AHRC reports death of Filipino man after arrest in Mindanao

DAVAO CITY, Philippines (Mindanao Examiner / Sept. 3, 2010) - The Asian Human Rights Commission has reported the mysterious death of a Filipino man who was arrested by Philippine authorities in Mindanao.

In a report Friday, it said the Task Force Detainees of the Philippines in Mindanao claimed Sumar Abdulwahab, who belonged to the Maguindanaon, an ethnic tribe, was found dead days after he was said to have escaped from authorities.

It said that on June 3 this year, officers from the National Bureau of Investigation, a special investigating body, arrested him in Sitio Manil in the village of Daliao in Sarangani’s Maasim town on murder charges.

The NBI is an agency attached to, and under, the supervision of the Department of Justice.

The NBI claimed they had arrest orders for Abdulwahab on charges of murder, which included one count of Murder, Multiple Frustrated Murder and Multiple attempted Murder.

The victim was seen sitting at a post of the Barangay Defense Force when the NBI officers, who were onboard four separate vehicles, arrived. They immediately cuffed his hands behind his back after showing him the arrest orders. The person manning the post was then told to take the victim's motorcycle to the office of the village chief.

On June 4, Abdulwahab's sister, Johaniya, and a council member of their village, had gone to the office of the NBI in the village of Lagao in General Santos City. The NBI, however, told them that they could only see Abdulwahab the next day. They were also told to bring the personal effects of the victim for him to use when they returned.

When Johaniya and others returned the next day at around 3 p.m. the NBI personnel refused them entry to their office and told her that Abdulwahab had escaped the night before at around 11 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. by breaking the glass window of the detention facility where he was held. After this visit to the NBI, the victim's family had not heard any news regarding his whereabouts.

But on June 8, five days after he had gone missing, the victim's family heard over the radio of the recovery of a dead body by scavengers in Malalag town in Davao del Sur province, a place which is a considerable distance from their town.

The decomposing body had been placed inside an oil drum filled with construction cement; his hands were tied behind his back and the body showed visible signs of torture. The corpse was found near a cliff after a foul smell had drawn the attention of the scavengers, who then informed the police.

After hearing the report over the radio, the victim's family had immediately gone to the place where the corpse was found. It is common in the Philippines for families of missing persons to check every reported recovery of bodies to see if it was their loved ones. In this case, the family's fears proved true.

When the family arrived at the local funeral parlor where the corpse was taken, they were only able to confirm that the corpse was that of Sumar Abdulwahab by his clothes and a picture of his child in a pocket.

In the post mortem report, it found that the victim suffered a 5.2 centimeter wound behind his ear, a skull fracture and contusion in his right check. Also, the victim's teeth had been extracted, the AHRC report said.

Educating torture 'experts' is pointless: AHRC

MANILA, PHILIPPINES - The widely publicised video of a police torture has drawn mixed reactions and opinions from the public, including lawmakers, lawyers and human rights groups, who have all joined in the chorus condemning such a barbaric and cruel act.

Most of them share the opinion that 'lack of education of the law enforcers' is to blame for it happening but the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) strongly argues that this is not the case.

While educating law enforcers about the content of the Anti-Torture Act of 2009 is necessary the lack of education of this law cannot be used as an excuse to justify the said incident. If there is anyone who are 'experts and well-educated' on the use of torture, it is the law enforcement officers themselves. Torture is not something so new that one has to be told that it is abhorrent and prohibited.

The enactment of the Anti-Torture Act in December 2009 did not mean that the term 'torture' just came into existence and was an alien concept to the law enforcers.

The term torture itself has been widely used and understood to refer to violence and cruelty perpetrated against a person. Before the right not to be tortured was included in the 1987 Constitution, the police and the military had already been practicing it, particularly during Martial law period against political dissenters.

Therefore, it would be too naïve to argue that the lack of education amongst law enforcers is to blame as to why it continues to persist. For any police officer who thinks with reason, torture is absolutely a condemnable act undeserving of those who wear the uniform of the Philippine National Police.

Some of the authors of the Anti-Torture Law were victims of torture themselves during the Martial Law regime. It is their experience, and that of countless others, that made the enactment of this law possible. It was also after the Marcos regime that the concept of the right against torture was first introduced in the Philippine Constitution. The torture victims, most of them in disbelief as to how cruel people of their own nationality could become, felt the depth of what torture really is. It meant being a witness of their own suffering long before this was written into law. Those who 'survived' have to suffer and live with the trauma of having been tortured for the rest of their lives.

Torture is not a result of ignorance and lack of education by the law enforcers. It is the absence of an effective mechanism that would hold them accountable. It is also this absence that breeds and develops a culture of violence amongst the law enforcers. When a law enforcer or torturer cannot be held accountable for torture or any other form of violence he would commit, this becomes an accepted norm which we know to have been thriving in the police force for decades.

This is what happened in the Philippines. The policeman who tortured the suspected thief in the video did not become a torturer overnight, but had learnt and developed his expertise of using torture and the accompanying mindset to an extent that has become acceptable to him because it is a commonplace practice.

Filipino policemen also do not become police officers overnight. The Philippine National Police (PNP) and the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), two agencies who are responsible in training and recruiting applicants into the police force, require highly competitive academic qualifications, accomplishments and intensive training before it awards a policeman the rank of a police captain, the rank that the policeman in the video held. They also undergo civil service examinations, regular background checks and continuing education on law enforcement.

Also, the Philippine National Police Academy (PNPA), one of the highly competitive police training academies, even conduct background checks of their recruits, by way if interviewing their family and persons who know the applicant, before admitting him for training to ensure that immoral persons or those with psychological problems would not be allowed in the academy. This is in addition to passing a lengthy qualifying examination.

Apart from training in the police academy, the PNP and NAPOLCOM also absorb applicants with a bachelor's degree in criminology and those who had already earned units from any social sciences course but were unable to graduate. This is also after passing a civil service examination.

Thus, those who are absorbed into the police force are either university graduates or have studied for years in a university. They are educated people and need not be told that torture is prohibited. They are have completed, at least the rudimentary teaching on logic, ethics, philosophy and the morals in the universities. They are certainly not uneducated.

When the policeman tortured the victim in the video, he did it consciously. It was not indiscriminate or an isolated case, as earlier mentioned by the police establishment. It reflects the tip of the iceberg as to the state of policing in country.

The emergence of further complaints on torture as reported in the media, after the video had been exposed, only demonstrates the ugly reality of the country's policing the surface of which has yet to be scratched. It is a matter that most of the people knew and had live with. Any further complaints must therefore be seriously acted upon under the law.

PHILIPPINES: Soldiers torture a man with electric shocks to his sex organ to force a confession

ISSUES: Torture; right to liberty and security; administration of justice.


The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) writes to inform you that a man who was abducted by soldiers, tortured and held incommunicado for over three months remains in detention over questionable charges.

After abducting him on January 9, 2009, the soldiers tortured him to confess his involvement to the bombing and burning of houses in North Cotabato. He suffered electric shocks to his sex organ and was deprived of food.

CASE DETAILS: (According to information received from the Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP)-Mindanao)

On January 9, 2009 at 11am, Mansur Utto Salih was eating lunch with two others, Andy Makasaop and a person whose nickname is Gulam. At the time they were at Salih’s house and suddenly armed men entered. One of them shot at Salih prompting the latter to drop to the floor for cover.

