(June 26 is observed every year as the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture.)
Article III, Section 12 (2) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution clearly prohibits the use of torture. Although the country¡¦s Constitution has long protected its citizens against torture, any person claiming a violation of this constitutional right has not found a legal means to seek remedies when this right is violated. Thus, this constitutional prohibition against torture has been a right without any legal remedy, a state of affairs that severely dilutes this constitutional right.
While there have been judicial remedies and relief adopted ensuring the protection of constitutional rights–for instance, the writ of amparo on the right to life and the writ of habeas data on privacy and information–any sort of remedy or relief for victims alleging or claiming that their right against torture has been violated has remained non-existent. Not only is there no judicial remedy for a violation of this right, torture has also not been declared a crime in the Philippines.
Recognising a right is obviously meaningless if people who claim that their rights have been violated cannot obtain any legal remedy or relief. In the Philippines, a person who claims that their rights have been violated can seek remedies from laws, policies or judicial remedies that are adopted by the Supreme Court. Regarding torture, however, there are no remedies for a person alleging that their rights have been violated or their grievances heard.
It explains why torture victims have long been deprived of any remedy or why torture cases cannot be prosecuted in court because there has not been any law outlawing torture. Moreover, the Supreme Court has not yet acted to adopt rules on judicial remedies for victims of torture, and it has yet to acknowledge that correcting this deficiency is long overdue.
When the Supreme Court adopted the writ of amparo and writ of habeas data in 2007 following unabated killings of social activists and challenged the security force’s practice of wrongful labelling of individuals respectively, the constitutional rights of Filipinos to life, privacy and information had been reaffirmed and given more meaning since they could now petition the court to seek judicial remedies once there are threats or a violation to their constitutional rights–remedies that should be made available to victims of torture as quickly as possible.
In other Asian countries, for instance, Sri Lanka, Article 126 of their 1978 Constitution gives their Supreme Court authority to have “the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine any question relating to the infringement or imminent infringement by executive or administrative action of any fundamental right.” Their Supreme Court accepts and hears petitions on individual applications through the filing of a fundamental rights application by people claiming that their constitutional rights have been violated. The Supreme Court then determines whether or not a person¡¦s constitutional rights have been violated and affords victims compensation if it is established that they have been abused.
In every case of torture when the petition of a victim alleging torture is affirmed, particularly by the Supreme Court, legal relief is thus provided for torture victims from being wrongly accused and inhumanely treated by state agents. In Sri Lanka, though the perpetrators are not criminally held liable in a fundamental rights case, once the Supreme Court finds that the perpetrators have tortured a victim, the victims would then be able to receive compensation for their suffering.
To obtain compensation and have their allegations of torture affirmed is itself a strong condemnation of the security forces, which proves that those responsible for protecting people’s rights, i.e., the police and military, were responsible for violating them. These are judicial remedies that have already become possible for victims of torture in Sri Lanka, which is yet to take place in the Philippines. In the latter country, torture victims have been deprived, not only of remedies, but are forced to suffer the tremendous consequences, such as physical injuries and psychological trauma, without any remedy.
As well as constitutional remedies or relief from the Supreme Court in Sri Lanka, torture in this country is also a criminal offence. Thus, victims can pursue the prosecution of perpetrators under the law, the Convention against Torture Act of 1994, for, as a state party to the U.N. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), Sri Lanka has enacted this domestic law on torture, making it a crime in compliance with its obligation to do so upon signing and ratifying the convention. Whether or not this law is effectively implemented are issues that Sri Lankans need to address.
While Sri Lanka has already complied with its obligation under the convention, the Philippines, which has signed and ratified the same U.N. convention against torture, has not done so despite being a party to the convention since June 1987. The proposed domestic law on torture, which is long overdue, remains pending before the two houses of the Philippine Congress, the Senate and House of Representatives, and there is no indication that this proposed law will be enacted soon.
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) therefore urges the Supreme Court of the Philippines to urgently develop and adopt a rule which would provide remedies for victims of torture. It likewise renews its calls upon the Philippine Congress to enact a domestic law on torture without further delay.
