Home / News / Urgent Appeals / PHILIPPINES: Police violate procedure to benefit from the surrender of a rebel
 

PHILIPPINES: Police violate procedure to benefit from the surrender of a rebel

September 27, 2009

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-128-2009



28 September 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------
PHILIPPINES: Police violate procedure to benefit from the surrender of a rebel

ISSUES: Corruption; right to liberty and security; indigenous groups; administration of justice
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) writes to report that various police units have squabbled over the custody of a rebel in front of a judge in open court and violated various other procedures, suggesting an interest in securing a bounty and other rewards. Police deceived the rebel's indigenous village elders by falsely promising amnesty in return for his surrender, and then kept him in police camps prior to his trial, rather than in remand jail. The detainee was also paraded in front of media by General Versoza as a 'captured' man, though the General himself last year prohibited this kind of display.

CASE DETAILS:

Edgardo Barona Molina was a former student activist and peasant organizer before he joined the New People's Army (NPA), a rebel group in Ilocos Sur province. According to information received from Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP), he was urged to surrender for a variety of crimes, and did so.

On 2 December the police took Molina to Camp Rafael Crame in Quezon City, several kilometers from Abra, where he was presented to General Luizo Ticman (former head of PNP's Police Regional Office I or PRO). Molina has since been held at the headquarters of the 103rd Police Provincial Mobile Group (PPMG) in Camp Elpidio Quirino in Bulag, Bantay, Ilocos Sur. On 4 December PNP Deputy Director General Jesus Versoza presented him to the media during a press conference and declared that Molina had instead been captured by the police. We are told that Molina discovered that a 1 million peso (USD 21100) bounty had been put up for his arrest.

On March 11, 2009, when Molina was taken to court for the arraignment of his cases another two police units – the Special Action Forces (SAF) of the PRO, headed by Chief Supt. Eugene Martin and the police director of the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) – engaged in an unprofessional 'tug-o-war', squabbling over who had taken custody of him. We have learned that they even appeared in open court, trying to re-arrest Molina in open view of Judge Alzate. The judge was forced to intervene, deciding that the PNP's 103rd PPMG should supervise and take custody of Molina, and the two contesting police units were prohibited from taking Molina into their custody.

Valid concerns for his client's safety has led his lawyer, Atty. Amilcar Begornia to file an appeal before the Supreme Court (SC) seeking for the transfer of his hearing from Abra province to Ilocus Sur province: 'for fear that interest groups claiming the supposed bounty for his arrest might trigger conflict between contesting parties that might endanger his life and family'. As explained further below, government employees, including police officers, are prohibited from taking rewards or bounty in the performance of their duties, yet are widely believed to do so anyway.

The attorney's fears are founded on a number of other procedural violations. For example, before Molina surrendered we have learned that there had been negotiations in November 2008 in which amnesty was promised. These were carried out with indigenous and largely vulnerable village elders, and former town official, and Superintendent Ricardo B. Dayag, Jr. of the 103rd PPMG, who allegedly told the elders that Molina would be offered amnesty, should he turn himself in. The SI told them that they would seek the help of Chavit Singson, former governor of Ilocos Sur and the current Deputy National Security Adviser to this end.

Molina decided to surrender on 1 December 2008 after being told that amnesty had been arranged. In a charade, Supt. Dayag and his men fetched Molina from Bangued Abra and took him to Vigan Ilocos Sur where Singson lives. At 5pm, Supt. Dayag told Molina that Singson was out of the country, and showed him the arrest warrants.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

This case illustrates that the policemen are themselves law breakers. They deliberately abused their power to arrest, detain and facilitate a prosecution, not due to the detainee's crimes, but rather to fabricate accomplishments that would lead to promotion and financial reward.

In a report on June 23, 2009, the Philippine National Police (PNP) clearly stipulated that 'government officials or employees', which include the policemen, are prohibited from taking rewards or bounty in the performance of their duties. The police should not have been expecting a reward for capturing Molina, yet according to the TFDP it is an 'open secret' that policemen benefit from bounties.

A further breach of regulation took place when the chief of the PNP, Deputy Director General Versoza, had Melina presented at the press conference. In July 2008 General Versoza declared that the PNP would observe a regulation to prohibit the parading of suspects, largely in response to appeals made by the AHRC. At the time he explained: 'There were issues raised that presenting the arrested suspects before the media violates the persons' rights to be presumed as innocent'. However this practice remains endemic in police stations all over the country.
There are also concerns over how the court is administering Molina's case. The two branches of the courts are being presided over by just one judge. In the Philippines, a lack of court judges means that they often have to preside over more than one court; a main reason for cases suffering such enormous delays.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

Molina is a native of Abra province and belonged to an indigenous Binodngan tribe, part of a sub-tribe in Kalinga, northern Philippines. Arrest warrants for him had been issued for rebellion (criminal case numbers 2008-091 and 2008-114) at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 2 and for murder and multiple frustrated murders (with criminal case no. 2008-092) at the RTC Branch 1, all in Bangued, Abra province. These two trial court branches are presided over by Judge Corpus B. Alzate.

