The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is in receipt of your letter dated 13 December 2005 detailing the Philippine governments response to our concern about the unabated incidents of extra-judicial killings and violence against activists, the lack of witness protection and the failures in police investigations. In your letter you said: I assure you that the Philippine government never condones murders, assassinations, killings and other violent acts against activists or protesters. All reported killings incidents are promptly and meticulously investigated by the police and other intelligence unit.
While we appreciate these assurances, there was no mention of exactly how this is being done or how justice and human rights protection are effectively being upheld. Your Department acknowledges the need for witnesses as an essential requirement for prosecution but, did not elaborate on how it is responding to ensure their protection and security, as stipulated in RA 6981, an Act for Witness Protection, Security and Benefit. As you are aware, the AHRC has previously sent you many letters requesting your intervention in providing protection to witnesses. Yet despite our request and your departments obligations to implement the provisions of the Act, we are unaware of any action taken in the cases we have forwarded to you.
Under Section 3 of RA 6981, any person who has witnessed or has knowledge or information on the commission of a crime and has testified or is testifying or about to testify before any judicial or quasi-judicial body, or before any investigating authority, may be admitted into the programme. Additionally, one of the conditions is that any member of a family subjected to threats on their lives shall likewise be admitted. In line with this, the AHRC wishes to bring your attention your departments failure to apply the conditions of the Act to potential witnesses and relatives of the dead.
We specifically draw your attention to the killings of activists who failed to receive security and protection from the police; a witness killed prior to testifying in court; another witness fleeing for fear of his life; and the many families who have failed to secure protection and as a result are reluctant to cooperate in any investigation for fear of their lives. Despite your department having been made aware of these situations, to our knowledge no adequate action has been taken.
Mr Norman Bocar
, a lawyer from Eastern Samar, was killed on 1 September 2005. Prior to his death Bocar sought the help of the police for his security following serious threats against his life. It is not known however, whether the police acted on his request. The police investigation into his death has reached no conclusive findings and the perpetrators were not identified. The police formed Task Force Bocar to investigate the killing but this has failed to bring any justice to this case.
Mr Joel Reyes
was killed on 16 March 2005 in Panganiban, Camarines Norte. The lone witness to his case, Dario Oresca, was also slain before he could testify in court. Even though the local police were aware of the threats made against Oresca, he was not placed under any protection. In a letter to the AHRC, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) regional office in Naga City, the Commissions special investigator, Raymundo de Silva admitted failure of the RA 6981. De Silva said that the programme was not yet thoroughly understood by the populace.
Although De Silva concluded in his findings that the killing of Reyes and Oresca could have been perpetrated by a reformist armed group critical of the communist movement and identified two alleged perpetrators, named only as Ka Clito or Ka Abril and Ka Darlin or Ka Love, these persons have not been located. Thus, the case will be highly jeopardised by the absence of a prosecution witness in court.
Mr Felidito Dacut
, a human rights lawyer, was slain on 14 March 2005 in Tacloban City. In a 30 May 2005 letter received by the AHRC from the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) regional director, Mr Paquito Nacino stated that the witness in his case, Felix Dumlao, could no longer be located, thus jeopardising the process in prosecuting the perpetrators. Dumlao soon after went into hiding for fear for his life. The AHRC is unaware of any action taken by the government to locate him or provide him with security under RA 6981.
Mr Alfredo Malinao and Fr. Edison Lapuz
were slain on 12 May 2005 in San Isidro, Leyte. An inquiry conducted by the CHR regional director, Mr Nacino has revealed that their relatives are either reluctant or not cooperating in their inquiry. The relatives reluctance to cooperate does not constitute a disinterest in pursuing this case, but rather demonstrates the fear they have for their security should they become involved.
Additionally, the AHRC has observed that of those investigations conducted into extra-judicial killings and violence against activists by the police, their actions have been completely inadequate. We are unaware of any effort to maximise the countrys forensic or scientific methods of investigation. If this in fact has been done, why then have the police failed to identify the suspects in most cases? Why too has the government failed to arrest and prosecute the hit-and-run squads who continually evade the law?
While we appreciate the governments written concern and assurance that it will remedy this situation, mere words alone will not ensure this. Governments assurances are empty and have no meaning to the families of the dead if they continue to endure serious threats to their lives and the perpetrators continue to remain at large.
Protection of human rights, in particular the right to life as a non derogable right is clearly stipulated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), of which the Philippine government has ratified. However, there is a key challenge of accountability regarding how these rights are enjoyed by Filipinos. In his annual report for 2005, Mr Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur for extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions clearly states that: The essential thrust of international human rights law is to establish and uphold the principle of accountability for measure both to protect human rights and to respond fully and appropriately to violations of those rights.
Thus, the responsibility of the Philippine government to properly intervene in this matter does not only include prompt and meticulous investigation, but also requires an adequate effort to protect victims and witnesses in order to prevent the violence from reoccurring. Therefore, it is essential that the witness protection mechanism be functional and effective and provided in all cases where required. This is a precondition to uphold the protection of human rights envisaged in the ICCPR Covenant.
Unless the government assumes responsibility and accountability to find effective remedies to prosecute the perpetrators of these killings and prevent further violence against its citizens, in particular against human rights and political activist, the competence of the countrys policing and judicial system will continue to be challenged.
I trust that these concerns that I have raised will be acted upon appropriately.
Yours sincerely,
Basil Fernando
Executive Director
Asian Human Rights Commission
