On May 5, 2007, a man told the media how he had been brutally tortured as part of a police investigation inside Camp Rafael Crame in Quezon City, the national headquarters of the Philippine National Police (PNP). Ricardo Ayeras alleged that he was beaten, kicked, electrocuted and was deprived of sleep, according to a report by an online newsgroup Inquirer.net. Ayeras was arrested, charged and detained in connection with a bombing incident two years ago in Makati City. In February 2007, however, the court ordered his release after he had spent a month in jail.
Ayeras made serious allegations against Chief Superintendent Romeo Ricardo, the director of the PNP’s intelligence group, a certain “Tony Bakla,” and a certain Rudy Pangan, as being responsible for allegedly torturing him during interrogation while he was in police custody. He also accused Pangan of threatening to kill him if he continued refusing to admit his involvement in the bombing. Ayeras was also denied access to legal counsel and was only “surfaced” to the public on January 8, five days after his arrest, at which time he was presented to the media.
Although these allegations of torture that took place inside the police’s headquarters are very serious, the chances of Ayeras being able to receive reparation and have the perpetrators punished are considered as being extremely slim, as this is the situation with most if not all cases of torture in the Philippines. Firstly, in this case, no immediate action was taken to look into Ayeras’ torture claims, even though he has taken serious risks in exposing his ordeal publicly.
In doing so, he has given the alleged perpetrators, in particular Chief Supt. Ricardo, the opportunity to attack him and his credibility. Chief Supt. Ricardo has denied Ayeras’ allegations, labeling them as being “made up stories.” Chief Supt. Ricardo was bound to say that. However, despite the fact that he is the obviously not the appropriate person or authority that can decide on the merit of Ayeras’ complaints, his denial has enjoyed a certain level of approval and his version of events is being given credence, without any form of proper investigation.
After learning of Ayeras’ allegations, no sanctions have been taken against Chief Supt. Ricardo and his men by the leadership of the PNP, despite the seriousness of the allegations. No efforts to investigate the claims have been made. The continued failure of the police’s disciplinary body, the Internal Affairs Service (IAS), which is empowered to initiate a “motu proprio investigation” with or without a formal complaint, has also further worsened the situation and given assurances to the alleged perpetrators that they will not be punished. The perpetrators’ denial of the allegations against them are given more weight and credibility than the victim’s allegations.
What is the IAS doing in this case? The role of the IAS is clearly stipulated in Rule II, Section 3 of Memorandum Circular No. 2002-075 of the National Police Commission (Napolcom). They are mandated to: “motu proprio, conduct automatic investigation on any of the following cases; (3.b) serious physical injury, or any violation of human rights occurred in the conduct of police operation.” Given this, why is Chief Supt. Ricardo’s attack on the victim for failure to file a formal complaint being tolerated when in fact it is the IAS’ obligation to initiate investigations with or without such a complaint? Are the accused policemen beyond the reach of this service?
Ayeras’ case is one of many cases of torture that for the most part go unreported, with the perpetrators enjoying almost absolute impunity. Another recent example is the case of a 22-year-old man, Patrick Pangilinan, on 28 April 2007. Pangilinan was arrested by the police in connection with a robbery case that had occurred days earlier. While in police custody, Pangilinan was severely beaten with a piece of wood by three policemen during interrogation. A news report described that the policemen had turned their station, the Manila Police Districts (MPD) Station 4, into a “torture chamber.” Ayeras and Pangilinans plight are only examples of a much wider problem.
Although the alleged perpetrators’ superior officers have ordered an investigation into Pangilinan’s case, the likelihood that it will yield any tangible results is low. It is not the absence of options for victims seeking legal redress, but the failure of the system itself that is preventing actual redress from being provided. For instance, the act of torture is not a crime in the Philippines. Given this, how can an offender be effectively prosecuted in line with the gravity of the offence and how can appropriate compensation be awarded, when the act itself is not criminalized? Offending officials can only be charged with having caused serious or slight physical injury. Torture victims may resort to filing a citizen’s complaint, for instance with the People’s Law Enforcement Board (Pleb), an agency created to accept a citizens’ complaints against police officers, but this has proven to be very difficult to do in practice, as the Pleb’s operations in most cities and municipalities are described either being non-existent or highly dysfunctional.
The public has been made to believe that the police no longer make use of torture, and that this was only common during the Marcos regime. Chief Supt. Ricardo himself also claimed this in his denial of Ayeras’ allegations against him and his men. The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) continues to receive cases of torture, which indicates that the opposite is true. Torture is regularly being committed by the police, the military and other State actors, as an integral part of the methods of criminal investigation and as a form of punishment, and this in near-total impunity. The avenues for legal redress and protection of victims are absent or not working. As shown by the case in question here, allegations of torture are not even investigated. This has to change if the country is going to begin the process of eradicating the atrocious practice of torture and if the authorities are going live up to their duties to the Filipino people and their international obligations.
