Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
EN BANC
EDGARDO NAVIA,[1][1]
RUBEN |
G.R. No. 184467 |
|
DIO,[2][2]
and ANDREW BUISING, |
||
Petitioners, |
||
Present: |
||
CARPIO, |
||
VELASCO, JR., |
||
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, |
||
BRION, |
||
PERALTA, |
||
- versus - |
BERSAMIN, |
|
DEL CASTILLO, |
||
ABAD, |
||
VILLARAMA, JR., |
||
PEREZ, |
||
MENDOZA, |
||
SERENO, |
||
REYES, and |
||
vIRGINIA
PARDICO, for and in |
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ. |
|
behalf and in representation of |
||
BENHUR V. PARDICO |
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
June 19, 2012 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
For
the protective writ of amparo to
issue in enforced disappearance cases, allegation and proof that the persons
subject thereof are missing are not enough. It must also be shown by the
required quantum of proof that their disappearance was carried out by, “or with
the authorization, support or acquiescence of, [the government] or a political
organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge [the same or] give
information on the fate or whereabouts of [said missing] persons.”[3][3]
This
petition for review on certiorari[4][4] filed in relation to Section 19 of A.M.
No. 07-9-12-SC[5][5]
challenges the July 24, 2008 Decision[6][6]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Malolos City which granted the
Petition for Writ of Amparo[7][7]
filed by herein respondent against the petitioners.
Factual Antecedents
On
March 31, 2008, at around 8:30 p.m., a vehicle of Asian Land Strategies
Corporation[8][8]
(Asian Land) arrived at the house of Lolita M. Lapore (Lolita) located at 7A
Lot 9, Block 54, Grand Royale Subdivision, Barangay
Lugam, Malolos City. The arrival of the vehicle awakened Lolita’s son, Enrique
Lapore (Bong), and Benhur Pardico (Ben), who were then both staying in her
house. When Lolita went out to investigate, she saw two uniformed guards
disembarking from the vehicle. One of them immediately asked Lolita where they
could find her son Bong. Before Lolita could answer, the guard saw Bong and
told him that he and Ben should go with them to the security office of Asian
Land because a complaint was lodged against them for theft of electric wires
and lamps in the subdivision.[9][9]
Shortly
thereafter, Bong, Lolita and Ben were in the office of the security department
of Asian Land also located in Grand Royale Subdivision.[10][10]
The supervisor of the security guards, petitioner Edgardo Navia (Navia), also
arrived thereat.
As
to what transpired next, the parties’ respective versions diverge.
Version of the Petitioners
Petitioners
alleged that they invited Bong and Ben to their office because they received a
report from a certain Mrs. Emphasis, a resident of Grand Royale Subdivision,
that she saw Bong and Ben removing a lamp from a post in said subdivision.[11][11]
The reported unauthorized taking of the lamp was relayed thru radio to
petitioners Ruben Dio (Dio) and Andrew Buising (Buising), who both work as
security guards at the Asian Land security department. Following their
department’s standard operating procedure, Dio and Buising entered the report
in their logbook and proceeded to the house of Mrs. Emphasis. 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. Bong and Ben voluntarily went with them.
At
the security office, Dio and Buising interviewed Bong and Ben. 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.[12][12]
Soon, Navia arrived and Buising informed him that the complainant was not keen
in participating in the investigation. Since there was no complainant, Navia
ordered the release of Bong and Ben. Bong then signed a statement to the effect
that the guards released him without inflicting any harm or injury to him.[13][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. Thereafter, Lolita and
Bong left the security office.
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 a brief discussion though, Navia allowed Ben to leave. 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.[14][14]
Upon Navia’s instructions, 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. Lolita asked Buising to read aloud that entry in the
logbook where she was being asked to sign, to which Buising obliged. Not
contented, Lolita put on her reading glasses and read the entry in the logbook
herself before affixing her signature therein. After which, the guards left.
