Title
Razon, Jr. vs. Tagitis
Case
G.R. No. 182498
Decision Date
Dec 3, 2009
Enforced disappearance of Engineer Morced Tagitis, allegedly by state agents; Writ of Amparo granted, PNP/CIDG held accountable for insufficient investigation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 182498)

Petitioners

• Gen. Avelino I. Razon, Jr., Chief, Philippine National Police (PNP)
• Police Chief Supt. Raul Castaneda, Chief, Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG)
• Police Senior Supt. Leonardo A. Espina, Chief, Police Anti-Crime and Emergency Response (PACER)
• Gen. Joel R. Goltiao, Regional Director, ARMM-PNP
• Col. Ahiron Ajirim, Head, Task Force Tagitis
• Col. Jose Volpane Pante, Chief, CIDG-9, Zamboanga City

Respondent

Mary Jean B. Tagitis, through her Attorney-in-Fact, Atty. Felipe P. Arcilla, Jr.

Key Dates

• October 30–31, 2007: Tagitis last seen in Jolo, Sulu.
• November 4–7, 2007: Disappearance reported to Jolo Police; affidavits executed.
• December 28, 2007: Court of Appeals (CA) issues Writ of Amparo.
• January–February 2008: CA hearings; return affidavits filed by PNP/CIDG/PACER/ARMM-PNP.
• March 7, 2008: CA grants Writ of Amparo, finds “enforced disappearance,” directs extraordinary police diligence; dismisses military respondents.
• December 3, 2009: Supreme Court issues decision affirming aspects of the CA ruling and crafting supplemental directives.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (rights to life, liberty, security; rule-making power of SC)
• Rule on the Writ of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC)
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights; ICCPR (ratified by Philippines)
• UN Declaration on Enforced Disappearances; customary international law
• Relevant provisions of Republic Act No. 6975 (establishing PNP and CIDG mandates)

Factual Antecedents

Tagitis and an IDB scholar arrived in Jolo on October 30, 2007, checked in at ASY Pension House, then vanished. His student, Arsimin Kunnong, and Prof. Matli reported the disappearance to Jolo police. Despite inquiries—by Kunnong, IDB coordinators, the ARMM Governor’s office, and Mrs. Tagitis—no factual leads emerged until Mrs. Tagitis’ meetings with military and police officials in Zamboanga and Davao City.

Proceedings Below

The CA, on December 28, 2007, issued the Writ of Amparo and required petitioners’ verified returns. PNP Chief Razon, CIDG Chief Doromal, PACER Chief Espina, and ARMM-PNP Regional Director Goltiao filed affidavits reporting directives to investigate but citing no custody or records of Tagitis. CA then formed Task Force Tagitis (led by Ajirim), conducted three hearings, and examined testimony from Mrs. Tagitis, her witness (Mrs. Talbin), Prof. Matli, Col. Kasim, and Col. Pante.

Nature and Purpose of the Writ of Amparo

The writ is a fast, summary judicial remedy to address violations or threats to constitutional rights to life, liberty, and security. It does not adjudicate criminal guilt but compels authorities to exercise extraordinary diligence in investigation, disclosure, and protection, with periodic judicial monitoring.

Sufficiency of the Petition

The SC held that Mrs. Tagitis’ Amparo petition met the form-and-substance requirements: it alleged ultimate facts showing disappearance, State or State-actor involvement, and violation of constitutional rights, and it recited prior reports to police authorities and exhaustion of administrative remedies. The lack of supporting affidavits was cured by live testimony in CA hearings.

International and Domestic Legal Framework

• UN Declaration on Enforced Disappearances and the UN Convention define enforced disappearance as State-orchestrated deprivation of liberty followed by concealment.
• Customary international law (incorporated by the Constitution) condemns enforced disappearance as a non-derogable violation.
• ICCPR obligations (Article 2) require prompt, thorough, and effective investigation and remedies for rights violations.
• Philippine Constitution mandates full respect for human rights and authorizes Court-promulgated rules for constitutional protection.

Evidentiary Standards and Enforcement Difficulties

• Amparo proceedings require only “substantial evidence” rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• Recognized investigative impediments in disappearance cases: (1) concealment of direct perpetrators, (2) suppression of the core evidence (the victim or body), and (3) official denials.
• The SC adopted a flexible approach: all relevant evidence—including reliable hearsay—is admissible if it is consistent and probative in totality.

Assessment of the Evidence

Mrs. Tagitis and Mrs. Talbin credibly testified that Col. Julasirim Ahadin Kasim told them, based on a “raw” informant’s report, that Tagitis was “in good hands” and under custodial investigation for alleged links to terrorism (e.g., associations with known extremists, transport of medicines). The petitioners’ consistent denials, the CIDG’s failure to locate any detention record, the lack of a serious or methodical police investigation (e.g., no timely dissemination of photographs, no follow-up on leads, destruction of the informant’s letter), and the overall

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.