July 24, 2006
State of the Nation Address
State of the Nation Address
posted by codal at 1:02 PM
1 comments
Monday, July 31, 2006
Saturday, July 29, 2006
CONFLICTING LEGAL ARGUMENTS BY PRESIDENTIAL ALLIES
Prelude to Dismissing the Impeachment Complaint on Technicalities that have no Constitutional or Legal Basis
Sen. Mirriam Santiago’s legal analysis that the impeachment complaints filed recently will be dismissed on the principles of ‘res judicata’ and “double jeopardy” is without legal and constitutional basis.
According to the Supreme Court in Mirpuri vs. CA (GR 114508, 1999) “Res judicata has the following requisites: (1) the former judgment must be final (2) the judgment must be one on the merits, (3) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction and (4) the parties, subject matter and causes of actions must be identical in the two cases.”
It is a well known principle among lawyers that ‘res judicata’ only applies if the original case has been dismissed by a court on the merits and the same issues are raised by the same parties in a second complaint. None of these elements are present. Sen. Santiago’s analysis may have been clouded by her pro-GMA sentiments when she missed the fact that the Amended Impeachment complaint was dismissed on a baseless technical and procedural ground last year, and was never tackled on the merits by the Justice Committee. Furthermore, the impeachment complaints contain new issues not raised in the amended complaint last year such as the imposition of Proclamation 1017, EO 464 and CPR. The parties in both complaint are also different since the current complaints were filed by citizens-complainants while the amended complaint last year was filed by members of Congress. Clearly res judicata does not apply.
CODAL also finds absurd the claim by Sen. Santiago, who was a former RTC judge, that the impeachment complaints constitute ‘double jeopardy’ against Pres. Arroyo. The Supreme Court declared in Guerrero vs. CA (GR 107211, 1996) that:
“ any legal jeopardy attaches only (a) upon a valid indictment (b) before a competent court (c) after arraignment (d) a valid plea having been entered and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused”.
CODAL expresses concern over the twisting of legal arguments by Sen. Santiago since, it is presumed that she, like any lawyer knows that the doctrine of double jeopardy only applies to criminal cases and not to an impeachment complaint. Her pronouncements may be a prelude to the dismissal of the current impeachment complaints, again, on a technicality that has, as in last year, no constitutional or legal basis.
The position of Rep. Monico Puentebella that the complaints will be dismissed because they ‘contain no new issues’ is both factually and legally baseless. The charges last year were never tackled as the amended complaint was dismissed, so it is unethical for members of congress to delude the people on this respect. Furthermore, the complaints contain new issues.
Members of the Justice Committee must realize that “the demands of due process present a weightier consideration than the need to bring an end to the parties' litigation. For more important than the need to write finis to litigation is to finish it justly, and there can be no justice that satisfies unless the litigants are given the opportunity to be heard” as the Supreme Court demanded in Salud vs. CA (GR 100156, June 27, 1994). Killing the impeachment complaint not only on mere technicalities, but on legally baseless technicalities will virtually close another legal venue for justice for victims of political killings, no different from that during Marcos’ martial law.
Correct Filing Date
CODAL also finds legally untenable the contention of Rep. Edcel Lagman that last year’s impeachment complaint was initiated not upon the filing of the impeachment complaint but by the receipt of the Justice Committee of the complaints on July 26. The conflicting opinion of Rep. Prospero Nograles that the one-year ban starts on the date of the referral on July 25 is correct as it follows jurisprudence.
The contention of both, however, is a 360-degree turnaround for the Majority which insisted that the mere ‘filing’ of the Lozano complaint on June 26 last year initiated the impeachment proceedings thereby making the Amended impeachment complaint a “second complaint’ and therefore barred. It must be noted that the complainants last year were insisting that the complaint was initiated on the date of referral rather than filing and that, therefore, the Amended Complaint is not a ‘second complaint’ since it was referred to the Justice Committee together with the Lozano Complaint on July 25, 2005 during the SONA of Pres. Arroyo.
The Supreme Court , in Francisco vs. House of Representatives, (GR 160261, Nov. 10, 2003), has declared that an impeachment “proceeding is initiated or begins, when a verified complaint is filed and referred to the Justice Committee for action.” The decision is clear—an impeachment complaint is initiated upon the referral of the impeachment complaint on July 25 last year and not on the date that the Justice Committee received the complaint. The one year ban therefore ends on July 25 of 2006 and the correct date for the filing of a valid impeachment complaint is July 26.
However, it does not matter whether the July 26, July 27 or any other complaint is valid since all the complaints contain the same issues, and the all the complainants are united on the need to impeach Pres. Arroyo so that the evidence on the charges of electoral fraud, political killings and corruption be heard.
CODAL supports Rep. Lagman’s disagreement with Atty. Romulo Macalintal’s position that the impeachment complaint be dismissed because it is pending on appeal before the Supreme Court. After killing the impeachment complaint, it is abhorrent for presidential allies to now belatedly claim that it is still, in fact “alive”. Furthermore, any public official with a pending impeachment case, may still be charged with another impeachment complaint the following year, if she commits another impeachable offense subsequently. Atty. Macalintal’s legal thesis will mean that public officials with pending impeachment complaints, are free to commit subsequent impeachable offenses and crimes provided they have a pending impeachment complaint.
The confusion and contradictions of legal opinions among presidential allies show that they have no clear and strong legal basis with which to quash the impeachment complaints on mere technicalities. The disarray among them may be favorable to the impeachment complaint and may convince many members of Congress that the impeachment complaints are valid as to form and substance.
Presidential allies must resort to fair play and not use amorphous and patently erroneous legal arguments to derail the impeachment this year and confuse the people. The ‘technical, prejudicial questions’ worked last year. It may not work this year.
Reference : Atty. Neri Javier Colmenares—Spokesperson
Date : 29 July 2006
posted by codal at 11:31 AM
2 comments
Monday, July 24, 2006
REPORT ON THE ATTACKS AGAINST FILIPINO LAWYERS AND JUDGES
FROM FACTS TO ACTION
REPORT ON THE ATTACKS AGAINST FILIPINO LAWYERS AND JUDGES
THE INTERNATIONAL FACT FINDING
(IFFM)
Released by the Dutch Lawyers for Lawyers Foundation
on
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTERNATIONAL FACT FINDING MISSION (IFFM) ON THE ATTACKS AGAINST FILIPINO LAWYERS AND JUDGES
1.2. Composition of Delegation
2.1.5. Integrated Bar of the Philippines
2.1.6. Legal Aid and Human Rights Lawyers
2.2. Human Rights and Social Justice
2.4. Communist insurgencies and Islamic separation movement
3. CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE PHILIPPINES
3.1. The Arroyo Administration
3.2. Policy of Wiping out the NPA and Labeling
3.3. Killings during the Arroyo administration
4. THE HARASSMENT AND KILLINGS OF MEMBERS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION
4.1. Investigation of a pattern
4.1.1. Which lawyers and judges are victims?
4.1.2. Are lawyers and judges labelled and if so, how or by whom and as what?
4.1.3. Are lawyers and judges threatened and/or subjected to surveillance?
4.1.4. How are lawyers and judges killed and what is the killer’s profile?
4.1.5. What have the authorities been doing?
(i) Reported crimes or requests for protection and the filing of complaints
(ii) Information about the investigation and prosecution of the murder cases
(iii) Condemnation and measures
(iv) Problems with building up cases
4.1.6. What are the results of the criminal investigations?
4.2. By whom are lawyers and judges killed and why?
4.3. Can human rights lawyers continue to conduct their legal profession?
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AFP Armed Forces of the
CARHRIHL Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law
CBCP Catholic Bishops Conference of the
CHR Commission on Human Rights
CODAL Counsels for the Defense of Liberties
CPP Communist Party of the
DILG Department of the Interior and Local Government
DoJ Department of Justice
FLAG Free Legal Assistance Group
IBP Integrated Bar of the
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
IFFM International Fact Finding
JMC Joint Monitoring Committee
JAG Judge Advocate General
KMP Philippine peasant organization
MILF Moro Islamic Liberation Front
NBI National Bureau of Investigation
NDFP National Democratic Front of the
NPA New People’s Army
PAO Public Attorneys’ Office
PCIJ Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism
PNP Philippine National Police
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Dutch and Belgian Lawyers organizations were alarmed by the reports and statements of international and Filipino human rights organizations and various news items about the violence against members of the legal profession in the
At the invitation of the Philippine lawyers organization CODAL, the Dutch Lawyers for Lawyers Foundation organized at the initiative of the Dutch Foundation Lawyers without Borders an International Fact Finding Mission (IFFM) on the Attacks against Filipino Lawyers and Judges. Two Dutch judges and six Dutch and Belgian lawyers investigated the situation.
