be only to determine the author who. the determination should not be pursued to fix criminal liability on respondents preparatory to criminal prosecution. or (ii) who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure. but have failed to discharge. Such identification of the responsible and accountable superiors may well be a preliminary determination of criminal liability which.In other words. in an enforced disappearance. as commander-in-chief of the military. In such application. We rule in the affirmative. Thus. (Emphasis supplied. the doctrine of command responsibility may nevertheless be applied to ascertain responsibility and accountability within these foregoing definitions. To hold someone liable under the doctrine of command responsibility. the following elements must obtain: . or the measure of remedies that should be addressed to those (i) who exhibited involvement in the enforced disappearance without bringing the level of their complicity to the level of responsibility defined above. or (iii) those who carry. a. amparo proceedings determine (a) responsibility. command responsibility may be loosely applied in amparo cases in order to identify those accountable individuals that have the power to effectively implement whatever processes an amparo court would issue. the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance. can be held responsible or accountable for extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. the amparo court does not impute criminal responsibility but merely pinpoint the superiors it considers to be in the best position to protect the rights of the aggrieved party. Command responsibility of the President Having established the applicability of the doctrine of command responsibility in amparo proceedings. and (b) accountability. it must now be resolved whether the president.) As earlier pointed out. of course. although there is no determination of criminal. by action or omission. civil or administrative liabilities. is still subject to further investigation by the appropriate government agency. or the extent the actors have been established by substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way. such may nonetheless be established through circumstantial evidence. i.O. the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the criminal acts or punish the perpetrators thereof. he did not take preventive or corrective action either before.[85] necessarily possesses control over the military that qualifies him as a superior within the purview of the command responsibility doctrine.a. a more liberal view is adopted and superiors may be charged with constructive knowledge.[87] In the Philippines.[91] . despite such knowledge. as to the issue of failure to prevent or punish. (b) the acts have been repeatedly or regularly committed within his area of responsibility. it must be pointed out that although international tribunals apply a strict standard of knowledge. or (c) members of his immediate staff or office personnel are involved. otherwise known as theInstitutionalization of the Doctrine of ‘Command Responsibility’ in all Government Offices.[84] The president. [86] On the issue of knowledge.[90] Meanwhile. the superior knew or had reason to know that the crime was about to be or had been committed. 226). or by others within his area of responsibility and. particularly at all Levels of Command in the Philippine National Police and other Law Enforcement Agencies (E..e. 226. is being committed. or has been committed by his subordinates.[88]Under E.[89]Knowledge of the commission of irregularities. it is important to note that as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. the president has the power to effectively command. actual knowledge. crimes or offenses is presumed when (a) the acts are widespread within the government official’s area of jurisdiction. 226. b. a government official may be held liable for neglect of duty under the doctrine of command responsibility if he has knowledge that a crime or offense shall be committed. This view is buttressed by the enactment of Executive Order No. and c. being the commander-in-chief of all armed forces. the existence of a superior-subordinate relationship between the accused as superior and the perpetrator of the crime as his subordinate.O. control and discipline the military. during. or immediately after its commission. R. there is no piece of evidence that could establish her responsibility or accountability for his abduction. No. to the relevance of the evidence to the issue at hand and its consistency with all other pieces of adduced . Responsibility or accountability of former President Arroyo The next question that must be tackled is whether Rodriguez has proven through substantial evidence that former President Arroyo is responsible or accountable for his abduction. In other words. 191805 The doctrine of totality of evidence in amparo cases was first laid down in this Court’s ruling in Razon. to our mind.” respondents in G.. we reduce our rules to the most basic test of reason – i.[93] Aside from Rodriguez’s general averments. liberty or security. Rodriguez contends that the Melo Report points to rogue military men as the perpetrators. Rodriguez anchors his argument on a general allegation that on the basis of the “Melo Commission” and the “Alston Report.R. and should have known that a climate of enforced disappearances had been perpetrated on members of the NPA. is to consider all the pieces of evidence adduced in their totality. or at the very least. 191805 already had knowledge of and information on.[92] Without even attaching. punish or prevent it. or that she had failed to investigate. While the Alston Report states that there is a policy allowing enforced disappearances and pins the blame on the President. Neither was there even a clear attempt to show that she should have known about the violation of his right to life. Fourth issue: Responsibility or accountability of respondents in G. We rule in the negative.[94] to wit: The fair and proper rule.b. No. we do not automatically impute responsibility to former President Arroyo for each and every count of forcible disappearance. quoting these reports.e. and to consider any evidence otherwise inadmissible under our usual rules to be admissible if it is consistent with the admissible evidence adduced. Mina to be present during his abduction. Matutina and Lt. Thus. He likewise positively identified respondents 1st Lt. we find no reason to depart from the factual findings of the Court of Appeals. the same being supported by substantial evidence.R. Pasicolan and Callagan as the CHR representatives who appeared during his release. 5th Infantry Division of the military abducted Rodriguez on 6 September 2009. Col. and detained and tortured him until 17 September 2009. The totality of evidence proved by substantial evidence the responsibility or accountability of respondents for the violation of or threat to Rodriguez’s right to life. After a careful examination of the records of these cases. [95] (Emphasis supplied. we are convinced that the Court of Appeals correctly found sufficient evidence proving that the soldiers of the 17th Infantry Battalion.evidence.[96] His narration of his suffering included an exhaustive description of his physical surroundings. detailing the manner in which he was captured and maltreated on account of his suspected membership in the NPA. 191805 for violating his right to life. liberty and security.[97] and respondents Cruz. A careful examination of the records of this case reveals that the totality of the evidence adduced by Rodriguez indubitably prove the responsibility and accountability of some respondents in G. personal circumstances and perceived observations. even hearsay evidence can be admitted if it satisfies this basic minimum test. liberty and security. detention and torture. Rodriguez’s Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 4 December 2009 was a meticulous and straightforward account of his horrific ordeal with the military. No.[98] .) In the case at bar. a. chest right side - Multiple healed rashes (brownish discoloration) both forearm - Multiple healed rashes (brownish discoloration) - both leg arm - hip area/lumbar area [101] Dr.[99] wherein he recounted in detail the circumstances surrounding the victim’s capture. the fact of Rodriguez’s abduction was corroborated by Carlos in his Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 16 September 2009. Ramil. chest left side - 6cm x 1cm hematoma from epigastric area to ant. Pamugas thus issued a Medical Report dated 23 September 2009. 5thInfantry Division. the respective Certifications of Dr.More particularly. the results of which confirmed that the injuries suffered by the latter were inflicted through torture. According to the Certification dated 12 October 2009 executed by Dr. to wit: . Pamugas performed a separate medical examination of Rodriguez on 19 September 2009. Ramil and Dr.[102] explicitly stating that Rodriguez had been tortured during his detention by the military.[100] she examined Rodriguez in the Alfonso Ponce Enrile Memorial District Hospital on 16 September 2009 and arrived at the following findings: FACE - 10cm healed scar face right side - 2cm healed scar right eyebrow (lateral area) - 2cm healed scar right eye brow (median area) - 4cm x 2cm hematoma anterior chest at the sternal area right side - 3cm x 2cm hematoma sternal area left side - 6cm x 1cm hematoma from epigastric area to ant. Pamugas validate the physical maltreatment Rodriguez suffered in the hands of the soldiers of the 17th Infantry Battalion. Dr. As regards the allegation of torture. they claimed that he was a double agent. of which the age is compatible with the alleged date of infliction (sic). Rather. Further. No. 191805 still stubbornly clung to their argument that he was neither abducted nor detained. The areas of tenderness he felt during the physical examination were due to the overwhelming punching and kicking on his body. whose relationship with the military was at all times congenial. . XI. The occasional difficulty of sleeping is a symptom experience (sic) by the subject as a result of the psychological trauma he encountered during his detention. Interpretation of Findings The above physical and psychological findings sustained by the subject are related to the torture and ill-treatment done to him. The multiple pinpoint blood spots found on his left ear is a result of an unknown object placed inside his left ear.) In assessing the weight of the Certifications. [103] (Emphasis supplied. The multiple circular brown to dark brown spots found on both legs and arms were due to the insect bites that he sustained when he was forced to join twice in the military operations.X. 5th Infantry Division of the Philippine Army. Conclusions and Recommendations The physical injuries and psychological trauma suffered by the subject are secondary to the torture and ill-treatment done to him while in detention for about 11 days. thus making respondents’ claim highly implausible. The abrasions could also be due to the conditions related during military operations. as it is far removed from ordinary human experience. the kind of injuries he sustained showed that he could not have sustained them from merely falling. Despite these medical findings that overwhelmingly supported and lent credibility to the allegations of Rodriguez in his Sinumpaang Salaysay. respondents in G.R. the Court of Appeals correctly relied on the medical finding that the injuries suffered by Rodriguez matched his account of the maltreatment inflicted on him by the soldiers of the 17th Infantry Battalion. This contention cannot be sustained. The physical injuries sustained by the subject. 24. Na sa kasalukuhan.If it were true that Rodriguez maintained amicable relations with the military. Na sinabihan ako ng mga sundalo na kung pwede daw ay maiwan muna ng dalawang linggo sa kampo ako at si Noriel para daw matrain pa si Noriel sa loob ng kampo. xxx xxx xxx 33. Instead. Na niyakap ko sya at sa aming pagkakayakap ay binulungan nya ako na wag ko syang iiwan sa lugar na iyon. lalo na kay Noriel. Rodel made the following supporting averments in his Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 3 December 2009:[106] . In fact. xxx [105] Also. then he should have unhesitatingly assured his family on 17 September 2009 that he was among friends. in the Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 4 December 2009[104] Wilma executed. xxx xxx xxx 23. she made the following averments: 18. he vigorously pleaded with them to get him out of the military facility. hanggang ngayon ay nag-aalala pa ako sa paa (sic) sa kaligtasan ng aming buong pamilya. Na hindi ako pumayag na maiwan ang aking anak. Na nang Makita ko ang aking anak ay nakaramdam ako sa kanya ng awa dahil sa mukha syang pagod at malaki ang kanyang ipinayat. 19. and that he wanted to become an ordinary citizen again because of the empty promises of the CPP-NPA. Navarro. If petitioner was tired of life in the wilderness and desired to become an ordinary citizen again. xxx [107] Moreover. hinang-hina sya. respondents state that petitioner agreed to become a double agent for the military and wanted to re-enter the CPP-NPA. 25. that petitioner could no longer stand the hardships he experienced in the wilderness. Cpl. Na ilang minuto lang ay binulugan nya ako ng “Kuya.24.R. Mina na baka pwedeng maiwan pa ng dalwang linggo ang aking kapatid sa kanila para raw ma-train sya. ilabas mo ako dito.” 27. 26. Na nang makita ko si Noriel. it defies logic that he would agree to become an undercover agent and work alongside soldiers in the mountains – or the . in the same Return. The lower court ruled in this manner: In the Return of the Writ. if not outrightly contradictory. No. respondent AFP members alleged that petitioner confided to his military handler. papatayin nila ako. Na sinabihan kami ni Lt. Na hindi kami pumayag ng aking nanay. malaki ang ipinayat at nanlalalim ang mga mata. 191805 that while Rodriguez had complained of his exhaustion from his activities as a member of the CPP-NPA. 28. contention of respondents in G. Col. the Court of Appeals likewise aptly pointed out the illogical. so that he could get information regarding the movement directly from the source. Na nang makita ko ang aking kapatid ay nakaramdam ako ng awa dahil nakilala ko syang masigla at masayahin. hindi sya makalakad ng diretso. he nevertheless willingly volunteered to return to his life in the NPA to become a double-agent for the military. However. give credence to his claim that he had been abducted.wilderness he [108] comrades.R. Pasicolan and Callagan. Matutina. as it intrudes into the very core of petitioner’s right to security guaranteed by the fundamental law.[110] should ensure that its officers are well-equipped to respond effectively to and address . the appellate court also properly ruled that aside from the abduction. that as to respondents Cruz. 1Lt. as well as the contradictory defenses presented by respondents in G. No. as well as videos of the innermost part of the house. [109] (Emphasis supplied. This Court notes that 1Lt. dreads – to locate the hideout of his alleged NPA (Emphasis supplied. Matutina. or threatened with violation. 