Two men bound Salih and Andy's wrists, blindfolded and gagged them with adhesive tape.

The armed men then loaded Salih and Andy onto their vehicle that took them somewhere for about 30 minutes. In this place they could hear the sound of an airplane prompting them to believe that they must have been inside military headquarters of 6th Infantry Division (ID), Philippine Army (PA), in Barangay Awang, Datu Odin Sinsuat, Maguindanao. The military's headquarter is also located at the Awang Airport.

The two were then taken inside a room and the adhesive tape binding their wrists were replaced with handcuffs (the scars were still visible when the interview was conducted). Salih and Andy were held incommunicado separately. Salih later learned that Andy had been released but he could not determine when. Unlike Andy, however, Salih was held for over three months.

When interviewed on April 16, 2009, Salih spoke of the torture and ill treatment he endured. His ankles were chained and the soldiers applied electric shocks to his sex organ, his body and behind his ears. Each time they applied the electricity the held it against him for four seconds.

Whenever he fainted they poured cold water on his face and body. He could no longer recall how many times he fainted. Both his feet became swollen when they were struck repeatedly with an iron bar. He was also punched about the stomach and chest several times. Salih sensed that there were three persons questioning him while six others were torturing him. During the questioning he was also deprived of food and water.

For seven consecutive days, Salih had experienced the same ordeal. He also noticed that he had been taken to three different rooms in which he was interrogated and tortured. Within this period, he was only given food and water on two occasions. He also remained chained.

On January 16, 2009, Salih was loaded onto a vehicle, handcuffed and blindfolded and taken somewhere on a journey that he believes lasted for about three hours. Upon reaching their destination, he was taken to a room where he was fed. But, as soon as he finished eating he was shoved to the cement floor. There, he was held incommunicado for two weeks. During those two weeks he was not beaten but only fed only once a day, either breakfast or lunch.

After two weeks of his detention, his custodian began spoon feeding him. However, when Salih asked the custodian to feed him slowly so that he had enough time to chew the food he would be punched. If he allowed the food to fall the person feeding him would hit his mouth with a spoon, kick him and punched his face. He was also fed with one or two spoonfuls of chilies every meal.

His ordeal went on until March 28, 2009. On that day, he was taken back to the military headquarters at the Awang Airport where he was held until April 6, 2009. During the entire day of the journey he was not given food and water.

On one occasion from between March 28 and April 6, Salih recalled having been taken to a doctor. However, Salih said the doctor did not properly examine him. He was only asked if he was in pain and checked his blood pressure. Salih was reluctant to tell the doctor of his ordeal as he was hoping that, should he keep quiet about what had happened to him, they would release him.

However, on April 7, 2009 at 12noon, Salih was first taken and remanded to the North Cotabato Provincial Jail in Amas, Kidapawan City. Two of those taking him in custody made him sign some documents, the contents of which was also not properly explained to him. It was learned later that those who had remanded him to prison were soldiers. It was only after entering the jail that his handcuffs and blindfold were removed by a jail guard.

To cover up the incident, the soldiers who took custody of him, deliberately falsified the date they took custody of the victim to April 1, instead of January 9, 2009.

Salih later learned that he had been charged with two counts of frustrated murder, in connection with the bombing incident that took place in Kidapawan City, and 29 counts of Arson regarding the burning of houses that took place in 2008, reportedly perpetrated by a rebel commander before the Regional Trial Court in Midsayap, North Cotabato.

Although Salih's case is being heard in courts in North Cotabato province, in June 2009 he was transferred to a jail in Bicutan, Metro Manila. His transfer was prompted by a resolution approved by members of City Council of Kidapawan City for his and several other detainees who are considered "high risk". The transfer took place after armed men attacked the North Cotabato Provincial jail.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

The AHRC has documented cases wherein persons, mostly those persons who are accused of or suspected of perpetrating bombings, are subjected to brutal torture and held incommunicado at the headquarters of the 6th Infantry Division's (ID), Philippine Army, at the premises of Awang Airport.

In April 2002, five persons, two of whom were at the time minors, were taken into the headquarters after having been arrested in separate incidents. They were accused of perpetrating the bomb blast in Davao City. They were blindfolded, electrocuted, beaten, and suffered dry and wet methods of suffocation to forced them to admit that they perpetrated the bombings.

In January 2004, a man was also tortured inside the headquarters. He was kicked, beaten and electrocuted. His fingers were squeezed after putting bullets in between them and he was forced to drink something that smelled like urine. They threatened to dump him into a canal and feed his sex organ to a dog.

In May 2007, two men, both belonging to Muslim minorities, were also tortured inside the headquarters following their arrest over allegations they were involved in incidents of bombing in Central Mindanao. They were also deprived of food.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write letters to the government agencies below to ensure that an impartial investigation is conducted into the abduction, torture and detention of the victim.

Those responsible, in particular the soldiers who remanded him to prison and the military leadership to the camp where he was held incommunicado, should be identified and prosecuted. The charges laid on him in court must be thoroughly reviewed. Once proven that the evidence on him was obtained by way of torture it must be withdrawn.

The AHRC has also written letters to the Special Rapporteur on the Question of Torture asking for his intervention into this case.


SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear_______,

Re: PHILIPPINES: Soldiers torture a man with electric shocks to his sex organ to force a confession

Name of the victim:

1. Mansur Utto Salih, 32 years old, married, a resident of Sitio Project, Ungap, Sultan Kudarat, Maguinadanao Province. He belongs to a Maguindanaon tribe. About nine persons interrogated and tortured him one after the other while he was held incommunicado inside a military camp in Barangay (village) Awang, Datu Odin Sinsuat, Maguindanao. He is presently detained in a jail in Bicutan, Metro Manila.

2. Andy Makasaop. He was released without any charges ahead of Salih.
Alleged perpetrators: Soldiers attached to the 6th Infantry Division (ID), Philippine Army (PA) whose headquarters are located in Awang Airport.
Place where the victims were abducted: Sitio project, Upper Ungap, municipality of Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao

Date of incident: After he was abducted on January 9, 2009, he was held incommunicado detention until April 7, 2009.

I am writing to express my concern regarding the abduction, torture and detention of Mansur Utto Salih. He and his companion, Andy Makasaop, were abducted on January 9, 2009. They were taken to a place they came to know later as the headquarters of the 6th Infantry Division, Philippine Army at the Awang Airport in Datu Odin Sinsuat, Maguindanao.

Soon after arriving at the military camp, they were taken to separate rooms where they were subjected to questioning, torture and were held incommunicado. The adhesive tapes used to bind their wrists when they were abducted were then replaced with handcuffs. Their ankles were chained.

Although Makasaop had been released without charged, the soldiers kept Salih for over three months where he was subjected to questioning. He was tortured and moved from one interrogation room to the other.

For example, upon arriving at the Awang Airport on January 6, 2009, those questioning him applied electric shocks to his sex organ, his body and behind his ears several times. Each electrocution lasted about four seconds.

When he lost consciousness the soldiers poured water over him. His feet became swollen after being beaten with an iron bar. Those who tortured him forced him to confess masterminding the bombing incident in Kidapawan City and burning of houses in Midsayap, North Cotabato in 2008.