From 15-20 June, 2006, the IFFM held interviews and conferences in Quezon City, Manila and Tacloban City, Leyte, with lawyer-victims, the families of slain lawyers, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, human rights advocates, concerned government agencies (Philippine Commission on Human Rights, Philippine National Police, Armed Forces of the Philippines, National Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, Department of the Interior and Local Government), members of the judiciary (Supreme Court) and legislators (Senate and House of Representatives). It also studied relevant documents, including those provided by the aforementioned individuals, agencies and organizations.
The IFFM observed that to this date, the Arroyo administration rejects national and international criticism on its human rights record, by simply referring to its democratic institutions and human rights treaties, laws and policies.
On paper, the
Nevertheless, since 2001 not only 15 lawyers and 10 judges have been killed in the
Taking into account that all democratic institutions are formally in place, the IFFM considers the situation especially alarming. This makes it abundantly clear that either the constitutional state does not function properly or that there are powers undermining its proper functioning.
Based upon its personal evaluation of the relevant documents and testimonies of individual cases, the IFFM has reached the following conclusions:
Human rights lawyers and judges in the
The harassment and killings of members of the legal profession undermine the independence of judges and lawyers and, as a consequence, also the rule of law and the faith in (the function of) the judiciary system.
There is a pattern in the harassment and killings of human rights lawyers and judges, which must be seen in the light of other killings in the
Many people believe that the state security forces are involved in the killings and these allegations are supported – amongst others – by the Philippine Commission on Human Rights, based upon its own investigations.
Although the primary duty of the Government is to protect the life of the people, including lawyers and judges, the Arroyo administration has hardly done anything to address the extrajudicial killings effectively. In particular it has neither responded seriously to strong allegations that its own security forces are involved in the killings nor has it taken effective measures to improve the poor record of prosecutions of the perpetrators.
Only recently, President Arroyo has ordered that these extrajudicial killings be thoroughly investigated and eventually be stopped. This order has led to the establishment of a special Task Force, known as Task Force USIG, which is supposed to primarily take charge of the over-all management of the investigations in these cases. So far, however, Task Force USIG has not proven to be an independent body: It is chaired by the PNP which has a poor record as far as the effective investigation of the killings is concerned and which is mistrusted by the Philippine people.
Furthermore, the Arroyo administration has not condemned the killings publicly and in strong terms.
This lack of an effective response of the Arroyo administration has led to a culture of impunity in which even more killings and human rights violations may take place. The IFFM notes that, up to this date, the killings continue unabated.
Consequently, this culture of impunity has further diminished the people’s faith in the functioning of the constitutional state and the system of law culminating in a climate in which, for instance, lawyers and judges consider it “part of their job” to be threatened and in which witnesses of killings do not cooperate with the police or the public prosecutor out of fear or because they find it a waste of time as it comes to nothing.
The Philippine government is under the obligation to take steps to ensure the compliance with human rights and the right to life in particular. In order to stop the killings, the threats and harassment of lawyers and judges, the IFFM calls on the government:
1. to condemn the killings publicly and in strong terms;
2. to immediately take vigorous steps to protect the safety of human rights lawyers and judges, which steps should include the prosecution of alleged perpetrators;
3. to leave no stone unturned in investigating the serious allegations that its own security forces are involved in the killings;
4. to constitute and fully support an independent body, i.e. not controlled by the government, to investigate the killings, threats and harassment and to follow its recommendations;
5. to take all other measures needed to end the culture of impunity and to restore the people’s faith in the functioning of the constitutional state and the rule of law.
1. INTERNATIONAL FACT FINDING MISSION
-
1.1. Introduction
Dutch and Belgian Lawyers organizations were alarmed by the reports and statements of international and Filipino human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International, Lawyers’ Rights Watch
Deeply concerned about these killings and harassment, the Dutch Lawyers for Lawyers Foundation[3] urged the Philippine government by letter of
At the invitation of CODAL, the Dutch Lawyers for Lawyers Foundation subsequently organized at the initiative of the Dutch Foundation Lawyers without Borders and with the support of the Netherlands Bar Association, the Amsterdam Bar Association and the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) (Annex 2, 3 and 4) an International Fact Finding Mission on the Attacks against Filipino Lawyers (IFFM).
CODAL assisted in organizing the program of the IFFM in the
The IFFM itself has been fully independent from CODAL or any other individual or organization, being it a non-governmental organization such as KARAPATAN or a governmental agency such as the Philippine National Police.
Hereafter, the IFFM will first explain its purposes and method of working. In order to gain an insight into the context of the killings of lawyers and judges, it shall proceed by briefly touching upon its general observations and understanding of the Philippine political system and current domestic developments, before presenting its concluding observations and recommendations.
1.2. Composition of Delegation
As a manifestation of fraternal support and international concern, the IFFM was composed of the following attorneys, judges and lawyers from both
The participants represented respectively Lawyers for Lawyers, Lawyers without Borders[5], the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL)[6] and Lawyers for the World.
1.3. Purpose of Mission
As set out in its Mission Statement (Annex 5), the purpose of the IFFM is:
(a) to verify and collect as many findings as possible regarding the harassment and killings of several lawyers and judges as well as the (lack of) reaction thereto by the competent Philippine authorities;
(b) to inform the appropriate Philippine authorities about these findings and to express the deepest concerns about the harassment and killings of Filipino lawyers and judges;
(c) to inform the international community and any national and international lawyers organization in particular, about the foregoing.
1.4. Method of Working
From 15-20 June, 2006, the IFFM held interviews and conferences in Quezon City, Manila and Tacloban City, Leyte, with lawyer-victims, the families of slain lawyers, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), human rights advocates, like KARAPATAN, concerned government agencies (Commission on Human Rights (CHR), Philippine National Police (PNP), Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Department of Justice (DoJ), Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG)), members of the judiciary (Supreme Court) and legislators (Senate and House of Representatives).
In addition, the IFFM also studied documents provided by the aforementioned individuals, agencies and organizations, reports and statements of international and Filipino human rights organizations, governmental country reports, various news items and other relevant documents.
During its press conference in
Based upon its personal evaluation of the relevant documents and testimonies of individual cases, the IFFM has now produces its own final findings and recommendations as set out in this report. It will present its report to the organizing Foundation Lawyers for Lawyers and to the other Dutch, Belgian and international lawyers organizations concerned as well as to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Philippine government agencies, members of the judiciary and legislators it has met during its mission, with the urgent request to act upon its recommendations and do the utmost to stop the killings, threats and harassment of lawyers and judges.
The IFFM obviously will share its findings with the lawyer-victims, the families of slain lawyers, and the human rights advocates it has met during its mission.