5th Infantry Division of the military. detained and tortured by soldiers belonging to the 17th Infantry Battalion. detention and torture of Rodriguez.) Furthermore. Rodriguez’s right to life. will not be free from the watchful eyes of the military. The CHR. as well as the photos of his relatives. It must be pointed out. The Court cannot – and will not – condone such act. the pieces of evidence adduced by Rodriguez. being constitutionally mandated to protect human rights and investigate violations thereof. 191805. specifically 1st Lt. liberty and security. this Court nonetheless emphasizes its criticism as regards their capacity to recognize torture or any similar form of abuse. from then on.) Taken in their totality. however. the soldiers even went as far as taking videos of the photos of petitioner’s relatives hung on the wall of the house. Despite the dearth of evidence to show the CHR officers’ responsibility or accountability. respondents. had violated and threatened the former’s right to security when they made a visual recording of his house. Matutina also desired to instill fear in the minds of petitioner and his family by showing them that the sanctity of their home. there was no substantial evidence to show that they violated. permanently captured through the medium of a seemingly innocuous cellhpone video camera. did not merely intend to make proofs of the safe arrival of petitioner and his family in their home. to wit: In the videos taken by the soldiers – one of whom was respondent Matutina – in the house of petitioner on September 18. 2009. by taking the said videos. responsibility may refer to the participation of the respondents. on the other hand. The Rule on the Writ of Amparo explicitly states that the violation of or threat to the right to life. Manalo[114] that the right to security of a person includes the positive obligation of the government to ensure the observance of the duty to investigate. 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. by action or omission. liberty and security may be caused by either an act or an omission of a public official. The actuations of respondents unmistakably showed their insufficient competence in facilitating and ensuring the safe release of Rodriguez after his ordeal. 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. may attach to respondents who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure. we emphasize our ruling in Secretary of National Defense v. the Constitutional guarantee of the rights to life.[112] Accountability. Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution. The failure to conduct a fair and effect investigation amounted to a violation of or threat to Rodriguez’s rights to life.[113] In this regard. this right is built into the guarantees of the right to life and liberty under Article III. In the context of the writ of Amparo. the right to security of person is a guarantee of protection of one's rights by the government. Section 2. viz: Third. in enforced disappearance. in the context of amparo proceedings. or those who carry. liberty and security. but have failed to discharge. liberty and security of person is rendered ineffective if government does not afford .[111] Moreover.human rights violations. b. As the government is the chief guarantor of order and security. the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance. The family's requests for information and investigation regarding his whereabouts proved futile. Protection includes conducting effective investigations. the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has interpreted the ―right to security‖ not only as prohibiting the State from arbitrarily depriving liberty. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights stressed the importance of investigation in the Velasquez Rodriguez Case. viz: .. 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. and bringing offenders to the bar of justice. In this case. the claimant's son had been arrested by state authorities and had not been seen since. 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. For this reason.. xxx xxx xxx Similarly. viz: (The duty to investigate) must be undertaken in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective. Kurt v.. without an effective search for the truth by the government. but imposing a positive duty on the State to afford protection of the right to liberty. organization of the government apparatus to extend protection to victims of extralegal killings or enforced disappearances (or threats thereof) and/or their families. Turkey. 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 .protection to these rights especially when they are under threat.. 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. An investigation must have an objective and be assumed by the State as its own legal duty. Having assumed control over that individual it is incumbent on the authorities to account for his or her whereabouts. The claimant suggested that this was a violation of her son's right to security of person. The ECHR ruled. R. Tolentino. Johnny Calub for the Commanding Officer of the 501st Infantry Brigade. Bangit. Ibrado. De Vera. Mina only conducted a perfunctory investigation. 17th Infantry Division. PDG. The records disclose that the military. depended on the Comprehensive Report of Noriel Rodriguez @Pepito prepared by 1Lt. Gen. Such report. Bangit. Gen. Ochoa. respondents Ibrado. is merely based on the narration of the military. this Court rules that respondents in G. is accountable because Section 24 of Republic Act No.) . for while they were charged with the investigation of the subject incident. Instead. [116] Philippine Army. No efforts were undertaken to solicit petitioner’s version of the subject incident and no witnesses were questioned regarding the alleged abduction of petitioner. effect the arrest of criminal offenders. Santos. Respondent PDG Verzosa. Respondents Gen. Verzosa. De Vera and Lt. is the lack of any effort on the part of PDG Verzosa to effectively and aggressively investigate the violations of petitioner’s right to life. liberty and security on account of their abject failure to conduct a fair and effective official investigation of his ordeal in the hands of the military.[115] (Emphasis supplied) In the instant case. 6975. (Emphasis supplied. in investigating the incident complained of.been taken into custody and has not been seen since. No. Philippine Army. however. PDG Verzosa disclaims accountability by merely stating that petitioner has no cause of action against him. Palpable. however. PDG Verzosa failed to order the police to conduct the necessary investigation to unmask the mystery surrounding petitioner’s abduction and disappearance. and Mina are accountable. Col. exerting no efforts to take Ramirez’s account of the events into consideration. as Chief of the PNP.” specifies the PNP as the governmental office with the mandate “to investigate and prevent crimes.” In this case. these respondents solely relied on the reports and narration of the military. otherwise known as the “PNP Law. Maj. Lt. Verzosa. Col. The ruling of the appellate court must be emphasized: In this case. Rather. 191805 are responsible or accountable for the violation of Rodriguez’s right to life. the investigation they conducted and/or relied on is superficial and one-sided. liberty and security by members of the 17th Infantry Battalion. bring offenders to justice and assist in their prosecution. 5th Infantry Division. we resolve to GRANT the Petition for Partial Review in G. 1st Lt. Meanwhile. Brig. 191805 must be held responsible or accountable. Gen. we rule that Rodriguez was successful in proving through substantial evidence that respondents Gen. Nevertheless. Bangit. No. No. Thus. it must be clarified that Rodriguez was unable to establish any responsibility or accountability on the part of respondents P/CSupt. Santos. Maj. Cruz.R. the absence of a fair and effective official investigation into the claims of Rodriguez violated his right to security. the privilege of the writs of amparo and habeas data must be granted in his favor. and (b) allowing the application of the command responsibility doctrine to amparo and habeas data proceedings.R. for which respondents in G. 191805 and DENY the Petition for Review in G. De Vera. P/SSupt. liberty and security. Gen. liberty and property. From all the foregoing. Respondent P/CSupt. liberty and security on the basis of (a) his abduction. Calog and Palacpac. Ochoa.R. while P/SSupt. Col. there is no longer any need to issue a temporary protection order. As a result. Lt. Rodriguez failed to prove through substantial evidence that former President Arroyo was responsible or accountable for the violation of his rights to life. 193160.R. Matutina. No. detention and torture from 6 September to 17 September 2009. Pasicolan and Callagan.R. Verzosa. Gen. and (b) the lack of any fair and effective official investigation as to his allegations. Gen. WHEREFORE. No. It is also clear from the above discussion that despite (a) maintaining former President Arroyo in the list of respondents in G. Ibrado. as the privilege of these writs already has the effect of enjoining respondents in G. no sufficient allegations were maintained against respondents Calog and Palacpac. . 191805 from violating his rights to life. Mina were responsible and accountable for the violation of Rodriguez’s rights to life. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. PDG. 191805. and Lt. Santos had already been reassigned and transferred to the National Capital Regional Police Office six months before the subject incident occurred. Tolentino.Clearly. No. Ochoa. Tolentino had already retired when the abduction and torture of Rodriguez was perpetrated. He likewise failed to prove through substantial evidence the accountability or responsibility of respondents Maj. Antonio Cruz. Calog. SO ORDERED.The case is dismissed with respect to respondents former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Victor Ibrado. Col. Gen. the directives mandated in this Decision and in the Court of Appeals are enforceable against the incumbent officials holding the relevant positions. Tolentino. that may have been incurred by respondents Gen. Remegio De Vera. Laurence Mina. Aldwin Pasicolan and Vicent Callagan for lack of merit. Gen. Ameto G. Ryan Matutina. and Lt. Failure to comply with the foregoing shall constitute contempt of court. Gen. This Court directs the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to take the appropriate action with respect to any possible liability or liabilities. In the event that herein respondents no longer occupy their respective posts. . Santos. within their respective legal competence. P/CSupt. and P/SSupt. Jesus Verzosa. 1st Lt. Delfin Bangit. George Palacpac. Maj. PDG. Jude W. The Ombudsman and the DOJ are ordered to submit to this Court the results of their action within a period of six months from receipt of this Decision. Brig. Nestor Ochoa. Lt. Gen. 186050 . Gen. NONETTE BALAO. ISAGANI CACHUELA.R.EN BANC ARTHUR BALAO. Respondents. GILBERTO TEODORO. JESUS VERZOSA. No. SECRETARY GILBERTO TEODORO. EDGARDO DOROMAL. JONILYN BALAOSTRUGAR and BEVERLY LONGID. x------------------------. REYNALDO MAPAGU. SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA. WINSTON BALAO. Maj. . ALEXANDER YANO. RONALDO PUNO. Lt. PSS EUGENE MARTIN and several JOHN DOES. P/Dir. NORBERTO GONZALES. Gen.x PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGALARROYO. G. Petitioners. Brig.versus - GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO. Commanding Officer of the AFP-ISU based in Baguio City. Gen. EDUARDO ERMITA. ARTHUR BALAO. ISAGANI CACHUELA ANDPOL. PERALTA BERSAMIN. P/DGEN.J. DEL CASTILLO. GEN. BRION. JR. ABAD. REYES. SUPT. JESUS VERZOSA.versus - LEONARDO-DE CASTRO.C. SERENO. NONETTE BALAO. VELASCO. PEREZ..SECRETARY RONALDO PUNO. JR. MENDOZA. Respondents. SR. VILLARAMA.R. ALEXANDER YANO.. and . BRIG GEN. EUGENE MARTIN. G. REYNALDO MAPAGU. CARPIO. GEN. No. SECRETARY NORBERTO GONZALES. JONILYN BALAOSTRUGAR and BEVERLY LONGID.. Present: CORONA. WINSTON BALAO. MAJ. 186059 Petitioners. . . Benguet.... Promulgated: December 13.. Branch 63.... production and witness protection orders.... in Special Proceeding No. The Antecedents On October 8. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. JR... v... et al. JJ. 08-AMP-0001..: Before us are consolidated appeals under Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparofrom the January 19. 2008 in Tomay... Benguet a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo[2] in favor of James Balao who was abducted by unidentified armed men on September 17..-x DECISION VILLARAMA. 2008.. 2011 x.. filed with the RTC of La Trinidad...PERLAS-BERNABE. Benguet..... Executive Secretary ..... et al. J. siblings of James Balao.... 2009 Judgment[1] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of La Trinidad..... Arthur Balao...” The RTC granted the petition for the writ of amparo but denied the prayer for issuance of inspection. Named respondents in the petition were then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.... Winston Balao... Arthur Balao.. La Trinidad. Nonette Balao and Jonilyn Balao-Strugar. entitled “In the Matter of the Petition for Issuance of Writ of Amparo in favor of James Balao..... and Beverly Longid (petitioners). Isagani C. James actively helped in the training and organization of farmers. La Trinidad. Northern Luzon Command (NOLCOM) Commander Maj. Ermita.. Alexander B. Defense Secretary Gilberto C. PNP-Cordillera Administrative Region Regional Director Police Senior Supt. A white van then arrived and stopped infront of the store. he was arrested on the charge of violation of the Anti-Subversion Law but the case was eventually dismissed for lack of evidence. Gen. Cachuela. Balao is a Psychology and Economics graduate of the University of the Philippines-Baguio (UP-Baguio).Eduardo R. He had a belt bag and a travelling bag which was placed on a bench. Edgardo Doromal. Yano. Jr. the Commanding Officer of the AFP Intelligence Service Unit (AFP-ISU) based in Baguio City and several John Does. In 1988. James M. PNP Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG) Chief Lt. while working for the CPA. Philippine Army (PA) Chief Brig. and his co-employee were delivering bakery products thereat. Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Chief of Staff Gen. In 1984. 