In a 15-page decision written by Justice Mariano del Castillo, the high court reversed and set aside a July 24, 2008 ruling by a Malolos, Bulacan court issuing a writ of amparo and ordering the production of the body of a missing Benhur Pardico.

Pardico and another companion, Enrique Lapore, were accused and accosted by Grand Royale Subdivision security guards for stealing electrical wires and lamps at the subdivision which is in Barangay Lugam, Malolos.

According to Lapore, he and Pardico admitted taking the lamps but said they were not stealing it but merely transferring it nearer their house. The two said they had long requested the subdivision's management to put up lights in their area but to no avail.

Pardico's wife, Virginia, claimed her husband was "unlawfully arrested and shoved" into a security vehicle and taken to the subdivision's security office, where he was allegedly beaten up.

Lapore's mother, Lolita, claimed the security personnel made her sign a logbook entry signifying that her son had already been released.

Lapore was released but, as it turned out, the entry that Lolita signed also indicated that Pardico had also been set free.

Pardico's wife insisted her husband has yet to return to their house, prompting her to seek from a Malolos court the issuance of a writ of amparo.

Fatally defective

A writ of amparo is an expeditious and effective relief given to "to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.’"

But in its ruling, the Supreme Court said the petition for the writ of amparo filed by the Perdico family was "fatally defective."

The high court said that "the indispensable element of State participation was not present in this case."

“It is now clear that for the protective writ of amparo to issue, allegation and proof that the persons subject thereof are missing are not enough. The petitioner in an amparo case has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the indispensable element of government participation," the court said.

"The petition does not contain any allegation of State complicity, and none of the evidence presented tend to show that the government or any of its agents orchestrated [Pardico's] disappearance," the high court added.

The high court insisted that while a respondent in a writ of amparo request may be a private individual, "still, government involvement in the disappearance remains an indispensable element."

The high court said no evidence was presented to show that the security personnel had "links or connection to some covert police, military, or governmental operation." — DVM, GMA News