Monday, June 16, 2008 64 victims of ‘politically motivated’ killings in Visayas since 2005, monitor says By Katrina A. Balmaceda Sun.Star Correspondent
JUSTICE in the Philippines has become elusive—at least, according to Amnesty International (AI), an international group that advocates human rights.
Sixty years after the country signed its commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), AI studies found that the Philippines’ judicial system lacked “the will to prosecute.”
The 2008 AI report pointed to “incompetence in forensic investigations” and a lack of lawyers as the culprits that slowed the wheels of Philippine justice.
It also found 54 countries in the world to be conducting “unfair trials”, violating the UDHR law that everyone charged with a crime is entitled to “a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.”
“The possibility of getting genuine justice remains unsure,” said Dr. Aurora Parong, AI Philippines section director. She lamented that the process of getting justice usually takes five to 10 years in the Philippine trial courts.
These sentiments came amid AI findings that extra-judicial executions and politically motivated killings are still rampant in the country, and many of these remain unsolved.
The Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP), which held a joint forum with AI last Friday, released a statement saying that from 2005 until the present, the group has recorded 64 victims of politically motivated extra-judicial killings in the Visayas alone.
It also recorded 11 cases of enforced disappearances and 20 victims of “frustrated salvaging” in the region.
TFDP Visayas Coordinator Leonor Gomez called this a “culture of impunity.” Impunity, Parong said, is the failure to prosecute perpetrators of injustice.
Gomez lamented that law enforcement agencies in the Philippines are “not very diligent” in the investigation of extra-judicial killings. She said that it is not only investigation that has been lacking, but also “the will to prosecute.”
In the forum, Parong questioned the capacity of the present government investigators and prosecutors.
Better judges
“We need an improvement of prosecution by having better judges,” Parong said, adding that there is also a lack of lawyers in the country.
She also recommended having a good forensic investigation center that is independent from the government. Parong added that the Philippine judiciary must be “a rehabilitative justice system.”
The AI report, however, acknowledged that the Philippines has also made significant efforts in protecting human rights.
“Amnesty International recognizes the efforts of the judiciary reforms in order to break impunity. The writ of amparo and the writ of habeas data can now be used by victims of human rights violations in their efforts to seek redress of their grievances and injustices,” Parong said.
However, she added that people don’t know about these rules.
The writ of amparo is a rule the Supreme Court (SC) issued on Sept. 25, 2007 that took effect on Oct. 24 of the same year. It is defined as “a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security has been violated or is threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.”
Protection
The rule covers extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances.
A petitioner for the writ of amparo may ask for protection from a government agency or a private institution. He may also ask for his witnesses to be placed under the Department of Justice’s Witness Protection Program.
With supporting testimonies from witnesses, he may also petition for an inspection order and a production order for inspections and documents that may serve as evidence against the accused.
The SC signed the writ of habeas data on Jan. 22, 2008, and it took effect on Feb. 2.
It is a recourse given to anyone “whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission” by a public official or private individual or entity that is “engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.”
It is a petition that compels access to military, government or police data regarding the petitioner.
Parong recommended that the law and judiciary be brought ”closer to the people,” so they may use the laws to protect their human rights.
