Special Proceedings notes

Special Proceedings

1. Ampatuan vs Macaraig- An invalid arrest may be validated

upon the denial of writ of HB.2. Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 182161,

3 December 2009

Razon v. Tagitis

G.R. No. 182498

03 December 2009

PONENTE: Brion, J.

PARTIES:

1. PETITIONERS: GEN. AVELINO I. RAZON, JR.,

Chief, Philippine National Police (PNP);

Police Chief Superintendent RAUL

CASTANEDA, Chief, Criminal Investigation

and Detection Group (CIDG); Police Senior

Superintendent LEONARDO A. ESPINA,

Chief, Police Anti-Crime and Emergency

Response (PACER); and GEN. JOEL R.

GOLTIAO, Regional Director of ARMM, PNP

2. RESPONDENT: MARY JEAN B. TAGITIS,

herein represented by ATTY. FELIPE P.

ARCILLA, JR., Attorney-in-Fact

NATURE: Petition for Review on Certiorari

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:

Court of Appeals: Petition for the Writ of

Amparo

FACTS:

Engineer Morced N. Tagitis (Tagitis), a

consultant for the World Bank and the Senior

Honorary Counselor for the Islamic

Development Bank (IDB) Scholarship

Programme, together with Arsimin Kunnong

(Kunnong), an IDB scholar, arrived in Jolo by

boat in the early morning of October 31, 2007

from a seminar in Zamboanga City. They

immediately checked-in at ASY Pension House.

Tagitis asked Kunnong to buy him a boat ticket

for his return trip the following day to

Zamboanga. When Kunnong returned from this

errand, Tagitis was no longer around. Kunnong

looked for Tagitis and even sent a text

message to the latter’s Manila-based secretary,

who advised Kunnong to simply wait for

Tagitis’ return.

On November 4, 2007, Kunnong and

Muhammad Abdulnazeir N. Matli, a UP

professor of Muslim studies and Tagitis’ fellow

student counselor at the IDB, reported Tagitis’

disappearance to the Jolo Police Station. More

than a month later, or on December 28, 2007,

the respondent, May Jean Tagitis, through her

attorney-in-fact, filed a Petition for the Writ of

Amparo (petition) 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 (collectively referred

to as “petitioners”), with the Court of Appeals

(CA). On the same day, the CA immediately

issued the Writ of Amparo and set the case for

hearing on January 7, 2008.

On March 7, 2008, the CA issued its decision

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. The CA ruled that when

military intelligence pinpointed the

investigative arm of the PNP (CIDG) to be

involved in the abduction, the missing-person

case qualified as an enforced disappearance.

Hence, the CA extended the privilege of the

writ to Tagitis and his family, and directed the

petitioners 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.

On March 31, 2008, the petitioners moved to

reconsider the CA decision, but the CA denied

the motion in its Resolution dated April 9,

2008. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a petition

for review with the Supreme Court.

PERTINENT ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the requirement that the

pleader must state the ultimate facts, i.e.

complete in every detail in stating the

threatened or actual violation of a victim’s

rights, is indispensable in an amparo

petition.

2. Whether or not the presentation of

substantial evidence by the petitioner to

prove her allegations is sufficient for the

court to grant the privilege of the writ.

3. Whether or not the writ of amparo

determines guilt nor pinpoint criminal

culpability for the alleged enforced

disappearance of the subject of the petition

for the writ.

ANSWERS:

1. No. However, it must contain details

available to the petitioner under the

circumstances, while presenting a cause of

action showing a violation of the victim’s

rights to life, liberty and security through

State or private party action.

2. Yes.

3. No.

SUPREME COURT RULINGS:

1.    REQUIREMENTS IN AN AMPARO

PETITION

The requirement that the pleader must

state the ultimate facts must be read in

light of the nature and purpose of the

proceeding, 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. As in any other initiatory pleading, the

pleader must of course state the ultimate facts

constituting the cause of action, omitting the

evidentiary details. In an Amparo petition,

however, this requirement must be read in

light of the nature and purpose of the

proceeding, which addresses a situation of

uncertainty; the petitioner may not be able to

describe with certainty how the victim exactly

disappeared, or who actually acted to kidnap,

abduct or arrest him or her, or where the

victim is detained, because these information

may purposely be hidden or covered up by

those who caused the disappearance. In this

type of situation, to require the level of

specificity, 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, liberty and security.

