By JOSIAH DAVID QUISING
Bulatlat.com

August 30 is the International Day of the Disappeared — a day devoted to remembering those who were abducted by the State and remain missing. They are called desaparecidos. 

The Philippines is the first country in Asia to have a law against enforced disappearances.  But since the passage of Republic Act No. 10353 (Anti-Enforced Disappearance Act), no person has been convicted yet but not because no one has been abducted. In fact, cases of enforced disappearances in the country have been increasing in recent years. So, why are there no convictions?

An unenforced law against enforced disappearances

More than a decade has passed since former President Benigno Aquino III signed what was then hailed as a landmark law against enforced disappearances. 

Enforced disappearance focuses on acts committed by agents of the State or with its acquiescence. RA 10353 defines enforced or involuntary disappearance as “the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty committed by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which places such person outside the protection of the law. “

The mechanisms created by RA 10353 against enforced disappearances heavily relies on the good faith and honest cooperation of the State and its organizations. It assumes that the State would police itself and would provide the necessary information when asked. Sections 7 to 12 of the law task government agencies to record, report, and disclose information on the arrest, detention, and whereabouts of any person deprived of liberty. 

But even with these protections provided for by the law, the actual implementation of it proves difficult even in instances where individuals have already been determined by the courts to be victims of enforced disappearances. 

Affirmation of experience sans resolution of guilt

Even before RA 10353 became a law, the abduction of activists by State forces had already been established and recognized by no less than the Supreme Court.

Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo were abducted in Bulacan on February 14, 2006 by soldiers and CAFGU auxiliaries, detained for over a year, tortured, and eventually escaped in 2007. These facts were affirmed by the Supreme Court in a Writ of Amparo case – Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, to quote: 

While respondents were detained, they were threatened that if they escaped, their families, including them, would be killed. In Raymond’s narration, he was tortured and poured with gasoline after he was caught the first time he attempted to escape from Fort Magsaysay. A call from a certain “Mam,” who wanted to see him before he was killed, spared him.

The Manalo brothers positively identified Gen. Palparan, along with a couple of other military officials. The Supreme Court issued a Writ of Amparo and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals then granted the privilege of the Writ of Amparo, ordering the AFP to disclose assignments of implicated officers and to provide medical records of the brothers. However, despite all of these factual affirmation of the lived experiences of torture by the Manalo brothers, Palparan was still acquitted by the Regional Trial Court in Malolos.

The same thing happened with Jonas Burgos who remains missing, unlike the Manalo brothers who escaped their captors.

Burgos was abducted in April 2007 at a Quezon City mall. Witnesses identified Lt. Harry Baliaga of the AFP’s 56th IB as one of the abductors. The Court of Appeals, through a Petition for a Writ of Amparo, found that “the totality of the evidence supports the petitioner’s allegation that the military was involved in the enforced disappearance of Jonas.” 

The Court of Appeals said that “Maj. Harry A. Baliaga, Jr. [was] RESPONSIBLE for the enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos” and that “the Armed Forces of the Philippines and elements of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, particularly the Philippine Army, [were] ACCOUNTABLE for the enforced disappearance of Jonas Burgos”. The existence of enforced disappearance was then again affirmed by the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 178497, February 4, 2014).

Baliaga was then charged with arbitrary detention (RA 10353 was not yet a law back then). However, the RTC similarly acquitted Baliaga. 

Why are lower courts allowed to disagree with facts already established by higher courts? In both the Manalo and Burgos cases, the existence of enforced disappearance was already established. Even the responsibility of institutions such as AFP and the PNP in the abductions were already identified. Unfortunately, no person or institution was actually held accountable in both cases.

Accountability beyond acknowledgement

Prior to RA 10353, victims and their families used to file either kidnapping or arbitrary detention charges against identified perpetrators which eventually got dismissed in lower courts, despite the Supreme Court acknowledging that they were abducted in Writ of Amparo cases.

Will recent victims of enforced disappearances have a similar fate, or will the Anti-Enforced Disappearances Act prove favorable?

On October 24, 2023, the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 269249) acknowledged the enforced disappearances in the case of Jonila Castro and Jhed Tamano. “All the elements [of enforced disappearance] are already extant in the verbal exchanges between petitioners and Lt. Col. Dela Cruz during the September 19, 2023 press conference,” the Supreme Court said.

Castro and Tamano were environmental activists opposing reclamation when they were abducted in Bataan on September 2, 2023 by masked men. They were blindfolded, interrogated, and coerced to sign affidavits while in custody. They were later presented by the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) in a press conference meant for them to “surrender” as rebels. They, however, revealed that they were abducted. This was a clear case of enforced disappearance revealed on national TV. 

They filed a criminal complaint against their captors under RA 10353.  

Another recent case of enforced disappearance is that of Dexter Capuyan and Gene Roz Jamil “Bazoo” De Jesus. The two disappeared in April 2023 in Taytay, Rizal. Witnesses recounted armed men stopping their tricycle, declaring “CIDG kami!” before taking the two. On August 12, 2025, through a Writ of Amparo case, the Court of Appeals declared them victims of enforced disappearance. 

Reparations is a Right

If conviction is farfetched, the least the State can do is to pay damages even prior to criminal resolution. The courts already recognized that the Manalo brothers, Jonas Burgos, Jonila Castro, and Jhed Tamao are victims of enforced disappearance. It is established under customary international law that victims of violations of international humanitarian law are entitled to full reparation for their injuries. This is an established right even for the Manalo brothers and Jonas Burgos whose abductions occurred before RA 10353.

According to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 60/147, adopted on December 16, 2005, “compensation should be provided for any economically assessable damage”. Basis for damages includes physical or mental harm; lost opportunities, including employment, education and social benefits; material damages and loss of earnings, including loss of earning potential; moral damage; and costs required for legal or expert assistance, medicine and medical services, and psychological and social services.

If power, politics, or any other factor prevents criminal conviction of those identified to be responsible for enforced disappearances, the courts should at least order the State to pay for damages, instead of merely empathizing with the victims by acknowledging their suffering but stopping short of any other tangible reparation. 

The pattern of impunity should end. Mere affirmation of experience is not justice and there is no justice without conviction. Mere recognition of victims is not enough if there is absence of accountability for those who harmed them. (DAA)