The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is deeply concerned about the possible implications of President Benigno Aquino III’s order of December 10, 2010 to the Department of Justice (DoJ) instructing them to withdraw the charges against the Morong 43. The accused were 43 individuals, including doctors, nurses, grassroots community health workers. They were illegally arrested by the police and the military who tortured and detained them. At the time of arrest the group was conducting a training activity in Morong, Rizal on February 6, 2010.
On February 26, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) had also found that the victims’ right to be protected against unreasonable searches, unreasonable seizure and arrests, illegal and incommunicado detention, torture and right to counsel had been violated. However, despite these findings the previous head of the Department of Justice (DoJ) proceeded with the prosecution of the case.
When the victims sought a judicial intervention from the Court of Appeals (CA) questioning their detention in the custody of the military, the filing of legally and procedurally flawed charges and the violation of their rights, the court had invoked a past judgement, promulgated during the Martial Law period, which allows the prosecution of cases ruling that the legality of the case can be addressed during the court trial.
While President Aquino’s order to the DoJ was necessary to stop the wrongful prosecution of these victims, it would have been better if the DoJ and the National Prosecution Service (NPS) had acted on their own without President Aquino interfering. They should also have their own mechanism to correct the wrongful prosecution of cases. Correcting a mistake must also be done in a correct way. Interestingly, the DoJ is now headed by Leila De Lima who investigated the Morong 43 case as former head of the CHR.
By failing to have their own internal control mechanisms, the DoJ and the NPS are exposing themselves to political control by the executive branch. If the executive is allowed to interfere it will have a tremendous consequence in the future, not only on the prosecution system but also other institutions under the executive branch. If these institutions do not function on their own, they are leaving themselves open to political interference and control by the executive branch; and the latter would be interfering into every aspect of their institutions.
It is also important that the withdrawal of the charges, regardless of who ordered the withdrawal, should not limit or prevent the victims from seeking legal remedies and redress. They must also not be prevented from prosecuting the perpetrators, the police and the military, for the violations of rights committed on them that the CHR had already confirmed to be true in their own investigation. The right of the victims to seek legal remedies cannot be subject to condition. Their release must not hamper whatever legal actions of their own choosing they would be taking against their perpetrators.
Also, the DoJ and the NPS who are responsible, in the first instance, of allowing the wrongful prosecution of the victims must also be held to account. The acknowledgement of wrongdoing and violations must not be used as an excuse to avoid accountability. Those involved must be held to account if only to prevent similar incidents from taking place in the future. If no action is taken against the departments and the individual officers therein it creates a precedent which will allow them to continue such violations with impunity.