For seven consecutive days, Salih was tortured in the same manner in three different interrogation rooms. On those days, he was only given food twice and a glass of water. He could also not move properly as his ankles were chained and his eyes were blindfolded. The ordeal continued from the time of his abduction until he was remanded to the North Cotabato Provincial Jail in Amas, Kidapawan City on April 7, 2009.

I am extremely shocked at how the soldiers have treated the victim. The manner of his arrest, investigation and detention violates all the legal procedures that should have been strictly observed in arresting a person accused of a crime. Not only did the soldiers deliberately usurp the police power on arrest, they also turned their own military headquarters into a torture chamber.

Apart from Salih's case, there have also been previous cases in the past wherein persons, particularly those who are accused or suspected by the soldiers as having been involved in bomb attacks or rebel activities, have been tortured soon after being taken inside their military headquarters at the premises of Awang Airport, Cotabato City.

I therefore urge you to ensure that the victim's allegation of abduction, torture and being held incommunicado are thoroughly investigated. Should it be proven that the evidence used in the charges laid on him in court for bombing in Kidapawan City and burning of houses that took place in Midsayap in 2008 was taken by way of torture, they must be withdrawn. It is unacceptable that this person has had to face trial to charges that are questionable.

Lastly, I urge the Philippine government to live up to its obligation to the United Nation's Convention against Torture (CAT) to ensure protection to victims of torture. It should also take prompt action to ensure that the pending bill criminalizing torture is acted upon.


PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
President
Republic of the Philippines
Malacanang Palace
JP Laurel Street, San Miguel
Manila 1005
PHILIPPINES
Fax: +63 2 736 1010
Tel: +63 2 735 6201 / 564 1451 to 80

2. Ms. Leila De Lima
Commissioner
Commission on Human Rights
SAAC Bldg., Commonwealth Avenue
U.P. Complex, Diliman
Quezon City
PHILIPPINES
Fax: +63 2 929 0102
Tel: +63 2 928 5655 / 926 6188
E-mail: mtm_rodulfo@yahoo.com

3. Deputy Director General Jesus A. Verzosa
Chief, Philippine National Police (PNP)
Camp General Rafael Crame
Quezon City
PHILIPPINES
Fax: +63 2724 8763
Tel: +63 2 726 4361/4366/8763
E-mail: ruth_cossid@yahoo.com

4. Ms. Agnes Devanadera
Secretary
Department of Justice (DoJ)
DOJ Bldg., Padre Faura
1004 Manila
PHILIPPINES
Fax: +63 2 521 1614
E-mail: raulgonzalez_doj@yahoo.com

5. Lieutenant General Victor S. Ibrado
Chief of Staff
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
AFP-GHQ Offices, Camp Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo
Quezon City
PHILIPPINES
Fax: +63 2 911 6436
Tel: +63 2 911 6001 to 50

6. Mr. Quinciano V. Bueno
Regional Director
CHR, Region 12
Pascua Bldg., Arellano Street
Koronadal City
PHILIPPINES
Tel: +63 83 5538887

7. Mr. Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr.
Secretary
Department of National Defense
Room 301 DND Bldg., Camp Emelio Aguinaldo
E. de los Santos Avenue
Quezon City
PHILIPPINES
Fax: +63 2 911 6213
Tel: +63 2 911 9281 / 911 0488
E-mail: osnd@philonline.com

8. Mr. Avelino Razon
Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process
Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP)
7th Floor Agustin Building I
Emerald Avenue
Pasig City 1605
PHILIPPINES
Fax: +63 2 638 2216
Tel: +63 2 636 0701 to 066
E-mail: osec@opapp.gov.ph

Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)

AHRC joins International Day in Support of Victims of Torture

A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission on the occasion of the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture on June 26, 2009.

ASIA: Working against torture fundamental to human rights work. The practice of torture is endemic in Asia, and the region’s governments show no political will to eliminate it.

In fact, states treat torture as a necessary aspect of social control, directly or indirectly approving the practice. The clearest indication of the states’ unwillingness to eliminate torture is the refusal to criminalise the practice, as well as the inadequate implementation of laws against torture.

In most Asian countries, civil society has also not shown sufficient interest or commitment to press for the elimination of torture. The International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, June 26, should be an occasion to seriously reflect on the failures in Asia to eliminate this unacceptable and cruel practice.

Since its inception, the Asian Human rights Commission (AHRC) -- a regional human rights organisation committed to the promotion and protection of human rights--has focussed its attention on the issue of torture prevention in Asia.

In the coming years, particularly the next one year, the AHRC will campaign for the criminalisation of torture in Asian states. The campaign will be formally launched on June 26. The following reflections on the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture are based on the information gathered by the AHRC over several years of work.

Torture is practiced by law enforcement agencies in the region as a crude shortcut for criminal investigation. Law enforcement agencies function with the belief that the deterrence quotient against a crime is the possibility of being tortured, rather than the crime being detected and punished in the legal process. Custodial torture and other forms of violence are used by the state for social control, with torture as one of the most common forms of punishment.

Torture neither promotes democracy nor supports the rule of law. On the contrary, torture and its open or clandestine use undermine the fundamentals of democratic governance. States in the region allow law enforcement agencies, particularly the police, to practice torture.

The police being one of the most visible presences of the state, its directives are permeated into society through fear. In some countries this fear is so immense that obtaining a confession does not require torture; a suspect in custody admits anything and everything required by the police in fear for his life. Criminal investigation in most Asian countries begins and ends with a confession. Fair trial has no place in such an environment.

The practice of torture is not limited to policing. Paramilitary and military units and other agencies around the region also resort to torture, often brutal. Whether torture is practised by a military detachment or by the local police, the possibility for a victim of torture to complain does not exist in many Asian states.

The absence of witness protection laws, proper investigation mechanisms including medico-legal facilities, and prosecution mechanisms, render complaint making suicidal for a victim. This allows torture to also be used for blackmailing, as a form of revenge and for monetary gain.

In the past four years, there have been attempts by countries inside and outside the region to form alliances to engage in torture. Countries where torture is criminalised have entered into clandestine pacts with countries where the practice is a routine phenomenon, to detain and question individuals using torture. Of particular relevance are torture cells run by military dictatorships or governments subjugated by the military in Asia, to detain and question individuals of foreign as well as domestic origin.

Prolonged periods of detention and extreme forms of torture are the unique characteristics of these torture centres. Often such centres are manned by foreign troops or run under the supervision of foreign states. Some of these non-Asian entities have in the past been champions of anti-torture campaigns.

Their engagement in torturing suspects and often outsourcing torture cells to certain Asian states has made a severe dent in international efforts to condemn and campaign against torture.

The trend of condoning torture in the name of national security has encouraged many Asian states to consciously refuse to recognise that torture is a crime against humanity, or to have a legal framework against torture.

On the contrary, Asian states are increasingly providing statutory protection and impunity for state agents to engage in torture. States are fielding criticisms by juxtaposing critiques with fake nationalism.

The practice of torture remains the central defect in protecting, promoting and fulfilling human rights in the region. From the standpoint of state responsibility to protect, promote and fulfil human rights, the fight against torture is an important component of human rights work. In essence, human rights work is engaging in a dialogue with the state, reminding the state of its responsibility to serve the people and identifying its failures in meeting people's demands.

