G.R. No. 183711, G.R. No. 183712 & G.R. No. 183713, July 5, 2011
EDITA T. BURGOS, Petitioner, vs. PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., LT. GEN. ROMEO P. TOLENTINO, MAJ. GEN. JUANITO GOMEZ, MAJ. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, LT. COL. NOEL CLEMENT, LT. COL. MELQUIADES FELICIANO, DIRECTOR GENERAL OSCAR CALDERON, Respondents. (G.R. No. 183711)

EDITA T. BURGOS, Petitioner, vs. PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., LT. GEN. ROMEO P. TOLENTINO, MAJ. GEN. JUANITO GOMEZ, LT. COL. MELQUIADES FELICIANO, LT. COL. NOEL CLEMENT, Respondents. (G.R. No. 183712)
EDITA T. BURGOS, Petitioner, vs. CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., Commanding General of the Philippine Army, LT. GEN. ALEXANDER YANO; Chief of the Philippine National Police, DIRECTOR GENERAL AVELINO RAZON, JR., Respondents. (G.R. No. 183713)

FACTS

Petitioner Edita T. Burgos filed consolidated petitions for Habeas Corpus, Contempt, and a Writ of Amparo concerning the abduction of Jonas Joseph T. Burgos. The Court of Appeals (CA) decision dated July 17, 2008, dismissed the habeas corpus petition, denied the motion for contempt, and partially granted the Writ of Amparo. On June 22, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a Resolution referring the case to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) for a continuation of the investigation into Jonas Burgos’s abduction, citing significant investigative lapses by the PNP-CIDG, AFP Provost Marshal, and the CHR itself. The Court highlighted the PNP-CIDG’s failure to identify persons from cartographic sketches of two abductors, despite leads from State Prosecutor Emmanuel Velasco identifying possible military personnel involved. The CHR was directed to ascertain the identities of the persons in the sketches and those named by Velasco, inquire into claims that Jonas was abducted by individuals known as @KA DANTE and @KA ENSO of the CPP/NPA, and undertake all necessary extraordinary measures. The Court also affirmed the CA’s dismissal of the petitions for Contempt and the Writ of Amparo against President Arroyo due to presidential immunity. On March 15, 2011, the CHR submitted its Investigation Report, detailing its field investigations, interviews, and efforts to follow leads, including pursuing an anonymous email tip about a “team leader” known as “Captain Star-struck.”

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court, upon review of the CA decision and the subsequent CHR Investigation Report, should rule on the petitions concerning the enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos, given the investigative findings and directives previously issued.

RULING

The Supreme Court, in its Resolution of June 22, 2010, did not render a final ruling on the merits but instead referred the case to the CHR for a more exhaustive investigation, having found that the PNP and AFP failed to conduct a meaningful investigation with the extraordinary diligence required under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo. The Court affirmed the CA’s dismissal of the petitions against President Arroyo based on immunity from suit. The CHR’s subsequent Report was submitted in compliance with the Court’s directives, and the Court’s review of the case was in light of these developments. The Resolution notes the CHR’s investigative actions, including pursuing leads such as the anonymous email regarding “Captain Star-struck,” and indicates that the criminal complaint was filed by Edita Burgos before the Department of Justice against certain military officers. The Court’s disposition in the cited resolution was to note the respondents’ manifestation and motion and to order the expunging of the petitioner’s motion for contempt, without rendering a final judgment on the underlying petitions in the present resolution.