1.5. Media Coverage
During its mission in the
The IFFM was also covered and accompanied by representatives of the Dutch media. The Dutch national broadcast company VPRO has devoted its radio broadcast to the extra judicial killings on Filipino lawyers and judges, on
2. ABOUT THE PHILIPPINES
2.1. Political System
The new Philippine Constitution was ratified in 1987, signalling, according to the Philippine government, ‘the country’s return to democracy’.[8] The Constitution, based upon the
2.1.1. Executive branch
The
The Department of National Defence controls the AFP, which is primarily responsible for counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations, while the Department of the Interior and Local Government supervises the PNP, which has to enforce law and order. The Department of Justice must uphold the rule of law. To accomplish its mandate it must, inter alia, investigate the commission of crimes and prosecute offenders. It is also responsible for the Witness Protection Program established under the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act [RA 6981]. The NBI is an attached investigative agency of the Department of Justice.
The nation’s provinces are grouped into 17 regions. Each province is headed by a governor and a vice-governor, both elected on four-year terms. Provinces comprise cities and municipalities, which are divided into districts, villages and communities called barangay.
Local officials, such as governors and mayors also have great political influence.
2.1.2. Legislative branch
The Congress functions as the legislative branch. It consists of a Senate (or Upper House) with 24 members and a House of Representatives (or Lower House) with a maximum of 250 members. Like the president, the senators are voted into office in nationwide elections for a six year-term. The members of the House of Representatives (usually called congressmen) are elected every three year by the citizens of the districts they represent.
2.1.3. Party List System
Since the elections in May 1998, the members of the House of Representatives may also be elected through what is known as the party-list system, an innovative mechanism enshrined in the 1987 Constitution. One of the important principles of the party-list system is the need to give representation in Congress to the ‘marginalized and underrepresented’ sectors of the Philippine society, which lack well-defined political constituencies, adequate funding and vote gathering network, so as to give them a voice in the policy making process that is dominated by traditional politicians. To this end, the Party-List System Act [RA 7941] allocates 20% of the 250 seats for marginalized sectors including labourers, peasants, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women and youth.
2.1.4. Judicial branch
The Supreme Court of the
The armed forces maintain an autonomous military justice system. Military courts are under the authority of the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the armed forces, who is also responsible for the prosecutorial function in the military courts. Military tribunals have jurisdiction over all active duty members of the AFP regarding military offences. However, civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military.[10]
2.1.5. Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Membership of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is compulsory for lawyers (i.e. attorneys, judges, public prosecutors and other legal professionals) who wish to practice law in the
2.1.6. Legal Aid and Human Rights Lawyers
To ensure free legal assistance to the poor, the IBP as well as the Public Attorneys’ Office (PAO) in the Department of Justice provide for a Legal Aid Program.
In addition, there are so called ‘human rights lawyers’, ‘public interest lawyers’ or ‘people’s lawyers’ who also render professional legal services for free to the poor, but outside the context of these legal aid programs; not only because the latter cannot afford to pay legal fees, but also out of a personal commitment to support them in changing their social circumstances. In doing so, these lawyers are mainly involved in defending civil and political rights as well as cases with respect to social, economic and cultural rights. In this report these particular lawyers are referred to as human rights lawyers.
2.2. Human Rights and Social Justice
The
On
The Philippines has an independent Commission on Human Rights composed of a Chairman and four Commissioners, appointed by the President, with various powers, including monitoring the government’s compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights and granting immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession of evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any investigation conducted by it.[11](Principles of) human rights and social justice are also enshrined in the 1987 Constitution. On
2.3. Domestic Politics
The
2.4. Communist insurgencies and Islamic separation movement
The
Since 1992, the NDFP has been holding peace talks with the government of the
In Mindanao, the most southern archipel of the
3. CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE PHILIPPINES
3.1. The Arroyo Administration
Since President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo first acceded to the presidency in 2001, after President Joseph Estrada was ousted in the People’s Power II,[16] she has faced many serious challenges of her administration. The 2004 national elections in which Arroyo was re-elected as President, continued to
Although President Arroyo denied these allegations and the opposition motion to impeachment was rejected in Congress, the political situation remained unstable, culminating in President’s Arroyo declaration of a State of national emergency on
Following the declaration of the State of
The Arroyo administration’s readiness to use emergency powers measures to crack down on perceived political enemies, its repressive measures and the making of arrests without warrants have led to accusations addressing the administration of having dictatorial tendencies. Although the Supreme Court upheld President Arroyo’s power to declare a State of
Armed clashes between government forces and armed groups including Muslim separatists in
During these armed clashes, human rights violations including extrajudicial executions were reportedly committed. In its 2004 report, Amnesty International noted that not only suspected NPA members were subjected to extrajudicial executions, but ‘also at risk were members of leftist organizations’.
3.2. Policy of Wiping out the NPA and Labeling
The Arroyo administration is now intensifying its counter-insurgency program to finally put an end to the communist rebellion within two years. On
The government’s efforts against the communist insurgency are reportedly part of its counter-insurgency program under the name of ‘Oplan Bantay Laya’ that started in 2002 and allegedly equates the underground organizations of the CPP-NPA-NDFP with what it calls ‘sectoral front organizations’. In this regard, Filipino human rights organizations like KARAPATAN have also referred to the slide presentation ‘Knowing the Enemy’ and the book ‘Trinity of War’ produced by the AFP that identifies so-called front organizations of the NDFP-CPP-NPA. They not only identify legal left parties and organizations as such, but also lawyers’ groups including the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG), media groups like the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) and religious organizations such as the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP).
After ordering the budget secretary to release an extra P1 billion to crush the communist insurgency, Arroyo told her cabinet during its meeting on
President Arroyo’s statements were followed by the disclosure of documents by the Philippine peasant organization (KMP), stating that intelligence units of the Armed Forces have been monitoring and preparing ‘Orders of Battle’ on sectoral groups alleged to be fronts of the communist underground. An order of battle is a list of enemies ranked according to their importance. The KMP reportedly submitted these documents to the Commission on Human Rights in the beginning of June, 2006. According to a KMP information officer, “the papers don’t say outright that members of sectoral groups are to be killed but they do use the term neutralize”.[21]
The disclosure of these documents came in the wake of Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez‘ reportedly warning that civilian supporters of the NPA may find themselves the target of military operations if they join the rebels in combat.[22]
3.3. Killings during the Arroyo administration
Recently, the Arroyo administration has come under increasingly strong criticism from international and Filipino human rights organizations for the rising number of killings of leftist activists. In May 2006, the Chair Purificacion Quisumbing of the Filipino Commission on Human Rights[23] told the Inquirer that her group had received 143 reports of extrajudicial killings in 2005 up to March 2006 from human rights groups including KARAPATAN and party-list parties as Bayan Muna and Anakpawis.[24]
Leftist groups charged that more than 93 of their political leaders and members have been killed in attacks since Arroyo assumed office in 2001, while KARAPATAN’s review of all activist slayings since then showed a record of 693 killings as of
The increase of killings was confirmed by Amnesty International which in its 2006 report noted that “the number of attacks on leftist activists and community workers rose sharply, with at least 66 fatal shootings reported during
It is feared that as a consequence of equating leftist groups with the armed rebellion in the context of the renewed counter insurgency campaign, the spate of political killings may further rise. In a statement of March 8, 2006, Amnesty International said: “There are now fears that repeated statements by senior government officials linking such organizations directly to communist armed groups, in addition to the recent arrests or threatened arrests of many of the congressional representatives of such organizations, threatens to create a climate within which further political killings may take place”.[27]
In its 2006 report, Amnesty International also observed that the military’s labelling of activists in legal organizations as communists was one of the factors in the rise of the number of assassinations: “Increased killings in particular provinces were reportedly linked to the public labelling of leftist groups as NPA “front” organizations by local AFP commanders”. Apart from suspected members of the CPP-NPA, “those most at risk included members of legal leftist political parties, including Bayan Muna and Anakpawis, other human rights and community activists, priests, church workers and lawyers regarded by the authorities as sympathetic to the broader communist movement”.