To read the Rules of Court requirement on

pleadings while addressing the unique Amparo

situation, the test in reading the petition should

be to determine whether it contains the details

available to the petitioner under the

circumstances, while presenting a cause of

action showing a violation of the victim’s rights

to life, liberty and security through State or

private party action. The petition should

likewise be read in its totality, rather than in

terms of its isolated component parts, to

determine if the required elements – namely,

of the disappearance, the State or private

action, and the actual or threatened violations

of the rights to life, liberty or security – are

present.

2.    EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN AN AMPARO

PETITION

Burden of proof of Amparo petitioner

– [T]he Amparo petitioner needs only to

properly comply with the substance and form

requirements of a Writ of Amparo petition, as

discussed above, and prove the allegations by

substantial evidence. Once a rebuttable case

has been proven, the respondents must then

respond and prove their defenses based on the

standard of diligence required. The rebuttable

case, of course, must show that an enforced

disappearance took place under circumstances

showing a violation of the victim’s

constitutional rights to life, liberty or security,

and the failure on the part of the investigating

authorities to appropriately respond.

Substantial evidence required in amparo

proceedings – The [characteristics of amparo

proceedings] – namely, 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, albeit judicially

conducted, in addressing Amparo situations.

The standard of diligence required – the duty of

public officials and employees to observe

extraordinary diligence – point, too, 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. Thus, in these

proceedings, the Amparo petitioner needs only

to properly comply with the substance and

form requirements of a Writ of Amparo petition,

as discussed above, and prove the allegations

by substantial evidence. Once a rebuttable

case has been proven, the respondents must

then respond and prove their defenses based

on the standard of diligence required. The

rebuttable case, of course, must show that an

enforced disappearance took place under

circumstances showing a violation of the

victim’s constitutional rights to life, liberty or

security, and the failure on the part of the

investigating authorities to appropriately

respond. The landmark case of Ang Tibay v.

Court of Industrial Relations provided the Court

its first opportunity to define the substantial

evidence required to arrive at a valid decision

in administrative proceedings. To directly

quote Ang Tibay: Substantial evidence is more

than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as

adequate to support a conclusion. The statute

provides that ‘the rules of evidence prevailing

in courts of law and equity shall not be

controlling.’ 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. 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.

Minor inconsistencies in the testimony

should not affect the credibility of the

witness –As a rule, minor inconsistencies such

as these indicate truthfulness rather than

prevarication and only tend to strengthen their

probative value, in contrast to testimonies from

various witnesses dovetailing on every detail;

the latter cannot but generate suspicion that

the material circumstances they testified to

were integral parts of a well thought of and

prefabricated story.

3.    ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES in

relation to THE WRIT OF AMPARO

The writ of amparo does not determine

guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability for

the disappearance, rather, it determines

responsibility, or at least accountability ,

for the enforced disappearance for

purposes of imposing the appropriate

remedies to address the disappearance

– [The writ of amparo is] a protective remedy

against violations or threats of violation against

the rights to life, liberty and security. It

embodies, as a remedy, the court’s directive to

police agencies to undertake specified courses

of action to address the disappearance of an

individual, in this case, Engr. Morced N. Tagitis.

It does not determine guilt nor pinpoint

criminal culpability for the disappearance;

rather, it determines responsibility, or at least

accountability, for the enforced disappearance

for purposes of imposing the appropriate

remedies to address the disappearance.

Responsibility refers to the extent the actors

have been established by substantial evidence

to have participated in whatever way, by action

or omission, in an enforced disappearance, as

a measure of the remedies this Court shall

craft, among them, the directive to file the

appropriate criminal and civil cases against the

responsible parties in the proper courts.

Accountability, on the other hand, refers to the

measure of remedies that should be addressed

to those who exhibited involvement in the

enforced disappearance without bringing the

level of their complicity to the level of

responsibility defined above; or who are

imputed with knowledge relating to the

enforced disappearance and who carry the

burden of disclosure; or those who carry, but

have failed to discharge, the burden of

extraordinary diligence in the investigation of

the enforced disappearance. 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.

The Amparo Rule should be read, too, as

a work in progress, as its directions and

finer points remain to evolve through

time and jurisprudence and through the

substantive laws that Congress may

promulgate – [T]he unique situations that call

for the issuance of the writ, as well as the

considerations and measures necessary to

address these situations, may not at all be the

same as the standard measures and

procedures in ordinary court actions and

proceedings. In this sense, the Rule on the Writ

of Amparo (Amparo Rule) issued by this Court

is unique. The Amparo Rule should be read,

too, as a work in progress, as its directions and

finer points remain to evolve through time and

jurisprudence and through the substantive laws

that Congress may promulgate.