Subsequently,
petitioners received an invitation[15][15]
from the Malolos City Police Station requesting them to appear thereat on April
17, 2008 relative to the complaint of Virginia Pardico (Virginia) about her
missing husband Ben. In compliance with the invitation, all three petitioners
appeared at the Malolos City Police Station. However, since Virginia was not
present despite having received the same invitation, the meeting was reset to
April 22, 2008.[16][16]
On
April 22, 2008, Virginia attended the investigation. Petitioners informed her
that they released Ben and that they have no information as to his present
whereabouts.[17][17]
They assured Virginia though that they will cooperate and help in the
investigation of her missing husband.[18][18]
Version of the Respondent
According to respondent, Bong and Ben were not merely invited. They were
unlawfully arrested, shoved into the Asian Land vehicle and brought to the
security office for investigation. Upon seeing Ben at the security office,
Navia lividly grumbled “Ikaw na naman?”[19][19]
and slapped him while he was still seated. Ben begged for mercy, but his pleas
were met with a flurry of punches coming from Navia hitting him on different
parts of his body.[20][20]
Navia then took hold of his gun, looked at Bong, and said, “Wala kang nakita at wala kang narinig,
papatayin ko na si Ben.”[21][21]
Bong admitted that he and Ben attempted to take the lamp. 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. But since nothing happened, 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. However, the lamp Bong got was no longer working. Thus, he
reinstalled it on the post from which he took it and no longer pursued his
plan. [22][22]
Later on, 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][23]
Thereafter, Navia again asked Lolita to sign the logbook. Upon Lolita’s inquiry
as to why she had to sign again, 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 she has poor eyesight, Lolita obligingly signed the logbook without
reading it and then left with Bong.[24][24]
At that juncture, Ben grabbed Bong and pleaded not to be left alone. However,
since they were afraid of Navia, Lolita and Bong left the security office at
once leaving Ben behind.[25][25]
Moments after Lolita and Bong reached their house, Buising arrived and
asked Lolita to sign the logbook again. Lolita asked Buising why she had to
sign again when she already twice signed the logbook at the headquarters.
Buising assured her that what she was about to sign only pertains to Bong’s
release. Since it was dark and she has poor eyesight, Lolita took Buising’s
word and signed the logbook without, again, reading what was written in it.
[26][26]
The following morning, Virginia went to the Asian Land security office
to visit her husband Ben, but only to be told that petitioners had already
released him together with Bong the night before. She then looked for Ben,
asked around, and went to the barangay.
Since she could not still find her husband, Virginia reported the matter to the
police.
In the course of the investigation on Ben’s disappearance, it dawned
upon Lolita that petitioners took advantage of her poor eyesight and naivete.
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. The last time she
saw Ben was when she left him in petitioners’ custody at the security office.[27][27]
Exasperated
with the mysterious disappearance of her husband, Virginia filed a Petition for
Writ of Amparo[28][28]
before the RTC of Malolos City. Finding the petition sufficient in form and
substance, the amparo court issued an
Order[29][29]
dated June 26, 2008 directing, among others, the issuance of a writ of amparo and the production of the body of
Ben before it on June 30, 2008. Thus:
WHEREFORE, conformably with
Section 6 of the Supreme Court Resolution [in] A.M. No. 07-[9]-12-SC, also known
as “The Rule On The Writ Of Amparo”, let a writ of amparo be issued, as
follows:
(1) ORDERING [petitioners] Edgardo Navia, Ruben Dio and Andrew Buising of
the Asian Land Security Agency to produce before the Court the body of
aggrieved party Benhur Pardico, on Monday, June 30, 2008, at 10:30 a.m.;
(2) ORDERING the holding of a summary hearing of the petition on the
aforementioned date and time, and DIRECTING the [petitioners] to personally
appear thereat;
(3) COMMANDING [petitioners] Edgardo Navia, Ruben Dio and Andrew Buising to
file, within a non-extendible period of seventy-two (72) hours from service of
the writ, a verified written return with supporting affidavits which shall,
among other things, contain the following:
a) The lawful defenses to show that the [petitioners] did
not violate or threaten with violation the right to life, liberty and security
of the aggrieved party, through any act or omission;
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, act or omission; and
c)
All relevant information in the
possession of the [petitioners] pertaining to the threat, act or omission
against the aggrieved party.
