article 2 Special Report: The Philippines' hollow human rights system Vol. 11, No. 2-3 June-Sept 2012 June-Sept 2-3 No. Vol. 11, human rights system Philippines' hollow The Report: article 2 Special Vol. 11, No. 2-3 June-Sept 2012 ISSN 1811 7023 special report The Philippines’ hollow human rights system How complaint and protection mechanisms fail, and why Contents SPECIAL REPORT: THE PHILIPPINES’ hOLLOW HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM Introduction: The Philippines’ hollow human rights system 2 Editorial board, article 2 The tribulations and trials of complainants in the Philippines 6 Philippines Desk, Asian Human Rights Commission Weak police investigation allows perpetrators to get away 19 Rev. Fr. Jonash Joyohoy, Executive Director, The Ramento Project for Rights Defenders, Philippine Independent Church The Maguindanao massacre: legal and human rights implications of court delay 25 Danilo Reyes, Programme Officer, Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong Testimony of Myrna Reblando and her daughter 31 Torture victims’ 14-year quest for justice 38 Danilo Reyes, Programme Officer, Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong Unsolved killings, disappearances, torture & arbitrary arrests 42 Philippines Desk, Asian Human Rights Commission APPENDICES ALRC Universal Periodic Review 151 ALRC alternative report to the UN on the CAT 160 Result of the UPR on the Philippines, 2nd cycle, May & June 2012 178 article 2 June-Sept 2012 Vol. 11, No. 2-3 1 Introduction The Philippines’ hollow human rights system Editorial Board, article 2 his issue of article 2 comprises the third special report published by the Asian Legal Resource Centre T (ALRC) dedicated to the human rights situation in the Philippines. In February 2007, the ALRC released an issue of article 2 entitled “The criminal justice system of the Philippines is rotten” in which the serious degradation of the country’s system of justice was presented in detail. In March 2011, the ALRC launched a special report that focused on the issue of torture in the Philippines, entitled “Torture in the Philippines & the unfulfilled promise of the 1987 Constitution”. A key finding in the 2007 report was that the incapacity of the country’s justice system to deal with human rights cases had led to victims and witnesses not coming forward to make complaints. For five years, the Philippines’ normative and legal framework has been strengthened, in line with the country’s constitutional provisions and international obligations. These welcome legislative advances, notably the Anti-torture Law of 2009 and the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, should pave the way to the more effective protection of rights. Human rights violations that could not be prosecuted in the past due to the lack of relevant laws can now be, and complainants can therefore seek legal remedies if they so choose. It is therefore noteworthy that, while many victims of human rights violations still remain silent, there have also been a number of such persons who have been willing to come forward and make complaints in recent times. In this report, the ALRC takes a look at the fate of such efforts to seek justice and remedies. Through this lens, the current functioning of the Philippines’ criminal justice institutions can be evaluated, and the impact of the advances at the normative and legal levels on the protection of human rights in practice can be assessed. The report examines selected cases from 2007 to 2012, and finds that persons who have lodged complaints have typically faced serious obstacles from the point of registering complaints, as well as risks of being subjected to further serious rights abuses. It is evident from the cases documented in this report that the criminal justice system of the Philippines ceases to function 2 article 2 June-Sept 2012 Vol. 11, No. 2-3 when those accused of having perpetrated human rights abuses are state agents, rich or powerful persons, or those under their protection. As there are at present no effective independent oversight systems that can ensure accountability concerning abuses perpetrated by such persons, the protection of human rights remains out of reach, with those who make complaints far more likely to face reprisals as a result than achieve anything resembling justice and adequate reparation. As a result, the ALRC has chosen to describe the Philippines’ human rights protection system as being hollow. From the outside, this system may appear to have all the elements that are required to protect human rights. The Philippines has a plethora of laws and institutions that on paper suggest a workable system. But in practice, even the process of making complaints when human rights violations have been perpetrated does not function effectively, and the system falls at the first hurdle. The human rights protection system is therefore revealed to be a hollow shell, when put to the test, as has been done by the complainants whose cases are documented in this report. Justice at a price Another important facet that