In December 2007, a bishop and three priests of the Iglesia Filipina Independiente (Philippine Independent Church or PIC) once again have been threatened that they will be killed and have been the subjects of overt surveillance. They were warned about undertaking their social activities and ministry, or they would be murdered like their colleagues. Within a short period, Bishop Delfin Callao Jr. of Davao City and the Revs. Eleuterio Revollido of Urdaneta City, Gilbert Garcia of San Clemente in Tarlac Province and Antonio Ablon of Cagayan de Oro City received threatening messages on their mobile phones.
Apart from receiving threats, unidentified people were also seen spying on the Revs. Revollido and Garcia. Several unknown men had been looking for the Rev. Revollido at his convent while the convent of the Rev. Garcia was broken into several times–the same scenario experienced by his colleague, Bishop Alberto Ramento, a prominent human rights defender, before he was murdered in October 2006.
Despite the risks to their lives, none of the people above are known to have received state-sponsored protection. The lack of adhering to the principles of state-sponsored “protection” and “security” from the government have become a cause of frustration and distrust because of the state’s incompetence thus far in doing so.
When the Rev. Garcia reported to the police the unusual incidents of the break-in and of subsequently receiving threats on December 7, 2006, and December 3, 2007, the police recorded his statement but did not take any further action to identify who was responsible. Even more than a year later the police did not exert any effort to identify those responsible for this break-in. These examples of police investigations are unfortunately quite common in the Philippines.
The recent threat that the Rev. Garcia received by SMS also claimed that the sender was responsible for murdering Bishop Ramento and that the Rev. Garcia would be next. Even with these persistent and obvious threats, the police once again are not known to have done anything other than record his statements. There is hardly anything the police have done thus far to ensure his security despite the risks he is facing.
The police have also failed to provide protection and security to other priests and Bishop Callao who are facing threats as well. Their experience is similar to that of the Rev. Garcia, i.e., the police have only recorded their statements but have not initiated any serious investigations nor provided any protection. In principle, once the police accept and record complaints, their responsibility then commences, which includes identifying those responsible for the threats and acting to ensure people’s safety, among other actions.
In the Philippines, however, apparently the level of understanding of police responsibility and obligations have not developed to such maturity. Instead, police investigators often focus on administrative and clerical work. Complaining to the police thus has little meaning as they rarely protect the lives of people at risk and hold to account those responsible. Their poor performance is one of the reasons why the police have either lost or have struggled to earn credibility and trust from the victims and the public.
Consequently, there is hardly anything that a person whose life is threatened expects from the police who routinely fail to take concrete action. Complaints are of no use if the police fail to act on them. When complaints are not adequately and properly acted upon, there is then no reason for people to seek assistance from the police. When no one makes complaints, the police can conveniently excuse themselves of any obligations, which has become the common practice in the Philippines.
One must understand that when a person receives threats, unless the person concerned can exhaust their own means of improving their security, hardly anything can be done. In addition, should the people concerned want temporary police escorts, they are also expected to shoulder the expenditure for their escorts, which is impractical for those who cannot afford such a service. The reluctance of people threatened to seek police protection has developed over time simply because there is no mechanism that effectively exists where the police take immediate action to protect threatened people. Though the police are mandated by law to protect the lives of the country’s citizens, they are, however, not obliged, in fact, to do so as there is no standard procedure to provide security and protection.
Apart from this deficiency, threatened people must also be able to prove and convince the police that their life is threatened before the police will take action. Otherwise, there is hardly anything a person can expect from the police. Those threatened must be able to establish who is responsible for threatening them or the motive behind the threats. Failure to prove these facts will not merit action from the police. The police’s duty to investigate has, in practice, virtually been passed to the victims themselves, which is impractical since most of those involved in making threats are unknown. This has proven fatal to most victims of extrajudicial killings.
The government’s claim that the decline in the number of extrajudicial killings indicates the improvement of human rights is a superficial assessment of deeply rooted problems of continuing insecurity. In order to effectively address the continuing problems of extrajudicial killings, attention must be given to preventing their occurrence. The renewed threats against the priests above and a bishop and their lack of means to obtain any protection indicates the fallacy of improved human rights conditions and a protection mechanism in the Philippines.
