Razon vs Tagitis GR 182498 December 3, 2009
Writ of Amparo
International Convention for Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
Gen. Avelino Razon, Chief,
Philippine National Police (PNP), Police Chief Superintendent Raul
Castaneda, Chief, Criminal Investigation and Detection
Group (CIDG), et. al.
(Petitioners)
Vs.
Mary Jean B. Tagitis(Respondent)
G.R. No. 182498 December 3, 2009
Brion, J.:
FACTS
:
On October 31, 2007,
Engr. Morced Tagitis(“Tagitis”),
a World Bank Consultant
and a Senior Honorary
Counselor for the
Islamic Development Bank (IDB)
Scholarship Program,arrived in Jolo, Sulu from
a seminar in
Zamboanga. He was
accompanied by an
IDB Scholar Arsimin Kunnong(“Kunnong”). The two stayed at
ASY Pension House. Tagitis asked
Kunnong to purchase a boat ticket
to Zamboanga for the following day but when Kunnong returned from this errand,
Tagitis was nowhere to be found. According to the pension house’s
receptionist, Tagitis
left his room key with
the desk to buy food
outside. Kunnong looked for Tagitis
and contacted his phone but he
could not be reached. Kunnong
also contacted Tagitis’ Manila-based staff who did not also know Tagitis’whereabouts.
Kunnong and the pension house staff then had Tagitis’ locked room opened and they
discovered that Tagitis’personal belongings
including cell phones, documents
and other personal belongings were all intact. Kunnong reported the matte rto the
police authorities in
Jolo and the latter insinuated that Tagitis could have
been possibly abducted by the Abu Sayyaf Group. After hearing this, Kunnong
immediately contacted Tagitis’ wife,
Mary Jean, and other
responsible officers and coordinators of
the IDB Scholarship Programme in the Philippines.
On November 4, 2007, Kunnong and Prof. Matli, a UP professor of Muslim
studies and Tagitis’ fellow student
counselor at the IDB, reported Tagitis’ disappe arance to the Jolo Police Station.
On November 7, 2007, Kunnong executed a sworn affidavit attesting to what he knew of the circumstances surrounding Tagitis’ disappearance.
On December 28, 2007,Mary Jean filed a Petition for the Writ of Amparo with the CA through her Attorney-in-Fact, Atty. Felipe P. Arcilla. The petition was directed against Lt. Gen. Alexander Yano, Commanding General, Philippine Army; Gen. Avelino I. Razon, Chief, Philippine National Police (PNP); Gen. Edgardo M. Doromal, Chief, Criminal Investigation and Detention Group (CIDG); Sr. Supt. Leonardo A. Espina, Chief, Police Anti-Crime and Emergency Response; Gen. Joel Goltiao, Regional Director, ARMM-PNP; and Gen. Ruben Rafael, Chief, Anti-Terror Task Force Comet.
Mary Jean alleged the following:
-That she was referred by her Land Bank Digos colleagues to those who had contacts in the military.
-That based on reliable information that she received, her husband Tagitis
is in the custody of police intelligence operatives, specifically with the
CIDG, PNP Zamboanga City, being held against his will in an earnest attempt to
involve and connect him with the different terrorist groups, particulary the
Jemaah Islamiyah (JI).
-That she learned from a certain Col. Kasim that there was a confidential
report linking her husband to the JI terrorists, an information which was later
retracted by Col. Kasim
-That she filed a complaint with the PNP Police Station in the ARMM in Cotabato
and in Jolo. However, instead of providing her assistance, she was told that
her husband was not missing but was with another woman
.-That she searchedfor her husband in different PNP headquarters in Mindanao -ARMM Police Headquarters in Cotobato City and Davao City, Zamboanga City, Jolo and in Camp Crame, Quezon City.
-That she had exhausted all administrative avenues and remedies but to no
avail.
-That the unexplained uncooperative behavior of the police to her request
for help and failure and refusal of the police to extend the needed help,
support and assistance in locating the whereabouts of Tagitis who was declared missing
since October 30, 2007, indicates that the police are actually in physical
possession and custody of her husband.On the same day the petition was filed,
the CA immediately issued the Writ of Amparo, set the case for hearing on
January 7, 2008, and directed the petitioners to file their verified return within
seventy-two (72) hours from service of the writ.
