When the 67-page PowerPoint presentation containing the list of 105 names of persons, including lawyers, union leaders, religious leaders, human rights and political activists, appeared in public after having been reportedly leaked by a military source, what immediately came to mind was that the reaction and implications were reminiscent of the recent past: victims and their organisation being exposed as targets of abductions and killings.
Regardless of who created and exposed the list it has fulfilled its frightening objective, the intimidation of the individuals and organisations named in the document. A military commander has denied that the army created the document and has accused the communist movement of being responsible for it. The officer described it as a “big propaganda because they (communists) are being defeated” in the area. However, neither the military establishment nor the communist movement could come clean as both parties have been accused of being responsible for abductions and extrajudicial killings.
The military establishment has also been accused of having created and circulated an earlier PowerPoint presentation sometime in early 2000 entitled “Knowing the Enemy”. The document also accused and listed several groups of either colluding with the communists or, acting as their ‘fronts’. The publication of “Knowing the Enemy” resulted in the deaths and forced disappearances of an estimated 700 human rights and political activists attached to the organisations mentioned in the presentation.
On the other hand, the communist have also been accused of having been involved in abductions and have publicly admitted to having carried out the executions of persons whom they tried in a ‘people’s court’, the most the recent of which was the killing of a prominent rebel leader’s younger sister, Evelyn Pitao on 23 May 2009 in Sto. Tomas, Davao del Norte. They have also admitted to the killings of others on the “basis of the decision reached by the revolutionary people’s court”. The United Nations Special Rapporteur Philip Alston after a fact finding mission said this should stop as they “do not comply with human rights and humanitarian law”.
Therefore, allegations and counter-allegations by the military and the communists actually does not change the reality that individuals mentioned in the list have already been exposed as targets. What has been happening in the recent past with regard to such incidents is that the government does nothing. There appears to be no practical remedies such as protection, for those concerned. Now the persons and organisations that are mentioned in the latest list are already expected to be responsible for their own security and safety. The idea of obtaining assistance or police protection, for them does not exist.
Therefore, the protection mechanism has already been reduced from a functioning system to a de facto protection mechanism. What has been seen over the years is that activists or persons facing threats have lost confidence in the concept of police protection. In fact, they question the wisdom of even reporting the threats they are experiencing to the police. It is only the publicity from the media that draws the public’s attention to the person’s plight. It is this publicity that has become a replacement for a state-sponsored protection mechanism.
The role of the concerned government agencies in this case, for instance, in investigating the source of the document in question, is no longer seen as an option. It is a result of deep-rooted distrust and lack of faith that neither the police or other agencies responsible for investigation can perform with credibility or function with independence.
Thus, despite the availability of the remedies, in this case, the Writ of Habeas Data, a judicial remedy which the Supreme Court (SC) of the Philippines have promulgated which would allow any persons whose right to privacy is violated and threatened by those who are responsible in keeping records of identity, should have been applicable. However, the persons and organisations concerned would have to be convinced that this remedy is worth pursuing. The court’s failure to resolve writs promptly, the perpetual delay and the excessive cost in pursuing court cases, is another source of discouragement for them.
In fact, some of those listed in this latest document, whether out of their own choice or not, are left without any option but to endure the threats they are facing. They may have to comfort themselves by ironically downplaying the gravity of the consequence of being listed as a target.
It is in this context that the Asian Human Rights (AHRC) demands that a credible and independent investigation be conducted about the release of these two questionable documents in the form of PowerPoint Presentations that have already compromised the safety and security of the people involved. By not investigating the source and creator of these documents and to subsequently take appropriate legal action against them, it will continuously expose these persons to unnecessary riskswhether by government forces or otherwise.
The Office of the Ombudsman for Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (MOLEO) and the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) respectively should take a proactive role and exercise their authority to investigate this case promptly. In doing so, it should also consider ensuring protection be made available to the persons listed in the document. MOLEO and the CHR are government agencies who have had mandates to act on their own on cases of the violation of rights.
