UPDATE (Philippines): Four activists facing continuing threats under surveillance

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) writes to inform you of yet another incident whereby four activists, two of them were reported by us to have already been threatened a year ago, were kept under surveillance by unidentified men on 20 September 2007 in Angeles City. They had just finished a press conference to commemorate the declaration of Martial Law 35 years ago when they were followed by men who were acting suspiciously. It was the latest incident of threats and intimidation the victims had experienced.

CASE DETAILS: (Based on information received from the Alliance for the Advancement of Peoples’ Rights (Karapatan))

Further to our previous appeal UA-271-2006, activists Roman Polintan and Joseph Canlas were previously threatened one year ago. It was Major General Jovito Palparan Jr., former commander of the 7th Infantry Division, Philippine Army, who issued the threat against them in a report published in a daily newspaper when he was quoted as saying: “I want Roman Polintan and Joseph Canlas out of Central Luzon”.

Major Palparan is no longer the commander of the said army unit and has retired from military service. However, the threats on Canlas and Polintan have continued and now two of their colleagues have also followed by unidentified persons. Despite the threats made on them in the past and more recently there has not been any substantial progress by the authorities to investigate as to who is responsible for continuously threatening them. Furthermore, no security arrangements have been afforded to them to ensure their safety.

It was on September 20 when Polintan and Canlas and their two other colleagues, Angelina Ladera and Jovelyn Suson, discovered that they were under surveillance and being followed. They had just finished a press conference held at a pizza parlor in Angeles City when they noticed a suspicious man nearby. The conference was in preparation for the demonstration they scheduled for the following day, September 21, to commemorate the declaration of Martial Law.

As they were leaving Canlas noticed a man wearing red shirt sitting in a corner drinking a soft drink and noticed that he was using his mobile phone. The victims’ observation that the man’s movement should be a cause for concern are based on common knowledge of similar incident whereby activists are subsequently killed, abducted or disappeared in the past perpetrated by persons with suspicious movements. Similar incidents also showed that perpetrators used mobile phones to spy on their targets.

The two men then hurriedly walked ahead of them on their way out. As the victims rode in their service vehicle, they noticed the two following them on a blue motorcycle with license plate number OH5948. Suspecting that they could be intelligence agents, the victims decided to avoid them by taking another route. This time, they noticed another man wearing light brown shirt crossing the street. He was seen talking to his mobile phone while discretely observing them inside the van.

As they sped off towards the direction of Sto. Rosario in San Fernando, Pampanga, they again saw the two men riding on the blue motorcycle that they had seen earlier and they appeared to be following them. The motorcycle moved ahead of their van to come close to them. They rode beside the van and it was noticed that they were observing those inside it.

There were several occasions where the motorcycle could have run ahead of the van but failed to do so. They continued following the van until they reached the Plaza Miranda in Baragay (village) San Nicolas, Angeles City. When they arrived there Polintan and his companions sought refuge at a police station to report the incident. When they noticed that the group had entered a police station, the two persons following them returned in the direction in which they had come. But shortly after, another motorcycle, a Kawasaki model, appeared with another two men riding on it. The victims once again were very suspicious of their movements. They however failed to get the license plate number of the said motorcycle.

The day before the incident, Polintan was interviewed in a radio station hosted by lawyers Butch Jamon and Imelda Tuazon in their programme entitled “Talking Points”. Polintan was together with a lawyer, judge and journalists in a program where they discussed topics on “May Bagong Mukha ba ang Martial Law” or “Does Martial Law has a new face”. It was there that Polintan shared the analysis of his organization on the issue and invited the listeners to join their mobilization on September 21 to commemorate the declaration of Martial Law.

Polintan, Canlas and Ladera are known leaders in Central Luzon region who were highly critical of the now retired Major General Palparan during his assignment there. They are also involved in campaigning against the continuing violations by the military whom they accused of being responsible for perpetrating abuses and atrocities on their colleagues and members of their organizations.

Polintan is the chairperson of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) in their region. Bayan is an alliance of organizations advocating for the peasants and workers welfare. He is also regional coordinator for a political party Bayan Muna which promotes the rights and welfare of marginalized sectors.

Canlas is the chairperson of the Alyansa ng Magbubukid sa Gitnang Luzon (AMGL), a regional chapter of the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) (Philippine Peasant Movement). The KMP is a national federation of organization of peasant and fisher folks. He is also the regional coordinator for a political party Anakpawis (Toiling Masses) which represents the workers, peasants and fisherfolk.

Ladera is the chairperson of WAR3, an alliance of trade union promoting and defending the rights and welfare of workers and union members in their region. She is the younger sister of murdered activist Abelardo Ladera. As described in our previous appeal UA-34-2005, Ladera was a former Tarlac City Councilor and supporter for the striking farm and sugar mill workers in Hacienda Luisita, Tarlac.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

In the Philippines, provision of security and protection for persons facing threats, including activists is almost nonexistent. The police and other security agencies are not required to afford arrangements for security. It explains why despite repeated appeals for protection hardly anything is done. Should a person experience being threatened; often they take it upon themselves to secure their own safety.

Though the police authorities could be asked for provision of protection they are expected to be insufficient and inadequate. It is ineffective particularly for persons experiencing continuing threats as in this case. Once a person asks for police protection, they have to shoulder the burden – including the transportation, food and other expenditures in connection with the police’ duties as security escort. Also, a police commander needs to be convinced by a person facing threat that he was indeed threatened and requires prompt protection. This is however impractical for ordinary persons and the poor who are often target of attacks.

Furthermore, the police’ prejudice and bias against activists also indirectly denies them possibilities of protection. It is a public knowledge that the police have labeled activists or persons critical of the government as “communist, leftist or enemies of the state”. Most activists do not trust or are not convinced the police are capable of providing protection. The distrust is deeply rooted in previous incidents wherein police are themselves involved in threatening and perpetrating attempts on the lives of activists. Take the case of Gerardo Cristobal UP-098-2006. Those involved over the attempt on his life are police officer and members of security forces. The prejudice of the police on activists has indirectly denied them the necessary protection they require. To protect the lives of the citizens should have been the primary duty and obligation of the police.

In September this year, the Supreme Court (SC) has adopted a new rule on Writ of Amparo which requires, amongst others, the police and other government agencies to provide protection necessary for persons facing threats. It also allows private groups in providing protection once they are accredited by the SC. There are concerns though in the requirement in applying for the Writ. It requires that the petitioner should properly identify the names and details of those making threats but in most cases though they could not be identified at all.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write letters to concerned authorities requesting them to have the victims’ concern adequately investigated. They must also ensure that they are given adequate assistance and protection they require. Also pressure them regarding their continued failure to take action into the continuing threats the victims are experiencing.

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