Court rules against Jonas Burgos’ mother
By Leila Salaverria
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 03:14:00 07/22/2008
Filed Under: Crime, Law & Justice
MANILA, Philippines—The Court of Appeals Monday ruled that the mother of Jonas Burgos had failed to show that the military was behind the kidnapping of her son and that her evidence was either possibly fabricated or hearsay.
But the court criticized the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP), saying their investigations into the April 28, 2007, disappearance of the son of the late press freedom icon Jose “Joe” Burgos left “much to be desired.”
Edita Burgos said she was “extremely disappointed” with the decision.
“I followed all the steps and contrary to their decision there is a direct link between the military and the abduction of Jonas,” Edita told the Philippine Daily Inquirer (parent company of INQUIRER.net).
“To say that I am disappointed is an understatement. I was hoping to find my son through the court.”
The 64-year-old Edita had gone to court on a habeas corpus petition in a bid to force the AFP and PNP to produce her son, an agriculturist who helped peasants cultivate farms using organic fertilizer.
This plea was later consolidated with a subsequent petition for a writ of amparo, which was adopted by the Supreme Court late last year to provide relief to victims of human rights abuses, extra-judicial executions and disappearances.
The Court of Appeals threw out the habeas corpus petition, but partly granted her plea for a writ of amparo when it directed the military and police to provide Edita with documents she required in her investigation and to look into her allegations against the security forces.
AFP Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Alexander Yano was ordered to conduct a thorough investigation of any military involvement in Jonas’ kidnapping and inquire into the loss of a license plate in its custody that was similar to that used by the abductors.
The court also ordered PNP Director General Avelino Razon Jr. to investigate the abduction thoroughly and to file charges against those responsible.
Both Yano and Razon were directed to submit a compliance report within 10 days after the completion of their respective investigations and to provide documents about Jonas required by his mother.
No satisfactory link
The Court of Appeals denied Edita’s bid to inspect any military camp possibly holding her son, saying that such a request would only be allowed after a hearing, and the place should be stated in detail and supported by evidence.
In its 50-page decision penned by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente, the court said the evidence presented by Edita had failed to show conclusively that the military took her 38-year-old son from the Ever Gotesco mall in Quezon City.
“We are not concluding at this time that the military is, or is not involved in the alleged enforced disappearance of Jonas. What we are saying is that the evidence of petitioner does not satisfactorily establish the ‘direct link’ of the abduction to the military,” the decision said.
It said Edita failed to establish that her son’s disappearance was caused by the suspicion that he was a member of the New People’s Army, the armed wing of the Communist Party of the Philippines.
Order of battle fabricated
The court said Edita’s evidence of a supposed order of battle listing Jonas as an NPA member with the aliases Ramon/Raymond/Mon/Simon was unsigned, unauthenticated, unidentified and appeared to be fabricated. The document also stated that he was supposedly “neutralized.”
It said the alleged author, Lt. Jaime Mendaros, had noted inaccurate entries in the document, which also lacked his signature. The document was also dated March 12, 2007, even though Jonas was abducted April 28, 2007.
“This bolsters our suspicion that the document could be fabricated. Petitioner claims that this document (order of battle) was given to her by a friend in the military whose name she refused to reveal,” the court said.
The e-mail submitted by Edita from an anonymous writer who claimed to have seen the abduction and followed the men who took her son to Camp Aguinaldo was also found to be inadmissible for being hearsay. The court pointed out that she did not even present or identify the writer.
Edita’s belief that her son’s disappearance was connected to the ongoing court-martial of a military official who was allegedly caught passing information to two NPA members was unsubstantiated, the court said.
But the appellate court said the military and the police failed to take the proper action with regard to Jonas’ disappearance.
The court said that Edita was able to establish that the license plate TAB-194 used in the maroon Toyota Revo in Jonas’ abduction was later traced to a vehicle impounded at the compound of the 56th Infantry Battalion. The license plate was later deemed lost by the military.
PNP probe ‘shallow’
The court said that given these facts, it was the AFP’s burden to exercise “extraordinary diligence” to determine the “why and wherefore” of the loss of its license plate and its appearance in the Revo.
The military should also tie up loose ends in connection with “Ka Ramon” and Edita’s claim that Ka Ramon was her son as stated in the supposed order of battle, according to the court.
The PNP’s probe of Jonas’ disappearance was also “shallow,” the court ruled. It pointed out that Supt. Jonnel Estomo only looked at the administrative aspect of the liability of military officials, but added that it was not the PNP’s duty to investigate this.
The PNP’s recommendation that Mauro Mudlong, owner of the impounded vehicle with the TAB-194 license plate, be charged was also baseless, the court said. It noted that Estomo was able to establish that Mudlong owned the vehicle, but not how the license plate ended up with Jonas’ abductors.
The PNP should not be too quick, either, to believe the claim that it was actually the NPA that abducted Jonas, the court said, adding the PNP should not rule out as well the possible involvement of the AFP.
President can’t be sued
“As a criminal investigative body, the PNP should be circumspect and should consider all possible leads to solve the case,” the court said.
It dismissed Edita’s habeas corpus petition because the issue was her son’s enforced disappearance. It also dropped President Macapagal-Arroyo as a respondent because she could not be sued.
The court also “strongly reminded” the parties that they could be cited for contempt if they discussed the case before the media and if these discussions tended to influence or interfered with the judicial process.
|
