Home / News / Urgent Appeals / PHILIPPINES: Torture and filing of questionable charges against three peasant community organisers
 

PHILIPPINES: Torture and filing of questionable charges against three peasant community organisers

February 1, 2010

Tagalog

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION -- URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-005-2010

1 February 2010
------------------------------------------------------
PHILIPPINES: Torture and filing of questionable charges against three peasant community organisers

ISSUES: Torture victims; torture; right to liberty and security; Arbitrary arrest and detention; human rights defenders
------------------------------------------------------

STOP extrajudicial killings in the Philippines
http://www.pinoyhr.net/
------------------------------------------------------

Dear Friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) writes to inform you that three peasant community organizers who were illegally arrested, tortured and laid with questionable charges in November 23, 2009 are still being detained. They were held for 17 days in a military camp on the pretext of being a security risk where they were also tortured before being tranferred to a proper detention center.

CASE DETAILS: (According to information received from the Alliance for the Advancement of People's Rights (KARAPATAN-Batangas))

On November 23, 2009 at 8am, the three organizers, namely Charity Diño, 29; Billy Batrina, 29; and Sonny Rogelio, 26; were in the municipality of Talisay, Batangas in order to invite people in the community to participate in the Urban Poor week at that time. The three were members of the Samahan ng Magbubukid ng Batangas (SAMBAT), a local peasant group.

While they were walking, three vans bearing armed persons in plain clothes suddenly blocked their way. The armed men alighted and forced the three into the vans. One of the vans has already been seen roaming the village a day before the incident. The three victims were later known to have been taken to the 730th Combat Group of the Philippine Air Force Camp in Palico, Batangas. 

At the military camp, they were tortured, subjected to questioning and held for 17 days. They were blindfolded with adhesive tape and handcuffed. Two of the victims, Batrina and Rogelio, had their heads hit against the wall; while the other victim, Charity, had her finger squeezed hard with bullets inserted in between them. Several military men had interogated them one after the other. Under torture they were forced to admit that they are members of a rebel group, the New People's Army (NPA). Several names were also mentioned and they were asked if they knew them.

The day after the incident, November 24, the three were taken to the Office of the Prosecutor in Batangas where they were subjected to inquest proceedings. On November 26, charges of illegal possession of firearms and explosives were filed against the three at the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6 in Tanauan, Batangas; and charges of illegal possession of drugs were also filed against Diño at the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in Talisay, Batangas.

After they were charged in court, the three were finally transferred only to the Batangas Provincial Jail in Lipa City, a regular detention facility, 17 days after the military took custody of them.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Under Rule 113, section 5 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, only a person who is attempting to, in the act of commiting or had committed a crime could be arrested without a warrant. A person arrested on this situation could also be subjected to an inquest proceedings on condition that the arresting officers and the prosecutor conducting the inquest are able to prove to establish a 'probable cause' to proceed the prosecution of the case.

However, the manner of arrest and the subsequent filing of charges under the inquest proceeding did not meet the requirements of the existing Rules. Instead, the three victims were abducted. They were not properly and adequately informed of the nature of charges against them, and allegedly, evidence was planted on them to justify the filing of charges in court. They were also taken to and held in a military camp instead of the regular detention center required by law on pretext of being a security risk. Thus, the inquest proceedings conducted in this case are also questionable.

In this case, the military had also effectively usurped the authority of the police to initiate arrest and to investigate into crimes committed under the laws of the land. The military unit involved in this case disregarded the authority of the police. The police station who is supposed to have primary jurisdiction in the area where the victims had been abducted, the Talisay Police Office (TPO), were not aware of the military operation.

The protection of the person's rights from being illegally arrested and arbitrarily detained is clearly envisage under Article 3, Section 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The Constitution states that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws".

Also in November 2009, the Philippine government had also enacted the Anti-Torture Act of 2009 declaring as a criminal offense the use of torture in criminal investigation. Under this law, evidence and testimonies obtained by way of torture could not be used in court proceedings.


SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please send your letters to the authorities below requesting for thei proper intervention.

The AHRC is also writing letters to the Special Rapporteurs on the question of torture and human rights defenders.

To support this appeal, please click here:

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear__________,

Re: PHILIPPINES: Torture and filing of questionable charges against three peasant community organisers

Name of victims:
1. Billy Batrina, 29 years old, community organiser for Samahan ng Magbubukid ng Batangas (SAMBAT), a local peassant group
2.Sonny Rogelio, 26 years old, community organisers for SAMBAT
3.Charity Diño, 29 years old, community organisers for SAMBAT
All of them are presently detained in Batangas Provincial Jail in Lipa City, Batangas.
Place of incident: Marquez St., Zone 3, Talisay, Batangas
Date of incident: At 8am on November 23, 2009
Alleged perpetrators: Security forces attached to the 730th Combat group, Philippine Air Force (PAF) and the 301st Intelligence Group, all based in Palico, Nasugbu, Batangas.
Status of the case: The charges of illegal possession of firearms and explosive is pending at the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6, in Tanauan, Batangas; and the illegal posession of drugs are filed against Diño at the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in Talisay, Batangas.