2008. a man clad in black jacket. The testimonies and statements of eyewitnesses established the following circumstances surrounding James’s disappearance: On September 17. Reynaldo B. Benguet. Puno. at around 8:30 in the morning. The man was . Gonzales. Vicky Bonel was at the time attending to the said store owned by her brother-in-law while Aniceto G. Five men in civilian clothes who were carrying firearms alighted from the van and immediately approached the man poking their guns on him. Jr. black shirt. Teodoro. National Security Adviser (NSA) Norberto B.Interior and Local Government Secretary Ronaldo V. Dawing. He was also the President of Oclupan Clan Association which undertakes the registration and documentation of clan properties to protect their rights over ancestral lands. As head of CPA’s education and research committee. Gen. a coalition of non-government organizations (NGOs) working for the cause of indigenous peoples in the Cordillera Region. Eugene Gabriel Martin. P/Dir. Philippine National Police (PNP) Police Director General Jesus A. black visor and gray pants was standing infront of Saymor’s[3] Store at Tomay. Verzosa. Mapagu. he was among those who founded the Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA). They grabbed and handcuffed him. the informer gave the exact dates he visited his family. La Trinidad. clothes he wore. Another warned that no one should interfere because the man was being arrested for illegal drugs. Teams were formed to follow James’s route from Fairview. saying they were policemen.m. had any idea where he was. and to CPA Chairperson Beverly Longid (Beverly). One of the armed men went back to the store to get the man’s travelling bag. with the assistance of the CPA and other NGOs. James sent a text message to Nonette informing her that he was about to leave his rented house in Fairview Central. Before leaving the place. Thus. The petition alleged that in May 2008. Thereafter. Baguio City and that he was going to their ancestral residence in Pico. Attached to the petition were the affidavits[4] of Nonette and Beverly attesting to James’s reports of surveillance to his family and to the CPA. James supposedly observed certain vehicles tailing him and suspiciously parked outside his residence. Nonette. tried to locate James. they pushed the man inside the van. No one. Benguet). Around 8:00 a. . one of the armed men was also heard telling the driver of the van that they are going to proceed to Camp Dangwa (PNP Provincial Headquarters in La Trinidad. the Balao family. started contacting their friends and relatives to ask about James’s whereabouts. around 7:00 in the morning. however.. The witnesses later identified the man as James Balao after seeing his photograph which appeared in posters announcing him as missing. James reported surveillances on his person to his family. He also claimed to have received calls and messages through his mobile phone informing him that he was under surveillance by the PNP Regional Office and the AFP-ISU. One of the armed men addressed the people witnessing the incident. particularly to his sister Nonette Balao (Nonette). 2008. It was further alleged that on September 17. after discovering that James never reached their parents’ house at Pico. Benguet to do his laundry. Baguio City to Pico usually takes only 20 to 45 minutes. To prove the surveillance. and dates and times he goes home or visits friends and relatives.asking why he was being apprehended. The travel time from Fairview. one of which was a van with plate number USC 922. The van headed towards the direction of La Trinidad town proper. but the personnel in said offices denied any knowledge on James’s whereabouts. yielded negative results. both in Baguio City. On October 9. . La Trinidad and people along the way were asked if they happened to see him. moreover. They likewise prayed for (1) an inspection order for the inspection of at least 11 military and police facilities which have been previously reported as detention centers for activists abducted by military and police operatives. They also sought the help of the media to announce James’s disappearance and wrote several government agencies to inform them of his disappearance and enlist their help in locating him. Contending that there is no plain. to release James. the Writ of Amparo[6] was issued directing respondents to file their verified return together with their supporting affidavit within five days from receipt of the writ. petitioners prayed for the issuance of a writ of amparo ordering the respondents to disclose where James is detained or confined. and to cease and desist from further inflicting harm upon his person. Petitioners.Baguio City to Pico. and (3) a witness protection order. (2) a production order for all documents that contain evidence relevant to the petition. liberty and security. enumerated in their petition several incidents of harassments and human rights violations against CPA officers. The family likewise went to Baguio Police Station 7 to report James’s disappearance. The report was duly entered on the blotter but there have been no developments as of the filing of the petition. 2008. These searches. One of the teams also went to the office of the AFP-ISU (PA-ISU) in Navy Base and the office of the Military Intelligence Group in Camp Allen. particularly the Order of Battle List and any record or dossier respondents have on James. however. speedy or adequate remedy for them to protect James’s life. staff and members. Petitioners simultaneously filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion[5] for the immediate issuance of a writ of amparo pursuant to Section 6 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. Sec. Mapagu and Gen. including military or police personnel when warranted by the findings of the investigations. Sec. involvement or participation in the abduction of James. their statements are hearsay with no probative value. (2) that only Arthur Balao should be named petitioner and the rest of the other petitioners dropped. Verzosa in their respective affidavits denied having such participation or knowledge of James’s abduction. (3) that there is no allegation of specific wrongdoing against respondents that would show their knowledge. Puno. Yano. hence. Gen. Teodoro. Philippine Army. and (3) the allegations in the petition do not show the materiality and relevance of the places sought to be searched/inspected and documents to be produced. specifically the requirement that the prayer for an inspection order shall be supported by affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge of the whereabouts of the aggrieved party. (4) that Exec. Gonzales. Respondents contended that the petition failed to meet the requirement in the Rule on the Writ of Amparo that claims must be established by substantial evidence considering that: (1) petitioners’ allegations do not mention in anyway the manner. Sec. Ermita. set forth their actions taken in investigating the matter and undertaking to continue exerting extraordinary diligence in securing the liberty of James and bring all those responsible for his disappearance to the bar of justice. . came up with interviews of several witnesses. Martin already ordered an investigation. whether directly or indirectly. Gen.and (6) that petitioners themselves did not cooperate with police authorities in the investigation and neither did they ask the National Bureau of Investigation to locate James.Respondents in their Joint Return[7] stated: (1) that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is immune from suit and should thus be dropped as partyrespondent. and held a dialogue with the Commander of the Military Intelligence Group I (MIG1) and the Commanding Officer of the Internal Service Unit-Internal Security Group. (2) Nonette and Beverly do not have personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the abduction of James. (5) that Supt. Sec. Gen. Cachuela. the alleged participation of respondents in the purported abduction of James. Respondents further argued that it is the PNP as the law enforcement agency. respondents executed their affidavits to show the actions they have taken and reports submitted to them by the proper authorities. he caused the issuance of a letter addressed to the PNP Chief and AFP Chief of Staff for the purpose of inquiring and establishing the circumstances surrounding the alleged disappearance of James Balao. and not the respondent military and executive officials. No. the AFP may inquire on the matters being alluded to them as may be ordered by the proper superior. if any. as follows: Executive Secretary Ermitastated that upon receipt of copy of the petition for a writ of amparo. which is primarily done for possible court martial proceedings. Hence. participation or authorization for the alleged disappearance of James Balao. 2007 to the Chief of Staff. and which letters also called for the submission of pertinent reports on the results of the investigation conducted. The AFP was therein also directed to immediately coordinate with the PNP. liberty and security or threat thereof.M. Nonetheless. NBI. their common denials of having any knowledge. and there is no reason for him to doubt that the AFP will comply with it insofar as the present petition for writ of amparo is concerned. At most.[9] Secretary Puno confirmed receipt of a copy of the petition and said he will write to the PNP Chief to call for pertinent reports relative to the circumstances of . he issued “Policy Directive on the Actions and Defenses Under the Amparo Rule” which instructed members of the AFP to undertake specific measures even without waiting for the filing of an amparo petition in court whenever any member of the AFP or any of its commands or units have been reported or published as being involved in the alleged violation of an individual’s right to life. DOJ and other government agencies in the attainment of the desired actions in the event a petition is filed. Said policy directive was contained in his Memorandum dated October 31. 07-9-12-SC. which has the duty to investigate cases of missing persons.[8] Secretary Teodoro declared that soon after the promulgation by this Court of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. AFP. as a preparatory step in the filing of a verified return as required by A. which presumption remains undisturbed amid gratuitous assumptions and conclusions in the petition devoid of factual and legal basis. This was also done in compliance with the Policy Directive issued by Defense Secretary Teodoro. Casiño inquiring about the alleged abduction of James Balao.[10] NSA Gonzales asserted that as a public officer. He . PA to investigate the matter since the place of the commission of the abduction is within its area of responsibility. he is presumed to have performed his duties in accordance with law. He undertook to provide the court with material results of the investigations conducted by the concerned units as soon as the same are received by Higher Headquarters. Gen. the PNP Chief and the AFP Chief of Staff for the purpose of making active inquiries and establishing the circumstances of the alleged disappearance insofar as the possible involvement of military/police personnel is concerned. he directed by radio message the NOLCOM Commander to conduct a thorough investigation on the matter and to submit the result thereof to the AFP General Headquarters. Acting on said directive. 2008. Cachuela said that even prior to the receipt of a copy of the petition.[11] General Yano narrated that prior to the receipt of a copy of the petition. Upon receipt of a copy of the petition.the alleged “taking” of the person in whose favor the writ of amparo was sought. he caused to be issued letters/communications to the Director General of the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency. he in turn directed the 5th Infantry Division. 2008 directive to the PA Commanding General in another radio message dated October 16. He undertook to provide the material results of investigations conducted or to be conducted by the concerned agencies. he was already directed by Higher Headquarters to conduct a thorough investigation on the alleged abduction of James Balao.[12] Lt. he received a memorandum from the Department of National Defense transmitting the letter of Bayan Muna Representative Teodoro A. He undertook to make available any report he will receive from the PNP on the matter. On the basis of said memo. He reiterated his October 6. Results of the investigations conducted were set forth in his affidavit.[14] Pol. Upon his orders. He further instructed the RID to exert all efforts and supervise all lower units to intensify their investigation and ascertain the whereabouts and other circumstances surrounding the disappearance of James. On October 6. he received information regarding an abduction incident in Tomay. Police Station 1 of the Baguio City Police Office (BCPO) immediately conducted inquiries at the boarding house of James at Barangay Fairview. He claimed that he immediately called the attention of the “concerned staff” to give some information regarding the case and directed them to submit a report if they are able to obtain information.[13] BGen. Dir. being the lead PNP unit investigating the case of James Balao. 2008. This was followed by a Memorandum with his picture and description. CPA Chairperson Beverly Longid called up and informed him of the disappearance of James. He had constant coordination with the CPA leaders and Balao family who divulged the plate numbers of vehicles allegedly observed by James prior to his disappearance as conducting surveillance on his person. Mapagu on his part declared that there is nothing in the allegations of the petition that would show the involvement of the PA in the reported disappearance of James Balao. General Verzosa set forth the actions and steps taken by the PNP. Martin recounted that in the afternoon of September 17. Upon verification with the Land Transportation Office. On September 20. as soon as NOLCOM receives the same. Eugene Martin. he ordered the creation of Task Force Balao to fast track the investigation of the case. particularly the PNP Regional Office-Cordillera (PRO-COR) headed by PCSupt. Chief Supt. and USC 922 – G & S Transport Corp. Baguio City.undertook to furnish the court with a copy of the result of the investigation conducted or to be conducted. he was informed that James was allegedly missing and immediately ordered the Office of the Regional Intelligence Division (RID) to send flash alarm to all lower units to look for and locate James Balao. Tanauan. the said vehicles were found to be registered under the following persons: TNH 787 – Narciso Magno of #20 Darasa. 2008. Batangas.[15] Pol. Likewise. 2008. . La Trinidad whereupon he ordered the Provincial Director of Benguet to conduct an in-depth investigation. [16] Also attached to the Return are the more detailed reports (with attached affidavits of other witnesses) dated October 14. 2008 and October 6. he frequently observed two (2) unidentified male persons aged 50-70 years old and about 5’1” to 5’5” in height. La Trinidad. he met with the family and relatives of James to inform them of initial efforts and investigation of the case. the contents of which could not be determined. Baguio City and his companions prior to his disappearance on September 17. averred that he observed some unidentified male and female persons visiting the said house. Task Force Balao with the help of the CPA and Balao family were able to convince two witnesses in the abduction incident in Tomay. residing adjacent to the house of the subject. Purok 3. identify the abductors. Benguet to shed light on the incident. 2008 to appear before the Task Force Balao for some clarifications but none of them appeared. for the coordinated efforts to locate James. a resident of Nr 126. However. and invited some members of the CPA who retrieved James’s personal belongings in Fairview. Albas to the PNP Cordillera Regional Director. He further stated that he had never seen a van conducting surveillance on the house and have not heard of any incident of kidnapping or abduction in the community. In the afternoon of the same day. Central Fairview. when interviewed. In the morning of October 9. 