On April 2006, labour activist Gerardo Cristobal first survived an attempt on his life by armed men who were later identified to be a policeman and members of security forces in Imus, Cavite. Not entirely unexpectedly the policemen investigating the case (who were attached to the same police station where Gerardo’s attackers were assigned) concluded that it was him, not the police and security forces, who initiated the attack. Gerardo had exchanged fired with his attackers wounding them as well and the police filed charges against Gerardo for allegedly attempting to kill them. Gerardo’s version of the story and his serious allegations were never investigated.
Following the first attempt on his life, Gerardo has since been the object of subsequent attacks by armed men and subjected to continuing threats. On February 2007, unidentified armed men riding on a motorcycle once again shot at him. On that occasion he was not harmed. However, on March 10, Gerardo was again attacked and this time he did not survive from the attempt on his life. He was killed by armed men riding in another vehicle as he was driving in his service vehicle in Imus. Gerardo died instantly from fatal gunshot. However, even before a thorough investigation has been completed, reports already abound that his murder could have been a result of “road rage”.
What happened in Gerardo’s case illustrates the complicity of the police, not only on targeted attacks against activists, but their continued failure to ensure that those facing continuing risk and threats are afforded with adequate State protection. They also fail to ensure that investigations into these cases are sufficient to make progress in court; for instance, perpetrators are known, charges filed and punishments are imposed. Gerardos slaying, after surviving previous attacks and facing constant threats highlights the complete failure of the State’s protection and enforcement mechanism, the failure of which results in the deprivation of life. It also illustrates how deeply the people have lost confidence in these institutions of protection and law enforcement.
By failing to ensure that a credible investigation was conducted into the 2006 incident, the police authorities not only denied Gerardo of his rights to protection under the law, they also effectively deprived him of the possibility that he could seek legal remedies. Any victim who had survived an attempt on his life perpetrated by a policeman and members of the security forces would not seek protection or file complaints with the municipal police station where his attackers were attached. This made it necessary for Gerardo to carry a licensed firearm to protect himself from attack, not only from any possible attackers, but from the police who should have been working for his protection. In the Philippines today it is now the civilians who take upon themselves the responsibility to ensure their own protection, not the police.
When civilians take it upon themselves to be responsible for their own protection and lose faith in the institution that is supposed to provide them protection, it illustrates the depth severity of insecurity and cruelty of the place that the people have been forced to live with. This is true not only amongst the labour activists for being object of continuing attacks, but the people in the community as a whole as well. The police authorities have lost the capability to ensure that civilians living in the community can go about their lives without fear. This fundamental obligation by the State, in particular the police, is apparently no longer part of the duties of the police.
The apparent failure of the police and concerned authorities in Gerardo’s case illustrates symptoms of lawlessness that is now prevalent in the Philippines. Perpetrators murder their targets in crowded places, activists are being killed without any means of protection, police investigators excuse themselves of any responsibility — not only to afford the victims of protection but to hold those responsible to account.
The rumour that Gerardo’s shooting could have been a result of a road fight comes in the absence of a thorough investigation and is yet another instance where the authorities are quick to exonerate themselves of any responsibility for the continuing attacks and murder of activists. When the late Bishop Alberto Ramento of the Iglesia Filipina Independiente (IFI) was murdered in October 2006, the police too, within a short period, concluded he was killed during a robbery attempt and without further investigation declared his case as solved. Although they arrested some persons supposedly responsible for his murder, the reports that he had been receiving threats prior to his murder have never been properly looked into.
This was also similar to the murder of a colleague of Gerardo, Jesus Servida (a.k.a. Buth). Jesus was murdered in December 2006 in front of a factory in Imus, Cavite where he and Gerardo had been involved in organizing labour unions. The attack took place seven months after the first attempt on Gerardo’s life. However, instead of identifying the attackers and assuring the witnesses and Jesus’ family that they would be afforded with protection to encourage them into testifying, the authority’s put all their efforts into explaining that his murder was the result of a conflict with another group of workers over business concessions. However, whether or not his murder was a result of a personal conflict of arising from his activism though, it does not exonerate the police from any responsibility that they have continuously failed to hold the attackers to account.
What has become the practice of the police authorities now with regard to investigations in the killing of human rights and labour activists is either to exonerate themselves from any responsibility or to justify the victims’ death. Police actions rarely result in the identification, arrest and effective prosecution of perpetrators. None of the cases of extrajudicial killings have made any substantial progress in the courts.
The failure of the policemen to take responsibility for investigating their own officers or elements of the security forces and holding them to account aggravates the condition and virtually gives immunity to the police and security forces.