(4) GRANTING, motu proprio, a Temporary
Protection Order prohibiting the [petitioners], or any persons acting for and
in their behalf, under pain of contempt, from threatening, harassing or
inflicting any harm to [respondent], his immediate family and any [member] of
his household.
The
Branch Sheriff is directed to immediately serve personally on the
[petitioners], at their address indicated in the petition, copies of the writ
as well as this order, together with copies of the petition and its annexes.[30][30]
A Writ of Amparo[31][31]
was accordingly issued and served on the petitioners on June 27, 2008.[32][32]
On June 30, 2008, petitioners filed their Compliance[33][33]
praying for the denial of the petition for lack of merit.
A summary hearing was thereafter conducted. Petitioners presented the
testimony of Buising, while Virginia submitted the sworn statements[34][34]
of Lolita and Enrique which the two affirmed on the witness stand.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On
July 24, 2008, the trial court issued the challenged Decision[35][35]
granting the petition. It disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby grants the privilege of the writ of amparo,
and deems it proper and appropriate, 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, Ruben Dio and Andrew Buising
in connection with the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of [Benhur]
Pardico, utilizing in the process, as part of the investigation, the documents
forming part of the records of this case;
(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; 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, utilizing in the process, as part of said investigation, the
pertinent documents and admissions forming part of the record of this case, and
take whatever course/s of action as may be warranted.
Furnish
immediately copies of this decision to the NBI, through the Office of Director
Nestor Mantaring, and to the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan.
SO
ORDERED.[36][36]
Petitioners
filed a Motion for Reconsideration[37][37]
which was denied by the trial court in an Order[38][38]
dated August 29, 2008.
Hence, this petition raising the following issues for our consideration:
4.1. WHETHER X X X THE HONORABLE TRIAL
COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT RESPONDENT IS ENTITLED TO THE PRIVILEGE OF
THE WRIT OF AMPARO.
4.1.1. 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, LIBERTY, OR SECURITY.
4.1.2. WHETHER X X X RESPONDENT SUFFICIENTLY
ESTABLISHED THE FACT OF THE DISAPPEARANCE OF BENHUR PARDICO.
4.1.3. WHETHER X X X RESPONDENT WAS ABLE TO
ESTABLISH THAT THE ALLEGED DISAPPEARANCE OF BENHUR PARDICO WAS AT THE INSTANCE
OF HEREIN PETITIONERS.[39][39]
Petitioners’
Arguments
Petitioners essentially assail the sufficiency of the amparo petition. 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, liberty and security are
clear. Petitioners assert that in the case at bench, Virginia miserably failed
to establish all these. First, 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, liberty and security. And second, it cannot be deduced from the evidence
Virginia adduced that Ben is missing; or that petitioners had a hand in his
alleged disappearance. On the other hand, the entries in the logbook which bear
the signatures of Ben and Lolita are eloquent proof that petitioners released
Ben on March 31, 2008 at around 10:30 p.m. Petitioners thus posit that the
trial court erred in issuing the writ and in holding them responsible for Ben’s
disappearance.
Our Ruling
Virginia’s
Petition for Writ of Amparo is
fatally defective and must perforce be dismissed, but not for the reasons
adverted to by the petitioners.
A.M. No. 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. Its purpose is
to provide an expeditious and effective relief “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.” [40][40]
Here, Ben’s right to life,
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, 2008. Such uncontroverted fact ipso facto established Ben’s inherent
and constitutionally enshrined right to life, liberty and security. Article 6[41][41]
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[42][42]
recognizes every human being’s inherent right to life, while Article 9[43][43]
thereof ordains that everyone has the right to liberty and security. 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. This
overarching command against deprivation of life, liberty and security without
due process of law is also embodied in our fundamental law.[44][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, falls within the ambit of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC and relevant laws.
It does not. Section 1 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC provides:
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
ours.)