2008 submitted by Task Force Balao Commander P/S Supt. MIG1 and Commanding Officer of ISU.] Anselmo Alukim. Baguio City. cartographic sketches of the suspects were made. Inquiries conducted from Mr. as a result. Zusimo Unarosa. On October 8. he presided over a dialogue which was attended by the Group Commander. 2008. .said investigation disclosed that the person abducted was indeed James. Pertinent portions of the two reports read: xxxx 2. ISG and PA. 2008. bringing boxes from the house. The case is still under follow-up and continuing investigation to know what really happened. averred that these two (2) male personalities are not familiar in the barangay. determine the real motive for the abduction and file the necessary charges in court against those responsible. 3. a neighbor. The Task Force Balao was also able to secure the affidavits of witnesses Aniceto Dawing and Vicky Bonel. Mr[. Fortunato B. claimed that on the 1st week of September 2008. ] he received a phone call that his missing colleague (James Balao) did not reach the municipality and reported missing. PA but both offices denied any knowledge on the alleged abduction of James Balao. La Trinidad PS. It was found out that it was SPO4 Genero Rosal. ISG. Accordingly[. sometime on April 2008. Central Fairview. Baguio City averred that the subject is not residing in the said place and saw him only once. 8. RID ad Intel BPPO to verify if they had an operation in Tomay. After that short talk. Additionally.] Corazon Addun. 5. La Trinidad but all of them answered negative. Addun and over a cup of coffee told her that he will be going to Sagada. He further stated that three (3) male persons aged 40 to 50 years old and a female aged between 20-30 years old goes out during day time with several boxes and returns at about 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM on board a taxi cab again with some boxes of undetermined contents. Another witness divulged that prior to the arrest of the person in the picture/photograph. A photocopy of the photograph of James Balao was presented to the witnesses wherein they confirmed that the picture is the same person who was arrested and handcuffed. on September 21. Uncle John went to the house of Mrs. She further narrated that a certain Uncle John aged 40 to 50 years old and a male person aged 20 to 30 are among the occupants of said house. a red motorcycle with two (2) male riders allegedly conducted surveillance along the highway about ten (10) meters away from the place where the victim was picked-up.] Danny Griba. Mountain Province purposely to locate a missing colleague who was sent there. xxxx [17] xxxx 3. Purok 3. That after he learned about *James’ abduction+. a resident of said barangay averred that James Balao is not a resident or occupant of the said house and claimed that he only saw the subject last summer and stated there are five (5) unidentified persons occupying the said house.4. xxxx 7. she never saw Uncle John again. residing within the vicinity. 2008. who followed-up the incident because it was reported to him by his neighbors. Minutes later. Accordingly. a white Mitsubishi Adventure arrived and took the . Interview conducted on Mr[. he contacted PDEA. she did not notice any vehicle conducting surveillance therein and any unusual incidents that transpired in said place. Mrs[. This office has likewise coordinated with MIG-1 and ISU. resident of Nr 114. he was hesitant to talk and instead pointed to the driver of the delivery van of Helen’s Bread. were her neighbors for almost one year. She further stated that James Balao and company do not mingle with their neighbors and only one person is usually left behind while James and Rene goes out at 6:00 or 7:00 AM and goes back at around 6:00 or 7:00 PM. Accordingly. 2008. 2008. and a resident of 135 Central Fairview averred that James Balao together with a certain Uncle John about 65-75 years old. At about 8:30 AM of October 9. 2008. 2008. a closed van (Ca[n]ter) with unknown plate number was seen parked infront of the said house and more or less (10) unidentified male person[s] aging from 20-23 and an unidentified female entered the alleged rented house of James Balao and took some table. resident of Tomay. 5. However. A cartographic sketch was made on the person who identified himself as policeman. She further stated that it was when while she was tending her brother-inlaw’s store. The rider of the bike was suspiciously scouring the area and kept on calling someone from his cellular phone before the abduction was made. Baguio City Police Office conducted follow-up investigation and were able to secure affidavit of Florence Luken y Mayames. Another witness overheard one of the abductors instructing the driver to quote “pare sa Camp Dangwa tayo. Follow[-+up investigation resulted in the identification of a certain “KULOT” who also witnessed the alleged abduction. single. handcuffed and shove the victim inside their vehicle. at around 1:00 PM of September 26. 7.victim inside the car. chairs and cabinets then left immediately to unknown destination. She further averred that she did not notice any van or any kind of vehicle parked along the roadside infront of any residence not his neighbors nor any person or persons observing the occupants of the said house. native of Atok.+ y Gano. 47 years old. of about six or more. 6. the driver of the delivery van of Helen’s Bread. one Vicky Bonel y Felipe. married. 19 years old.” 4. Benguet. Benguet. LTB and store keeper of Saymor*’s+ Store appeared before the office of Benguet PPO and gave her sworn statement on the alleged abduction. surfaced and gave his statements on what he witnessed on the alleged abduction. On October 12. The motorcycle riding in tandem followed the Mitsubushi Adventure en route to Camp Dangwa. La Trinidad. gun-wielding men. . Aniceto Dawing Jr*. about 5’4” in height and a certain Rene about 30-35 years old and stands 5’5”. Another witness stated that she was preparing her merchandise in the waiting shed of Lower Tomay when she noticed a parked motorcycle beside the elementary school at about 7:00 AM of September 17. She recalled that she can recognize the abductors if she can see them again. a meeting with the family and relatives of James Balao was again presided by RD. On October 8.] Mina Cabati Serdan the owner of the house being rented by James Balao averred that sometime May of 2007.] Serdan further stated that [she]visited the rented house only twice and that was the only time she saw James Balao with an unidentified companions. Both commanders denied the accusations against them. 2.] June. Mrs[. recommended to her that a certain James Balao will rent the house for one (1) year term with an agreed monthly rent of fifteen thousand pesos (P15.] Serdan called up James Balao through phone to inform him that she will terminate his stay at the rented house on September 30. 5. a dialogue was presided by RD. the area. MIG1 and Commanding Officer of ISU. On the last week of August 2008. Mrs[. 6. PRO-COR wherein the results of the initial efforts and investigation were given to the family. xxxx VI.00). 2008 and discovered that all personal belongings of the occupants have already been taken out by the relatives. Rene and his other companions who are then residing in the same boarding house including all his companions on September 17. 2008. SG. 2008. Mrs[. two (2) witnesses namely: Marjore Domingo Hipolito and Jenny Lynn Malondon Valdez gave their sworn statements and cartographic sketch of one of the abductors. 2008. 2008 and prior to his disappearance. That a composite team “TASK FORCE BALAO” from this office and the Regional Headquarters headed by [P/S SUPT] FORTUNATO BASCO ALBAS was formed. [Sh]e further stated that she visited her house and found out that the said occupants have already left on September 26. She stated that James Balao had extended his stay for almost 4 months. On the morning of October 9. ACTIONS TAKEN: 1. That she only discovered that James Balao was missing when a certain Carol informed her that he was missing. a certain Mr[. PA. PROCOR and attended by the Group Commander. That the composite team of investigators conducted ocular inspection on 3.000. In the afternoon of the same day. .8. He also reported the surfacing of another two (2) witnesses who described the suspect who handcuffed James Balao. 4. PRO-Cordillera wrote a letter to the Cordillera Peoples Alliance requesting them to present Uncle John. a realtor agent. Anvil Lumbag stated in his affidavit[20] that he was also at Saymor’s Store in the morning of September 17. The men handcuffed a man who was standing infront of the store and uttered “Walang makikialam. Lumbag’s affidavit.REMARKS: Case is still under follow-up investigation to identify the alleged abductors to determine the real motive of the abduction and to file necessary charges against them in court. while he was delivering bread at Saymor’s Store in Tomay. Benguet. the affidavits and testimonies of the following witnesses were presented by petitioners: Aniceto Dawing[19] testified that on September 17. . Then. however. 2008. around 8:00 in the morning. Before the Revo fled. On cross-examination. He just assumed that they were policemen because of their posture and haircut and because they introduced themselves as such. Dawing admitted that he did not know that it was James whom he saw that time and came to know only of his identity when he saw a poster bearing James’s photograph. La Trinidad. held and pointed a gun at one male person. He said that a ToyotaRevo stopped infront of the store from where four men alighted. They then let the male person board the vehicle and informed him that they will proceed to Camp Dangwa. who introduced themselves as policemen in Filipino. The armed men. drugs kaso nito” while pointing a gun at the said man. a white van stopped infront of them and five armed men alighted. did not mention if it was James who was forcibly taken by the armed men. The armed men told the male person that he was being apprehended for illegal drugs. he stated that the white van did not have any markings that it was a police vehicle and that the armed men were in civilian clothes and did not wear any police badges or identification cards. they forced the man to board the Revo. [18] During the hearing. 2008 to buy chicken. Lumbag heard one of the men say that they will be going to Camp Dangwa. she being the CPA chair. 4. Baguio City. La Trinidad. 2008. Supt. she received a text message from James saying that he will be going home to their ancestral home to do some laundry. Beverly admitted that at the time of the alleged abduction. 1 in Baguio and to the . she got worried. At around 6:30 a. James’s housemates. so she tried to call him.. In her affidavit. at the Office of the Cordillera People’s Legal Center and that she only came to know that James was missing in the afternoon of September 18. told her that he left at 7:00 a. She also confirmed that they met with Pol. Nonette also testified that they only reported James’s disappearance to the police on September 20. the last time she talked with James was in July or August of 2008 when he reported surveillances on his person by the PNP and the AFP. Every time James will have an activity that is CPA-related. She then called the CPA office to check if James was there. she was in Baguio City. one of which was a green van with plate number USC 922. however. 2008 because they thought that it was necessary that a person be missing for at least 48 hours before the disappearance could be reported. had already been turned off. he would coordinate with Beverly. Martin to seek assistance regarding James’s disappearance. Thirty minutes later.m.Beverly Longid[21] testified that she got to know James when she was a member of the CPA youth organization in her student days. They went to Sub-Station Police Precinct No. however. His phone. James had not yet arrived at their ancestral home. the same plate number she had seen at the Intelligence Security Unit in Navy Base. When around 8:00 a. and which was attached to a silver grey van. she received another text message from James saying that he was already leaving his place in Fairview. She was told that he was not there so she went to James’s house in Fairview at around 9:00 a.m.m. She also testified that prior to his disappearance.m. Benguet in the morning of September 17. 2008. Baguio City. Nonette Balao[22] testified that she was at her bakeshop located in Km. she alleged that James reported to her several vehicles tailing him. She texted him but failed to get a reply. and DENY the issuance of INSPECTION ORDER. PRODUCTION ORDER and WITNESS PROTECTION ORDER for failure of herein Petitioners to comply with the stringent provisions on the Rule on the Writ of Amparo and substantiate the same. (b) to release James Balao considering his unlawful detention since his abduction and (c) to cease and desist from further inflicting harm upon his person. It shows the organizational structure of the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army (CPPNPA) wherein CPA was identified as one of the organizations under the National Democratic Front (NDF). La Trinidad. He claimed that when they conducted trainings and educational discussions on mining education in Abra.police precinct in La Trinidad to report the matter. She does not know why James went to Tomay. They also went to Camp Dangwa to see if James was there. the RTC issued the assailed judgment. The AFP also allegedly held community meetings where they said that the CPA is part of the New People’s Army.[25] . members of the AFP harassed the community and committed various human rights violations. Attached to Anongos’s affidavit is a copy of a paper that the AFP was allegedly distributing. James had told them since April 2008 that he had been under surveillance. disposing as follows: IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING. Samuel Anongos stated in his affidavit[23] that he is a member of the Education Commission of the CPA.[24] RTC Ruling On January 19. 2009. judgment is hereby rendered: ISSUE a Writ of Amparo Ordering the respondents to (a) disclose where James Balao is detained or confined. Also. Nonette claimed that she became worried because James never switched off his mobile phone and since he already texted her that he was coming home. he could have texted again if there was a change of plans. ” the motive for James’s disappearance is his activist/political leanings and that James’s case is one of an enforced disappearance as defined under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. The RTC likewise ruled that the government unmistakably violated James’s right to security of person. Supt. The RTC ruled that said petition is nothing more than a tool to aid the president to guarantee that laws on human rights are devotedly and staunchly carried out. and (2) the references in the petition to the CPA as a front for the CPP-NPA. meaning there could be no successive petitions for the issuance of a writ of amparo for the same party. Fortunato Basco Albas. It further noted that respondents did not investigate the military officials believed to be behind the abduction as said military officials were merely invited to a dialogue and there was no investigation made in Camp Dangwa where the abductors were believed to have taken James as narrated by the witnesses. Martin and P/S Supt.”