According to Filipino human rights organizations such as KARAPATAN, the killings follow a pattern consisting of various elements one of which is the practice of labeling the victims as “members of the CPP/NPA”, “communists” or “enemies of the state” (Annex 7).[28]
4. THE HARASSMENT AND KILLINGS OF MEMBERS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION
As pointed out by Amnesty International, lawyers and judges are among those most at risk to be assassinated. Since 2001, fifteen lawyers and ten judges were killed, the last one till now being Attorney (Atty.) Evelyn Guballa who was killed on June 21,
As previously pointed out, the IFFM focused its investigations on the harassment and killings of lawyers and judges. It looked specifically at the deaths of Pasay City Judge Henrick Gingoyon (
The IFFM also investigated the threats being received by UN Justice at litem Romeo Capulong and lawyers Jobert Pahilga, Ernesto Peñaflor of Calbayog City, Gina Co, Kit Enriquez and Pergentino Deri-On jr.
According to KARAPATAN and CODAL, the harassment and killings of lawyers and judges follow the same pattern as the other extrajudicial killings in the
(1) The victims are either leaders or active members of militant[29] parties or organizations or their lawyers or ordinary folk in areas where the AFP conduct internal security operations;
(2) Prior to the attacks, victims are usually labelled by the military as members of the CPP/NPA, communists or enemies of the state;
(3) Victims are usually subject to surveillance by the military and told to stop their political activities “or else…”. Many are warned that they are in the military’s ‘Order of Battle’.
(4) Almost all assassinations are conducted by a team of motorcycle-riding men. The killers are either uniformed or not uniformed men with no nametags, sometimes wearing bonnet or ski-masks;
(5) Even the most brutal atrocities hardly elicit any decisive action or condemnation from the government; and
(6) All cases remain unsolved, creating a culture of impunity.
4.1. Investigation of a pattern
The IFFM investigated the existence of such a pattern with respect to the above mentioned cases and came to the following observations.
4.1.1. Which lawyers and judges are victims?
Victims are so-called human rights lawyers involved in or judges presiding over (human rights) related cases and/or cases where the rights of the elite are at stake. A remarkable number of these lawyers and judges are also human rights workers and/or leftist political activists.
All lawyers concerned are human rights lawyers. Judge Gingoyon had also served as a human rights lawyer before he became a judge. Next to his capacity as UN judge ad litem, Romeo Capulong still works as a human rights lawyer as well. They are all involved in pro-bono cases for – amongst others – farmers, workers, fishermen, indigenous people and political activists. Atty. Pahilga, for instance, is the counsel of the KMP or the Peasant Movement of the
The majority is involved in high profile cases in which the rights of the elite are at stake. Judge Gingoyon presided over several controversial cases including the PIATco case, in which he had ordered the government to pay 62 million pesos to Philippine International Air Terminals Co (PIATco) - the builders of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3 - after the government had taken over the terminal and rescinded the contract.
Attys. Capulong and Pahilga are both involved in representing the farm workers in Hacienda Luisita, in
Atty. Arbet Yongco was and Attys. Gina Co and Kit Enriquez are the private prosecutors in the parricide case against cult leader Ruben Ecleo Jr., a member of a politically-powerful family.
At least eight of the eleven individuals whose cases the IFFM looked at, were, before they were killed or still are also involved in human rights work. To name just a few by way of illustration: Atty. Magsino defended victims of mining, addressed the military and was actively involved in several fact-finding missions in the field of human rights; Atty. Yongco was also the legal director of Legal Alternatives for Women (Law Inc.) and Atty. Pergentino Deri-on serves as the Provincial Vice Chairperson of KATUNGOD, a human rights group.
At least four of them were political active for one of the leftists groups: Atty. Magsino was the Vice-Mayor of Naujan, Mindoro Oriental and the Bayan Muna Party-list’s endorsed candidate for the post of city mayor; Atty. Dacut was the regional coordinator for the party-list group Bayan Muna; Atty Bocar was the regional chairman of the militant BAYAN, Eastern Visayas and Atty. Yongco was provincial coordinator of the party-list Abanse Pinay.
4.1.2. Are lawyers and judges labelled and if so, how or by whom and as what?
Prior to the attacks, some of these lawyers and judges were labelled as members or supporters of the CPP/NPA or its “front organizations” or as “enemies of the state”. Some of these lawyers have clients who are suspected NPA members or supporters. Some of them were warned to be in the military’s “order of battle” or on a so-called hit-list.
At least seven lawyers were labelled by the military as member or supporter of the NPA or enemy of the state. Three lawyers were labelled as NPA member. Atty. Magsino was told by a journalist that she was tagged as NPA member by the military in the local media. Atty. Pahilga and Atty. Deri-on, both still alive, are labelled as supporters of the NPA as well. The underlying reason, according to both of them, is that they serve clients who are allegedly members of the NPA. Atty. Pahilga: “A lawyer will be labelled as NPA as soon as his clients are labelled as such”. Ad litem Judge Capulong and Atty. Pergentino Deri-on shared this view. Recently, Capulong was told by one of his clients who has a source within the army that members of a military unit, stationed nearby Capulongs home town, said about him : “He is really our enemy, he is just creating trouble."
Attys. Bocar and Dacut were warned that they were on the military’s hit-list. Atty. Dacut told Atty. Penaflor 13 days before he was killed, that he was on the list. Atty. Penaflor himself has also been informed that he is on the military hit-list. Atty. Penaflor has no doubt that this information is correct. He considers his source, who has direct connections within the army, very reliable. Due to security reasons, however, he cannot reveal his source. Atty. Deri-on was also warned by many people to be careful: “You better be careful, I heard somebody will harm you”, and “You are among those listed; You are in the order of battle”.
4.1.3. Are lawyers and judges threatened and/or subjected to surveillance?
They have all been threatened. Many were warned to stop with their work as human rights lawyer or with a specific case or other activities “or else…”. They are often subjected to surveillance by the (para)military, “vigilantes” or alleged members of death squads.
All eleven lawyers, including Judge Gingoyon were or are continuously threatened. They are mostly threatened by means of text messages, letters or phone calls.[30] Other forms of harassment are – amongst others - the surveillance of the lawyers’ houses and offices by men on motorcycles, tailing and tapping of cell phones.
Attys. Gina Co and Kit Enriquez both received threatening text messages. Two other members of their prosecution panel are threatened as well. Atty. Enriquez is convinced that the threats he received in 2005 were coming from Ecleo’s family and the family’s defence counsel.[31] Attys. Co and Enriquez both knew that their predecessor in that case, Atty. Yongco, also received threats. A week before she was killed, her house was under surveillance daily by men on a motorbike. She was also followed by them. The IFFM was informed that these men belonged to a death squad, called the ‘white eagle’, which is considered to be the private death squad of the Ecleo family. This death squad is apparently known and capable of shooting.
Atty. Magsino received threatening text messages as well. She also received twice a box with a black ribbon with a message therein that she would soon die: In November 2003, the message said that she would not be alive anymore at Christmas and on the 13th of February 2004, the day she was killed, she received a ‘happy valentine’ message, indicating that she would not be alive anymore on February 15th. Earlier she received threats warning her that she should stop working for human rights organizations including KARAPATAN and that she should not participate in fact-finding missions anymore. Atty. Magsino was also under surveillance of the military. At the end of
Judge Gingoyon was continuously threatened when he worked as a human rights lawyer. After his ten-year old daughter was attacked and their house was riddled, the family moved to
Atty. Deri-On has received threats since he has served as the legal counsel of clients allegedly members of the NPA. On
In May 2006, Atty. Pahilga was told by his neighbours and bystanders that two men on a motorcycle, wearing jackets and sunglasses, and looking like military men with a military hair cut, had been looking for Pahilga and his family’s house. They had asked them for Pahilga’s schedule, specifically of the time that he leaves and arrives at home. According to his neighbours, the said persons told them that they wanted Pahilga to handle their case. Since then, two men on a motorcycle have continuously tailed on him in his neighbourhood and in his court hearings. A source from inside the military confirmed to Pahilga that the men tailing him are from
At least two family members of lawyers who were killed, have been threatened afterwards. One of them was warned not to attend the next hearing in the criminal case of the killed lawyer concerned. Another family member told us that his family has not been threatened directly although being threatened is “normal”.