While
Section 1 provides A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC’s coverage, said Rules does not,
however, define extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. This omission
was intentional as the Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court which
drafted A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC chose to allow it to evolve through time and
jurisprudence and through substantive laws as may be promulgated by Congress.[45][45]
Then, the budding jurisprudence on amparo
blossomed in Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis[46][46] when this
Court defined enforced disappearances. 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, 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.”[47][47]
Not long thereafter, another significant development affecting A.M. No.
07-9-12-SC came about after Congress enacted Republic Act (RA) No. 9851[48][48] on December
11, 2009. Section 3(g) thereof defines enforced or involuntary disappearances
as follows:
(g)
"Enforced or involuntary disappearance of persons" means the arrest,
detention, or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or
acquiescence of, 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, with the intention of removing from the
protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
Then came Rubrico v.
Macapagal-Arroyo[49][49] where Justice
Arturo D. Brion wrote in his Separate Opinion that with the enactment of RA No.
9851, “the Rule on the Writ of Amparo is
now a procedural law anchored, not only on the constitutional rights to the
rights to life, liberty and security, but on a concrete statutory definition as
well of what an ‘enforced or involuntary disappearance’ is.”[50][50] Therefore,
A.M. No. 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. 9851. Meaning, in probing enforced disappearance cases,
courts should read A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC in relation to RA No. 9851.
From the statutory definition of enforced disappearance, thus, we can
derive the following elements that constitute it:
(a) that there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation
of liberty;
(b) that it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support or
acquiescence of, the State or a political organization;
(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; and,
(d) that the intention for such refusal is to remove subject person from the
protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
As
thus dissected, it is now clear that for the protective writ of amparo to issue, allegation and proof
that the persons subject thereof are missing are not enough. It must also be
shown and proved by substantial evidence that the disappearance was carried out
by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or a
political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the same or give
information on the fate or whereabouts of said missing persons, with the
intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged
period of time. Simply put, the petitioner in an amparo case has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the
indispensable element of government participation.
In the present case, 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. Given the circumstances and the pugnacious character of Navia at that
time, his threatening statement, “Wala
kang nakita at wala kang narinig, papatayin ko na si Ben,” cannot be taken
lightly. It unambiguously showed his predisposition at that time. In addition,
there is nothing on record which would support petitioners’ assertion that they
released Ben on the night of March 31, 2008 unscathed from their wrath. Lolita
sufficiently explained how she was prodded into affixing her signatures in the
logbook without reading the entries therein. And so far, the information
petitioners volunteered are sketchy at best, like the alleged complaint of Mrs.
Emphasis who was never identified or presented in court and whose complaint was
never reduced in writing.
But lest it be overlooked, in an amparo
petition, proof of disappearance alone is not enough. It is likewise
essential to establish that such disappearance was carried out with the direct
or indirect authorization, support or acquiescence of the government. This
indispensable element of State participation is not present in this case. The
petition does not contain any allegation of State complicity, and none of the
evidence presented tend to show that the government or any of its agents
orchestrated Ben’s disappearance. In fact, none of its agents, officials, or
employees were impleaded or implicated in Virginia’s amparo petition whether as responsible or accountable persons.[51][51]
Thus, 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 Court will definitely
not hold the government or its agents either as responsible or
accountable
persons.
We are aware that under Section 1 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC a writ of amparo may lie against a private
individual or entity. But even if the person sought to be held accountable or
responsible in an amparo petition is
a private individual or entity, still, government involvement in the
disappearance remains an indispensable element. Here, petitioners are mere
security guards at Grand Royale Subdivision in Brgy. Lugam, Malolos City and their principal, the Asian Land, is a
private entity. They do not work for the government and nothing has been
presented that would link or connect them to some covert police, military or
governmental operation. As discussed above, to fall within the ambit of A.M.
No. 07-9-12-SC in relation to RA No. 9851, the disappearance must be attended
by some governmental involvement. This hallmark of State participation
differentiates an enforced disappearance case from an ordinary case of a
missing person.