[27] In upholding the standing of James’s siblings and Beverly to file the petition. The RTC further held that “more likely than not.In denying respondents’ prayer that President Arroyo be dropped as partyrespondent. the RTC held that what Section 2 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparorules out is the right to file similar petitions. superficial and one-sided. In so ruling. It found the investigation conducted by respondents as very limited. the RTC considered (1) the several incidents of harassment mentioned in Beverly’s testimony and enumerated in the petition. the RTC held that a petition for a writ of amparo is not “by any stretch of imagination a niggling*.+ vexing or annoying court case”[26] from which she should be shielded. the Commander of Task Force Balao. It added that those who complain against naming the president as party-respondent are only those who “either do not understand what the Writ of Amparo is all about or who do not want to aid Her Excellency in her duty to supervise and control the machinery of government. four months have passed but petitioners . Moreover. The police and military thus miserably failed to conduct an effective investigation of James’s abduction as revealed by the investigation report of respondents’ own witnesses. the RTC observed that despite the undertaking of respondents to investigate the abduction and provide results thereof. R. the RTC stated that the stringent provisions of the rules were not complied with and granting said reliefs might violate respondents’ constitutional rights and jeopardize State security. in G. assail in their petition in G. Both parties appealed to this Court. They raise the following arguments: I THE TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT ORDERING RESPONDENT-PETITIONERS TO: (A) DISCLOSE WHERE JAMES BALAO IS DETAINED AND CONFINED. SURMISES AND HEARSAY EVIDENCE. II . 186059. 186050.have not investigation. IT MUST BE SET ASIDE. HENCE. on the other hand.R. (B) TO RELEASE JAMES BALAO CONSIDERING HIS UNLAWFUL DETENTION SINCE HIS “ABDUCTION” AND (C) TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM FURTHER INFLICTING HARM UPON HIS PERSON IS BASED PURELY ON CONJECTURES. question the RTC’s denial of the interim reliefs. No. been furnished reports regarding the As to the denial of the interim reliefs. Respondents. the issuance of the writ of amparo. The Consolidated Petitions Petitioners. No. albeit limited to these two situations. PRODUCTION ORDER AND A WITNESS PROTECTION ORDER.[29] On the other hand. IV THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY DENIED PETITIONER-RESPONDENTS’ PRAYER FOR THE ISSUANCE OF AN INSPECTION ORDER. “Extralegal killings” refer to killings committed without due process of law.” It was formulated in the exercise of this Court’s expanded rule-making power for the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.e. If the allegations in the petition . [28] Our Ruling The Rule on the Writ of Amparo was promulgated on October 24.The court shall render judgment within ten (10) days from the time the petition is submitted for decision. without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings. Judgment. . 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. 2007 amidst rising incidence of “extralegal killings” and “enforced disappearances.[30] Section 18 of the Amparo Rule provides: SEC. i.. RULES AND REGULATIONS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES. detention. “enforced disappearances” are attended by the following characteristics: an arrest. 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 person outside the protection of law.RESPONDENT-PETITIONERS HAD PROVEN THAT THEY OBSERVED EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE AS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAWS. HENCE. III THE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THE MANALO CASE ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE CASE AT BAR. THE TRIAL COURT GROSSLY ERRED IN APPLYING THE RULING THEREIN TO THE CASE AT BAR. 18. In granting the privilege of the writ of amparo. and their members. the published reports of the Melo Commission and the UNHRC’s Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Summary or Arbitrary Executions. The petition also enumerated previously documented cases of extralegal killings of activists belonging to militant groups. Mr. The Court considers these facts enough circumstances to establish substantial evidence of an enforced disappearance as defined under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. the trial court ratiocinated: On record is evidence pointing to the more likely than not motive for James Balao’s disappearance – his activist/political leanings. substantial evidence requires nothing greater than “more likely than not” degree of proof. Consequently. seq.” The petition cited other documents confirming such “all-out war” policy which resulted in the prevalence of extrajudicial killings: namely. the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper and appropriate.are proven by substantial evidence. (Emphasis supplied. 52 et. . Philip Alston. which included the CPA. almost all of which have been preceded by surveillance by military or police agents and acts of harassment. to the CPA (of which James Balao was an active staff) as a front organization of the Communist Party of the PhilippinesNew People’s Army. including CPA leaders and workers. This is shown by the several incidents relating to harassments of activists as mentioned in the unrebutted testimony of Beverly Longid and the enumeration made in par. that is. politically-motivated. For after all. There were also references in the petition’s pars. as “enemies of the state. otherwise. More likely than not he was not taken to parts unknown for reasons other than his involvement in the CPA. 48 (a) to (cc) of the petition. [31] (Emphasis supplied.) The threshold issue in this case is whether the totality of evidence satisfies the degree of proof required by the Amparo Rule to establish an enforced disappearance. the privilege shall be denied.) The trial court gave considerable weight to the discussion in the petition of briefing papers supposedly obtained from the AFP (Oplan Bantay-Laya implemented since 2001) indicating that the anti-insurgency campaign of the military under the administration of President Arroyo included targeting of identified legal organizations under the NDF. (Emphasis supplied.” in its simplest terms. “command responsibility. Macapagal-Arroyo. surveillance. command responsibility is properly a form of criminal complicity. In the case of Roxas v. The Hague . if at all. in amparo proceedings.” In this sense.petitioners postulated that the surveillance on James and his subsequent abduction are interconnected with the harassments.[32] the Court noted that the similarity between the circumstances attending a particular case of abduction with those surrounding previous instances of enforced disappearances does not. stating that -The abduction of James Balao can only be attributed to the Respondents who have command responsibility of all the actions of their subordinates and who are the primary persons in the implementation of the government’s all out war [33] policy.) The Court in Rubrico v. the trial court in this case cannot simply infer government involvement in the abduction of James from past similar incidents in which the victims also worked or affiliated with the CPA and other left-leaning groups. The evolution of the command responsibility doctrine finds its context in the development of laws of war and armed combats. Macapagal-Arroyo[34] had the occasion to expound on the doctrine of command responsibility and why it has little bearing. We hold that such documented practice of targeting activists in the military’s counter-insurgency program by itself does not fulfill the evidentiary standard provided in the Amparo Rule to establish an enforced disappearance. necessarily. Accordingly. The petition further premised government complicity in the abduction of James on the very positions held by the respondents. threats and political assassination of other members and officers of CPA which is his organization. carry sufficient weight to prove that the government orchestrated such abduction. means the “responsibility of commanders for crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other persons subject to their control in international wars or domestic conflict. According to Fr. Bernas. however. The doctrine has recently been codified in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to which the Philippines is signatory. even if incidentally a crime or an infraction of an administrative rule may have been committed. if there be any. there is still no Philippine law that provides for criminal liability under that doctrine. as the CA seemed to have done. 28 of the Statute imposes individual responsibility on military commanders for crimes committed by forces under their control. It may plausibly be contended that command responsibility. it would be inappropriate to apply to these proceedings the doctrine of command responsibility. and by way of expounding on the nature and role of amparo. the writ of amparo was conceived to provide expeditious and effective procedural relief against violations or threats of violation of the basic rights to life. for the enforced disappearance [threats thereof or extrajudicial killings] for purposes of . as a form of criminal complicity through omission. While there are several pending bills on command responsibility. may be made applicable to this jurisdiction on the theory that the command responsibility doctrine now constitutes a principle of international law or customary international law in accordance with the incorporation clause of the Constitution. and security of persons. or at least accountability. enforced disappearances.” Of the same tenor. however. As the Court stressed inSecretary of National Defense v. or threats. Tagitis: It does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for the disappearance [threats thereof or extrajudicial killings]. foreshadowing the present-day precept of holding a superior accountable for the atrocities committed by his subordinates should he be remiss in his duty of control over them. Sec. In other words. not yet formally bound by the terms and provisions embodied in this treaty-statute. the Court does not rule in such proceedings on any issue of criminal culpability. “is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt x x x or administrative liability requiring substantial evidence that will require full and exhaustive proceedings. Still. it determines responsibility. The country is. for individual respondents’ criminal liability. As then formulated.Conventions of 1907 adopted the doctrine of command responsibility. Manalo (Manalo). liberty. since the Senate has yet to extend concurrence in its ratification. command responsibility is “an omission mode of individual criminal liability. is what the Court said in Razon v. the corresponding amparo suit. is beyond the reach ofamparo. as legal basis to hold military/police commanders liable for extra-legal killings.” whereby the superior is made responsible for crimes committed by his subordinates for failing to prevent or punish the perpetrators (as opposed to crimes he ordered). ) . Accountability.[37]the these terms are Court applied x x x Responsibility refers to the extent the actors have been established by substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way. by any measure. the determination of what acts are criminal x x x are matters of substantive law that only the Legislature has the power to enact. x x x [35] Subsequently. or at least accountability.[36] In Razon. on the other hand. Jr. the directive to file the appropriate criminal and civil cases against the responsible parties in the proper courts. in an enforced disappearance. The simple reason is that the Legislature has not spoken on the matter. extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances in this jurisdiction are not crimes penalized separately from the component criminal acts undertaken to carry out these killings and enforced disappearances and are now penalized under the Revised Penal Code and special laws. defined responsibility and accountability as to amparo proceedings. we have clarified that the inapplicability of the doctrine of command responsibility in an amparo proceeding does not. v. among them. or who are imputed with knowledge relating to the enforced disappearance and who carry the burden of disclosure.imposing the appropriate remedies to address the disappearance [or extrajudicial killings]. but have failed to discharge. as a measure of the remedies this Court shall craft. or those who carry. x x x [38] (Emphasis supplied. preclude impleading military or police commanders on the ground that the complained acts in the petition were committed with their direct or indirect acquiescence. Commanders may therefore be impleaded—not actually on the basis of command responsibility—but rather on the ground of their responsibility. by action or omission. the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of the enforced disappearance. xxxx As the law now stands. as follows: Tagitis. 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. Manalo et. and (3) to cease and desist from further inflicting harm upon his person. v. (b) conduct of ocular inspection at the place of abduction. al. there is a seeming prejudice in the process of investigation to pin suspects who are not connected with the military establishments. – “verylimited.” The actions taken were simply these: (a) organization of the “Task Force Balao”. To the mind of this Court. (d) dialogue with implicated military officials as well as family members and friends of James Balao. The police and the military miserably failed in conducting an effective investigation of James Balao’s abduction as revealed by the investigation report of respondent’s own witnesses Honorable Chief Superintendent Eugene Martin and Honorable Senior Superintendent Fortunato Albas. The investigation was – to use the words in The Secretary of National Defense.” Its candid and forthright observations on the efforts exerted by the respondents are borne by the evidence on record. Consequently. [40] . much less their link to any military or police unit. et. superficial and one-sided. al. (c) taking of sworn statements of civilian witnesses. superficial and one-sided.. and (e) writing of letter to the CPA. whose testimonies did not prove much as shown by the continued disappearance of James Balao. The Court does not want to second-guess police protocols in investigation but surely some things are amiss where the investigation DID NOT INVESTIGATE the military officials believed to be behind the abduction as they were merely invited to a dialogue and where the investigation DID NOT LEAD to Camp Dangwa where the abductors were supposed to have proceeded as narrated by the witnesses.