In most of Asia, states notoriously attempt to reduce the space for this dialogue by instilling fear, largely through law enforcement agencies. By using law enforcement agencies as a tool in this way, the state engages in a counter dialogue with citizens, reminding them it has the means to silence dissent and enforce its writ.

Enforced silence nurtures resistance. In the absence of a democratic framework where common humanity and equality are the key principles, resistance movements look to other elements for cohesion and identity. In many Asian states these elements have been religion or political ideology rooted in violence.

For a silenced community, violence becomes the liberator, with individuals finding commonness in the fight against the oppressor. The state then resorts to impunity for its agents using torture and other means of violence to fight back. This cycle of violence only reduces the space for peaceful dialogue.

Working against torture is thus crucial to enlarging the space for democratic dialogue. Human rights work in the region and globally has yet to appreciate this fact. In fact, the challenges of campaigning against torture -- including individual activists confronting omnipresent state agencies -- often prevent human rights groups from working on this key issue.

Fighting torture involves walking with the victim, encouraging the victim to speak and finding means for their speech to be heard, often in an environment where redress is remote. In most Asian countries, attempts to speak or amplify the voice of the victim face stiff opposition.

The work against torture in Asia has thus been reduced to advocating international norms and standards, while ignoring the reality that these norms and standards have no meaning in countries where even minimum human rights protection does not exist. In countries where laws addressing torture exist, they may not cover the universally accepted definition of torture.

Or, the victims do not have safe mechanisms through which to complain or obtain witness protection. In other countries, the possibility of impartial investigations, prompt prosecutions and proportionate punishments are limited or non-existent.

As a result, the few attempts by domestic mechanisms to address torture are easily subjugated and court decisions not followed. The open dismissal of judicial directives in this manner creates the perception that the state and its agencies are above the law.

By criminalising torture and bringing a torture perpetrator within the realm of accountability and punishment, the biting teeth of the state are blunted, enlarging the space for dialogue. In fact, the governments of Asia are fully aware of the potential of an anti-torture framework. Such a framework will however, be detrimental to those in power as well as vested interest groups.

The prevention of torture and its consequent reform of law enforcement agencies have far-reaching effects. It is for this reason that most states are resistant to the implementation of any robust law concerning torture.

Twenty-two years since the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment came into force, most Asian states are yet to ratify the convention or have a functioning domestic legal framework to combat torture.

Their abstention in combating this brutal crime against humanity has reduced the space for democracy and the rule of law in their respective countries. By not attaching adequate importance to the work against torture, domestic and international human rights organisations have also failed to play their part in addressing this fundamental issue.

To begin a strong and serious campaign to eliminate torture in Asia, the AHRC makes the following recommendations:

1. Asian states should urgently consider eliminating torture and to therein carryout necessary reforms to their respective justice institutions. This should be reflected in legal frameworks, as well as the allocation of human and material resources;

2. The AHRC urges countries that have not yet ratified the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and its Optional Protocol, to do so as a matter of priority. Upon ratification, governments must enact corresponding domestic legislation to guarantee that torture in all its manifest forms is recognised as a serious, punishable crime. Legislation should also provide victims with the possibility to obtain adequate compensation. Countries where domestic laws already exist should review and streamline the laws in accordance with the principles of the Convention;

3. Torture is directly linked to the policing systems in Asian states. To prevent police from relying on torture for criminal investigations, governments need to undertake thorough police reforms. These reforms should be geared towards creating credible civilian policing systems suitable for modern societies. Adequate budgetary allocations must be made to these ends;

4. All states are obligated to eliminate impunity. This means ensuring accessible complaint mechanisms, effective investigations by competent, independent and impartial investigators, and the prosecution of all offenders, particularly on complaints concerning torture. The funds necessary for investigation must be provided. Another important aspect in eliminating impunity is the application of command responsibility;

5. Training for law enforcement officers, the military and the judiciary must include information about the Convention and the states' treaty obligations. Superior courts should develop jurisprudence and guidelines relating to the elimination of torture as a priority. Subordinate courts need to be effectively guided and supervised on their obligation to punish the crime of torture;

6. Fair trial and torture cannot coexist. Legal professionals in Asia however, often condone torture or see it as the mere use of force, the reasonability of which is to be decided in a court of law. They need to be more informed of torture as a grave crime attracting universal jurisdiction;

7. Finally, the AHRC encourages civil society organisations throughout Asia to make the elimination of torture as their priority, irrespective of their current focus. A more visible role must be played by civil society, particularly human rights groups, in promoting the Convention regionally, as well as developing awareness on torture prevention as a key prerequisite to rule of law and democracy.

UN Committee Against Torture Releases Recommendations; Human Rights Group Urges RP To Abide

A Statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission on the occasion of the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture.

PHILIPPINES: Government must implement CAT Committee’s recommendations as a matter of priority

On 14 May 2009, the United Nation’s Committee Against Torture released its recommendations (CAT/C/PHL/CO2) following the conclusion of its periodic review of the Philippines on its implementation of the Convention Against Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).

The Philippines is a State party to the Convention since its ratification on June 1986.

The Committee’s recommendations are also shared by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), who, in its effort to assist the Committee in the process of its review of the Philippines’ record in the implementation of the CAT Convention, also submitted an alternative report through its sister organisation, the Asian Legal Resource Center (ALRC). The Committee’s observation, nevertheless, has expressed, at least in part, the ALRC’s analysis of the problem.

The AHRC and the ALRC therefore urges the Philippine government to consider as their priority the following:

On access to lawyers, judicial custody of a detainee
In most cases, once a person is arrested and subsequently detained, the policemen or the military that arrested them, are deliberately preventing them from having contact with lawyers and their family members; and they are subjected to custodial investigation without the presence or assistance of legal counsel. A person’s right to have access to lawyers and being turned over to judicial authority is envisaged in Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or under Custodial Investigation (RA 7438) and article 125 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.

The present practice in courts in the Philippines is that the burden to prove that the arrested person’s testimony and confession taken under duress is a product of torture rests upon the torture victims and not on the prosecution panel. Thus, by failing to ensure, by way of strictly implementing the provisions of these laws, torture victims have already been, at the early stage, at risk of being prosecuted for testimonial evidence taken as a result of torture. It also effectively denies any possibilities of redress and remedies for these victims.

"Lack of investigations into cases of torture"

The lack of or ‘seldom investigation and prosecution’ of torture committed by law enforcement agents and soldiers demonstrates that the complaint mechanism that exists today does not encouraged victims or complainants to file complaints; and that the fear and threats are very real once a person comes forward to complain. There, the number or statistics of torture cases that come to notice are seen, at least on the part of the government, as isolated cases. However, these statistics alone do not speak to the severity of the problem.

The government must admit that torture reported in police stations, on complaints filed with the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), cases documented by the NGOs and cases to which their attention had been called to intervene, are just the tip of the iceberg and speaks of the extent of the problem arrested persons, regardless of whether their cases are politically motivated or an ordinary crime, have to confront on a daily basis.

When Eduardo Ermita, secretary to the executive branch, questioned the 1,016 cases of torture that NGOs reported to the Committee, the lack of government knowledge into these cases, illustrates the deep distrust and lack of confidence amongst that torture victims have in filing formal complaints with the government agencies responsible for conducting investigations. In the Philippines, torture victims tend to seek assistance and help from NGOs in seeking redress and remedies; thus, it is nothing new that often NGOs have more access to the documentation than the government.

