FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 24, 2005
AS-120-2005
A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
PHILIPPINES: Government’s failure to legislate on torture is a betrayal of Filipinos’ constitutional rights
The enactment of an enabling law to punish the perpetrators of acts of torture in the Philippines is long overdue. The government’s failure to enact a law has deprived its citizens of their right to be free from the most abhorrent and barbaric of acts – torture. It is also completely disregarding its international obligations as a State Party to the U.N. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). By ratifying the Convention, the government is required to implement the provisions therein, including by domestic legislation.
By failing to take action to ensure the passage of an anti-torture law, the members of the Philippine Senate and the House of Representatives, have not protected their citizens against attacks and abuses by state agents. The provision of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which prohibits torture, has been betrayed by the lack of an enabling law, in particular for torture victims seeking justice and redress. It constitutes a failure of the legislature when it cannot protect the very people it represents.
In the Philippines, it is a fact of life that most torture victims are poor and marginalised people who are unable to get justice, compensation and rehabilitation for the suffering they have experienced. This is not only because of the absence of an enabling law against torture but also because of the attitude of those in government and Filipino society. The victims are not only denied their rights, they are also alienated from society. Making complaints of torture means that a victim has to endure many difficulties.
In most torture cases, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) in the Philippines does not conduct investigations. The AHRC has in the past reported several cases of brutal torture. The Commission, however, is reluctant to pursue these cases and to recommend the prosecution of the alleged perpetrators. This is common in most cases. The victims have, however, had to face trials based on charges laid against them often stemming from confessions obtained through the use of torture.
The government’s cynical interpretations of human rights protection and state responsibility must instead be changed into realistic laws. It must produce results rather than the empty human rights rhetoric it currently entertains.
The Philippines’ reluctance to enact laws against torture can in part be attributed to a deep-rooted mentality that a person who is suspected of having committed a crime deserves to be punished, ridiculed and discriminated against. There is a poor understanding of the right to the freedom from torture. Government officials have even accused legislators pushing for the law to be passed of being sympathetic to the armed insurgent movement and suspected terrorists, who compose most of the group of tortured victims.
This is evident in the common practices of the police, the military and even the President in presenting suspects to the media and public before they go to trial. It is a complete disregard of a person’s dignity to be presented in this way before trial and represents a flagrant violation of the concept of being considered innocent before being proven guilty. Most civilised societies in the world have stopped this practice but the Philippines has not. In Thailand, a recent police regulation has prohibited the Thai police from taking victims or suspects before press conferences or letting reporters or photographers take pictures of them.
This is a challenge not only to policy makers in the Philippines but to Filipino society as a whole. There is a need to have the law on torture enacted. This is a necessary precondition and achievable means of enabling the protection against torture in the country.