[39] However. we agree with the trial court in finding that the actions taken by respondent officials are “very limited. The identities of the abductors have not been established. There is likewise no concrete evidence indicating that James is being held or detained upon orders of or with acquiescence of government agents. thus: x x x the violation of the right to security as protection by the government is unmistakable.Assessing the evidence on record. the trial court erred in granting amparo reliefs by ordering the respondent officials (1) to disclose where James Balao is detained or confined. (2) to release him from such detention or confinement. By any measure. Such pronouncement of responsibility on the part of public respondents cannot be made given the insufficiency of evidence. this cannot be a thorough and good faith investigation but one that falls short of that required by the Writ of Amparo. we find that the participation in any manner of military and police authorities in the abduction of James has not been adequately proven. Romero and P/Insp. But more important. We are not persuaded. Respondents should even commend such initiative that will encourage those who may have any information on the identities and whereabouts of James’s abductors to help the PNP in its investigation. Gomez. and that as a result cartographic sketches were made of some suspects. enemies of the State who may be targeted for liquidation. though. 2008 invitation to appear before the investigators and shed light on James’s disappearance. and hence the investigators could have readily obtained whatever information they needed from Beverly. the Court is more than satisfied that they have no direct or indirect hand in the alleged enforced disappearance of Lourdes and the threats against her daughters. Beverly had explained during the cross-examination conducted by Associate Solicitor Paderanga that she was at the time coordinating with national and local agencies even as the police investigation was ongoing. Chief Supt. As we held in Rubrico v. As police officers.[41] Moreover. Martin even mentioned in his affidavit that Task Force Balao was able to secure the testimonies of two eyewitnesses with the help of Beverly and the Balao family. Assuming there was reluctance on the part of the Balao family and CPA to submit James’s relatives or colleagues for questioning by agents of the PNP and AFP. Chief Supt. First. Macapagal-Arroyo[43]: As regards P/Supt. Pol. Martin was already in constant coordination with the Balao family and CPA. the Task Force Balao had acknowledged the fact that Pol. They particularly blamed Beverly who failed to attend the October 15. they cannot be faulted for such stance owing to the military’s perception of their organization as a communist front: ergo. such non-cooperation provides no excuse for respondents’ incomplete and one-sided investigations.Respondents reiterate that they did their job the best they could and fault the petitioners instead for their non-cooperation which caused delay in the investigation.[42] There is nothing wrong with petitioners’ simultaneous recourse to other legal avenues to gain public attention for a possible enforced disappearance case involving their very own colleague. theirs was . “[They] do not trust the government agencies to protect them. As we said in Manalo. her family. identifying witnesses and obtaining statements from them. Rex J. Fernandez. enforced disappearances.M. as the case may be. the right to security of persons is a guarantee of the protection of one’s right by the government. however. To repeat what the Court said in Manalo. and following evidentiary leads. did conduct a preliminary fact-finding on petitioners’ complaint. An investigation must have an objective and be assumed by the State as its own legal duty. a duty that would include looking into the cause. the right to security. make any headway. as well as descriptions of the abductors? With the cartographic sketches having been made from interviews and statements of witnesses. without an effective search for the truth by the government. Roquero and P/Insp. And this protection includes conducting effective investigations of extra-legal killings. as a guarantee of protection by the government. is breached by the superficial and one-sided––hence. owing to what was perceived to be the refusal of Lourdes. the police investigators could have taken proper steps to establish the personal identities of said suspects and yet . in which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights pronounced: “*The duty to investigate+ must be undertaken in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective.” [44] (Emphasis supplied. and securing and preserving evidence related to the abduction and the threats that may aid in the prosecution of the person/s responsible. Petitioners’ counsel.The difficulty arising from a situation where the party whose complicity in extrajudicial killing or enforced disappearance. on its own initiative. The seeming reluctance on the part of the Rubricos or their witnesses to cooperate ought not to pose a hindrance to the police in pursuing. The nature and importance of an investigation are captured in the Velasquez Rodriguez case. manner.A. why zero in on James’s own kin and colleagues when independent eyewitnesses already provided firsthand accounts of the incident. such as the Toyota Revo vehicle with plate number XRR 428. and her witnesses to cooperate. Atty. the local police stations concerned.) Indeed. is alleged to be the same party who investigates it is understandable. provided a plausible explanation for his clients and their witnesses’ attitude. including P/Supt. Gomez. the investigation in question to its natural end. though. They could not.the duty to thoroughly investigate the abduction of Lourdes. and like details of the disappearance. not a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon offer of proof. or threats of the same kind. As found by the CA. ineffective––investigation by the military or the police of reported cases under their jurisdiction. the plate numbers of which have earlier been disclosed by James to his family and the CPA as used in conducting surveillance on him prior to his abduction.this was not done. Baguio City. As to the vehicles. while the police investigators were able to verify the name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle. only reinforce the trial court’s observation that the investigators are seemingly intent on building up a case against other persons so as to deflect any suspicion of military or police involvement in James Balao’s disappearance. Jr. Such ineffective investigation extant in the records of this case prevents us from completely exonerating the respondents from allegations of accountability for James’ disappearance. the military merely denied having a vehicle with such plate number on their property list despite the fact that the same plate number (USC 922) was sighted attached to a car which was parked at the PA-ISU compound in Navy Base. As to the other plate number given by James (TNH 787). the police investigators not even lifting a finger to ascertain whether the cartographic sketches would match with any enlisted personnel of AFP and PNP. respondents clearly failed to discharge their burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of James’s abduction. In view of the foregoing evidentiary gaps. Task Force Balao and Baguio City Police Station do not contain meaningful results or details on the depth and extent of the investigation made. In Razon. while keeping silent as to why the police investigators had not actively pursued those evidentiary leads provided by eyewitnessesand the Balao family. or their civilian agents/assets. v. The reports submitted by the PNP Regional Office. or equal detailed investigative reports of the activities undertaken to search for the victim. Tagitis. there is no showing that said owner had been investigated or that efforts had been made to locate the said vehicle.[45] In the same case we stressed that the standard of diligence required – the duty of public officials and employees to observe extraordinary diligence – called for extraordinary measures expected in the protection of constitutional rights and in . Respondents’ insistence that the CPA produce the alleged companions of James in his rented residence for investigation by the PNP team. the Court observed that such reports of top police officials indicating the personnel and units they directed to investigate can never constitute exhaustive and meaningful investigation. 6975.” The trial court should further validate the results of such investigations and actions through hearings it may deem necessary to conduct.[48] A basic requirement before anamparo court may grant an inspection order is that the place to be inspected is reasonably determinable from the allegations of the party seeking the order. As to the matter of dropping President Arroyo as party-respondent. otherwise known as the “PNP Law”[47] specifies the PNP as the governmental office with the mandate to “*i+nvestigate and prevent crimes. Moreover. As president. in order to aid the court before making a decision. Section 24 of Republic Act No. though not raised in the petitions.the consequent handling and investigation of extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearance cases. An inspection order is an interim relief designed to give support or strengthen the claim of a petitioner in an amparo petition. the petition is bereft of any allegation as to what specific presidential act or omission violated or threatened to violate petitioners’ protected rights.[49] In this case.[46] In order to effectively address thru the amparo remedy the violations of the constitutional rights to liberty and security of James who remains missing to date. the issuance of inspection order was properly denied since the petitioners specified several military and police establishments based merely on the allegation that the testimonies of victims and witnesses in previous incidents of . the Court deems it appropriate to refer this case back to the trial court for further investigation by the PNP and CIDG and monitoring of their investigative activities that complies with the standard of diligence required by the Amparo Rule. Lastly. on the denial of the prayer for interim reliefs under the Amparo Rule. we hold that the trial court clearly erred in holding that presidential immunity cannot be properly invoked in anamparo proceeding. bring offenders to justice and assist in their prosecution. effect the arrest of criminal offenders. then President Arroyo was enjoying immunity from suit when the petition for a writ of amparo was filed. the prayer for issuance of a production order was predicated on petitioners’ bare allegation that it obtained confidential information from an unidentified military source. in the course of hearing and other developments in the investigations by the Philippine National Police/Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group and the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Philippine National Police/Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group. In the same vein. The Judgment dated January 19. Benguet. Nos. 2) AFFIRMING the denial of the prayer for inspection and production orders. the trial court could not have sanctioned any “fishing expedition” by precipitate issuance of inspection and production orders on the basis of insufficient claims of one party. or his successor. Philippine Army- . that the name of James was included in the so-called Order of Battle. 186050 and 186059 are PARTLY GRANTED. 2009 of the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad. Branch 63. 3) ORDERING the incumbent Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. WHEREFORE. Northern Luzon Command. or his successor. the petitions in G. to CONTINUE the investigations and actions already commenced by the Philippine National Police Regional Office–Cordillera.similar abductions involving activists disclosed that those premises were used as detention centers. Indeed. the trial court is not precluded. Nonetheless. to grant the above interim reliefs to aid it in making a decision upon evaluation of the actions taken by the respondents under the norm of extraordinary diligence. Baguio City Police.R. in Special Proceeding No. and the incumbent Director General of the Philippine National Police. without prejudice to the subsequent grant thereof. 08-AMP-0001 is MODIFIED as follows: 1) REVERSING the grant of the privilege of the writ of amparo. as further evidence warrants. 2008. shall ensure that the investigations and actions of their respective units on the abduction of James Balao are pursued with extraordinary diligence as required by Sec. The incumbent Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief of Staff. or their successors. On behalf of this Court. the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the DirectorGeneral of the Philippine National Police shall submit a full report of the results of the said investigations to the trial court. For purposes of these investigations. 17 of the Amparo Rule.Intelligence Service Unit and other concerned units. the trial court shall submit its full reportto this Court. Philippine National Police Director General. and specifically take and continue to take the necessary steps: (a) to identify the persons described in the cartographic sketches submitted by Task Force Balao. Within fifteen (15) days after completion of the investigations. the Philippine National Police/Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group shall periodically report the detailed results of its investigation to the trial court for its consideration and action. the trial court shall pass upon the sufficiency of their investigative efforts. and investigate the registered owners or whoever the previous and present possessors/transferees thereof. Within thirty (30) days thereafter. . and to pursue any other leads relevant to the abduction of James Balao. The Philippine National Police and the Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group shall have six (6) months from notice hereof to undertake their investigations. (b) to locate and search the vehicles bearing the plate numbers submitted by the petitioners and which James Balao had reported to be conducting surveillance on his person prior to his abduction on September 17. in the light of any recent reports or recommendations. Accordingly. Benguet. 