Thus, the government should refrain from immediately questioning the credibility and merits of the cases and undermining the credibility of NGOs, but rather they should make efforts to look into these cases.

"Abolish de facto detention facilities"

The police and soldiers must also abolish the practice of arbitrarily detaining persons whom they arrested in the detention facilities or places that are not legally registered according to the law. The lack of detention facilities or the inability to turn over the custody of an arrested person to proper detention centres and jails cannot be used as an excuse to justify detention of arrested persons in camps, safe houses and other places, wherein they would be subjected to interrogation.

The continued practice and maintenance of these places is putting torture victims at risk, not only of being tortured, but also of being disappeared or extra judicially killed. The lack of records or traces of the person’s detention would mean that it is not possible for any investigating authorities, including the CHR, even if they have Constitutional rights or a mandate to conduct unannounced visits to places of detention, to determine the whereabouts and condition of arrested persons. Therefore, unless these practice and these places are abolished, there is no guarantee that once a person is arrested they are taken to detention center or jails where their relatives or lawyers could see them.

"Repeal law espousing torture"

As the Committee has also mentioned, the provision contained in the Human Security Act of 2007, which allows prolonged detention of suspects for 72 hours, even without arrest orders is of serious concern. Given the continuing practice of the police and soldiers on numerous occasions making arrests without court orders, detention of arrested persons in not legally recognized detention facilities and the use of torture in custodial investigations aggravates the practice of torture.

There should be a thorough review on this law and it should be repealed according to human rights norms and standards. The AHRC is deeply concerned by the abuse in interpreting this law by way of filing charges of terror acts against persons, including activists. This is despite of the fact that the basis on which the crime should have been committed under this act does not exist. One case is the arbitrary arrest and subsequent filing of terrorism charges against three activists campaigning against the renewed operation of a nuclear plant in the province of Bataan.

Although the law provides that an act of terror that a person is alleged to have committed should have a component of ‘widespread panic’ and demands are made of the government the present practice among the prosecutors and policemen investigating cases of this nature does not satisfy the requirements for taking a case to court.

Also, the declaration of an emergency rule, in particular in a Proclamation No. 1 Series of 2009 that took effect in 31 March 2009 in Sulu province, should also be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (SC) where a petition challenging this declaration is presently pending. The government should also ensure that this rule, if it continues to be imposed, be lifted without further delay. This rule also had provisions which tolerate the police and soldiers in conducting illegal searches, arbitrary arrest, arbitrary detention and to subject arrested persons to investigation in absence of lawyers.

"Strengthen the law on Witness Protection"

The AHRC has in the past raised deep concerns by the ineffective implementation of the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act (RA 6981). It appears though that despite repeated appeals to have this law amended in order to strengthen it there has not been substantial progress—the draft bill strengthening this law has not been enacted. The Department of Justice (DoJ), who is the implementing agency of this programme must ensure that it take proactive measures to implement this law.

As already mentioned, the failure to ensure that complainants are encourage in filing complaints of torture, one of which is to ensure that their concerns of threats, fear of reprisal from the perpetrators and of being subjected to intimidation, have also resulted in the numerous complaints not being reported for investigation, and which subsequently, are not filed in court for prosecution. Thus, the lack of an effective and well functioning witness protection mechanism is crucial to ensure the possibility of effective prosecution of cases.

"Excessive court delays"

The case of the Abadilla Five speaks to the endemic problem that torture victims and complainants have to face in seeking legal remedies and redress. In this case, 13 years after their complaint of torture was filed, none of the policemen and other persons involved in torturing them have been held to account. The failure of the Office of the Ombudsman for Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (MOLEO) should provide an explanation to why they have continued to fail in concluding this case.

By failing to conclude this case, it continues to prevent other torture victims and complainants from taking legal remedies and obtaining redress in their cases. If the MOLEO fails to conclude this decade-old case there would also be no assurance at all that new cases relating to torture would be acted upon promptly.

"Ensure legislation of a domestic law on torture promptly"

Finally, the AHRC once again calls upon the government to ensure that the present bill on torture, pending before the Senate and the House of Representatives, be enacted without further delay according to the provision of the CAT. This is crucial, as an initial step to ensure that torture victims would have the possibilities of obtaining remedies and redress to the violations committed upon them.

The AHRC is a regional non-governmental organisation monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in 1984.

Soldiers threaten civilian lives by blocking food aid, burning houses in Maguindanao: AHRC

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Filipino lawyers listed as military targets seek judicial protection

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is writing to inform you that the three human rights lawyers, whose names were included in the list of targets in a leaked document reportedly created by the military, have filed a petition for a Writ of Amparo to seek judicial protection.

The writ is a remedy for persons whose liberty and security are threatened.

UPDATED INFORMATION:

On 16 June 2009 three human rights lawyers Carlos Zarate, Angela Librado-Trinidad and Lilibeth Ladaga, filed their petition for a Writ of Amparo before the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Davao City. The writ is a remedy promulgated by the Supreme Court (SC) on 25th September 2007 and is ‘available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened’.

Those named as respondents of the petition were Major General Reynaldo Mapagu, chief of the 10th Infantry Division (ID) of the Philippine Army; Colonel Lysander Suerte, chief of staff of 10th ID; Lieutenant Colonel Kurt Decapia, chief of the 10th ID Public Affairs Office; Colonel Oscar Lactao, chief of Task Force Davao; Senior Superintendent Ramon Apolinario, director of the Davao City Police Office (DCPO); and other members of the intelligence units of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP).

The petition was submitted with regard to the leaked PowerPoint presentation which listed the names and identities of 105 persons, including human rights defenders. The document was marked ‘secret’ and was described as the ‘3rd Quarter 2007 OB Validation result’ purportedly prepared by the JCICC ‘Agila’ under the office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence of the 10th Infantry Division.

In their petition the lawyers sought for the documents used in preparation of the PowerPoint presentation to be produced immediately; that all the facts, information, statements, records, photographs, dossiers and other evidence, documentary or otherwise, pertaining to the petitioners be fully disclosed, and that a temporary protection order be granted to them.

Others who were also included in the list of targets are also in the process of making similar Writs and a Writ of Habeas Data. The latter is another judicial remedy for any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a person or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information.

Brief details of those in the list:

In our previous appeal AHRC-UAU-011-2009, we released information about the backgrounds and work of those persons included in the list. We also raised the concern that these persons are being targeted due to their involvement in the campaign against extrajudicial killings in the Philippines and providing legal and other assistance to victims of violations of their rights. We are sharing with you further details of the persons listed as targets:

Carlos Isagani Zarate is the former president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippine (IBP) in Davao City Chapter; he is secretary general of the Union of People’s Lawyer in Mindanao (UPLM) and previously a coordinator for the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) in Davao City. He also writes a column for the Philippine Daily Inquirer, a national daily newspaper. In his article ‘O.B.-jections’ he had expressed strong objections to the inclusion of his name and his fellow colleagues in the document.

The UPLM is an organisation of lawyers’ groups in Mindanao. It also provides pro bono service and legal assistance to the victims of human rights violations and likewise issued a statement on this matter: The AFP’s ‘Order of Battle’: Witchhunting and adulterated lies. The group has also been vocal of campaigns, not only amongst the killings of lawyers and judges, but also against the vigilante killings in Davao City.

