PHILIPPINES: Police arbitrarily detained protesting farmers and filed legally incoherent charges against them

Dear Friends, 

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) writes to inform you that 11 farmers, including four minors, were arbitrarily detained. Legally non-existent charges have been laid against them after the policemen arrested them. The farmers were requesting the landowner’s representative, who had come together with the policemen in Calamba City, Laguna to refrain from entering the contested property. This action was pending against the exemption of the land to agrarian reform. But they were ignored. Furthermore, the police and the landowners’ representative had them dispersed and arrested. 

CASE NARRATIVE: 

On May 21, 2010, about 8:30am the farmers and their children were at their makeshift tent that they built in Sitio (subsection of the village) Buntog, Barangay Canlubang, Calamba City in Laguna. The farmers were camping in the area since April 5, 2010, to protest against the cutting down of coconut trees in the coconut plantation of the Hacienda Yulo in which they were cultivating. 

Cutting down of the coconut trees is seen by the farmers as part of the landowners’ action to implement the conversion of the contested farm land for residential, industrial and commercial purposes. This would allow them to construct an expensive housing subdivision. These protesting farmers depend on the coconut plantation for their livelihood.

On the day of the incident, the farmers were positioned at the main road entrance to Sitio when land surveyors arrived. They were led by Dan Calvo, an architect connected to Jose Yulo Architect & Associates, Laguna Estate Development Corporation and San Cristobal Realty Corporation, owned by the Yulos. In their company were at least 20 private security guards, a composite team of about 30 members of the Special Weapons and Army Tactics (SWAT), policemen from the Calamba City Police Station and the Police Regional Office of the Philippine National Police (PRO-PNP).

One of the witnesses, Axel Pinpin, secretary general of Katipunan ng mga Magbubukid sa Timog Katagalugan (KASAMA-TK) (Federation of Peasant Organisations in Southern Tagalog), witnessed that the farmers wanted to negotiate with Calvo. However, he ignored their wishes. Instead he displayed outright arrogant behavior toward them and had them arrested. 

When the farmers were presenting their petition to Calvo, which was the impending petition before the Office of the President (OP), asking for the revocation of the questionable order of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued in 1992, he refused to honor it. The DAR had earlier issued an order exempting the Hacienda Yulo from distribution under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) to the landless farmers. 

During the negotiation, policemen and private security guards escorting Calvo, were all carrying long firearms. They allegedly began violently pushing the residents away and subsequently arrested the protesting farmers one after another. 

When interviewed, Axel said of what he had witnessed: “He (Calvo) was very hostile, cursing the farmers. He refused to negotiate with us. The farmers presented legal documents but Calvo tore-up the papers. The farmers refused to leave and that’s when the police and security guards started using force (sic).” 

Those arrested and taken to a Calamba City Police Station were Maria Garcia, 39 years old; Dorotea Mangubat, 46; Annabel Natanauan, 28; Mario Mangubat, 36; Gilbert Caraan, 25; Lamberto Caraan, 40 and the 71-year-old elderly, Francisca Mangubat. 

Also arrested with them were the four minors, namely Roger Nidia, 16; Reyson Jeffrey De Leon, 15; Melvin Natanauan, 16 and Jorge Mangubat, 12. Jorge is the grandson of Franscisca; Reyson Jeffrey and Melvin were sons of farmers Wilfredo and Reynaldo respectively. 

The four minors were taken into the custody of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). However, instead of having them excluded from criminal liability because they were minors, they were included as respondents with the adults. Charges included violation of Article 148, for Direct Assaults; Article 155, for Alarms and Scandals; and Article 286, for Grave Coercions of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). 

All of them were temporarily released on May 25 after posting a bail of Php6,500 (USD 140) and processing fee Php1,500 (USD 32). 

A Complaint-Affidavit was submitted by the police to the court. It did not contain information or allegations as to the acts the farmers committed against the offense of Grave Coercion and Alarms and Scandal as required under the RPC. Firstly, the policemen were unable to prove sufficiently that “violence” had indeed been used to “prevent (them) from doing something not prohibited by law to justify Grave Coercion; secondly, nothing in their statement contains acts that would justify that they had committed “Alarms and Scandal”. 

Also, one of the charges the police and prosecutors filed against the farmers is, “serious resistance and disobedience.” Although they do not exist in the RPC, they nevertheless pursued prosecuting them over this legally incoherent charges and non-existent offense. Therefore, apart from the three charges mentioned above, the detention of all the accused over these legally non-existent charges has been arbitrary. 

The inclusion of the 71-year-old elderly, Francisca and the four minors in these charges is also questionable. In the same police statement, Francisca’s inclusion in the charge was simply because the police saw her walking to and fro along the road where the policemen and farmers were also present while the minors were sitting in the middle of the road. None of their actions could have justified the filing of charges mentioned above. 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 

The farmers, who are among the 400 families of farmers living in the area, depend for their subsistence on the coconut plantation. The plantation is only about five to seven percent of the total 7,100 hectares of land of the Hacienda Yulo owned by the influential Yulo family, one of the country’s influential landlords. 

In 1993 the Hacienda Yulo was exempted from distribution. At the time, the municipal mayor Jesus Miguel Yulo, the son of the owner and the zoning administrator – all had connections with the Yulo family. They allegedly abused their authority, using their influence to convert the land for industrial usage, to ensure that it would be exempt from distribution. For more details please read: Farmers run against landlords 

The farmers in this case have already filed a petition before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudicatory Board (DARAB) opposing the conversion of the land. 

ADDITIONAL COMMENT: 

Under section 6 of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (Republic Act 9344), children who are below 15 years of age should have been “exempt[ed] from criminal liability”. Though those above 15 years old but below 18 could be criminally liable, but in order for the prosecution to proceed, the prosecutors and the police must establish that the child has “acted with discernment” in committing the offense; 

SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. – A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act. 

A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act. 

Therefore, continued prosecution of these four minors together with the adults, is contrary to the law. None of the requirements mentioned above have been complied with or observed. The two children, 15 and 12 years old, remain included in the charges ,while the other two, both 16 years of age, have not undergone thorough assessment to establish whether or not they had “acted with discernment” that would allow continuing the prosecution. 

The AHRC is gravely concerned by the continuing prosecution of these four children. It calls upon the government, in particular the prosecutors handling the case, to have the charges against these four children withdrawn according to the law. 

SUGGESTED ACTION: 
Please write letters to the authorities listed below asking for their immediate intervention regarding this case. The charges filed against the farmers and the four minors must be withdrawn unconditionally because they are legally incoherent and lack legal justifications. 

The AHRC has also written letters to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and Special Rapporteur on the right to food.

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER