Japan Group Releases Report on Killings in Philippines

Human Rights Now concludes that there is no effective accountability mechanism to conduct thorough investigation on the human rights violations, identify responsible persons in the military, and prosecute them.

5. Witness’s Fear of Retaliation

Through our fact finding, the majority of victims did not want to disclose their names and identities, and nor did they want to expose their faces. Many eye-witnesses are living in fear of retaliation and harassment by the military. This fear is not unrealistic at all.

First, as mentioned above, HRN has been informed that several witnesses to the extrajudicial-killing cases have actually been killed themselves.

One is a witness of the Hacienda Luisita Massacre, Mr. Beltran. At the time of his death, he was scheduled to testify before the Congress on the massacre. Another example was a witness before UN special rapporteur Philip Alston, Mrs. Che-che Gandinao. She was killed after her testimony before Mr. Alston.

Second, there is actual harassment against the witnesses. For instance, Jonathan Sta Rosa, the brother of Isaias Sta Rosa, has testified before Senate hearings about the extrajudicial killing of his brother, and during his testimony, the military sneaked into the hearing despite it being prohibited. They took his photo, so Jonathan felt fear of assassination and had to leave his home. He is living away from his hometown in a secret location

Third, the fact finding mission saw several witnesses and families of the victims who had to live in secret, some in protected areas. The person who witnessed the abduction of two UP students is also in danger. Because of the fear of assassination, he is also living apart from his hometown. The son and daughter of Albarrilo had the same experiences. They live in a so -called “internal refugee camp” to avoid retaliation. When the mission saw the families of Grecil Buya, it was clear that they are actually living in the height of fear. “The military is accusing me as NPA, If I stayed in Mindanao, I would be either killed or prosecuted. So I decided to come to Manila and live in secret. Please help us”.140

This fear prevents the witnesses from testifying, as well as preventing families from demanding prosecution. For example, In Lapa’s case, the victims’ wife explained why she could not demand further investigations: “My son and myself saw assailants’ face. If we point them out, they will kill us”141

In Magsino’s case, the victim’s mother told Human Rights Now, “There was a certain witness in the crime-scene. But, because of the threat, the witness does not want to testify in the court.”142

In Philippine domestic law, the “Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act” (Republic Act No. 06981)143 was approved on April 24, 1991. According to Section 2 of the Act, “The Department of Justice…through its Secretary, shall formulate and implement a ‘Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program’ … pursuant to and consistent with the provisions of this Act.” Section 3 then provides that, “[a]ny person who has witnessed or has knowledge or information on the commission of a crime” may be admitted into the Program provided that

“(c) he or any member of his family within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity is subjected to threats to his life or bodily injury or there is a likelihood that he will be killed, forced, intimidated, harassed or corrupted to prevent him from testifying, or to testify falsely or evasively, because or on account of his testimony.”

However, the Department of Justice is failing to implement the witness protection program.144 Potential witnesses, including survivors of attacks, who have come forward, are much less likely to receive any protection. In the Philippines, there is no witness protection system independent from the military and police. When state offers witness protection measures which rely on military or police in terms of actual logistics, witnesses can never be secure.

6. Recent Supreme Court’s Effort for Justice

(1) Recent development

Under such serious circumstances, it is notable that the Supreme Court of Philippines is going to have to play an important role to redress human rights violations.

The Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno led the Judiciary in conducting the National Summit on extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances - Searching for Solutions from July 16 to 17 at the Manila Hotel. The meeting brought together around 400 delegates and observers representing the Executive and Legislative departments, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), the Philippine National Police (PNP), the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), religious groups, the academe, non-governmental and people’s organizations, the media, and the international community.

After two days of reports, consultations, and workshops, the Summit delegates, who were divided into 12 breakout groups each chaired by a Supreme Court Justice, came out with several solutions and recommendations.

Among the specific solutions presented, as summarized by Philippine Judicial Academy Chancellor and Retired Justice Ameurfina Melencio Herrera, are the following:

* Strengthen the Witness Protection Program
* Have a local definition of “ extrajudicial killing” through legislation
* Revive the peace process and call for a bilateral ceasefire
* Need for rules or laws allowing search for missing persons in military camps
* Investigation and forensic capability building
* Separate rules for writ of habeas corpus for cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances
* Creation of an independent, credible, and impartial body to investigate cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances
* Provide for issuances by the courts of protective orders similar to protective orders in domestic violence cases
* Promulgate guidelines for the exercise of visitorial powers of the CHR