08AMP-0001 for the purposes of monitoring compliance with the above directives and determining whether. Branch 63 for continuation of proceedings in Special Proceeding No. and shall be directly enforceable against. there would already be sufficient evidence to hold any of the public respondents responsible. After making such determination. This case is hereby REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad. accountable. the public respondents shall remain personally impleaded in this petition to answer for any responsibilities and/or accountabilities they may have incurred during their incumbencies. No pronouncement as to costs. The trial court will continue to have jurisdiction over this case in order to accomplish its tasks under this decision.These directives and those of the trial court made pursuant to this Decision shall be given to. or. Director General of the Philippine National Police and Chief of the Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group and other concerned units. under pain of contempt from this Court when the initiatives and efforts at disclosure and investigation constitute less than the EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE that the Amparo Rule and the circumstances of the case demand. at least. . and 4) DROPPING former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as partyrespondent in the petition for writ of amparo. whoever may be the incumbent Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief of Staff. SO ORDERED. the trial court shall submit its own report and recommendation to this Court for final action. PERALTA. for and in behalf and in representation of Promulgated: BENHUR V. VIRGINIA PARDICO. ―or with the authorization. J. MENDOZA.R. June 19. BERSAMIN. PEREZ.[2] and ANDREW BUISING. allegation and proof that the persons subject thereof are missing are not enough. No.[1] RUBEN DIO. DEL CASTILLO. BRION.versus - CARPIO. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO. SERENO. [the government] or a political . 2012 x--------------------------------------------------------x DECISION DEL CASTILLO. support or acquiescence of. G. ABAD. 184467 Present: . JJ..Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila EN BANC EDGARDO NAVIA. JR. PARDICO Respondent. VELASCO. VILLARAMA. It must also be shown by the required quantum of proof that their disappearance was carried out by. Petitioners.: For the protective writ of amparo to issue in enforced disappearance cases. JR.. REYES. and PERLAS-BERNABE. Bong. Before Lolita could answer. 07-9-12-SC[5] challenges the July 24. who were then both staying in her house. Branch 20.m. Following their department‘s standard operating procedure.organization. Malolos City which granted the Petition for Writ of Amparo[7] filed by herein respondent against the petitioners. that she saw Bong and Ben removing a lamp from a post in said subdivision. also arrived thereat. Lapore (Lolita) located at 7A Lot 9. It was there where Dio and Buising were able to confirm who the suspects were. They thus repaired to the house of Lolita where Bong and Ben were staying to invite the two suspects to their office.[10] The supervisor of the security guards. BarangayLugam. who both work as security guards at the Asian Land security department. Emphasis.[11] The reported unauthorized taking of the lamp was relayed thru radio to petitioners Ruben Dio (Dio) and Andrew Buising (Buising).[9] Shortly thereafter. the parties‘ respective versions diverge. Factual Antecedents On March 31. As to what transpired next. One of them immediately asked Lolita where they could find her son Bong. and Benhur Pardico (Ben). at around 8:30 p. petitioner Edgardo Navia (Navia). 2008 Decision[6] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Enrique Lapore (Bong). Version of the Petitioners Petitioners alleged that they invited Bong and Ben to their office because they received a report from a certain Mrs.M. she saw two uniformed guards disembarking from the vehicle. No. followed by a refusal to acknowledge [the same or] give information on the fate or whereabouts of [said missing] persons. When Lolita went out to investigate. Dio and Buising entered the report in their logbook and proceeded to the house of Mrs. a resident of Grand Royale Subdivision. Malolos City. Emphasis. the guard saw Bong and told him that he and Ben should go with them to the security office ofAsian Land because a complaint was lodged against them for theft of electric wires and lamps in the subdivision. 2008.‖[3] This petition for review on certiorari[4] filed in relation to Section 19 of A. . a vehicle of Asian Land Strategies Corporation[8] (Asian Land) arrived at the house of Lolita M. Block 54.. Lolita and Ben were in the office of the security department of Asian Land also located in Grand Royale Subdivision. The arrival of the vehicle awakened Lolita‘s son. Grand Royale Subdivision. Bong and Ben voluntarily went with them. Navia ordered the release of Bong and Ben. 2008. Navia allowed Ben to leave.At the security office. to which Buising obliged. but his . Ben was left behind as Navia was still talking to him about those who might be involved in the reported loss of electric wires and lamps within the subdivision. After which.[14] Upon Navia‘s instructions. Thereafter. Dio and Buising interviewed Bong and Ben.[16] On April 22. However. After a brief discussion though.[12] Soon. petitioners received an invitation[15] from the Malolos City Police Station requesting them to appear thereat on April 17.[17] They assured Virginia though that they will cooperate and help in the investigation of her missing husband. the meeting was reset to April 22. Dio and Buising went back to the house of Lolita to make her sign the logbook as witness that they indeed released Ben from their custody. Navia arrived and Buising informed him that the complainant was not keen in participating in the investigation. Navia lividly grumbled ―Ikaw na naman?‖[19] and slapped him while he was still seated. The suspects admitted that they took the lamp but clarified that they were only transferring it to a post nearer to the house of Lolita. the guards left. Ben also affixed his signature on the logbook to affirm the statements entered by the guards that he was released unharmed and without any injury. Not contented.[18] Version of the Respondent According to respondent.[13] His mother Lolita also signed the logbook below an entry which states that she will never again harbor or entertain Ben in her house. Lolita and Bong left the security office. Subsequently. Since there was no complainant. Upon seeing Ben at the security office. Lolita asked Buising to read aloud that entry in the logbook where she was being asked to sign. Bong and Ben were not merely invited. shoved into the Asian Land vehicle and brought to the security office for investigation. Petitioners informed her that they released Ben and that they have no information as to his present whereabouts. They were unlawfully arrested. all three petitioners appeared at the Malolos City Police Station. Lolita put on her reading glasses and read the entry in the logbook herself before affixing her signature therein. 2008 relative to the complaint of Virginia Pardico (Virginia) about her missing husband Ben. In compliance with the invitation. Virginia attended the investigation. Ben begged for mercy. Bong then signed a statement to the effect that the guards released him without inflicting any harm or injury to him. 2008. since Virginia was not present despite having received the same invitation. it dawned upon Lolita that petitioners took advantage of her poor eyesight and naivete. Upon Lolita‘s inquiry as to why she had to sign again. ―Wala kang nakita at wala kang narinig. However.[27] . Since she has poor eyesight. since they were afraid of Navia. Buising arrived and asked Lolita to sign the logbook again. reading what was written in it. [22] Later on.[25] Moments after Lolita and Bong reached their house. looked at Bong. papatayin ko na si Ben. and said. He explained that the area where their house is located is very dark and his father had long been asking the administrator of Grand Royale Subdivision to install a lamp to illumine their area. Since she could not still find her husband. Lolita was instructed to sign an entry in the guard‘s logbook where she undertook not to allow Ben to stay in her house anymore.[23] Thereafter. Ben grabbed Bong and pleaded not to be left alone.[20] Navia then took hold of his gun. Virginia reported the matter to the police. Navia explained that they needed proof that they released her son Bong unharmed but that Ben had to stay as the latter‘s case will be forwarded to the barangay. Since it was dark and she has poor eyesight. the lamp Bong got was no longer working.[24] At that juncture. Lolita took Buising‘s word and signed the logbook without. In the course of the investigation on Ben‘s disappearance. he reinstalled it on the post from which he took it and no longer pursued his plan. She then looked for Ben. Buising assured her that what she was about to sign only pertains to Bong‘s release. However. Lolita and Bong left the security office at once leaving Ben behind. But since nothing happened. The last time she saw Ben was when she left him in petitioners‘ custody at the security office. again.pleas were met with a flurry of punches coming from Navia hitting him on different parts of his body. he took it upon himself to take a lamp from one of the posts in the subdivision and transfer it to a post near their house. Lolita asked Buising why she had to sign again when she already twice signed the logbook at the headquarters. Thus.‖[21] Bong admitted that he and Ben attempted to take the lamp. [26] The following morning. They made her sign the logbook as a witness that they already released Ben when in truth and in fact she never witnessed his actual release. asked around. but only to be told that petitioners had already released him together with Bong the night before. Navia again asked Lolita to sign the logbook. Lolita obligingly signed the logbook without reading it and then left with Bong. Virginia went to the Asian Land security office to visit her husband Ben. and went to the barangay. Virginia filed a Petition for Writ of Amparo[28] before the RTC of Malolos City. together with copies of the petition and its annexes.M. (3) COMMANDING [petitioners] Edgardo Navia. act or omission. motu proprio. conformably with Section 6 of the Supreme Court Resolution [in] A. the issuance of a writ of amparo and the production of the body of Ben before it on June 30. within a non-extendible period of seventy-two (72) hours from service of the writ. or any persons acting for and in their behalf. among others. under pain of contempt. and DIRECTING the [petitioners] to personally appear thereat. June 30. 2008. (2) ORDERING the holding of a summary hearing of the petition on the aforementioned date and time. act or omission against the aggrieved party. through any act or omission.m. his immediate family and any [member] of his household. Ruben Dio and Andrew Buising to file. b) The steps or actions taken by the [petitioners] to determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the person or persons responsible for the threat. 07-[9]-12-SC. Ruben Dio and Andrew Buising of the Asian Land Security Agency to produce before the Court the body of aggrieved party Benhur Pardico. and c) All relevant information in the possession of the [petitioners] pertaining to the threat. 2008 directing. liberty and security of the aggrieved party. as follows: (1) ORDERING [petitioners] Edgardo Navia. 2008. let a writ of amparo be issued.[30] . No. the amparo court issued an Order[29] dated June 26. on Monday. at their address indicated in the petition. contain the following: a) The lawful defenses to show that the [petitioners] did not violate or threaten with violation the right to life. (4) GRANTING.. harassing or inflicting any harm to [respondent]. among other things.Exasperated with the mysterious disappearance of her husband. The Branch Sheriff is directed to immediately serve personally on the [petitioners]. Finding the petition sufficient in form and substance. Thus: WHEREFORE. copies of the writ as well as this order. a verified written return with supporting affidavits which shall. a Temporary Protection Order prohibiting the [petitioners]. from threatening. also known as ―The Rule On The Writ Of Amparo‖. at 10:30 a. (b) To hereby direct the NBI to extend to the family of [Benhur] Pardico and the witnesses who testified in this case protection as it may deem necessary to secure their safety and security. 2008. while Virginia submitted the sworn statements[34] of Lolita and Enrique which the two affirmed on the witness stand. the documents forming part of the records of this case. It disposed as follows: WHEREFORE. through the Office of Director Nestor Mantaring. the pertinent documents and admissions forming part of the record of this case. A summary hearing was thereafter conducted. and take whatever course/s of action as may be warranted.[36] Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration[37] which was denied by the trial court in an Order[38] dated August 29. Ruling of the Regional Trial Court On July 24.[32] On June 30. the trial court issued the challenged Decision[35] granting the petition. 2008. utilizing in the process. as follows: (a) To hereby direct the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to immediately conduct a deep and thorough investigation of the [petitioners] Edgardo Navia. petitioners filed their Compliance[33] praying for the denial of the petition for lack of merit. and to the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan. Ruben Dio and Andrew Buising in connection with the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of [Benhur] Pardico. SO ORDERED. the Court hereby grants the privilege of the writ of amparo. 2008. Furnish immediately copies of this decision to the NBI. 2008. as part of said investigation.A Writ of Amparo[31] was accordingly issued and served on the petitioners on June 27. and (c) To hereby direct the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan to investigate the circumstances concerning the legality of the arrest of [Benhur] Pardico by the [petitioners] in this case. Hence. Petitioners presented the testimony of Buising. as part of the investigation. this petition raising the following issues for our consideration: . and deems it proper and appropriate. utilizing in the process. 4. A.1. Its purpose is to provide an expeditious and effective relief ―to any person whose right to life. 2008 at around 10:30 p. And second.M. No.[39] Petitioners’ Arguments Petitioners essentially assail the sufficiency of the amparo petition. or that petitioners had a hand in his alleged disappearance. 4. it cannot be deduced from the evidence Virginia adduced that Ben is missing. but not for the reasons adverted to by the petitioners. First. LIBERTY. 4. Our Ruling Virginia‘s Petition for Writ of Amparo is fatally defective and must perforce be dismissed.2. WHETHER X X X THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF AMPARO. WHETHER X X X RESPONDENT WAS ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ALLEGED DISAPPEARANCE OF BENHUR PARDICO WAS AT THE INSTANCE OF HEREIN PETITIONERS. WHETHER X X X RESPONDENT WAS ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT PETITIONERS HAVE COMMITTED OR ARE COMMITTING ACTS IN VIOLATION OF HER HUSBAND‘S RIGHT TO LIFE.1. Petitioners assert that in the case at bench.1. They contend that the writ of amparo is available only in cases where the factual and legal bases of the violation or threatened violation of the aggrieved party‘s right to life. the entries in the logbook which bear the signatures of Ben and Lolita are eloquent proof that petitioners released Ben on March 31.m. 07-9-12-SC or The Rule on the Writ of Amparo was promulgated to arrest the rampant extralegal killings and enforced disappearances in the country. Petitioners thus posit that the trial court erred in issuing the writ and in holding them responsible for Ben‘s disappearance.1. the petition is wanting on its face as it failed to state with some degree of specificity the alleged unlawful act or omission of the petitioners constituting a violation of or a threat to Ben‘s right to life. On the other hand.4.