The Supreme Court (SC) has underscored the need to conduct a proper and thorough investigation in cases of enforced or involuntary disappearance, saying that failing to do so violates or threatens a person’s right to life, liberty and security.

The SC said investigations must be serious and effective, not merely perfunctory.

In a decision penned 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 they had released Tayo the same day to five barangay tanods and Melleza Besana, one of the complainants. However, his family never saw him again.

Although the police presented a video of Tayo signing the release logbook, they could not produce footage of him actually leaving the station—despite repeated requests from the Tayo family, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), and the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO).

Seeking answers, the Tayo family petitioned for a writ of amparo, requesting the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to compel the police to produce relevant evidence. The RTC issued the writ and ordered the police to submit a verified return within 72 hours.

In their response, the police argued that there was no proof they were responsible for Tayo’s disappearance or that they withheld information. They claimed they were unable to retrieve security footage showing Tayo’s departure because the recording system only stored data for five days. However, they accompanied the family to Barangay Pahanocoy Hall, where they were shown footage purportedly of Tayo boarding a tricycle.

During a summary hearing, the Tayo family contested the clarity of the video and reported that multiple requests for a clearer version were ignored. Additionally, two witnesses testified they did not see Tayo leave the police station.

The RTC ultimately denied the writ, ruling that the police had not refused to provide information or participated in Tayo’s disappearance. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, granting 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, this legal remedy is available to individuals whose right to life, liberty, or security is violated or threatened by unlawful actions or omissions of public officials, private individuals, or entities. The Rule is specifically designed to address extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.

The SC found that all elements of enforced disappearance were present: (1) Tayo was detained by State authorities, (2) the State failed to acknowledge or provide information on his fate or whereabouts, and (3) he was effectively removed from the protection of the law for an extended period.

Section 17 of the Rule requires public officials to exercise extraordinary diligence in responding to amparo petitions. This includes conducting prompt and thorough investigations and disclosing all 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 life; and on their families, left in a state of uncertainty, alternating between hope and despair, waiting—sometimes for years—for news that may never come. It is the duty of all States to investigate enforced disappearances within their jurisdiction and, if confirmed, to prosecute those responsible.”

The SC ruled that the police failed to meet the extraordinary diligence required under the Rule. The Tayo family persistently sought their missing relative, making repeated visits to the police station and seeking assistance from agencies such as the CHR, PAO, National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG). However, the authorities offered only empty reassurances and showed a lack of urgency—summoning an IT specialist to retrieve crucial footage nearly a month after the family’s initial request.

Holding the police accountable for Tayo’s enforced disappearance, the SC ordered them to produce all relevant documents and materials related to the case. Additionally, it directed NAPOLCOM, the Philippine National Police, and the DILG to conduct a swift and comprehensive investigation, recommending the filing of appropriate criminal and administrative charges if warranted. The case was remanded to the RTC for implementation of the SC’s directives.