Japan Group Releases Report on Killings in Philippines

(2) Impunity of the Military Personnel

The AFP is also not moving to investigate human rights violations within the organization, as well as to punish the alleged perpetrators of killings and abductions. In the cases the fact-finding team investigated, all identified perpetrators by witnesses are still on active duty.

In particular, the Marcellana and Lapa cases show that the military has been harboring the perpetrators in the military instead of punishing them. Impunity within the AFP should be immediately addressed.

The AFP’s attitude towards the judicial process, such as the enforcement of the writ of amparo, is not cooperative. The AFP does not punish the military personnel who were exposed through the judicial procedure to be involved in the abduction of civilians.

4. Absence of the Accountability Mechanism

Many countries have made good-faith efforts to address the issue of extrajudicial killings. For example, they have established Truth and Reconciliation Commissions 133 and conducted thorough investigations and identified the person most responsible for the killings by looking at “chain of commander.”

Based on our understanding of the situation, however, the Philippine government does not seem to be making good-faith efforts at truth-finding.

The Melo Commission made comprehensive recommendations regarding political will, investigation, prosecution, witness protection, and has already finished its role for truth seeking, and measure to prevent recurrence. Regarding the investigation, the Melo Commission recommended following;134

“To ensure that all reports and complaints of extrajudicial killings against the military are investigated promptly, impartially, and effectively, the investigation must be conducted by a body or agency independent from the armed forces. This civilian investigative agency should be independent of, and not under the command, control, or influence of the Armed Forces, and it must have control of its own budget.”

After more than one year passed, none of the recommendation including independent investigative mechanism, has been realized.

According to the UN Special Rapporteur Mr. Alston, the Philippine government has ordered a range of measure to respond to the problem including the following declaration.135

“The Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department of National Defense (DND), and the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) shall establish a Joint Fact-finding body regarding the alleged military involvement in the killings. We will charge and prosecute those who are responsible.

“The CHR has been provided with an addition 25 million pesos (US $510,000) in funding to facilitate this work.”

Despite these declarations, when the fact-finding　team visited the Commission on Human Rights( CHR ), the fact finding team could not receive any positive answer regarding the progress of the joint fact-finding body. The Commission did not give any comment whether a joint fact-finding effort existed at all.136

With regard to the mechanism within CHR itself, CHR answered there was a special Task Force addressing the issue of extrajudicial killings within the CHR headquarters. They stated that there were only two staff members at headquarters exclusively working on extrajudicial killings and regional offices of CHR were investigating individual cases.

They repeatedly stressed that an inadequate budget limited the number of staff at headquarters that could work exclusively on extrajudicial killings. They also said that the insufficient budget was the main reason why the CHR’s own “witness protection programme” has not yet been realized.

Meanwhile, CHR investigation led by Eligio Mallari issued a report that “there is no concrete evidence to show that Palparan ordered any killings, and it is improbable to prosecute him for ‘command responsibility’ as it is not a subject matter under the Philippine law.”137 This finding contradicts the findings of the Melo Commission. This report is not the final conclusion of the CHR, and it will be examined by all commissioners of the CHR, however, it remains a question whether the Commission endorses the impunity of Palparan based on a full and thorough investigation. There is deep concern that CHR—which suffers from lack of adequate resources and capacity, as well as having limited power to investigate public authority—instead of conducting thorough investigations, demands extremely high–level proof from victims, and then will ultimately endorse impunity.

No other governmental organ, such as the Department of Justice, investigates and holds the people responsible for the killings accountable.138 There is no record disclosed by the Ombudsman’s office in which the office investigated any public official in relation to the extrajudicial killings.139