The concept of “enforced

disappearances” is neither defined nor

penalized in this jurisdiction – The Amparo

Rule expressly provides that the “writ shall

cover extralegal killings and enforced

disappearances or threats thereof.” We note

that although the writ specifically covers

“enforced disappearances,” this concept is

neither defined nor penalized in this

jurisdiction.    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: x x x In the end, the Committee

took cognizance of several bills filed in the

House of Representatives and in the Senate on

extrajudicial killings and enforced

disappearances, and resolved to do away with

a clear textual definition of these terms in the

Rule. The Committee instead focused on the

nature and scope of the concerns within its

power to address and provided the appropriate

remedy therefor, mindful that an elemental

definition may intrude into the ongoing

legislative efforts. As the law now stands,

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. The simple reason is

that the Legislature has not spoken on the

matter; 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.

Source of the power of the Supreme Court to

act on extrajudicial killings and enforced

disappearances – Even without the benefit of

directly applicable substantive laws on extra-

judicial killings and enforced disappearances,

however, the Supreme Court is not powerless

to act under its own constitutional mandate to

promulgate “rules concerning the protection

and enforcement of constitutional rights,

pleading, practice and procedure in all courts,”

since extrajudicial killings and enforced

disappearances, by their nature and purpose,

constitute State or private party violation of the

constitutional rights of individuals to life, liberty

and security. Although the Court’s power is

strictly procedural and as such does not

diminish, increase or modify substantive rights,

the legal protection that the Court can provide

can be very meaningful through the

procedures it sets in addressing extrajudicial

killings and enforced disappearances. The

Court, through its procedural rules, can set the

procedural standards and thereby directly

compel the public authorities to act on actual

or threatened violations of constitutional rights.

To state the obvious, 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.

DISPOSITIVE: The Supreme Court affirmed

the decision of the Court of Appeals dated

March 7, 2008 under the following terms:

1. Recognition that the disappearance of

Engineer Morced N. Tagitis is an enforced

disappearance covered by the Rule on the

Writ of Amparo;

2. Without any specific pronouncement on

exact authorship and responsibility,

declaring the government (through the PNP

and the PNP-CIDG) and Colonel Julasirim

Ahadin Kasim accountable for the enforced

disappearance of Engineer Morced N.

Tagitis;

3. Confirmation of the validity of the Writ of

Amparo the Court of Appeals issued;

4. Holding the PNP, through the PNP Chief,

and the PNP-CIDG, through its Chief,

directly responsible for the disclosure of

material facts known to the government

and to their offices regarding the

disappearance of Engineer Morced N.

Tagitis, and for the conduct of proper

investigations using extraordinary

diligence, with the obligation to show

investigation results acceptable to this

Court;

5. 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.

Tagitis;

6. Referring this case back to the Court of

Appeals for appropriate proceedings

directed at the monitoring of the PNP and

PNP-CIDG investigations, actions and the

validation of their results; the PNP and the

PNP-CIDG shall initially present to the Court

of Appeals a plan of action for further

investigation, periodically reporting their

results to the Court of Appeals for

consideration and action;

7. Requiring the Court of Appeals to submit to

this Court a quarterly report with its

recommendations, copy furnished the

incumbent PNP and PNP-CIDG Chiefs as

petitioners and the respondent, with the

first report due at the end of the first

quarter counted from the finality of this

Decision;

8. The PNP and the PNP-CIDG shall have one

(1) full year to undertake their

investigations; the Court of Appeals 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;

The abovementioned directives and those of

the Court of Appeals’ made pursuant to this

Decision were given to, and were directly

enforceable against, whoever may be the

incumbent Chiefs of the Philippine National

Police and its Criminal Investigation and

Detection Group, under pain of contempt from

the Supreme 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.

Given the unique nature of Amparo cases and

their varying attendant circumstances, the

aforementioned directives – particularly, 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.

The Supreme Court likewise affirmed the

dismissal of the Amparo petition with respect

to General Alexander Yano, Commanding

General, Philippine Army, and General Ruben

Rafael, Chief, Anti-Terrorism Task Force Comet,

Zamboanga City.

3.