Edgardo Navia, et al. vs Virginia Pardico

G.R. No. 184467 – 688 Phil. 266 – 673 SCRA 618 – Remedial Law – Special Proceedings – A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC; Writ of Amparo – Writ of Amparo not proper if there is no State participation in the alleged disappearance

One night in March 2008, security guards who were under the command of Edgardo Navia of Asia Land went to the house of Ben Pardico and they placed him inside their vehicle. He was brought to the security office and he was interrogated for the alleged theft of a lamp post within Asia Land. That night was the last time Virginia Pardico, wife of Ben, saw Ben.

Virginia then filed a petition for writ of amparo in order to bring justice to the enforced disappearance of Ben.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Amparo Rule is applicable in this case.

HELD: No. the elements constituting “enforced disappearance,” are as follows:

(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 organization’s 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.

Mere fact of disappearance is not enough. It must 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.

Read full text.