The SC has yet to decide on his appeal. The cases are still pending at the RTCs in Abra province.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please write letters to the government agencies listed below expressing your concern about the manner in which the arrest, detention and subsequent detention of the suspect took place. An inquiry must also be held into allegations that the police are involved in money-making.

The AHRC has also written letters to the Working Group on arbitrary detention and the Independent Expert on Minority Issues.

To support this appeal, please click here:

-------------------------------------------

SAMPLE LETTER:

Dear _________,

PHILIPPINES: Police violate procedure to benefit from the surrender of a rebel

Name of the detainee: Edgardo Barona Molina, a native of Abra province; from the indigenous Binodngan tribe, a sub-tribe in Kalinga, northern Philippines. He was a former student activist and peasant organizer before joining the New People's Army (NPA) in Ilocos Sur province.

Police units involved (All under the Philippine National Police):
1.103rd Provincial Mobile Group (PPMG), headed by Superintendent Ricardo B. Dayag, Jr.
2. Special Action Forces (SAF) of the Police Regional Office (PRO), headed by Chief Supt. Eugene Martin.
3. The director of the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR).

Status of the case: Molina was charged for rebellion (criminal cases 2008-091 and 2008-114) and murder and multiple frustrated murders (criminal case no. 2008-092) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branches 1 and 2 in Bangued, Abra province. These two courts are under Judge Corpus B. Alzate. Molina is presently detained in Camp Elpidio Quirino in Bulag, Bantay, Ilocos Sur.

I am writing to express my deep concern over the case of Edgardo Barona Molina, a rebel returnee of indigenous origin, the custody of whom has been fought over in open court by various police units. Other procedural violations suggest a strong police interest in securing a bounty and other rewards for his arrest, though I am informed that the rebel actually surrendered, and that police are not eligible to get bounties.

Before Molina yielded to the PPMG's custody, the latter allegedly promised that they would help him secure amnesty. A series of unethical negotiations took place between the policemen and the vulnerable elders from Molina's tribe for his surrender, however when Molina surrendered on December 1, 2009, the policemen instead detained him at their headquarters. He was told that Chavit Singson, former governor of Ilocos Sur and the current Deputy National Security Adviser (NSA) were out of the country and could not help him, as had been suggested.

Later, the detainee learned that a 1 million pesos reward has been offered to whoever who could facilitate his arrest.

On March 11, when Molina was taken to court for the arraignment of his cases another two police units – the Special Action Forces (SAF) of the Police Regional Office (PRO), headed by Chief Supt. Eugene Martin and the police director of the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) – squabbled over who had taken custody of him. I have learned that they even appeared in open court, trying to re-arrest Molina in open view of Judge Alzate. The judge was forced to intervene, deciding that the PNP's 103rd Provincial Mobile Group (PPMG) should supervise and take custody of Molina, and the two contesting police units were prohibited from taking Molina into their custody.

Valid concerns for his client's safety has led his lawyer, Atty. Amilcar Begornia to file an appeal before the Supreme Court (SC) seeking for the transfer of his hearing from Abra province to Ilocus Sur province: 'for fear that interest groups claiming the supposed bounty for his arrest might trigger conflict between contesting parties that might endanger his life and family'. I understand that government employees, including police officers, are prohibited from taking rewards or bounty in the performance of their duties, yet are widely believed to do so anyway.

The behavior of law enforcement officers in this case has been unprofessional and disappointing. While it is an officer's duty to arrest, detain and facilitate the prosecution of anyone accused of breaking the law, in Molina's case, self-interest has appeared to have come first, influencing the case and the detainee's safety. I therefore urge you to commence a credible and thorough investigation into these allegations. If those involved are found to have abused their authority they should be held to account.

I also demand a rational explanation for the decision by PNP chief, Deputy Director General Jesus A. Verzosa, to have Molina presented before the media in a press conference, where he was announced to have been 'captured'. It is surprising that this practice continues despite General Verzosa's pronouncement in July 2008 that the PNP would no longer subject suspect's to such treatment.

I trust that you will take the appropriate action in this case.

Your 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

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
AHRC-UAC-128-2009
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.