Burgos v. General Hermogenes Esperon et al.

Key Judgment


Legal Relevance

Keywords: Deprivation of Liberty | Refusal to Disclose Fate

Themes: Characteristics of the Crime

The Court determined that the victim’s abduction, the uncertainty about his whereabouts and his well-being, and the armed forces’ denial of custody over him made it possible to classify this as an enforced disappearance. It held that the case was covered by the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, the objective of which was the determination of whether an enforced disappearance has taken place and who is responsible or accountable for it. The Court found evidence of the military’s involvement in the abduction of the victim, and identified the army major as one of those responsible for the enforced disappearance. It held that, although at the time of the disappearance the major was no longer part of the Battalion suspected of the abduction, this did not rule out the possibility that he was part of the group that perpetrated it. The Court further found the army accountable for the victim’s enforced disappearance for failing to exercise the requisite extraordinary diligence in conducting an internal investigation. It also held that the unwillingness of the army to cooperate in the investigation conducted by the Commission on Human Rights was proof of the cover-up of their involvement. The Court further found that the Commission on Human Rights’ investigation did not free the police from its own duty to conduct investigations, and directed the latter to exercise extraordinary diligence to identify and locate the victims’ abductors. Finally, the Court directed the army, the police and the Commission on Human Rights to submit a report on the results of their respective investigations.

Judgment Date

March 18, 2013

Country

Philippines

Judicial Body

Philippines - Court of Appeals of Manila

Articles violated

Section 1 [RWA]

Facts of the Case

In April 2007, Mr. Jonas Burgos was forcibly brought out of a restaurant by a group of five people and forced into the back of a car. A security guard who tried to intervene was told by the abductors that they belonged to the police. A further witness identified a major of the armed forces as one of the persons who abducted Mr. Burgos. Upon police investigation, it was discovered that the vehicle in which Mr. Burgos was abducted belonged to the Army and was kept in military headquarters. However, after Mr. Burgos' disappearance, it was discovered that the number place was missing and that its engine and other spare parts had been destroyed. In 2010, the Supreme Court orderd the Commission of Human Rights to conduct investigations into the case. The Army denied its involvement in the disappearance.

Links to cases cited within

View Resource

This browser does not support PDFs. Please download the PDF to view it.

Download PDF

This browser does not support PDFs. Please download the PDF to view it.

Download PDF

This browser does not support PDFs. Please download the PDF to view it.

Download PDF

This browser does not support PDFs. Please download the PDF to view it.

Download PDF