EDGARDO NAVIA, RUBEN DIO, AND ANDREW BUISING

VS

VIRGINIA PARDICO, FOR AND IN BEHALF AND IN REPRESENTATION OF

BENHUR V. PARDICO

G.R. NO. 184467 ; JUNE 19, 2012

(A.M. No. 07-4-12-SC , September 25,2007 The Rule On The Writ Of Amparo)

Constitutional Law; Writs of Amparo; Enforced Disappearances; 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.A.M. No. 07-9-12-
SC or The Rule on the Writ of Amparo was promulgated to arrest the rampant extra-legal
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.

Same; Same; Same; International Law; International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights; Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights recognizes every human beings inherent right to life, while Article 9
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.Article 6 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognizes every human beings
inherent right to life, while Article 9 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.

Same; Same; Same; Same; International Convention for the Protection of All
Persons from Enforced Disappearance; Words and Phrases; The International
Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
defines 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.The budding jurisprudence on amparo blossomed
in Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis, 606 SCRA 598 (2009), 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 Disappearances 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.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 9851 defines
enforced or involuntary disappearances as follows: 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.Another significant development affecting A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC came about after
Congress enacted Republic Act (RA) No. 9851 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.

Same; Same; Same; Elements of Enforced Disappearances.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
organizations 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.

Same; Same; Same; The petitioner in an amparo case has the burden of proving
by substantial evidence the indispensable element of government participation.
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.
Same; Same; Same; 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.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 Bens
disappearance. In fact, none of its agents, officials, or employees were impleaded or
implicated in Virginias amparo petition whether as responsible or accountable persons.
Thus, in the absence of an allegation or proof that the government or its agents had a hand
in Bens 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.

Same; Same; Same; 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.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.
FACTS:

On March 31, 2008, at around 8:30 p.m., a vehicle of Asian Land Strategies
Corporation8 (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 Lolitas 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

Shortly thereafter, Bong, Lolita and Ben were in the office of the security
department of Asian Land also located in Grand Royale Subdivision.10 The supervisor of the
security guards, petitioner Edgardo Navia (Navia), also arrived thereat.

As to what transpired next, the parties respective versions diverge.

ISSUE:

HELD: