In its 2005 Accomplishment Report released on its official website, the government of the Philippines claims to have worked “to improve the operational effectiveness of law enforcement agencies”. Exactly what this means remains unclear, as the government backs its remarks only with a handful of vague statistics that say nothing of reality and the challenges the country faces in addressing the very deep institutional problems associated with building the rule of law there.
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is aware that most serious criminal cases in the Philippines are inadequately investigated. In most cases perpetrators are not identified, usually due to the absence of witnesses and the lack of forensic and scientific investigation techniques. Despite the Act for Witness Protection, Security and Benefit (Republic Act 6981), witnesses to acts of murder and other grave crimes in the Philippines know full well that they risk the same fate if they dare to come forward with information. While this is especially the case in the unabated killings of human rights defenders and social activists, flagrant targetted killings of ordinary criminal suspects–such as petty criminals in Davao and Cebu–are also on the rise, sometimes with the public endorsement of local officials.
Letters to the AHRC repeatedly speak to the failure of police to obtain witnesses even in crimes where the victims are killed in busy marketplaces or houses occupied by the families of victims, and to the fact that this problem is recognised but not addressed by the authorities. For instance, in one letter from 2005 Marcelo Ele Jr., Police Director of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Directorate for Investigation and Detective Management, said that no witnesses had come forward in the killings of Ernesto Bang and Joel Reyes for fear of reprisal. This is despite the fact that Bang was shot at the front door to his house with his family inside, and Reyes was shot dead in a public a market. After Dario Oresca, a witness to the murder of Reyes was found, he too was killed. He had received no protection.
Even where a case is filed in court, prolonged delays cause greater and greater risks both to the witnessess and the case itself, an issue strongly adverted to in the chapter on the Philippines in the AHRC’s recently-released State of Human Rights in Ten Asian Nations–2005 report. There is little evidence that the Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR) adopted by the Supreme Court in December 2000, which includes in its mandate the speedy processing of cases, is making much headway, and it continues to lack adequate funding from the government.
As a consequence, more and more Filipinos are taking the law into their own hands. The loss of trust and confidence in the police and judiciary among victims seeking justice, and implied approval of murders by government officials demonstrate the country’s deteriorating law and order and give little cause for surprise when people go outside the law to resolve disputes and seek vengeance.
All of this indicates the extent to which the government of the Philippines has disregarded its international obligations. In its concluding observations on the state’s compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of December 1, 2003, the U.N. Human Rights Committee urged that, “The State party should ensure that all allegations of torture are effectively and promptly investigated by an independent authority, that those found responsible are prosecuted.” It further said that, “The State party should ensure that its legislation gives full effect to the rights recognized in the Covenant and that domestic law is harmonized”.
Despite these clear recommendations, torture is not yet a crime in the Philippines, and there has been little effort to enact an enabling law that would make it so. Similarly, the various monitoring committees and quasi-judicial bodies established ostensibly to investigate human rights violations have few powers and are generally ineffective. As a result, the recognition given to international human rights standards in Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution has little significance. Although an integral part of the constitutional basis of the country, in the absence of measures for implementation it has been trivialised.
In January 2005 Executive Order 404 established a Monitoring Committee on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law. Section 2 stipulates that the Committee will work closely with the national Commission on Human Rights to investigate and monitor human rights violations in compliance with international treaty obligations. While apparently a step towards human rights protection, there is little evidence of work by the committee so far. The general public of the Philippines remains in the dark about what the committee has done, despite it being required to “provide regular updates to concerned units and agencies of the Government, as well as civil society groups and other entities”.
The making of grand claims about the improved effectiveness of law enforcement agencies will not impress anyone familiar with the real situation in the Philippines. In fact, the effect will only be to raise more doubts among the victims of crime and rights violations about the sincerity of the authorities in tackling the deep flaws in the country’s policing and judicial system. Instead of pretending that things are getting better, the government of the Philippines would obtain far greater credibility by recognising the gravity of this situation and taking determined steps to end the impunity that murderers and other serious criminals, particularly those in the police and other security forces, continue to enjoy.