I am writing to draw your attention to the case of these three peasant community organisers, one of whom is a woman that the military in the municipality of Talisay, Batangas illegally arrested, tortured and laid with questionable charges on November 23, 2009.

The three organisers were on field work in a community in Talisay, Batangas to invite villagers to join their activities for Urban Poor week when armed men, traveling in three separate vans, wearing plain clothes, blocked their path and took custody of them. The three were at first reported to have been abducted by unknown persons, however, it was later known that those who had taken them were members of the 730th Combat group of the Philippine Air Force (PAF) in the area.

After the military took custody of the three, they were taken to the camp in Palico, Batangas, where they were tortured, subjected to questioning and held for 17 days, before being turned over to Batangas Provincial Jail in Lipa City where they are presently detained.

On their first day at the camp, the military assaulted two of the victims, Batrina and Rogelio, by hitting their heads against the wall while their other companion, Diño, had her fingers squeezed hard with bullets inserted in between them. The military men investigating them were forcing them to admit that they are members of a rebel group, the New Peoples' Army (NPA). The following day, November 24, the three were subjected to inquest proceedings at the prosecutor's office in Batangas where they were charged with illegal posession of firearms, explosives and drugs.

I am deeply concerned by the manner of arrest, detention and the subsequent filing of charges against the three victims.

Firstly, under Rule 113, section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, an arrest without a warrant could only be lawful when a person to be arrested was attempting to, actually committing or had just committed a crime. And, should a person arrested without a warrant, although he could be subjected to an inquest proceeding; however, the arresting officer and the prosecutor should able able to produced the evidence to establish a 'probable cause' to proceed with the prosecution.

In this case, however, none of the conditions laid out by the Rules on warrantless arrest exist  that could justify the arrest of the three without warrants. There were allegations that the evidence obtained from the victims had been planted to justify the arrest and the filing of charges. None of the victims had also been properly informed of the nature of charges laid on them.

I have also known that prior to the incident, one of the three vans that the military had used, had already been seen roaming the area, which suggest that the three had been the object of surveillance.

Secondly, I am aware of similar questionable charges laid upon human rights defenders and political activists in the past in the same region. The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) have already documented the case of around 72 human rights and political activists who had been laid with fabricated charges in three separate cases. These cases, namely, for murder in connection with the ambush of a policeman in Calapan City in March 2006;  arson and conspiracy to commit rebellion for burning a cell site in Lemery, Batangas on August 2008; and the murder for the killing of a militiaman in Rodriquez, Rizal province in July 2008, have all been dismissed by the courts.

I am deeply concerned that the arrest and subsequent filing of charges against these three community organizers is once again a sequel to this phenomenon of subverting legal processes to procute human rights defenders and political activists. I therefore urge you to ensure that the victims allegations of torture and the filing of questionable charges against them are thoroughly investigated. The charges must be dropped without further delay should there be no sufficient evidence to proceed with the prosecution of the case.

Also, the Philippine government has already enacted the Anti-Torture Act of 2009, a law in which the use torture is a criminal offense. Under this law also, the evidence and confession taken as a result of investigation by way of torture could not be admitted in court. Thus, any evidence being used and submitted in court against the three victims must not be admitted in court and that their allegations of torture against the military be investigated.


Yours sincerely,

--------------------
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
President
Republic of the Philippines
Malacanang Palace
JP Laurel Street, San Miguel
Manila 1005
PHILIPPINES
Fax: +63 2 736 1010
Tel: +63 2 735 6201 / 564 1451 to 80

2. Ms. Leila De Lima
Commissioner
Commission on Human Rights
SAAC Bldg., Commonwealth Avenue
U.P. Complex, Diliman
Quezon City
PHILIPPINES
Fax: +63 2 929 0102
Tel: +63 2 928 5655 / 926 6188
E-mail: mtm_rodulfo@yahoo.com

3. Deputy Director General Jesus A. Verzosa
Chief, Philippine National Police (PNP)
Camp General Rafael Crame
Quezon City
PHILIPPINES
Fax: +63 2724 8763
Tel: +63 2 726 4361/4366/8763
E-mail: ruth_cossid@yahoo.com

4. Ms. Agnes Devanadera
Secretary
Department of Justice (DoJ)
DOJ Bldg., Padre Faura
1004 Manila
PHILIPPINES
Fax: +63 2 521 1614
E-mail: raulgonzalez_doj@yahoo.com

