US on Human Rights in Philippines: Unsolved Cases, Unpunished Perpetrators

The trial for the 2005 killing of a Pasay City judge remained pending at year’s end.

Trial Procedures

The law provides that those accused of crimes be informed of the charges against them, have the right to counsel, and be provided a speedy and public trial before a judge. Defendants are presumed innocent and have the right to confront witnesses against them, to present evidence, and to appeal convictions. The authorities respected the right of defendants to be represented by a lawyer, but poverty often inhibited a defendant’s access to effective legal representation. Skilled defense lawyers staffed the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), but their workload was large and resources were scarce. The PAO provides legal representation for all indigent litigants at trial; however, during arraignment, courts may at their option appoint any lawyer present in the courtroom to provide counsel to the accused.

The law provides that cases should be resolved within set time limits once submitted for decision: 24 months for the Supreme Court; 12 months for a court of appeals; and three months for lower courts. However, these time limits are not mandatory, and, in effect, there were no time limits for trials.

Lengthy pretrial detention remained a problem. A 2005 UN Development Program (UNDP) and a Supreme Court study found that the average trial takes more than three years. Trials take place in short sessions over time and as witnesses become available; these noncontinuous sessions created lengthy delays. Furthermore, there was a widely recognized need for more prosecutors, judges, and courtrooms. Judgeship vacancy rates were high; of the total 2,166 trial court judgeships (including Shari’a courts), 456 (21 percent) were vacant, a small decline from 2006. Courts in Mindanao and other poorer provinces had higher vacancy rates than the national average. Shari’a court positions were particularly difficult to fill because of the requirement that applicants be members of both the Shari’a Bar and the Integrated Bar. All five Shari’a district court judgeships and 37 percent of circuit court judgeships remained vacant. Shari’a courts do not have criminal jurisdiction.

The NPA continued to subject military personnel, police, local politicians, and other persons to its so-called courts for “crimes against the people.” The NPA executed some of these “defendants.” The Moro Islamic Liberation Front also maintained similar “people’s courts.”

Political Prisoners and Detainees

Various human rights NGOs maintained lists of incarcerated persons they considered to be political prisoners. At year’s end the TFDP reported that there were 221 political prisoners. Typically, there was no distinction in these lists between detainees and prisoners, and the majority of persons listed have not been convicted. Some NGOs asserted that it was frequent practice to make politically motivated arrests of persons for common crimes and to continue to detain them after their sentences expired. The government used NGO lists as one source of information in the conduct of its pardon, parole, and amnesty programs, but it did not consider the persons listed to be political detainees or prisoners. The CPP/NPA demanded that their members under detention by the PNP or AFP be treated as political prisoners as one of the preconditions for resuming peace talks with the government.

During the year the government released 85 persons whom NGOs claimed were political prisoners. The TFDP recorded 75 new “political prisoners” incarcerated during the year.

The government permitted access to alleged political prisoners by international humanitarian organizations.

Civil Judicial Procedures and Remedies

The judiciary is independent and impartial in civil matters. There are administrative remedies as well as judicial remedies for alleged wrongs; however, corruption is widespread in the judiciary, and cases were often dismissed. Complainants have access to local trial courts to seek damages for, or cessation of, human rights abuses. On October 24, the Supreme Court issued rules on the “writ of amparo,” a remedy available to victims of human rights abuses, particularly extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. The writ, which may be filed in any regional court against any public official or private individual, gives the respondent five working days to provide all relevant information regarding the case, including steps taken to investigate the fate or whereabouts of the victim. If the respondent is a public official there are additional requirements, including a statement that suspected offenders will be brought to court.

During the year human rights lawyers filed 15 writ of amparo petitions, against the military, of which seven were resolved and eight were pending hearings. Four of the resolved cases resulted in the releases of Ruel Munasque, Luisito Bustamante, Jeffrey Panganiban, and Edwin Malapote from military custody. The courts also granted protection orders to these four persons and their families. Of the other cases, one was dismissed and two were pending motions for reconsideration filed by the government.

f. Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence

The law provides that a judge may issue search warrants on a finding of probable cause; however, while the government generally respected restrictions on search and seizure within private homes, searches without warrants occurred. Judges declared evidence obtained illegally to be inadmissible.