The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) writes to convey its appreciation to the response taken by your office by immediately conducting an investigation into the killing of three persons on pretext of “legitimate encounter” by policemen in Tanauan City on 22 May 2008.
As you are aware, soon after the death of the three persons the police had immediately publicly announced that those killed had been involved in criminal activities. They, too, had prematurely implicated the victims could have been responsible for robbing a local bank in Cabuyao, Laguna on May 16 killing ten employees. The AHRC, however, is no longer surprise by such pronouncements by the Philippine National Police (PNP) following suspicious deaths of persons in carrying out their operations.
As similar to that case of crime suspects in Tanauan City, a pattern of justifying the person’s death following their killing, even though in absence of proofs those killed are actually involved in any crime, has since been continuously taking place in the Philippines and remains largely unnoticed. The PNP have also failed according to their mandate under section 24 of the Republic Act 6975, regarding their role to protect lives and properties, prevent crimes and to hold those responsible to account.
For these reasons, the AHRC is glad that the Commission is conducting an investigation regarding this as it is also mandated under the 1987 Philippine Constitution on the principle of motu propio investigation, wherein the Commission, is under obligation to investigate on its own cases involving violation of human rights.
However, while appreciating the Commission’s action on this particular case, we also observed that such case is actually a small fraction to what has long been continuously taking place in the country. These cases, unlike the case in Tanauan City, remain largely not been documented even by the regional offices of the Commission. We therefore urge you to do more on these concerns and to ensure that any actions taken are adequate to hold those responsible, particularly the security forces, to account.
In recent years, the AHRC has documented a pattern of various forms of arbitrary deprivation of lives there on various pretexts. We are deeply concerned that the government has so far paid negligible attention to this phenomenon:
1. LEGITIMATE ENCOUNTER: These are deaths of person, mostly civilians, who have been killed on pretext of armed encounter between security forces, soldiers and police, and illegal armed groups, rebel and those considered as terrorist groups. However, most of the victims have nothing to do with any of these armed groups and those who have died were civilians, including women and children.
2. VIGILANTE KILLINGS: These are murders of persons who are accused of having involvement in criminal activities, gang warfare, former detainee, recidivist’s offender, or those who had criminal records. Previously, this refers with notoriety to a shadowy group of which is now widely known as Davao Deaths Squads (DDS) in Davao City; however, we have been informed that similar murders had spread to its neighbouring in the cities of Digos, Tagum and General Santos City, all in Mindanao.
The AHRC is deeply concerned by the failure of the authorities, particularly the local chief executives, of their inability to protect the lives and properties of their constituents amidst the continuing murders of dozens of persons, including minor, in their area. We are also concerned by either implied or open endorsement of these murders by the local chief executives, in particular the recent public statement by the Mayor of Digos City Arsenio Latasa, to kill the crime suspects because they are useless. He is quoted to have told a local newspaper saying: “we could no longer take this as a joke [referring to robberies in his city]. It means that if we need to kill them (criminals), kill them.
3. GANG WAR: These are deaths that are supposedly motivated by gang rivalry; however, most of the victims of these deaths had been routinely denied of a thorough investigation regarding the real circumstance of their deaths. We have learned that there are also serious allegations that those who had perpetrated these murder of victims are in someway have had links or could have been hirelings of some members of security forces themselves. For instance, this public presumption has long been common in Davao City; however, the extent of fear and insecurity in the said place has effectively prevented the people, particularly the witnesses, from coming forward.
4. SHOOTOUT/RUBOUT: These are deaths of crime suspects often during police operations. The former claims the persons were killed because they fought or trade bullets with the police while the latter is the opposite it. Rubout, as you have already described it publicly in referring to the Tanauan City incident, is itself summary killing. When it is concluded though that the deaths were a result of shootout by the police themselves, it is extremely difficult to hold them to account. There have been deaths wherein those persons killed never fought or exchange fire with the police.
This, however, are just amongst the many cases of arbitrary deprivation of lives in various pretexts in the country. Regardless of how these murders are termed though, these are obviously a result of the police authorities and the governments failure and inability to protect the lives and properties of their citizens according to their duties and obligations; and to hold those responsible to account.
As you are aware, the protection of lives, property and from arbitrarily being deprived of the citizen’s lives is an utmost State obligation. Apart from it has been clearly stipulated under article 6 of the International Covenant on civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the Philippine government is State party; and it is as well a Constitutional right of every Filipinos under the Bill of Rights, article 3 of the Constitution.
The AHRC is deeply concerned by these continuing murders and insidious practices by the security officers and government officials of justifying a person’s death on pretext mentioned above. As you are fully aware, this phenomenon is itself undermining the country’s justice institutions and depriving persons of their right to equal protection by the law. It is unthinkable that security officers and local officials, had been able, with acquiescence, or impliedly tolerates by justifying these deaths.
We therefore urge your Commission, particularly your regional offices, to take serious and consistent attention to this serious phenomenon. Unless the government, particularly the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), openly acknowledges the existence of these arbitrary deprivations of lives by taking adequate measures into finding a reasonable long term solutions, any notion of protection of human rights will have little meaning to the persons and families who had already lost their loved ones.
Yours sincerely,
MOON Jeong Ho
Programme Officer
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong
CC:
1. Mr. Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on Extra-judicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, OHCHR-UNOG, Geneva, SWITZERLAND
