Extrajudicial Killings And The NPA

MANILA, Philippines (Philippine Human Rights Reporting Project / September 11, 2008) - Whenever the subject of extrajudicial killings comes up in the media, roundtables or public events, the focus is typically on the role of the military, the security services or aligned paramilitary forces. Seldom is the spotlight put on the actions of the New People’s Army (NPA).

This is understandable but up to a point only. As legal guardians of the State, the government and its agencies have the greatest responsibility to observe the law. Those people who believe they cannot trust the armed forces and the police to protect and serve without favor or discrimination will turn elsewhere for support –to the NPA perhaps.

The NPA claims the State is not on the side of ‘the people’ and so is fighting to protect their rights –defending them against injustices it believes are committed by the government and its operatives.

But when – if ever – does one injustice justify another? Should the media tread lightly and allow the NPA to avoid charges that it is abusing human rights simply because the State is too? Because it considers itself revolutionary does that mean it can pick and choose what laws, if any, to observe? And what of international laws if not Philippine laws?

A GMANews.TV story on September 8 reported a denial by an NPA spokeswoman that it had castrated a government militiaman in Bicol before ‘executing’ him on August 10. “Such a dastardly act is not the way of the NPA,” Theresa Magtanggol, NPA Nerissa San Juan Command spokeswoman was quoted as saying. While reportedly confirming the execution, she maintained the NPA “adheres to the Comprehensive Agreement for the Respect of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) and the Geneva Convention”.

The GMANews.TV reporter might have politely but firmly interrupted her then and there highlighting the contradiction in her statement. Allegations of mutilation aside, it is not possible for the NPA to admit ‘executing’ Ryan Samonte, a member of the Citizen’s Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU) while claiming it is abiding by the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law.

“As it is prohibited to kill protected persons during an international armed conflict, so it is prohibited to kill those taking no active part in hostilities which constitute an internal armed conflict,” so ruled the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in November 1998. Even when it is unclear whether a situation is an armed conflict, human rights law forbids extrajudicial “executions.”

In their claimed killing of Ryan Samonte, those responsible are plainly guilty under international law. That needs to be reported and made absolutely clear by the media. The fact that somebody claims to be abiding by the Geneva Conventions or international humanitarian law doesn’t make it so – especially when they have just ‘admitted’ their forces killed somebody in cold blood.

I use the word ‘killed’ and the phrase ‘in cold-blood’ deliberately because using the word ‘execution’ is to give Ryan Samonte’s murder a degree of legal legitimacy it simply doesn’t have.

Let us give Theresa Magtanggol the benefit of doubt for argument’s sake and say that while referring to international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions, she is not in fact familiar with them. But it will benefit us all if media practitioners can immediately pick up upon and challenge statements such as these in the future.

Again, put aside for the moment the issue of alleged castration and the questionable morality of trying to remedy injustices against one group or community while committing them against others. The fact is however much the NPA or state death squads and vigilantes try and dress up or justify what they do, they deny justice, commit murder, and are guilty under international humanitarian law. What they do does not bring security any more than it brings justice or fights injustice. What they do helps only to perpetuate a climate of fear, impunity and continuing sense of lawlessness.

As media practitioners, just as we need to make sure we do not employ derogatory terms such as ‘Reds’, so too we must make sure not to allow people to misappropriate the word ‘execution’ or provide groups of any kind a platform to speak out unchallenged when, through their own admission, they are guilty of human rights abuses.

While we owe it to Ryan Samonte and his family, we ultimately owe it to ourselves if we are sincere in trying to build a more just and humane society.(Alan Davis / Philippine Human Rights Reporting Project)