One of the numerous cases Carlos has represented in the past is that of Luisito Bustamante, a farmer whom a paramilitary group had illegally arrested, held and tortured in a military camp in November 2007. Carlos and two other lawyers also assisted Luisito’s relatives in filing a Writ of Amparo which prompted his release from the custody of the military. For details about this case, please read: UP-158-2007.

Angela Librado-Trinidad is a human rights lawyer and an activist on women’s rights. She is an incumbent councilor of the First District of Davao City. She also worked with a local non-governmental organisation which provides legal aid to abused women and children. Angela lobbies in Davao City and neighbouring areas.

Beverly Musni is a human rights lawyer. She is the chairperson of the Alliance for the Advancement of People’s Rights (KARAPATAN) in Northern Mindanao, a regional office of this alliance of human rights organisations. She is also an officer of the UPLM for the Northern Mindanao Chapter.

In July 2008, her organisation, UPLM, raised concerns over the surveillance activities she has been subjected to, noting in a statement that Beverly had been closely monitored by a man they described to be ‘burly-looking’ whenever she entered and left her office. At that time the surveillance activities lasted continuously for a month, however she has repeatedly encountered people following her over the last two years.

The 1503 Complaint Procedure of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which is now a Complaint Procedure of the United Nations Human Rights Council, had previously conducted an inquiry and took up her case and the cases of other lawyers who had experienced threats and attacks in the Philippines.

Lilibeth Ladaga is also a member of the UPLM. She is the present coordinator of the Davao City chapter of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG).

Noreen Manatad is also a lawyer who had worked in Davao City but has been based in New York, the United States since 2002.

Benjamin de Guzman is a former mayor of Davao City. He was the former president of the IBP Davao City chapter.

Luz Ilagan is a member of the House of Representatives. Luz is a lawmaker representing Gabriela Party List, a political party advocating for the welfare of women. There have also been targeted killings and systematic threats made amongst the members and organisers of her political party. One of whom was Liezelda Estorba-Cuñado who was killed on April 3, 2006 in Candijay, Bohol. See the following UA for details: UA-118-2006

Joel Maglungsod is a representative of the Anakpawis Party List, a political party which advocates the rights and welfare of peasants. Similar to Luz Ilagan’s political party, there have also been numerous targeted killings staff members, organisers and members of his political party.

Among them were Federico de Leon, their former chairperson in Bulacan; Victoria Samonte, the party’s nominee in Congress during May 2004 elections; Isaias Manano Jr., the party’s former secretary-general in Mindoro Oriental; and Rodrigo Siacor, party member. The complete details of each of these cases can also be found in this campaign website: Stop Extrajudicial killings in the Philippines.

Carlos H. Conde has been a journalist for 15 years and is now based in Manila. At present he works as a freelance correspondent for US-based publications, namely The New York Times, the International Herald Tribune and GlobalPost.com. He also contributes stories and reports to other foreign and local publications. After the PowerPoint presentation was made public, Carlos wrote a statement expressing concern about and demanding an explanation for his place on the list.

Carlos was formerly a coordinator at the Davao City and Southern Mindanao chapter of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), an association of journalists based in the Philippines. He was also the former secretary-general of the NUJP from 2004 to 2006. The NUJP has since been actively involved in campaigning against the extrajudicial killings of journalists.

During the fact finding missions of the Hong Kong Campaign for the Advancement of Human Rights and Peace in the Philippines (HKCAHRPP) in 2006 and in 2007, the NUJP were among those who took active part. The HKCAHRPP is a group of persons and a coalition of Hong Kong-based organisations, including the AHRC, which campaign against extrajudicial killings in the Philippines.

Rita M. Melecio (described as Marietta Mulato y Maring in the PowerPoint Presentation) is a staff member of the Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP) in Mindanao, a human rights non-governmental organisation. She is a native of Toril in Davao City. Mulato is Rita’s maiden name. She has been involved in documenting cases of human rights violations, providing legal assistance to victims and of helping them in pursuing cases for prosecution in local courts.

According to her, before this PowerPoint presentation was made public, whenever she went to visit her place in Toril she had faced considerable interest in her work from certain people in the community, and was often questioned about it. She later discovered that the people questioning her were from the Military Intelligence Group (MIG), and known former rebel of the New People’s Army. During her last visit her questioner asked where she was currently based, and this person, according to Rita, was the only one whom she had told of her present area of assignment. However she later came to know that the local police had this information.

Her organisation, the Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP) is also listed as a target in the same PowerPoint presentation.

A labour rights defender is murdered; police shoot two men in custody: AH

A labour rights defender is murdered; police shoot two men in custody: AHRC
Wednesday, June 17, 2009 01:21:45 PM

PHILIPPINES: A labour rights defender is murdered; police shoot two men in custody.

ISSUES: Human rights defenders; extrajudicial killings

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has learned that officers who shot two men dead in custody have yet to be investigated or charged, and that the murder of a labour leader has not been properly looked into after a year.

CASE DETAILS: (According to information received from Philippine NGOs)

Case One: Alberto Ocampo and Jose Gonzales were killed on 29 April 2009. According to reports gathered by the Kilusan Para sa Pambansang Demokrasya (KPD) Ocampo and his common-law-wife Imelda Zulueta were woken by the noise of stones being thrown at their house at around 2am. Voices shouted ‘Imelda, Axis lumabas kayo dyan. Alam naming andyan kayo, kapag di kayo lumabas ay papuputukan namin kayo’ (Imelda, Axis come outside. We know you are there. If you do not come out we will fire at you)’.

Ocampo, Zulueta and Jayson Valencia, a visitor at the house, emerged to find around ten policemen positioned around their house wearing camouflage uniforms and balaclavas. Their behavior—throwing stones at that time of the morning—was already baffling to the three. They were told to lay face down on the ground, and one of the policemen hit Zulueta’s back and pushed her to the ground. She asked the policeman not to harm her because she was pregnant.

The policemen then began asking them for the whereabouts of someone called Axis. At this Jose Gonzales, who goes by that nickname and was visiting the couple, emerged from the house and was arrested, though not charged. He was in shorts, and was told that he had until the count of six to put on a T-shirt or he would be shot.

Gonzales told them that he had surrendered and asked that the case be settled according to Philippine law, adding that Zulueta and Ocampo were not involved. The police asked whether he had a gun and he replied: ‘Sir, matagal na akong nakapahinga, napadaan lang ako dito (Sir, I have not been active for a long time. I was just passing by)’. The police dragged him over to a tree and tied him to it. The police then dragged Ocampo to the same spot, and as Zulueta struggled to get to him a policeman told her: ‘Wag kang mag-alala, anuman ang gagawin namin sa dalawa ay mangyayari din sa iyo (Don’t worry, whatever we do for these two will also happen to you)'.

After a few minutes Zulueta heard several gun shots and saw other officers searching their house. They returned carrying a gun and a hand grenade and asked Valencia if they were his; he said they weren’t. At 5am the policemen allowed Zulueta to see Ocampo, who was already dead, lying close to their house next to Gonzales, also dead. She and Valencia were taken to a police station in Orani and on to Camp Tolentino where they were questioned and eventually released without charge.

Zulueta has filed a complaint with the regional office of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) regarding the deaths of her husband and Gonzales but there has been no progress. She has received no news suggested that their deaths are being investigated.

Case Two: In another incident, labour leader Maximo Baranda was shot dead in front of his wife at their quarry site in Sitio Quarry, Purok 5, San Jose, Compostela on July 19, 2008. According to Nonoy Librado Development Foundation (NLDF) his wife Nida has reported that the four killers arrived at their workplace on two Yamaha DT model motorcycles. They pretended to be customers and asked the price of the sand and gravel, then shot him and fled the area.

Baranda suffered seven gunshot wounds to his body, one to the right portion of his head. Nida and her daughter, Maria Fe, immediately reported the incident to a local police station but have not received news of an investigation.

Nida said that her husband had been receiving threats to his life in connection with his work as the chairman of the Contractual United Workers Association (CUWA). The circumstances on how the threats were made have not been made clear so far. Baranda had been helping workers file complaints against the companies that fired them unjustly. It is believed that he was targeted due to this.

At the time of his death, Maximo had been advocating and helping contractual workers of a banana plantation company--the Fresh Banana Agricultural Corporation--to be taken on as regular employees. He was also involved in bringing cases of illegal dismissal and violations of labour standards before the National Labor Relation Commission (NLRC).


SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write letters to the concerned authorities requesting them thoroughly investigate these murders, and look into the delay in their investigation. The policemen involved in the murders of Alberto Ocampo and Jose Gonzales should be subjected to due process, fired and charged for their crimes.

The AHRC has also written letters to the United Nation Special Rapporteurs on extra-judicial, summary, or arbitrary executions and on the situation of human rights defenders

To support this appeal, please click here:


SAMPLE LETTER

Dear __________,

Re: PHILIPPINES: A labour rights defender is murdered; police shoot two men in custody

Name of victims:
1.Alberto B. Ocampo, 36, tricycle driver
2. Jose Gonzales
Alleged perpetrators: Elements attached to the 303 Police Provincial Mobile Group (PPMG), Camp Tolentino, Balanga, Bataan, led by Police Officer 2 (P02) Ricardo Vinluan.
Date of incident: 29 April 2009 at 2am
Place of incident: Sitio Lati, Barangay Kaparangan, Orani, Bataan

Name of victim:
1. Maximo D. Baranda, 47, resident of Purok 6, Maputi, San Jose, Compostela; chairperson of the Contractual United Workers Association (CUWA) and a harvester for the Fresh Banana Agricultural Corporation. He also owned a business supplying sand and gravel for construction.
Alleged perpetrators: Four unidentified men on two Yamaha DT model motorcycles
Date of incident: 19 July 2008 at 1:30pm
Place of incident: Sitio Quarry, Purok 5, San Jose, Compostela

I am writing to draw your attention to the case of Alberto Ocampo and Jose Gonzales who were killed on April 2009 by police officers; and labour leader Maximo Baranda who was murdered by unknown attackers on July 2008. The AHRC is deeply concerned by the lack of progress made into the investigation and prosecution of these cases.

When police were arresting Ocampo, his common-law-wife Imelda Zulueta, and their visitors, Gonzales and Jayson Valencia, no explanation was given for their arrest. Two of the men were shot dead while in custody, tied to a tree

Complaints have already been filed before the regional office of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). However there has not been any progress with regard to the investigation of their case. The policemen who committed the murders, despite having been positively identified by Ocampo’s common-law-wife, have not been charged nor subjected to investigation.

Meanwhile it has been almost a year since the murder of Maximo D. Baranda, a labour rights defender and I am deeply disappointed by the lack of substantial progress into the investigation. Although Baranda’s wife witnessed the murder the perpetrators remain unidentified and at large.

The AHRC believes that Maximo’s murder is related to his work as a labour leader, and his practice of giving legal aid and practical help to workers dismissed from their jobs unfairly. He had no known enemies but had received threats, and the circumstances of his death fit the pattern of murder of hundreds of other human rights defenders in recent times.

The victim’s wife Nida and their daughter, Maria Fe immediately reported his murder at their local police station, but have received no new information regarding the case.

The Philippines is becoming notorious for extra-judicial killing, particularly among its law enforcers. The police and the military in particular are becoming better known for their vigilante-style punishments than their ability to uphold the law and follow due process. This was aptly pointed out in last years’ Universal Periodic Review (UPR) by the United Nations Human Rights Council’s which recommended among other things, that it ‘intensify its efforts to carry out investigation and prosecution on extra-judicial killings and punish those responsible’

Whether a person is a potential criminal, an outspoken journalist or a human rights defender, under Philippine law their rights are necessarily the same. But such rights – to life, to due process, to the freedom of speech and the freedom of association – are becoming obsolete

I therefore strongly urge you to intervene and expedite the investigation into these cases. The policemen involved in arresting and killing Alberto Ocampo and Jose Gonzales should be subjected to due process, fired and charged for their crimes. The unacceptable delays in this investigation should be investigated and steps taken to prevent such delays in the future. The complainant and witnesses to this case must also be given protection.

I also demand that the police investigating Baranda’s murder explain their lack of progress on the case to his family, and continue to regularly update them regarding their renewed efforts to find the perpetrators.

Yours sincerely,


-------------
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
President
Republic of the Philippines
Malacanang Palace
JP Laurel Street, San Miguel
Manila 1005
PHILIPPINES
Fax: +63 2 736 1010
Tel: +63 2 735 6201 / 564 1451 to 80
E-mail: corres@op.gov.ph

2. Ms. Leila De Lima
Commissioner
Commission on Human Rights
SAAC Bldg., Commonwealth Avenue
U.P. Complex, Diliman
Quezon City
PHILIPPINES
Fax: +63 2 929 0102
Tel: +63 2 928 5655 / 926 6188
E-mail: chr.delima@yahoo.com or mtm_rodulfo@yahoo.com

3. Deputy Director General Jesus A. Verzosa
Chief, Philippine National Police (PNP)
Camp General Rafael Crame
Quezon City
PHILIPPINES
Fax: +63 2724 8763
Tel: +63 2 726 4361/4366/8763
E-mail: bluetree73@gmail.com

4. Ms. Agnes Devanadera
Acting Secretary
Department of Justice (DoJ)
DOJ Bldg., Padre Faura
1004 Manila
PHILIPPINES
Fax: +63 2 521 1614
E-mail: raulgonzalez_doj@yahoo.com

5. Mr. Ronaldo V. Puno
Secretary
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)
A. Francisco Gold Condominium II
EDSA cor. Mapagmahal St., Diliman
Quezon City
PHILIPPINES
Fax: +63 2 925 0332
Tel: +63 2 925 0330 / 31
E-mail: rvpuno@dilg.gov.ph


Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)

7 Muslims arrested, tortured by troops in southern Philippines: AHRC

COTABATO CITY, Philippines (Mindanao Examiner / Mar. 10, 2009) – Government troops arrested seven people they accused of having links with a wanted Muslim rebel leader in the southern Philippines, the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) reported on Tuesday.

The Hong Kong-based AHRC said the arrest was illegal and that the workers were neither working for Moro Islamic Liberation Front commander Ameril Kato nor involve in any rebel group.

The soldiers accused the men of constructing a house for Kato in North Cotabato’s Midsayap town. But this was denied by the AHRC, which quoted a report submitted by the Task Force Detainees of the Philippines, and said those arrested are heads of families from nearby municipalities who had to work in the construction industry to earn money to support their respective families.