WHEREFORE, the July 24, 2008 Decision
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Malolos City, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The Petition for Writ of Amparo filed
by Virginia Pardico is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO
Senior Associate Justice
(On official leave)
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice |
(On leave)
JOSE CATRAL
MENDOZA Associate Justice |
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO Associate Justice |
BIENVENIDO L. REYES Associate Justice |
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE Associate Justice |
CERTIFICATION
I
certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Senior
Associate Justice
(Per
Section 12, R.A. 296,
The
Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended)
[1][1] Also known and signs his name as
Edgardo Nabia.
[2][2] Also known and signs his name as
Ruben Dio II.
[3][3] Section
3(g), Republic Act No. 9851,
otherwise known as the Philippine Act On Crimes Against International
Humanitarian Law, Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity.
[4][4] Rollo, pp. 3-38.
[5][5] The
Rule on the Writ of Amparo, which
took effect on October 24, 2007.
[6][6] Records,
Vol. I, pp. 78-98; penned by Judge Oscar C. Herrera, Jr.
[7][7] Records,
Vol. I, pp. 2-6.
[8][8] Also
referred to as Asian Land Security Agency or Grand Royale Security Agency in
some parts of the records.
[9][9] See
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Lolita Lapore
and the Malaya at Kusangloob na Pahayag
ni Enrique Lapore, records, vol. I, pp. 7-10.
[10][10] See
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Lolita Lapore,
id. at 7-8.
[11][11] See
2115H Logbook Entry, id. at 48.
[12][12] See
testimony of Andrew Buising, July 3, 2008 TSN, p. 15.
[13][13] See
2200H Logbook Entry, records, vol. I, p. 48.
[14][14] See
2230H Logbook Entry, id. at 49.
[15][15] See
letter of PO1 Gerryme Paulino, id. at 50.
[16][16] See
letter of SPO1 Gilberto Punzalan, id. at 51.
[17][17] See
testimony of Andrew Buising, July 3, 2008 TSN, p. 25.
[18][18] See
Police Blotter Entry No. 08-1230, records, vol. I, p. 52.
[19][19] See
testimony of Enrique Lapore, July 2, 2008 TSN, p. 8.
[20][20] See
the Malaya at Kusangloob na Pahayag ni Enrique
Lapore, records, vol. I, pp. 9-10.
[21][21] Id.
at 10.
[22][22] Supra
note 9.
[23][23] See
testimony of Lolita Lapore, July 1, 2008, TSN, p. 7; See also Exhibit “2”,
records, vol. I, pp. 30-31.
[24][24] Supra
note 10.
[25][25] Supra
note 20.
[26][26] Supra
note 9.
[27][27] Supra
note 10.
[28][28] Supra
note 7.
[29][29] Records,
Vol. 1, pp. 11-15.
[30][30] Id.
at 13-14.
[31][31] Id.
at 16-17.
[32][32] See Sheriff’s Return, id. at 18.
[33][33] Id.
at 36-47.
[34][34] Supra
note 9.
[35][35] Supra
note 6.
[36][36] Records, Vol. I, pp. 97-98.
[37][37] Id.
at 134-148.
[38][38] Id.
at 184.
[39][39] See
petitioners’ Memorandum, rollo, pp.
180-181.
[40][40] Section
1, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC.
[41][41] Article 6(1), Part III of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides:
1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
x x x x
[42][42] Ratified
by the Philippines on October 23, 1986.
[43][43] Article 9, Part III of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides:
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.
x x x x
[44][44] See Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution which reads:
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.
[45][45] Annotations on the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, published by the Supreme
Court, p. 47.
[46][46] G.R.
No. 182498, December 3, 2009, 606 SCRA 598.
[47][47] Id. at 670.
[48][48] Philippine Act On Crimes Against International
Humanitarian Law, Genocide, And Other Crimes Against Humanity.
[49][49] G.R. No. 183871, February 18,
2010, 613 SCRA 233.
[50][50] Id. at 276.
[51][51] In Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis (Supra note 45 at
620-621), the Court explained that “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.”