The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) commends the efforts of Department of Justice (DoJ) Secretary Raul Gonzalez to issue immediate orders to provide security to the witnesses who could identify the perpetrators of the bombings on Mindanao on October 10 and to facilitate the release of funds for compensation to the affected victims; for after the bombings, Secretary Gonzalez quickly ordered the prosecutors and agents of the witness protection programme (WPP) in the affected provinces to immediately locate and protect witnesses. He also gave orders to the Board of Claims, an agency attached to the DoJ, to facilitate the provision of compensation.
While these efforts of Gonzalez deserve recognition, the AHRC notes that this is not the DoJs response in cases of extrajudicial killings, torture and other serious cases of human rights violations when indifference is the usual reaction. The AHRC on several occasions has urged the DoJ to effectively implement Republic Act 6981, or the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act. However, the DoJ has regularly ignored the provisions of this law as several witnesses and the families of the dead who have faced threats have not been given adequate protection to date. The absence of protection either exposes them to further risks or denies the possibility to effectively prosecute their case in court.
Although the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) have likewise acknowledged the need for an effective witness protection programme, the measures taken thus far to meet this objective are lacking. Instead, the DoJ resorts to blaming the witnesses and families of the dead for not cooperating with them. It is a requirement under RA 6981 for witnesses to submit an application to the DoJ for protection, but the reluctance of witnesses and the families of human rights violations to cooperate is instead being used to justify the DoJs lack of action. Why, however, are witnesses and the families of victims averse to availing themselves of this programme? Is it because they have little faith in the protection provided or they mistrust the police and the government?
This is true not only for cases of extrajudicial killings. For example, there is the case of nine torture victims presently detained in La Trinidad, Benguet. Two of the victims have been facing continuing serious threats on their life following their arrest on February 2006. One of the victims, Jefferson dela Rosa, was nearly stabbed in July by his fellow inmates who earlier threatened him. But there was no protection given to him and his colleagues – no compensation, no rehabilitation programme while inside the jail. They are enduring this continuing risk to their lives as their case drags on in court.
Not only are the victims and families of the dead being denied the possibility of state-sponsored witness protection, the possibilities of affording them compensation is likewise being denied. Although Republic Act 7309 provides for compensation for victims of violent crimes, including death, serious trauma or [those crimes] committed with torture, cruelly or barbarity, none of the victims of violations fitting this description on which the AHRC has reported have been given compensation – not even mere assurances or pledges that they can receive compensation once they file for it has occurred.
Instead, witnesses and families of the dead expect displays of indifference from the agencies implementing the protection and compensation programmes. If blame is merely put on the victims by the government, in particular by the DoJ that is seeking their cooperation, it derails the objective of the programme. It is an obligation of the government to protect, secure and give compensation to victims of violence as provided by the law.
If witnesses and victims of the October 10 bombings are entitled to protection and compensation, why should cases of extrajudicial killings, torture and other forms of human rights violation be different? Republic Act 6981 and Republic Act 7309, the laws providing witness protection and compensation respectively, clearly stipulate that this entitlement is for any persons. Is the DoJ setting its own conditions in implementing these laws? Do the victims of human rights violations not also deserve the same treatment?
Therefore, we once again call upon the DoJ and other concerned agencies to take measures for effective implementation of RA 6981 and RA 7309. They must ensure these laws are applied and made available to victims of human rights violations without any form of discrimination. The DoJ must at all times take a proactive role in implementing these laws if human rights in the Philippines are to be respected and there is to be justice for the victims of human rights abuses. The DoJ moreover must end its practice of justifying its inadequate actions by blaming the victims. Instead, it should initiate effective mechanisms to ensure that these programmes are properly implemented.