this report reveals is the pervasive nature of corruption within the Philippines’ justice delivery mechanisms. There is a greater probability that arrests of fugitives will take place when a financial reward is offered, than when there is none. Thus government or complainants had to resort to offering rewards as incentives for such arrests to be carried out, as has been seen in the case of fugitive General Jovito Palparan, who remains at large to date. Corruption is also a common feature in the prosecution of cases. Soldiers bribe witnesses to testify concerning false charges against activists. Policemen demand money from falsely accused persons in exchange for the dropping of criminal charges. Accused persons also bribe complainants and witnesses in order to have them withdraw complaints; some of those who have refused such bribes have been subjected to threats, as seen in the case of Myrna Reblando, the widow of Alejandro “Bong” Reblando, one of 32 journalists killed in Maguindanao massacre. Court delays have become the norm, fuelled by legal practitioners’ attempts to stretch out the process in order to maximise their opportunities to make money through corruption. The need for international attention concerning the reality of rights in the Philippines This issue of article 2 attempts to shed light on how the process of seeking justice and remedies is prevented from achieving its goals in the Philippines, as this is where the organisation believes the focus of civil society, governmental and the international human rights system should be placed, in order to advance the realisation of rights in the country. It is imperative for efforts by all actors to go beyond the development of norms, and the article 2 June-Sept 2012 Vol. 11, No. 2-3 3 adoption of laws, and begin to understand and address the need for effective implementation of these in practice. This issue is to be launched at a time of increased scrutiny by the international human rights system, making a reality-check timely. As this report is released, the United Nations Human Rights Council will adopt the outcome report of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the Philippines’ human rights record in late September 2012. The UPR is a state-led peer review mechanism under which all UN member-states’ domestic human rights records are reviewed, and recommendations are made. A few months later, the Philippines’ record concerning its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) will also be reviewed by the Human Rights Committee. This review by the Committee as well as the UPR represent significant opportunities for the international system to gain understanding about key human rights issues in the country, and to make recommendations based on these that they continue to press the government to implement. However, these reviews will only be of use if they are based on an understanding of the true problems affecting the Philippines’ human rights system. The Government of the Philippines accepted a number of recommendations made by other states during the UPR, which took place on May 29, 2012. The ALRC notes that many recommendations concern the types of violations that are documented in this report. Examples of such recommendations are included in the appendices of this report. These are welcomed, but the ALRC believes that a piece of the puzzle is still missing. Many recommendations call on the authorities to take the kinds of actions that are currently not possible in the Philippines, such as the launching of impartial investigations into abuses by state agents. By omitting any reference to the lack of mechanisms to effectively and systematically register complaints, launch the kind of investigations that are effective when state agents are the alleged perpetrators of violations, and launch effective prosecutions – throughout all of which effective protection needs to be provided to complainants and witnesses – recommendations to the government have missed an opportunity to focus sufficiently on the specifics that can make a difference. There is a significant need for the international discourse on national human rights situations to become more nuanced, in order for recommendations to be more relevant and measurable, and for the lack of implementation thereof by government to be less easy to side-step. It is essential for institutional and legal reforms to be at the heart of the discourse concerning the protection of human rights. Contributions This report was prepared by Danilo Reyes, programme officer of ALRC, with the contribution of many individuals and local human rights groups. This report would not have been possible 4 article 2 June-Sept 2012 Vol. 11, No. 2-3 without their enormous contribution and helpful insights. These groups are: Action and Solidarity for the Empowerment of Teachers (ASSERT) Alliance for the Advancement of People’s Rights (KARAPATAN) Bangsamoro Center for JustPeace Cavite Ecumenical Movement for Justice and Peace (CEMJP) Center for Trade and Union Human Rights (CTUHR) Consortium of Bangsamoro Civil Society, Inc.