In their verified Return filed during the hearing of January 27, 2008,
the police denied any involvement in or knowledge of Tagitis’ alleged
abduction. They argued that the allegations of the petition were incomplete and
did not constitute a cause of action against them; were baseless and only
relied on hearsay evidence.They also claimed that they are exhaustingall
means, taking pro-active measures to investigate, search and locate
Tagitis and to apprehend the persons responsible for his disappearance.TheCA
directed Gen.Goltiao as the officer in command of the area of the disappearance
of Tagitis –to form TASK FORCE TAGITIS.
On February 4, 2008, the CA issued an ALARM WARNING that Task Force
Tagitis did not
appear to be exerting extraordinary efforts in resolving Tagitis’
disappearance. This was prompted by the Court’s discovery that it was only on
January 28, 2008 that Gen. Goltiao and Col Ajirim had requested for clear
photographsof Tagitiswhen the information of disappearance was relayed to
Goltiao as early as November 5, 2007.The CA was baffled at how the police could
look for missing personf no clear
photograph was disseminated.
CA RULING:
On March 7, 2008, the CA issued adecisionconfirming that the
disappearance of Tagitis was an "enforced disappearance" under the
definition of the United Nations (UN) Declaration on the Protection of All
Persons from Enforced Disappearances. The CA greatly relied on the "raw report"
from Col. Kasim’s asset, pointing to the CIDG’s involvement in Tagitis’
abduction. It also questioned Col. Kasim’s belated retraction of his statement
that the military, the police, or the CIDG was involved in the abduction of
Tagitis.The CA characterized as unbelievablethepolice theories painting the
disappearance as "intentional" on the part of Tagitis, noting that
Tagitis had no previous brushes with the law or any record of overstepping the
bounds of any trust regarding money entrusted to him; 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 also found no basis for the theory of the police that
Tagitis was "trying to escape from the clutches of his second wife,"
on the basis of the respondent’s testimony that Tagitis was a Muslim who could
have many wives under the Muslim faith, and that there was "no issue"
at all when the latter divorced his first wife in order to marry the second.
Finally, the CA also ruled out kidnapping for ransom by the Abu Sayyaf or by
the ARMM paramilitary as the cause for Tagitis’ disappearance, since the
respondent, the police and the military noted that there was no acknowledgment
of Tagitis’ abduction or demand for payment of ransom –the usual modus operandi
of these terrorist groups.Based on these considerations, the CA extended the
privilege of the writ to Tagitis and his family, and directed the CIDG Chief,
Col. Jose Volpane Pante, PNP Chief Avelino I. Razon, Task Force Tagitis heads
Gen. Joel Goltiao and Col. Ahiron Ajirim, and PACER Chief Sr. Supt. Leonardo A.
Espina to exert extraordinary diligence and efforts to protect the life,
liberty and security of Tagitis, with the obligation to provide monthly reports
of their actions to the CA. At the same time, the CA dismissed the petition
against the then respondents from the military, Lt. Gen Alexander Yano and Gen.
Ruben Rafael, based on the finding that it was PNP-CIDG, not the military, that
was involved.
1.Whether or not the privilege of the Writ of Amparo should be granted
to protect Engr. Morced Tagitis?
2.Whether or not the Amparo petitionfiled by Mary Jean Tagitisis
sufficient in form and substance?
1.Whether or not the privilege of the Writ of Amparo should be granted
to protect Engr. Morced Tagitis? Yes. The disappearance of Engr. Morced Tagitis
is classified as an enforced disappearance, thus the privilege of the Writ of
Amparo applies.
Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ o fAmparo provides for the following
causes of action:
Section 1.Petition. The petition for a writ of Amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. (emphasis supplied).
The UN Declaration defined enforced disappearrance as "the arrest,
detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of
the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization,
support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the
deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared
person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law."Under
this definition, the elements that constitute enforced disappearance are
essentially fourfold:
(a) arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty;
(b) carried out by agents of the State or persons or groups of persons
acting with the
authorization, support or acquiescence of the State;
(c) followed by a refusal to acknowledge the detention, or a concealment of the fate of the
disappeared person;
(d) placement of the disappeared person outside the protection of the
law.
The fact of Tagitis’ disappearance was proven although there was no
direct evidence indicating how he actually disappeared. He was last seen going
out of the ASY pension house but never to be seen nor heard again. The
undisputed conclusion, therefore, is that Tagitis disappeared under mysterious
circumstances and was never seen again.
2.Whether or not the Amparo petition filed by Mary Jean Tagitis is sufficient in form and substance. Yes. Petitioners filed an appeal before the SC, questioning the CA’s decision.
Comments
Post a Comment