The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that failing to conduct a proper and thorough investigation in cases of enforced or involuntary disappearance violates or threatens a person’s right to life, liberty, and security. Investigations must be serious and effective, not just a mere formality.
In a Decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC En Banc granted the privilege of a writ of amparo to the family of Henry V. Tayo, Jr. (Tayo), who went missing after being detained at Bacolod City Police Station 8 for theft.
The police claimed that they released Tayo the same day to five barangay tanods and Melleza Besana (Besana), one of the complainants against him. However, his family never saw him again.
The police presented a video of Tayo signing the release logbook but could not produce footage of him actually leaving the station, despite multiple requests from the Tayo family, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), and the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO).
The Tayo family filed a petition for a writ of amparo, requesting the issuance of a production order against the police with the RTC. The RTC issued a writ of amparo and directed the police to file a verified return within 72 hours.
In their return, the police alleged that the Tayo family failed to prove that the police were responsible for Tayo’s disappearance or that they withheld information on Tayo’s location. They explained that even with an IT specialist’s help, they could not retrieve the video showing Tayo leaving the police station because the recording device only stored data for five days. Nonetheless, they accompanied the Tayo family to the Barangay Pahanocoy Hall, where the family was shown footage of Tayo getting on a tricycle.
During the summary hearing, the Tayo family complained that the video shown to them in Barangay Pahanocoy was blurry and that, despite multiple requests, they were unable to access any clear footage of Tayo. Moreover, two witnesses declared they did not see Tayo leave the police station.
The RTC denied the privilege of the writ of amparo, finding that there was no showing that the police refused to provide information on Tayo’s whereabouts or that they participated in Tayo’s disappearance.
The SC reversed the RTC decision and granted the privilege of the writ of amparo to the Tayo family.
Under A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC or the Rule on the Writ of Amparo (Rule), the petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity. The Rule is intended to address extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.
The SC found that all elements of enforced disappearance were present: there was an arrest, detention, abduction, or deprivation of liberty conducted by the State, followed by its refusal to acknowledge or provide information on the fate or whereabouts of the person, with the intention of removing the person from the protection of the law for an extended period.
Under Section 17 of the Rule, public officials responding to a petition for the writ of amparo must exercise extraordinary diligence in performing their duties, which includes investigating enforced disappearances they are aware of and disclosing relevant information.
“A disappearance has a doubly paralyzing impact: on the victim, who is removed from the protection of the law, frequently subjected to torture and in constant fear for their lives; and on their families, ignorant of the fate of their loved ones, their emotions alternating between hope and despair, wondering and waiting, sometimes for years, for news that may never come… [Thus] it is the duty of all States, under any circumstances, to make investigations whenever there is a reason to believe that an enforced disappearance has taken place on a territory under their jurisdiction and, if allegations are confirmed, to prosecute the perpetrators.”
The SC ruled that the police failed to exercise the extraordinary diligence required by the Rule. The Tayo family did everything they could to coordinate with the police in finding Tayo, making repeated trips to the police station for months and seeking help from other agencies, such as the CHR, PAO, National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG). However, they were only given empty reassurances that Tayo’s disappearance was being investigated. Additionally, the police summoned the IT specialist to assist in retrieving the footage almost a month after the Tayo family made their request, indicating the police’s lack of urgency in providing critical assistance.
The SC declared the police responsible and accountable for Tayo’s enforced disappearance and ordered them to produce all relevant documents and materials connected to the case. It also ordered NAPOLCOM, the Philippine National Police, and the DILG to quickly and fully investigate Tayo’s disappearance and recommend the filing of appropriate criminal and administrative charges against them, if warranted. The case was remanded to the RTC for implementation of the SC’s orders. (Courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson)
Originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office.