4.1.4. How are lawyers and judges killed and what is the killer’s profile?
Almost all assassinations were carried out by two unidentified men on a motorbike without licence plate. The killings are shooting incidents with a hit-and-run character committed at any given time and place, even in broad day light. Given the “visibility” of the killings, the killers seem to be very self confident in getting away with it.
Attys Magsino, Yongco, Bocar, Dacut and Gingoyon were all killed in a hit-and-run shooting incident: they were gunned down by unidentified men, mostly on a motorbike, after which the killer(s) disappeared. If the killers were in a team, the men on the back was doing the shooting. Attys. Magsino, Dacut and Gingoyon were all three killed on public places were many witnesses could have been present. Judge Gingoyon was killed during the middle of the day. Atty. Dacut was killed in the main street of
4.1.5. What have the authorities been doing?
The police hardly acts upon reported threats or requests for protection. Family members of slain lawyers consider the information by the authorities about the criminal cases insufficient. The authorities have not provided satisfactory information with respect to the slow hand
(i) Reported crimes or requests for protection and the filing of complaints
Only a few lawyers and family members of slain lawyers who were threatened before they were killed or who are still threatened reported this to the police and asked for protection, but to no avail. Only Judge Capulong got at one stage protection from the local police. The majority, however, did not trust the police or thought that it would come to nothing. One lawyer wrote (together with two other lawyers) a formal letter to the Chief of the police to ask for protection. The police declined their request by merely saying that it could only act in case of an “imminent threat”, even though the police was informed that many people involved were already killed and the lawyers concerned were continuously followed by men on motorbikes.
In the cases of Attys. Magsino, Dacut and Bocar, complaints for violation of the CARHRIHL were filed before the GRP-NDFP Joint Monitoring Committee in June 2004, June 2005 and January 2006, respectively. These cases have not yet been discussed by the JMC.
At least one lawyer, Atty. Pahilga, filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights. The Commission addressed the issue in various reports it issued.
(ii) Information about the investigation and prosecution of the murder cases
In all cases where a lawyer was killed, the police have carried out an investigation, but it is unclear to what extent. Family members of the lawyers who were killed have only been heard once by the police. In all cases, family members have not been informed by the police about the investigation at all.
In the case of Attys.Yongco, Magsino and Gingoyon, court cases are pending. The legal proceedings are progressing slowly. Family members do not trust that the proceedings will lead to any results. They all believe that there is a mastermind behind the assassinations, but that the authorities prefer to ignore this.
(iii) Condemnation and measures
Department of Interior and Local Government and PNP
Interior and Local Government Secretary Ronaldo V Puno, however, stressed to the IFFM that respect for human rights are enshrined in the laws and policies of the Philippines. The series of assassinations of Party List members, journalists and other high-risk personalities for the past five years “has drawn great concern by the government”, so that “no less than the President (…) ordered that these extra-judicial killings be thoroughly investigated and eventually be stopped”.
Task Force USIG
On
The IFFM welcomes the President’s order for investigation and ‘to leave no stone unturned in probe into rash of killings’.[32]
The IFFM was informed by Mr. Puno that based on an analysis of the cases of murdered party-list members and newsmen, Task Force USIG identified at least three groups that could behind the killings, namely, “the CPP/NPA”, “military and police personnel” and “possible destabilizing forces” (Annex 8).[33]
Nevertheless, the PNP probe team reportedly had stated that it had yet to see a pattern of military involvement in the killings.
In addition, the IFFM was informed by members of the House of Representatives that security officials, PNP-CIDG head Chief Superintendent Jesus Versoza and Task Force USIG head Police Director Avelino Razon in particular, claimed that the killings are part of a purge of communists ranks.
According to Lower House representatives Teodoro A. Casiño, Satur C. Ocampo, Joel G. Virador, Crispin B. Beltran, Liza L. Maza and Rafael V. Mariano, “several high ranking government officials, notably Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales, Interior and Local Government Secretary Ronaldo Puno and National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales have joined Director Razon in blaming the CPP/NPA, and even the party-list and mass organizations themselves, for the killings”.
Considering such prejudgments by high-ranking police officials and officials of the Executive Branch, these representatives feel that “an objective and impartial investigation of the political killings under a body created by the Executive Branch is not possible” so that “there is an urgent need to constitute a credible and truly independent body to investigate the killings” and “formulate recommendations to stop the atrocities”. These Six representatives have also issued a joint resolution in this regard with concrete proposals to the establishment and functioning of such an independent body including its mandate, powers, composition and appointment of the members (Annex 9).
The IFFM notes that the PNP probe team’s alleged statement in combination with the security officials claims, not only has undermined the trust of the above mentioned representatives, but also human rights organizations including KARAPATAN in Task Force USIG’s formation and performance.
Since its creation, Task Force USIG has recorded a total of 114 party list members slain since 2001, according to Mr. Puno. Out of this total, 27 cases have been filed in court and the remaining 86 are still under investigation. Out of the 27 cases filed in court, the PNP has arrested suspects in three cases.
The IFFM was also informed by Mr. Puno that “Based on records, the CPP/NPA is suspected to be involved in at least fifteen (15) killings of party list members.”
Given the poor results of the last five years, the IFFM considers it quite remarkable what Task Force USIG was able to realize within one month, especially taking into account the involvement of eye-witnesses.
Task Force Judges, Public Prosecutors and IBP-Lawyers
The IFFM was further informed by General Marcelo S. Ele jr. of the PNP that on January 17, 2006, also a ‘Task Force Judges, Prosecutors and IBP Lawyers’ was established (Annex 10).[34] The Task Force has reportedly regional counterparts in order to streamline its coordinating and supportive tasks with regard to the local police conducting the investigations.
Although the IFFM appreciates the existence of a special task force for the investigation of the killings of judges, public prosecutors and IBP-lawyers, it was surprised to learn about its creation, for the following reasons.
Interior and Local Government Secratery Puno told the IFFM that he has never been aware of a pattern of killings of lawyers and judges in his country. Only recently, Mr. Puno noted allegations of such patterns regarding political activists, journalists and “this is a third wave of such allegations, now regarding lawyers”. He acknowledged, however, that lawyers have been killed, such as Attys. Magsino and Bocar, who were “actively involved in militant groups”. When the IFFM discussed the USIG Task Force, Mr. Puno promised to specifically add to the competence of the Task Force USIG the investigation into the killing of lawyers, while not making any reference to the Task Force Judges, Public Prosecutors and IBP-Lawyers.
The PNP did not mention this new task force in its letter to its Department of Foreign Affairs on
None of the other individuals, official agencies or organizations the IFFM spoke with during its mission mentioned this task force and when asked about it, none appeared to be familiar with it, including the Integrated Bar of the
The IFFM was not able to find the founding documents of the Task Force as referred to in a power point presentation that it received from General Marcelo S. Ele jr.
Asked about the division of labor between the two task forces, General Ele explained to the IFFM that when a judge, prosecutor or lawyer is killed, the case will automatically be transferred to the Task Force Judges, Prosecutors and IBP Lawyers. According to General Ele, those cases are “relatively easy” since they are “work-related or not work-related.” However, when lawyers are identified as Party list members, such as Atty. Magsino and Atty. Bocar, the case gets a new angle and, therefore, falls under the scope of Task Force USIG. According to General Ele, those cases are “more complex” and require a “different handling” because “the CPP/NPA is involved in the killings of party list members”. Documents reportedly seized by the Southern Luzon Command of the AFP apparently revealed this involvement.[35] In fact, the only reason why party list members are separated in USIG is because the killings against them are allegedly committed “by the NPA, the armed forces or the police”. However, according to General Ele, both Task Forces are working closely together.
NBI and PNP,
Although cases are now apparently distributed to one of the two above mentioned task forces, the actual investigations are still conducted by the local police.
The cases of Attys. Dacut and Bocar, for instance, are both dealt with by the NBI and/or the PNP of
Both the NBI and the PNP
The PNP
The NBI acknowledged that there was no specific lead in the Dacut Case. In this regard, Mr. Lavilla explained to the IFFM that the NBI is undermanned: “there are only eight investigators for the whole area”.
The PNP
Asked about the investigations in the Dacut case, the NBI nor the PNP could hardly come up with any concrete results. Taking into account that the investigations have been carried out for fifteen months and almost one year, respectively, the files shown to the IFFM were also remarkably thin. Various ballistic examinations carried out by the PNP Crime Laboratory were for instance, reportedly still in progress, possible threatening text messages or telephone numbers from persons who phoned Atty. Dacut on his cell phone had not been traced yet, because that contained “a lot of work” and a drawing of the killer, based upon an eye-witness’ testimony, was not made public, but only sent to some other offices. Moreover, both the PNP and the NBI thought that Atty. Dacut’s cell phone was in the possession of the local police, which initially carried out the investigation. As it turned out, however, the local police said not to know that Atty. Dacut had a cell phone.
The NBI and the PNP
Armed Forces of the
During its meeting with the IFFM, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the AFP explained that the military criminal justice system only applies to members of the armed forces allegedly committing military crimes, i.e. in state of war. With respect to all other crimes committed by members of the armed forces, the PNP is competent to investigate. Since the killings are criminal acts falling under the jurisdiction of the PNP, resolving the killings is the responsibility of the PNP. The AFP stressed that there is as yet no case in which a member of the AFP has been charged for or suspected of commiting the killings, otherwise they would have been informed about it by the PNP. They are aware of allegations that the military are behind the cases, but these allegations are strongly denied. When asked by the IFFM whether the AFP has conducted an investigation within its own forces with respect to these allegations, the Judge Advocate General answered that “If I read in the newspaper that in Mindanao a member of the AFP might be involved in a murder case, I would immediately call my own people in Mindanao to investigate this”.
The IFFM was further told that the situation with respect to the killings of lawyers and judges was “not so alarming as assumed in the newspapers,” because “there are many lawyers in the
Department of Justice
The Chief State Prosecutor of the Department of Justice, Hon. Jovencito R. Zuño, explained to the IFFM that his department could not do much about the killings as long as the NBI, the investigative branch of the Department of Justice, does not hand over a case to the prosecutors. The Prosecution may not start investigations on its own initiative and it has no involvement in preliminary investigations conducted by the PNP or the NBI. Neither does it have the power to instruct the NBI as to whether a case should be turned over or not; only the Secretary of Justice has the authority to do so. When the IFFM spoke to the Hon. Jovencito R. Zuño, he was not familiar with pending murder cases of killed lawyers.
Supreme Court
Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban of the Supreme Court explained to the IFFM that the Court’s possibilities to do something about the killings, were also limited, as long as none of these cases have been filed in Court. In addition, the Supreme Court should stay independent in general, since, in the end, it may have to decide in cases against the perpetrators of the killings. It should at all times remain independent of the government and the police, so that it cannot be “too pushy” to the authorities in this regard. Since the Court has no police power, it cannot carry out its own investigations.
The Chief Justice, however, welcomed the international concern about the situation in the
In the mean time, on
Commission on Human Rights
Recently, the Philippine Commission on Human Rights made a strong public statement with respect to the killings. On
The Commission on Human Rights has conducted investigations relating to the systematic killings committed against unsuspecting victims including members of Bayan Muna, Anakpawis, Gabriela Party list and other allied organizations on the basis of complaints it received and on its own initiative. Its conclusions were laid down in a report of
In its report, the Commission on Human Rights “totally detests these inhuman practice of summary execution committed against our helpless brothers especially those who belong to Bayan Muna, Anakpawis, Gabrie
It furthermore called on the government, especially the PNP, DND and the AFP, to conduct investigations regarding these killings and to report violations covering the same. It further asked these law enforcers to furnish copies of the said investigations to the Commission.
(iv) Problems with building up cases
According to General Marcelo S. Ele jr. of the PNP, solving cases was hampered by the fact that the forensic capability and technology in the Philippines was not yet efficient ‘so that it cannot stand alone as evidence in the absence of eye-witnesses’. Since hardly any witnesses come forward, cases are often ordered dismissed due to lack of evidence or they do not even reach the prosecution stage.
Recently, the PNP put the blame fully on the unwillingness of witnesses to co-operate. In its letter of
The Commission on Human Rights confirmed that one reason that investigations have been closed is the lack of information “due to refusal of witnesses and family members to shed light and furnish details on the “incident”. The Commission stressed, however, that the refusal of witnesses and family members to come forward is “for fear of their own lives”, while “some have even gone to the extent of transferring residence in order to avoid whatever repercussions the incident may cause them.”
The Department of Justice also pointed to the lack of cooperation by witnesses: “As usually is the case in such crimes which involve the use of firearms, witnesses are coerced into silence and are afraid to come out and testify publicly. We are willing to place witnesses under the care of the Witness Protection Program of the Department of Justice, but their lack of cooperation has hampered the investigation” (Annex 12).
During the mission, General Ele told the IFFM that witnesses are not willing to co-operate for fear of revenge of the accused or the relatives of the accused. According to him, witnesses are not afraid of the governmental institutions, but there is, however, “a general fear for revenge by the NPA”.
None of the lawyers and family members of slain lawyers the IFFM spoke to, told the IFFM that they had not co-operated out of fear for revenge by the NPA. Victims and family members of slain lawyers and judges, however, told the IFFM not to co-operate with the police and the military out of distrust and fear for these institutions. In one case, the IFFM was informed that witnesses of a killing told the family of the slain victim concerned that the police had asked them to sign a different statement than the one made by them. Initially, four men were arrested and subsequently released. The eye-witnesses who might have been able to identify the killers, however, were not confronted with the four men who were arrested initially. Later on, five other men were arrested. Although these men were not identified as the killers by the witnesses, the court case against those men is still pending.
The Commission on Human Rights and the NBI Leyte also confirmed that witnesses don’t speak up out of fear for the military or the police. The Commission on Human Rights even said: “there is a culture of fear”.
The IFFM also addressed the issue to a number of members of the Minority in the House of Representatives. They all shared the view that a lack of witnesses is one reason that explains why the police cannot build up a case. According to them, the local police may lack the authority to get witnesses, for instance because the local officials cannot protect them and they may not be supported by their higher authorities. Witnesses may also be afraid or they may find it a waste of time to co-operate because they do not believe that there will be any result. In addition, the members of Parliament concerned also pointed out that local police officers may lack the means to build up a case and sometimes there is “no moral drive to go into the case”.
The IFFM shares the Commission on Human Rights’ view that the non-availability of witnesses is not an excuse to leave the current situation as it is. The government authorities concerned should also look into the reason why witnesses are afraid to come forward and, even more important, what should be done to improve the situation.
To improve the situation, the Commission, considers it necessary to offer witnesses a better protection. In theory, the Commission may constitute its own Witness Protection Program separately from the Department of Justice. However, this requires additional funding.
In order to tackle impunity, General Ele also suggested measures to enhance the current Witness Protection Program of the Department of Justice, including the institution of financial rewards and the provision of security protection by means of body guards, fire arms etc. The best protection, according to Ele, would be to bring witnesses to safe houses inside the military camps.
The members of Parliament, however, made it very clear to the IFFM that as long as witnesses have no trust in the authorities or in the state’s judicial system, they won’t come forward to testify nor apply for a Witness Protection Program that is carried out by the same authorities they do not trust.
4.1.6. What are the results of the criminal investigations?
To this date no killers of lawyers and judges have been convicted. The fact that cases remain unsolved, creates a culture of impunity.
The IFFM sometimes had the impression that the PNP considers a case as solved as soon as the perpetrators in certain cases are allegedly identified. Fact is, however, that none of the cases have been solved: to this date, no killers of lawyers and judges have been convicted.
According to various International and Filipino human rights organizations including Amnesty International, KARAPATAN and the Philippine Commission on Human Rights the current situation equals a situation of impunity.
In its 2006 report, Amnesty International noted that: “A climate of impunity shielding the perpetrators of such killings deepened as ineffective investigations failed to lead to the prosecution of those responsible”.
In its 2005 Human Rights Report, KARAPATAN noted that: “The action or lack of action of the Arroyo regime on this issue leads to a culture of impunity that engenders the increase in human rights violations”.
CHR Chair Quisumbing said: “We strongly condemn the spate of killings that have yet to be resolved (…)if several deaths happened in just a week, this constitutes a pattern of impunity”.[39]
As set out before, the IFFM was told by several lawyers and family members of killed lawyers that they lack any trust in the way the authorities are dealing with the investigation and prosecution of the murder cases concerned.. For some of them it was enough reason not to let them be represented by lawyers.
4.2. By whom are lawyers and judges killed and why?
International and Filipino human rights organizations have indicated that the armed forces of the
In its 2006 report, Amnesty International noted that “most of the attacks were carried out by unidentified assailants on motorcycles, at times wearing face masks, who were often described as ‘vigilantes’ or hired killers allegedly linked to AFP members”.
According to the Commission on Human Rights, the ‘pattern of complaints’ that were addressed to the Commission showed that “most of the perpetrators are perceived to belong to the military and/or paramilitary arms of the government.” The CHR told the IFFM also about the perception that there is a cloud of impunity and complicity of the PNP in many human rights-related cases.
Most of the lawyer victims and family members of killed lawyers informed the IFFM that they also suspect the military to play a role in the harassment and the killings of lawyers and judges.
Leftist groups have pointed to Major General Jovito S. Palparan jr.[40] as the main tormentor of activists. KARAPATAN and Bayan had noted that the killings of activists increased wherever Palparan was assigned. This was confirmed by the Commission on Human Rights to the IFFM.
The IFFM was told that Atty. Magsino started to receive threatening text messages after she had a meeting with General Palparan. In addition, Atty. Deri-on told the IFFM that he had a meeting with General Jovito S. Palparan jr. in June 2005. The meeting was convened because the members of his human rights group received threats on a large scale. During this meeting General Palparan warned him to stop handling cases for alleged NPA members. He said: “If you have to choose between your life and that of your clients, I presume you will choose for your own”.
The Commission on Human Rights informed the IFFM that it is conducting an investigation into Major General Palparan. The latter was nevertheless recently promoted again by President Arroyo. It is feared that the Arroyo administration’s promotion of Palparan might be encouraging more extrajudicial killings in the countryside.
Some House Representatives the IFFM spoke to said that even though the Arroyo administration may not direct the killings, it is at least endorsing the killings so as ‘to silence the political opposition’. Many leftist groups are seen as fronts of the communist insurgency and have long been at the forefront of efforts to oust President Arroyo. In light of this, the Arroyo administration’s all-out war against the NPA is also seen as a further “invitation” to kill.
In a joint resolution, Representatives Teodoro A. Casiño, Satur C. Ocampo, Joel G. Virador, Crispin B. Beltran, Liza L. Maza and Rafael V. Mariano noted that: “the frenzy of political killings is also widely perceived to be the handiwork of state security forces pursuant to a state policy of silencing political dissent in order to keep the Arroyo administration in power in view of lingering questions over its legitimacy.”
The AFP, however, strongly denies the allegations that the military would be behind the killings. In its meeting with the IFFM, the AFP pointed out that “everyone uses it as an excuse that the armed forces are behind the killings”: However, “military uniforms can be bought everywhere in the
High ranking governmental officials claim that the communist guerrillas may have committed some of the killings as part of an internal purge, but the communists have denied this.
Lawyers and family members of slain lawyers told the IFFM that they are convinced that the harassment and killings of human rights lawyers are directly related to both their work as human rights lawyers and, if applicable, their other activities as, for instance, human rights worker or (political) activist. The common feature of these activities is that they all are critical of governmental policies or programs or for another reason inconvenient to the ruling elite. Atty. Pahilga, for instance, is not a member of a political party. He has been threatened, however, since his involvement in the high profile case of the workers in Hacienda Luisita, owned by the family of Corazon Aquino and since he represents Anakpawis party-list Representative Rafael Mariano, one of the so-called Batasan 6.
4.3. Can human rights lawyers continue to conduct their legal profession?
All lawyers the IFFM spoke to, were very determined not to give up their work as a human rights lawyer. However, they all acknowledged that the continued threats and harassment hampered their work and that it became increasingly difficult to carry out their legal profession.
Atty. Pahilga, for instance, informed the IFFM that the harassment and surveillance had affected not only his work but also his family: “I am now living like a drifter, staying and moving from one place to another. I seldom go home to see my family or to report to the office”.
5. CONCLUSIONS
“This government lives by the rule of law and the democratic process”, said Press Secretary Ignacio R. Bunye in his Statement of
To this date, the Arroyo administration rejects national and international criticism on its human rights record, by simply referring to its democratic institutions and human rights treaties, laws and policies.
On paper, the
Nevertheless, since 2001, fifteen lawyers and ten judges have been killed in the
Taking into account that all democratic institutions are formally in place, the IFFM considers the situation especially alarming. This makes it abundantly clear that either the constitutional state does not function properly or that there are powers undermining its proper functioning.
Based on the foregoing, the IFFM has reached the following conclusions:
1. Human rights lawyers and judges in the
2. The harassment and killings of members of the legal profession undermine the rule of law and the faith in (the function of) the judiciary system and the independence of judges and lawyers in particular.
3. There is a pattern in the harassment and killings of human rights lawyers and judges, which must be seen in the light of other killings in the
4. The primary duty of the Government is to protect the life of the people, including lawyers and judges. The Arroyo administration, however, has hardly done anything to address the extrajudicial killings effectively. In particular it has neither responded seriously to strong allegations that its own security forces are involved in the killings nor has it taken effective measures to improve the poor record of prosecutions of the perpetrators. So far, Task Force USIG has not proven to be an independent body: It is chaired by the PNP which has a poor record as far as the effective investigation of the killings is concerned and which is mistrusted by the Philippine people. Furthermore, the Arroyo administration has not condemned the killings publicly and in strong terms.
5. This lack of an effective response of the Arroyo administration has led to a culture of impunity in which even more killings and human rights violations may take place.
6. Consequently, this culture of impunity has further diminished the people’s faith in the functioning of the constitutional state and the system of law culminating in a climate in which, for instance, lawyers and judges consider it “part of their job” to be threatened and in which witnesses of killings do not cooperate with the police or the public prosecutor out of fear or because they find it a waste of time as it comes to nothing.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Philippine government is under the obligation to take steps to ensure the compliance with human rights and the right to life in particular.
In other to stop the killings, the threats and harassment of lawyers and judges, the IFFM calls on the government:
1. to condemn the killings publicly and in strong terms;
2. to immediately take vigorous steps to protect the safety of human rights lawyers and judges, which steps should include the prosecution of alleged perpetrators;
3. to leave no stone unturned in investigating the serious allegations that its own security forces are involved in the killings;
4. to constitute and fully support an independent body, i.e. not controlled by the government, to investigate the killings, threats and harassment and to follow its recommendations;
5. to take all other measures needed to end the culture of impunity and to restore the people’s faith in the functioning of the constitutional state and the rule of law.
LIST OF ANNEXES
Annex 1:
Letter of the Dutch Lawyers for Lawyers Foundation to President Gloria Arroyo of
Annex 2:
Letter of the President of the
Annex 3:
Letter of the President of the
Annex 4:
Statement of Solidarity to the International Fact Finding
Annex 5:
Annex 6:
Initial Findings from the IFFM of
Annex 7:
KARAPATAN 2005 Human Rights Report
Annex 8:
TASK FORCE “USIG” Accomplishment Report as of
Annex 9:
House of Representatives, Joint Resolution No. 17, “Joint Resolution creating an independent commission to conduct a thorough investigation of the widespread and systematic extrajudicial killings under the Arroyo Administration and to recommend measures and sanctions to stop the killings”.
Annex 10:
Power Point Presentation from the PNP dated
Annex 11:
Letter of Yolanda G. Tanigue, Police Senior Superintendent of the National Headquarters, Philippine National Police of
Annex 12:
Letter of Raul M. Gonzales of the Department of Justice of
LIST OF SOURCES
In addition to the testimonies, the Annexes 1 to 12 and other documents provided by the individuals, agencies and organizations the IFFM has interviewed, the IFFM has also made use of the following public sources:
Treaties
· International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Protocols
Laws
· The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the
· Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act [RA 6981]
· Party-List System Act [RA 7941]
Reports
· Annually reports 2004 and 2006, Amnesty International, available at http://www.amnesty.org
· Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee:
· Freedom of Expression and Media in the
· Human Rights Lawyers in the
· On the Killings of members of Bayan Muna, Anakpawis and other allied organizations,
·
Press Statements and other information
· Amnesty International available at http://www.amnesty.org
· Asian Human Rights Commission available at http://www.ahrchk.net/index.php
· CODAL available at http://counsels4liberties.blogspot.com
· LAWASIA Statement on Violence against Judges and Lawyers in the
· Lawyers’ Rights Watch
· Philippine Government available at Office of the President Website http://www.gov.ph/news
News Items
· Daily Tribune, http://www.tribune.net
·
· Manila Bulletin Online, http://www.mb.com.ph
· Manila Standard Today, http://www.manilastandardtoday.com
· Manila Times, http://www.manilatimes.net
· Philippine Daily Inquirer, http://www.inq7.net
· Philippine Daily Star, http://www.philstar.com
Other Internet Sources
· Armed Forces of the
· Department of Interior and Local Government, http://www.dilg.gov.ph
· Department of Justice, http://www.doj.gov.ph
· Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, http://www.minbuza.nl
· Philippine National Police, http://www.pnp.gov.ph
· Supreme Court, http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph
· Commission on Human Rights, http://www.chr.gov.ph
[1] Counsels for the Defense of Liberties (CODAL, formerly the Committee for the Defense on the Attacks of Lawyers) was formed at the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ (IBP) National Office meeting on 30 April,
[2] KARAPATAN is a major human rights alliance in the
[3] The Dutch Lawyers for Lawyers Foundation seeks to ensure that lawyers around the world can exercise their profession without intimidation or interference. It supports lawyers who are hindered in the exercise of their profession while working for the protection of human rights.
[4] The Annexes referred to in this report will be published at the Lawyers for Lawyers website www.advocatenvooradvocaten.nl
[7] VPRO’s broadcast is also available at http://www.ochtenden.nl
[9] Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the
[10] Article 2, section 4 of the 1987 Constitution.
[11] Idem, Article 13 (Section 17 and 18).
[12] Bayan Muna is a leftist political party of many different organizations including labor groups, youth, fisher folk, cultural and indigenous people’s organizations.
[13] The NDFP is “the formal united front of the organizations of the basic forces of the revolution, comprising of the working class, the peasantry and the urban petty bourgeoisie”.
[14] The NPA’s listing as terrorist organization is not fully undisputed; it is subjected to debates and some contrary views. The NPA itself claims not to attack civilian targets and to adhere to international humanitarian law.
[15] As of
[16] Hundreds of thousands of Filipinos gathered at EDSA (Epifanio de los Santos Avenue, the site of mass demonstrations that brought down Marcos in 1986) in January 2001 for days of protests that called for the ouster of Estrada. They believed he was guilty of all four charges against him: bribery, graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust and violation of the constitution. Encouraged by the broad range of civil society groups that campaigned for Estrada’s ouster, police and military officials soon withdrew their support from the beleaguered president. The Supreme Court then declared the presidency vacant and Vice-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo,was sworn in as president.
[17] Governmental News Statement; PGMA declares a State of
[18] Anakpawis Congressman Crispin Beltran was arrested by the PNP on
[19] Amongst others, on
[21] Philippine Daily Inquirer of
[22] Idem.
[24] News item of
[27] Amnesty International, Public Statement, AI Index: ASA 35/002/2006.
[28] KARAPATAN 2005 Human Rights Report.
[29] The term ‘militants’ in the Philippines usually refers to very vocal, active, organized and principled individuals or groups that are anti-establishment or are critical of governmental policies or programs such as mass organizations or people’s organizations of basic sectors in Philippine society like the farmers, workers and even professionals. It is not meant to refer to ‘violent or terrorist’.
[30] One lawyer showed us two threatening text messages which were received on May 1, 2006 and still saved in the phone’s memory:: “Your life is in my hand, you are encircled with my goons, I pity you, you must be ready every time you go out, especially going in court, I think not a joke.” ; and “We’re sure it’s you, we’re ghosts, we can see you, you don’t see us, you must be ready to see St. Peter, you know when you die baby…You must refrain attending our next hearing”.
[31] One of the threatening messages said: “You’re wearing a black barong, which is good for a wake.” Atty. Enriquez only wore his black barong in the Ecleo case.
[32] “PGMA orders PNP to leave no stone unturned in probe into rash of killings, Press Statement,
[33] Task Force “USIG” accomplishment report; As of
[34] The statistics on the status of the cases handled by this Task Force were presented to the IFFM in a power point presentation on
[35] The IFFM was provided with a press release of June 5, 2006 issued by the Southern Luzon Command claiming that: “the document clearly pointed out to the CPP-NPA as the one who has been behind the recent purges, which he [Lt. General Cabuay] considered to be the continuation of the similar bloody purges of alleged military spies that have penetrated the movement in the 80s. (…).
[36] According to Mr Lavilla, “Sources from Bayan Muna believed that the slaying of Atty. Dacut was the work of the military basing on the trend of the slaying and attempts on the lives of anti-government activists in Region XIII.”
[37] Update Report from PNP
[38] On the killings of members of Bayan Muna, Anakpawis and other allied organizations,
[39] News item of
[40] From 2001 till 2003, Colonel Palparan became known to the public as the Commanding Officer of the AFP’s 204th Infantry Battalion in Oriental Mindoro. “The Butcher of Mindoro”, as he was named by militant groups, came under investigation by both the justice department and Congress following reports in connection with the abduction and killing of several activists and civilians. Before the investigations came to an end, President Arroyo promoted him to brigadier general and sent him to lead the Philippine troops in
[41] Statement of Secretary Ignacio R. Bunye: Re Human Rights Record,
posted by codal at 1:12 PM
3 comments
Links
Previous Posts
- ARROYO CABINET SHOULD DEMAND FIRING OF SEC. GONZAL...
- USING LEGAL PROCESSES AS TOOLS FOR POLITICAL PERSE...
- SENATE APPROVED ANTI-TERROR BILL: NOT WATERED DOWN...
- RELEASE OF SMITH: ABSOLUTE DISREGARD FOR THE JUDIC...
- CODAL CONDEMNS KILLING OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER: Sev...
- NO ELECTION A CERTAINTY IF CON ASS IS FORCIBLY CON...
- SIGAW’S “PEOPLES’ INITIATIVE” IS CONSTITUTIONALLY,...
- CODAL HAILS SUPREME COURT DECISION ON SIGAW PETITI...
- PRESSURE ON THE SUPREME COURT MAY COMPROMISE CREDI...
- CODAL POSITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES
Archives
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