‖ [40] . liberty and security. or of a private individual or entity. liberty and security are clear. liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee. Virginia miserably failed to establish all these. OR SECURITY.3. WHETHER X X X RESPONDENT SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED THE FACT OF THE DISAPPEARANCE OF BENHUR PARDICO.1. The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. as ―the arrest. liberty and security.M. liberty and security is firmly settled as the parties do not dispute his identity as the same person summoned and questioned at petitioners‘ security office on the night of March 31. Article 6[41] of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[42] recognizes every human being‘s inherent right to life. while Article 9[43] thereof ordains that everyone has the right to liberty and security. 2008. 07-9-12-SC chose to allow it to evolve through time and jurisprudence and through substantive laws as may be promulgated by Congress. said Rules does not. Such uncontroverted fact ipso facto established Ben‘s inherent and constitutionally enshrined right to life. define extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. 07-9-12-SC and relevant laws. or of a private individual or entity. No. No. It does not. (Emphasis ours. No. which place such a person outside the protection of the law. Jr. liberty and security without due process of law is also embodied in our fundamental law. falls within the ambit of A.) While Section 1 provides A. support or acquiescence of the State. The Court in that case applied the generally accepted principles of international law and adopted the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance‘s definition of enforced disappearances. This omission was intentional as the Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court which drafted A. – The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life. This overarching command against deprivation of life. however. Petition. liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee. followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person.M. Tagitis[46] when this Court defined enforced disappearances. v.M. The right to life must be protected by law while the right to liberty and security cannot be impaired except on grounds provided by and in accordance with law. No.‖[47] . 07-9-12-SC‘s coverage.[45] Then.[44] The pivotal question now that confronts us is whether Ben‘s disappearance as alleged in Virginia‘s petition and proved during the summary proceedings conducted before the court a quo.M. 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. the budding jurisprudence on amparo blossomed in Razon. Section 1 of A. 07-9-12-SC provides: SECTION 1.Here. Ben‘s right to life. detention. Macapagal-Arroyo[49] where Justice Arturo D. liberty and security. detention. ―the Rule on the Writ of Amparo is now a procedural law anchored. 9851. 9851[48] on December 11. thus. No.M. but on a concrete statutory definition as well of what an ‗enforced or involuntary disappearance‘ is. another significant development affecting A.‖[50] Therefore. Brion wrote in his Separate Opinion that with the enactment of RA No.M. 07-9-12SC came about after Congress enacted Republic Act (RA) No. a State or a political organization followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons. courts should read A. Meaning. 07-9-12-SC‘s reference to enforced disappearances should be construed to mean the enforced or involuntary disappearance of persons contemplated in Section 3(g) of RA No. It must also be shown and proved by substantial evidence that the disappearance was carried out . the State or a political organization. As thus dissected. (d) that the intention for such refusal is to remove subject person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time. 07-9-12-SC in relation to RA No. in probing enforced disappearance cases. or with the authorization. abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty. or with the authorization. or abduction of persons by. 2009. Then came Rubrico v. not only on the constitutional rights to the rights to life. No. A.Not long thereafter. allegation and proof that the persons subject thereof are missing are not enough. (b) that it be carried out by. Section 3(g) thereof defines enforced or involuntary disappearances as follows: (g) "Enforced or involuntary disappearance of persons" means the arrest. and. support or acquiescence of. (c) that it be followed by the State or political organization‘s refusal to acknowledge or give information on the fate or whereabouts of the person subject of the amparo petition. support or acquiescence of. From the statutory definition of enforced disappearance. 9851. No. it is now clear that for the protective writ of amparo to issue. with the intention of removing from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time. 9851.M. detention. we can derive the following elements that constitute it: (a) that there be an arrest. In addition. followed by a refusal to acknowledge the same or give information on the fate or whereabouts of said missing persons. Malolos City and their principal. papatayin ko na si Ben. Lolita sufficiently explained how she was prodded into affixing her signatures in the logbook without reading the entries therein. the State or a political organization. in an amparo petition. ―Wala kang nakita at wala kang narinig. there is nothing on record which would support petitioners‘ assertion that they released Ben on the night of March 31. It unambiguously showed his predisposition at that time. officials. Emphasis who was never identified or presented in court and whose complaint was never reduced in writing. Lugam. It is likewise essential to establish that such disappearance was carried out with the direct or indirect authorization. support or acquiescence of the government. We are aware that under Section 1 of A. Here. none of its agents. with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time. 07-9-12-SC a writ of amparo may lie against a private individual or entity. The petition does not contain any allegation of State complicity.M. we do not doubt Bong‘s testimony that Navia had a menacing attitude towards Ben and that he slapped and inflicted fistic blows upon him. still. No. But even if the person sought to be held accountable or responsible in an amparo petition is a private individual or entity. In fact. theAsian Land. This indispensable element of State participation is not present in this case.‖ cannot be taken lightly. or with the authorization. the Court will definitely not hold the government or its agents either as responsible or accountable persons. his threatening statement. They do not work for the government and nothing has been presented that would link or connect them . But lest it be overlooked. Given the circumstances and the pugnacious character of Navia at that time. petitioners are mere security guards at Grand Royale Subdivision in Brgy. is a private entity.[51] Thus. government involvement in the disappearance remains an indispensable element.by. And so far. and none of the evidence presented tend to show that the government or any of its agents orchestrated Ben‘s disappearance. Simply put. the information petitioners volunteered are sketchy at best. support or acquiescence of. like the alleged complaint of Mrs. proof of disappearance alone is not enough. in the absence of an allegation or proof that the government or its agents had a hand in Ben‘s disappearance or that they failed to exercise extraordinary diligence in investigating his case. the petitioner in an amparo case has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the indispensable element of government participation. or employees were impleaded or implicated in Virginia‘s amparo petition whether as responsible or accountable persons. In the present case. 2008 unscathed from their wrath. WHEREFORE. No. The Petition for Writ of Amparo filed by Virginia Pardico is hereby DISMISSED. 2008 Decision of the Regional Trial Court. the disappearance must be attended by some governmental involvement. As discussed above.M. This hallmark of State participation differentiates an enforced disappearance case from an ordinary case of a missing person. 07-9-12-SC in relation to RA No. military or governmental operation. is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. . Malolos City. SO ORDERED. 9851. Branch 20. the July 24.to some covert police. to fall within the ambit of A. 2008 seeks the issuance of a Writ of Amparo upon the following premise: .. CORONA..Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila EN BANC ARMANDO Q. MARRIETA PIA.: THE present petition filed on May 26. I – XIII. J. 2008 Respondents. QUISUMBING.J.* AZCUNA. YNARES-SANTIAGO. Promulgated: NAPICO HOMEOWNERS ASS’N. CAPISTRANO. No. – versus – G. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ.. 182795 Present: PUNO. JR. JJ.R. June 5. CARPIO MORALES.** NACHURA. x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. Petitioners. ET AL.. C. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO. *** REYES. CHICO-NAZARIO.T... and BRION. VELASCO. TINGA. INC. R. CANLAS.x RESOLUTION REYES. MIGUEL D. CARPIO. to wit: Petitioners herein are desirous to help the government. This ardent request filed before this Honorable Supreme Court is the only solution to this problem via this newly advocated principles incorporated in the Rules – the ―RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO.. thus: That. 177701. that these unprincipled Land Officials be summoned to answer their participation in the issuances of these fraudulent and spurious titles. The Courts of Justice. Their dwellings/houses have either been demolished as of the time of filing of the petition. 177038. the best way they can. If only to give its proper meanings. in the hands of the Private Respondents.R. Pasig City. If unabated would certainly ruin and/or destroy the efficacy of the Torrens System of land registration in this Country. NOW.the low so defines. or is about to be demolished pursuant to a court judgment. the Government must be the first one to cleans (sic) its ranks from these unscrupulous political protégées. as the result of these nefarious activities of both the Private and Public Respondents. While they attempted to focus on issuance of what they claimed to be fraudulent and spurious land titles.. freedom and/or rights to shelter enshrined and embodied in our Constitution. are likewise being made to believe that said titles in the possession of the Private Respondents were issued untainted with frauds. It is therefore the ardent initiatives of the herein Petitioners. As such therefore. 180768. 177448. by way of the said prayer for the issuance of the Writ of Amparo.‖[1] It appears that petitioners are settlers in a certain parcel of land situated in Barangay Manggahan. Nos. Petitioners herein are aware of the opinion that this present petition should not in any way be .[2] what the petition ultimately seeks is the reversal of this Court‘s dismissal of petitions in G.Petitioners were deprived of their liberty. in cahoots with the “squatting syndicates” . to unearth these so-called “syndicates” clothed with governmental functions. Petitioners herein knew before hand that: there can be no motion for reconsideration for the second or third time to be filed before this Honorable Supreme Court. including this Honorable Supreme Court. liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee. even its own previous decision. G.R. The Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides: SECTION 1. this petition is only for the possible issuance of the writ of amparo. is not included among the enumeration of rights as stated in the above-quoted Section 1 for which the remedy of a writ of amparo is made available. assuming they still have any despite the final and executory judgment adverse to them. 177701.[3] We dismiss the petition. Nos. reverse and set aside.treated as such motions fore reconsideration. which in this case was affirmed with finality by this Court in G. (Emphasis supplied. Inherent in the powers of the Supreme Court of the Philippines is to modify. although it might affect the previous rulings of this Honorable Supreme Court in these cases. No writ of amparo may be issued unless there is a clear allegation of the supposed factual and legal basis of the right sought to be protected. – The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life. The Court can only surmise that these rights and interest had already been threshed out and settled in the four cases cited above. 177701 and 177038. liberty and security. 177038. that can not be thwarted nor influenced by any one.) and enforced The threatened demolition of a dwelling by virtue of a final judgment of the court.R. only on the basis of merits and evidence. Petition. therefore. 177448. . The writ shall cover extralegal killings disappearances or threats thereof. Their claim to their dwelling. There is. 177448. 180768. or of a private individual or entity. 180768. does not constitute right to life. no legal basis for the issuance of the writ of amparo. but. Besides. Solely. the factual and legal basis for petitioners‘ claim to the land in question is not alleged in the petition at all. This is the purpose of this petition for the Writ of Amparo. Nos. This new remedy of writ of amparo which is made available by this Court is intended for the protection of the highest possible rights of any person.Under Section 6 of the same rules. Issuance of the Writ. However. liberty and security. Considering that there is no legal basis for its issuance. the writ will not be issued and the petition will be dismissed outright. which is his or her right to life. the Court will also not waste its precious time and effort on matters not covered by the writ. – Upon the filing of the petition. the court shall issue the writ upon the filing of the petition. as in this case. the petition is DISMISSED. only if on its face. The Court will not spare any time or effort on its part in order to give priority to petitions of this nature. WHEREFORE. The clerk of court shall issue the writ under the seal of the court. . the court ought to issue said writ. the justice or the judge may issue the writ under his or her own hand. justice or judge shall immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its face it ought to issue. the court. The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the petition which shall not be later than seven (7) days from the date of its issuance. or in case of urgent necessity. SECTION 6. and may deputize any officer or person to serve it. SO ORDERED.
Report "Human Rights Law 1-18-25 Secretary of National Defense vs. Manalo to Canlas vs. Napico.pdf"