The Supreme Court (SC) has held officials of the Philippine National Police (PNP) accountable for the disappearance of a World Bank consultant in 2007 and directed the Court of Appeals to closely monitor the result of the investigation being conducted by the said authorities in connection with the case.

In a 75-page decision written by Justice Arturo D. Brion, the Court En Banc upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which granted the petition of Mary Jean Tagitis for the issuance of the writ of Amparo. The CA ruled that Tagitis’ case was an “enforced disappearance” covered by the writ.

In the same decision, the High Court remanded the Tagitis case back to the CA for appropriate proceeding to monitor the investigations being conducted by the PNP Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG) with regards to Tagitis’ disappearance.

The Court likewise ordered the PNP-CIDG to present before the CA its plan of action and disclose matters known to them relative to the case.

The SC directed the CA to submit to the Court a quarterly report containing its actions and recommendations as regards the case.

Mary Jean’s husband, Engr. Morced Tagitis was last seen in Jolo, Sulu on October 31, 2007. Tagitis is reportedly a consultant for the World Bank and the Senior Honorary Counselor for the Islamic Development Bank Scholarship Programme.

He was with another unidentified person when he disappeared.

Mary Jean filed a petition for the issuance of the writ of Amparo before the CA in December 2007 after being given the cold shoulder by authorities when she tried to inquire about the whereabouts of her husband.

The Writ of Amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security has been violated or is threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity. The writ covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.

Relatives of missing persons normally file a petition for habeas corpus to compel the state to produce persons suspected to be in their custody. But while authorities as respondents to the writ of habeas corpus can easily deny involvement in the case of missing persons, the writ of Amparo compels state agents to look for the missing person and holds officials liable if the court finds that efforts to find the missing person were not sufficient considering the means employed by the state.

Named respondents in the Tagitis case were former PNP Chief Gen. Avelino I. Razon, Jr., PNP-CIDG Chief Supt. Raul Castañeda, Police Anti-Crime and Emergency Response (PACER) Senior Supt. Leonardo A. Espina, and Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao-PNP Regional Director Gen. Joel R. Goltiao.

The Court held the PNP and the CIDG accountable in view of the fact that Sec. 24 of RA 6975 (PNP Law) which gives the PNP the mandate “to investigate and prevent crimes, effect the arrest of criminal offenders, bring offenders to justice and assist in their prosecution” whereas the PNP-CIDG, under the organizational structure of the PNP, is tasked to investigate all major crimes involving violations of the Revised Penal Code, particularly those considered as heinous crimes.

“Given their mandates, the PNP and the PNP-CIDG officials and members were the ones who were remiss in their duties when the government completely failed to exercise extraordinary diligence that the Amparo rule requires,” the Court said.