The men were arrested on March 1 after troops, backed by helicopters, swooped down in the area. The AHRC identified those arrested as Johnny Tugan, 51 years old; Salik Ameril, 27; Malik Guinaludin and four others, known only by their aliases, Espaik, Said, Dats and Patutin, at their worksite in the village of Lomopog.

The group, all of whom are Muslims, were working for a local engineer for the expansion of an elementary school, it said.

“While the group was working, five helicopters, carrying soldiers attached to the 40th Infantry Battalion of Philippine Army and Scout Rangers, landed near their worksite. But as they hovered over the area, a soldier from inside the helicopter opened fired at them using an M60 machine gun. The gun fire lasted for a minute and prompted the frightened workers to flee in different directions for safety; soon after the soldiers landed in the area,” the AHRC said.

It added: “After being fired upon, the soldiers, numbering about 35, rounded up the workers and took them inside a classroom where they were held. When the group tried to explain raising their hands and telling the soldiers that they were merely construction workers, they were ignored. They were instead ordered to lie down facing the ground with their hands on their backs. While in that position, the soldiers had their hands handcuffed with plastic wire and blindfolded them with adhesive tape. The soldiers then repeatedly kicked and punched them.”

One of the victims, Tugan, recalled having been kicked and hit to his left chest and back. The soldiers, too, had them questioned to force them into admitting that they were members of the MILF under Kato.

The soldiers claimed that they were constructing the house of the rebel leader, but the workers denied they neither were members of any rebel force nor knew anything about it. However, the victims repeatedly told the soldiers that they were not constructing a house for Kato’s or members of his rebel group.

The AHRC said that for five hours, the workers were not allowed to leave from the bench where they ordered to sit for four hours. After which, they were taken to a solar drier where they were told to lie facing to the ground.

“As they were lying it rained heavily. But the soldiers, instead of taking them out from the field to prevent them from being drench, made them remain where they were for two hours,” it said.
It was only on March 2 that the soldiers had their handcuffs removed. The soldiers told them to eat their leftovers. For about 18 hours they were not given water to drink.

Sariya Ali, the village head, came to the rescue of the men and freed them. She also accompanied the victims to a local police station to file a complaint about the abuse.

But the police investigator on duty refused to register their complaints, telling them that they had no jurisdiction over the case since the incident took place in the area occupied by the military. The unidentified policeman, nevertheless, took their names without explaining to them the reason for doing so.

The AHRC said it is also writing letters to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Question of Torture calling for his intervention, saying, the soldiers responsible for torturing, illegally arresting and detaining the victims should be held to account. And the police officer, who refused to register the victims’ complaint, should also be investigated by way of having him identified as well as the police station where he is attached.

There was no immediate statement from the military about the allegations, but militant groups and human rights activists have previously accused soldiers of violating civil rights of citizens in Mindanao, where security forces are battling Muslim and communist insurgents. (Mindanao Examiner)

Violations of rights under failing Filipino land reforms

A written statement submitted by the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC), a non-governmental organization with general consultative status.

When the 1988 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) was enacted, there were expectations that landless farmers would be able to obtain land, which they could use to cultivate crops to provide for their subsistence, and build their homes.

However, over two decades after the land reform law was enacted, thousands of hectares of land have yet to be distributed to landless farmers.

A local organization helping the farmers, Task Force Mapalad (TFM), has reported that at least 24,115 hectares of land, all of which are owned by wealthy and influential persons, have not been distributed to farmers. This figure, however, only concerns the lands under the TFM’s area of concern, and does not include the land that for distribution that other local organizations are dealing with. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), the agency tasked to implement the land distribution, reportedly has a backlog of at least 1.2 million of hectares of land that needs to be given to farmers.

The government’s failure to ensure that land that was intended for distribution is promptly given to the qualified beneficiaries, has since resulted in conflict, often resulting in violent clashes, between farmers and armed men that the landlords have employed. In most cases, the landlords use violence against the farmers, once the latter begin asserting their rights of ownership of the land they have been provided under the CARL.

In the 21 years of the existence of the CARL, hundreds of land reform and farmer activists have been killed, either in individual targeted extra-judicial killings due to their work in helping farmers to claim land, or in incidents in which violent confrontations took place with armed men that the landlords have employed. Such armed confrontations occur when courts rule that the farmers can occupy the land that they are already allowed to farm.

The failure of the authorities to protect such persons and ensure their rights under the CARL are guaranteed and implemented have led to problems for such farmers concerning their abilities to be able to have, inter alia, food to eat, medication for illness, a house to live in and to send their children to school to receive education, while legal procedures in court concerning their cases drag on for years.

Farmers have engaged in marches that are hundreds of kilometers long to travel to the central government offices in Manila, in an effort to get attention. Others have gone on hunger strike, held daily demonstrations, and have been arrested and been charged in courts for holding such demonstrations.

In December 2008, when the budget and the implementation of the CARL was about to expire, hundreds of farmer beneficiaries, land reform activists and others concerned for the farmers’ welfare, held demonstrations to petition the Congress to have the implementation of the land reform law extended. Although the Congress did extend it for another six months, from January to June 2009, it did not include the provisions concerning Land Acquisition and Distribution (LAD).

Under the LAD, the government has the authority to compel the landowners to sell their properties to the government. The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) conducts evaluations to determine the cost of the property that is for distribution and subsequently pays for it on behalf of the farmer.

Since the money used in buying the land comes from budget allocations for this purpose, the farmer beneficiaries are expected to repay the government through a mode of repayment that is affordable to them. The absence of LAD provisions renders the implementation of land reform meaningless in the period in question.

Firstly, there is no more budget to pay to landlords or multinational corporations whose lands are being subjected to land distribution. Even if they are qualified beneficiaries, farmers therefore don’t have the means to acquire the land concerning which they claim ownership. Although the budget for technical support to farmers had been retained, it is not sufficient to ensure that the farmers can acquire the land.

The government, in particular the legislative body, who is supposed to ensure the welfare of these farmers, has therefore decided to use their authority deliberately against these farmers’ interests. It is a common knowledge that several members of Congress own land that is also to subjected to distribution.

Secondly, wealthy and influential landowners have been exploiting the delay in adjudication of cases in court to frustrate the farmers. These also include properties owned by the family of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s husband in Negros province, Jose Miguel Arroyo; the property owned by the family of President Arroyo’s secretary, Francisco T. Duque III in Pangasinan, amongst others. Arroyo’s property has not been distributed to farmer beneficiaries, while the landless tenants in Duque’s property are struggling to claim ownership of the land.

The landlords exploit the judicial process by subverting procedures in regular courts to file charges against the farmers. For example, they have file criminal complaints concerning qualified theft or trespassing. Under such charges, the farmers and their families are effectively being charged for harvesting crops that they cultivate, and charged for trespassing on the land on which they built their homes and have lived all their lives. Such actions are usually taken when the farmers attempt to claim ownership of the land.

In one case, in Bondoc Peninsula in March 2006, villagers occupying the land of a wealthy and influential land-owner family, were charged with numerous questionable criminal offences in court. Although the regular courts are not supposed to have jurisdiction or to adjudicate cases related to disputes in the implementation of land reform, local courts ignore this.

The prosecution service and judicial process has been exploited to attack farmers attempting to claim ownership over the land they cultivate. (AHRC)