5. Mr. Emilio Gonzalez
Deputy Ombudsman
Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military
and Other Law Enforcement Offices
3rd Floor, Ombudsman Bldg., Agham Road, Diliman
1104 Quezon City
PHILIPPINES
Fax: +63 2 926 8747
Tel: +63 2 926 9032

6. Lieutenant General Victor S. Ibrado
Chief of Staff
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
AFP-GHQ Offices, Camp Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo
Quezon City
PHILIPPINES
Fax: +63 2 911 6436
Tel: +63 2 911 6001 to 50


Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)

Related content
Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
AHRC-UAC-005-2010
Countries :
Issues :
Document Actions
Share |
Subscribe to our Mailing List
Follow AHRC
Extended Introduction: Urgent Appeals, theory and practice

A need for dialogue

Many people across Asia are frustrated by the widespread lack of respect for human rights in their countries.  Some may be unhappy about the limitations on the freedom of expression or restrictions on privacy, while some are affected by police brutality and military killings.  Many others are frustrated with the absence of rights on labour issues, the environment, gender and the like. 

Yet the expression of this frustration tends to stay firmly in the private sphere.  People complain among friends and family and within their social circles, but often on a low profile basis. This kind of public discourse is not usually an effective measure of the situation in a country because it is so hard to monitor. 

Though the media may cover the issues in a broad manner they rarely broadcast the private fears and anxieties of the average person.  And along with censorship – a common blight in Asia – there is also often a conscious attempt in the media to reflect a positive or at least sober mood at home, where expressions of domestic malcontent are discouraged as unfashionably unpatriotic. Talking about issues like torture is rarely encouraged in the public realm.

There may also be unwritten, possibly unconscious social taboos that stop the public reflection of private grievances.  Where authoritarian control is tight, sophisticated strategies are put into play by equally sophisticated media practices to keep complaints out of the public space, sometimes very subtly.  In other places an inner consensus is influenced by the privileged section of a society, which can control social expression of those less fortunate.  Moral and ethical qualms can also be an obstacle.

In this way, causes for complaint go unaddressed, un-discussed and unresolved and oppression in its many forms, self perpetuates.  For any action to arise out of private frustration, people need ways to get these issues into the public sphere.

Changing society

In the past bridging this gap was a formidable task; it relied on channels of public expression that required money and were therefore controlled by investors.  Printing presses were expensive, which blocked the gate to expression to anyone without money.  Except in times of revolution the media in Asia has tended to serve the well-off and sideline or misrepresent the poor.

Still, thanks to the IT revolution it is now possible to communicate with large audiences at little cost.  In this situation there is a real avenue for taking issues from private to public, regardless of the class or caste of the individual.

Practical action

The AHRC Urgent Appeals system was created to give a voice to those affected by human rights violations, and by doing so, to create a network of support and open avenues for action.  If X’s freedom of expression is denied, if Y is tortured by someone in power or if Z finds his or her labour rights abused, the incident can be swiftly and effectively broadcast and dealt with. The resulting solidarity can lead to action, resolution and change. And as more people understand their rights and follow suit, as the human rights consciousness grows, change happens faster. The Internet has become one of the human rights community’s most powerful tools.   

At the core of the Urgent Appeals Program is the recording of human rights violations at a grass roots level with objectivity, sympathy and competence. Our information is firstly gathered on the ground, close to the victim of the violation, and is then broadcast by a team of advocates, who can apply decades of experience in the field and a working knowledge of the international human rights arena. The flow of information – due to domestic restrictions – often goes from the source and out to the international community via our program, which then builds a pressure for action that steadily makes its way back to the source through his or her own government.   However these cases in bulk create a narrative – and this is most important aspect of our program. As noted by Sri Lankan human rights lawyer and director of the Asian Human Rights Commission, Basil Fernando:

"The urgent appeal introduces narrative as the driving force for social change. This idea was well expressed in the film Amistad, regarding the issue of slavery. The old man in the film, former president and lawyer, states that to resolve this historical problem it is very essential to know the narrative of the people. It was on this basis that a court case is conducted later. The AHRC establishes the narrative of human rights violations through the urgent appeals. If the narrative is right, the organisation will be doing all right."

Patterns start to emerge as violations are documented across the continent, allowing us to take a more authoritative, systemic response, and to pinpoint the systems within each country that are breaking down. This way we are able to discover and explain why and how violations take place, and how they can most effectively be addressed. On this path, larger audiences have opened up to us and become involved: international NGOs and think tanks, national human rights commissions and United Nations bodies.  The program and its coordinators have become a well-used tool for the international media and for human rights education programs. All this helps pave the way for radical reforms to improve, protect and to promote human rights in the region.