PHILIPPINES: Police violate procedure to benefit from the surrender of a rebel

Dear friends, 

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) writes to report that various police units have squabbled over the custody of a rebel in front of a judge in open court and violated various other procedures, suggesting an interest in securing a bounty and other rewards. Police deceived the rebel’s indigenous village elders by falsely promising amnesty in return for his surrender, and then kept him in police camps prior to his trial, rather than in remand jail. The detainee was also paraded in front of media by General Versoza as a ‘captured’ man, though the General himself last year prohibited this kind of display. 

CASE DETAILS: 

Edgardo Barona Molina was a former student activist and peasant organizer before he joined the New People’s Army (NPA), a rebel group in Ilocos Sur province. According to information received from Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP), he was urged to surrender for a variety of crimes, and did so. 

On 2 December the police took Molina to Camp Rafael Crame in Quezon City, several kilometers from Abra, where he was presented to General Luizo Ticman (former head of PNP’s Police Regional Office I or PRO). Molina has since been held at the headquarters of the 103rd Police Provincial Mobile Group (PPMG) in Camp Elpidio Quirino in Bulag, Bantay, Ilocos Sur. On 4 December PNP Deputy Director General Jesus Versoza presented him to the media during a press conference and declared that Molina had instead been captured by the police. We are told that Molina discovered that a 1 million peso (USD 21100) bounty had been put up for his arrest. 

On March 11, 2009, when Molina was taken to court for the arraignment of his cases another two police units – the Special Action Forces (SAF) of the PRO, headed by Chief Supt. Eugene Martin and the police director of the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) – engaged in an unprofessional ‘tug-o-war’, squabbling over who had taken custody of him. We have learned that they even appeared in open court, trying to re-arrest Molina in open view of Judge Alzate. The judge was forced to intervene, deciding that the PNP’s 103rd PPMG should supervise and take custody of Molina, and the two contesting police units were prohibited from taking Molina into their custody. 

Valid concerns for his client’s safety has led his lawyer, Atty. Amilcar Begornia to file an appeal before the Supreme Court (SC) seeking for the transfer of his hearing from Abra province to Ilocus Sur province: ‘for fear that interest groups claiming the supposed bounty for his arrest might trigger conflict between contesting parties that might endanger his life and family’. As explained further below, government employees, including police officers, are prohibited from taking rewards or bounty in the performance of their duties, yet are widely believed to do so anyway. 

The attorney’s fears are founded on a number of other procedural violations. For example, before Molina surrendered we have learned that there had been negotiations in November 2008 in which amnesty was promised. These were carried out with indigenous and largely vulnerable village elders, and former town official, and Superintendent Ricardo B. Dayag, Jr. of the 103rd PPMG, who allegedly told the elders that Molina would be offered amnesty, should he turn himself in. The SI told them that they would seek the help of Chavit Singson, former governor of Ilocos Sur and the current Deputy National Security Adviser to this end. 

Molina decided to surrender on 1 December 2008 after being told that amnesty had been arranged. In a charade, Supt. Dayag and his men fetched Molina from Bangued Abra and took him to Vigan Ilocos Sur where Singson lives. At 5pm, Supt. Dayag told Molina that Singson was out of the country, and showed him the arrest warrants. 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 

This case illustrates that the policemen are themselves law breakers. They deliberately abused their power to arrest, detain and facilitate a prosecution, not due to the detainee’s crimes, but rather to fabricate accomplishments that would lead to promotion and financial reward. 

In a report on June 23, 2009, the Philippine National Police (PNP) clearly stipulated that ‘government officials or employees’, which include the policemen, are prohibited from taking rewards or bounty in the performance of their duties. The police should not have been expecting a reward for capturing Molina, yet according to the TFDP it is an ‘open secret’ that policemen benefit from bounties. 

A further breach of regulation took place when the chief of the PNP, Deputy Director General Versoza, had Melina presented at the press conference. In July 2008 General Versoza declared that the PNP would observe a regulation to prohibit the parading of suspects, largely in response to appeals made by the AHRC. At the time he explained: ‘There were issues raised that presenting the arrested suspects before the media violates the persons’ rights to be presumed as innocent’. However this practice remains endemic in police stations all over the country. 
There are also concerns over how the court is administering Molina’s case. The two branches of the courts are being presided over by just one judge. In the Philippines, a lack of court judges means that they often have to preside over more than one court; a main reason for cases suffering such enormous delays. 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 

Molina is a native of Abra province and belonged to an indigenous Binodngan tribe, part of a sub-tribe in Kalinga, northern Philippines. Arrest warrants for him had been issued for rebellion (criminal case numbers 2008-091 and 2008-114) at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 2 and for murder and multiple frustrated murders (with criminal case no. 2008-092) at the RTC Branch 1, all in Bangued, Abra province. These two trial court branches are presided over by Judge Corpus B. Alzate. 

The SC has yet to decide on his appeal. The cases are still pending at the RTCs in Abra province. 

SUGGESTED ACTION: 

Please write letters to the government agencies listed below expressing your concern about the manner in which the arrest, detention and subsequent detention of the suspect took place. An inquiry must also be held into allegations that the police are involved in money-making. 

The AHRC has also written letters to the Working Group on arbitrary detention and the Independent Expert on Minority Issues. 

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