On June 8, a peace advocate, a known broadcast journalist and her two cameramen were reported to have been abducted by an illegal armed group in the Sulu Archipelago, in the southern Philippines. However, days after they went missing, the police have already made premature conclusions, even before conducting a thorough investigation, which implies that one of the victims, peace advocate Professor Octavio Dinampo (photo), could have been the bait for those who had abducted the group or possibly even an inside member of the group.
Days after they disappeared, Chief Superintendent Joel Goltiao, regional director of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), was quoted over media reports to have said about Professor Octavio: “As of now, we cannot determine his (Dinampo) role, if he is a part of the kidnappers or he was also a victim.” This statement by the police has placed doubt on Professor Octavio’s involvement which has effectively deprived him of equal protection by the law enforcement agencies. He, unlike his three other companions, has not been considered as a victim. There were also unconfirmed reports wherein the Professor Dinampo has been released but without his three other companions.
While for others the statements by the police may have no impact, in Mindanao where prejudice amongst the Muslim minorities continues to exist, such a pronouncement has already had serious implications for the victim himself. Considering that the other persons, known broadcast journalist Ces Drilon and her two cameramen, Jimmy Encarnacion and Angelo Valderama, are themselves strangers in the Sulu Archipelago it creates unnecessary prejudice against Professor Octavio who the group had in fact trusted to be their guide.
This is not the first time that in cases involving abductions and kidnappings in Mindanao, the victims, particularly those belonging to the Muslim minorities, are themselves either accused or blamed for what happened to them. The police authorities, who are supposedly responsible of ensuring the safe release and safety of the victims, often instead put them at unnecessary risks. The police, instead of taking appropriate measures and thoroughly investigating cases of abduction to identify those responsible and holding them to account often made convenient excuses of blaming the victims themselves.
Apart from, Professor Octavio having been insinuated as part of the group who had abducted them, journalist Ces Drilon and her crew, were likewise impliedly blamed by the authorities in various media reports for going to the area where they were abducted without proper coordination with the authorities; for instance the military, the police and local government. To use this as an excuse or justification for not carrying out a thorough investigation is absurd.
It is not expected that any independent and private media organisation should seek permission and advice on deciding what stories they should cover in the field, in particular when it requires confidentiality. Similarly, why should they be required to coordinate or seek the permission of the security forces or officials, for covering stories, on activities that they have been doing on a daily basis in other areas of the country?
Also, the right to freedom of movement is Constitutionally guaranteed to all Filipinos under section 6, article 3 of the 1987 Constitution. It is also an established principle under article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the Philippine government is a State Party. In November 1999, the Human Rights Committee of the ICCPR also issued a General Comment No. 27, No. 5, which clearly stipulates enforcing this right;
“The right to move freely relates to the whole territory of a State, including all parts of federal States. According to article 12, paragraph 1 (of the ICCPR), persons are entitled to move from one place to another and to establish themselves in a place of their choice. The enjoyment of this right must not be made dependent on any particular purpose or reason for the person wanting to move or to stay in a place”.
Apart from that, for the police to prematurely insinuate that Professor Octavio might not be a victim himself effectively denies him of equal protection before the law. The police should deal with this case involving abduction and disappearances without prejudice to any of the victims. They must also refrain from issuing public pronouncements and premature conclusions in the absence of an investigation which not only places the victims at risk, but also creates prejudice as to who deserves to be given assistance or not.
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is aware that the group, the Mindanao Peoples’ Caucus (MPC), is an alliance of persons, organisations and NGOs advocating for peace in Mindanao, to whom Professor Octavio is the present head. The group, as has Professor Octavio himself, has long been lobbying for peace and the prevention of a reoccurrence of the conflict in Mindanao. They have been involved in monitoring the ceasefire and peace agreements between the government and rebel groups.
For a police official to make such a pronouncement and comments about Professor Octavio not only puts his life at serious risk at this time of crisis, but also endangers the group that he is heading and the people whom he had been working. The AHRC urges the police to recant its statement and ensure that all means are exhausted, particularly the conduct of an investigation, in order to ensure the safe release and rescue of all these victims.
