When a farmer was found dead four days after he was allegedly abducted and disappeared on January 16, the police within a short period concluded their investigation effectively exonerating policemen from any responsibility. The special investigating body, Task Force Usig, concluded that the victim, Tildo Rebamonte of Claveria, Masbate, was a rebel killed in a “legitimate encounter” with the police; and effectively excused the police of any responsibility for his death.
No further investigations are expected to take place since the Task Force head, director Jefferson Soriano, closed the case telling the media: “we found out that the incident was the result of a legitimate encounter between police forces (and a rebel group)”. They added that Tildo had been seriously wounded, abandoned by his companions and died later shortly before obtaining medical treatment. They also claimed to have recovered his firearms, ammunition, explosives and other items.
While the police gave details about how Tildo supposedly died, they failed to give explanations or whether any investigation is being held into the serious allegations that before he was found dead, several policemen had forcibly entered his residence, handcuffed him and took him away with them against his will. He was allegedly used as guide in search for rebels and their camps according to witnesses. He went missing for four days until his mutilated body was found and taken by policemen to the town area. The police admitted killing him, but they had excused and justified themselves they could not be held responsible for his death. To them he was killed as a result of “legitimate encounter”.
But who has the authority to decide that a person’s death or the manner he was killed was legitimate or not? It is not the police. Even when he was killed in the manner the police ought to claim, still it does not give any molecule of immunity to the actions by the policemen which resulted to the deprivation of a person’s life. The security forces had fundamental obligations to ensure protection of right to life. Deprivation of this right to life perpetrated by security forces is so grave that explanation to his death must be substantial and reasonable. Therefore, the police owe an explanation to the victim’s relatives and family: How was he killed?
The government’s obligation, as State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to do so is rightly mentioned in the excerpt of the UN Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 6 (3 and 4); “
States parties should take measure not only to prevent and punish deprivation of life by criminal acts, but also to prevent arbitrary killing by their own security forces. The deprivation of life by the authorities of the State is a matter of utmost gravity. State should establish effective facilities and procedures to investigate thoroughly cases of missing and disappeared person”.
However, the police have either failed or have not been able to give a convincing explanation by way of effective investigation as to why the victim had to die; nor that the investigation the police conducted was credible, effective and adequate.
The fundamental duty of the police is to effectively and with utmost credibility conduct investigation to any serious allegations involving policemen in killings and rights abuses. It is not within the authority and duty of the police to decide or make conclusions that a person’s death was legitimate or within the premise of the law. Theirs is to investigate every allegation, collect evidence and submit them to court for judicial proceedings. It is for the court to decide whether those involved should be held to account or not; or whether the killing is within the lawful premise. Once again, it is not the police authorities.
Concluding and deciding prematurely that the victim’s death does not merit further investigation constitutes an excess of the police duty and usurping of the court’s judicial power and authority to hear complaints and cases. If these practices are allowed to continue it will seriously threaten every citizen’s fundamental right which gravely put to risks, not only the activist, but every citizen. This action by the police of prematurely making conclusions and their distorted understanding of the protection of right to life and the State’s obligation to uphold it thus legitimized this murder.
It is every Filipino’s Constitutional rights that every allegation of police atrocities and violations of rights are effectively investigated and remedies are made available. In this case, however, the police effectively deprived the victim’s relatives and families of their right from obtaining that remedy; that an investigation into victim’s death is adequate and effective. They denied them the possibility of adequate remedies when they concluded the investigation based on their judgment. They made themselves complicit in depriving them any possibilities of redress and remedies to have the policemen accused of having involvement to the killing investigated. Not only had they effectively given the policemen immunity from prosecution but also a de facto license to kill without being held responsible.
The police authorities must refrain from continuing such practice and withdraw its earlier pronouncement. Unless a credible and effective investigation into allegations of police involvement is conducted they cannot in any way exonerate themselves. They must give a substantial and factual explanation to answer these questions: are the policemen involved in forcibly abducting, taking the victim into their custody against his will and subsequently murdering him? Were the policemen involved identified? They must also be able to explain what happen to him while he was in their custody. Unless no reasonable and convincing answers to these questions are obtained, the police cannot be absolved from distrust, loss of faith and continued suspicion of their complicity.
