Home / News / Urgent Appeals / UPDATE (Philippines): Appellate court due to decide on the 43 health workers habeas corpus petition

UPDATE (Philippines): Appellate court due to decide on the 43 health workers habeas corpus petition

March 2, 2010

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal Update: AHRC-UAU-010-2010

2 March 2010
 
[RE: AHRC-UAU-005-2010: PHILIPPINES: More details of procedural flaws and torture have surfaced in arrest of 43 health workers]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
PHILIPPINES: Appellate court due to decide on the 43 health workers habeas corpus petition

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

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

Dear Friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has been informed that the Court of Appeals (CA) in Manila, where the 43 health workers filed a petition for habeas corpus questioning the legality of their continuing detention at the military camp, is due to decide on the petition this week. The other 22 victims have also been identified in addition to the 17 we have named earlier.

UPDATED INFORMATION:

In our previous appeals (AHRC-UAU-005-2010; AHRC-UAU-003-2010) we have already mentioned the details regarding the flaws in the manner in which the police and the military arrested, laid questionable charges and have continuously detained the victims at the military camp.

Three of the victims, namely Dr. Alexis Montes, (62), Dr. Merry Mia Clamor, (33) and Glenda Murillo, who is pregnant, had also testified as to how they were tortured while in police and military custody.

The 22 other victims are Angela Doloricon, Ace Millena, Ely Castillo, Lalyn Saligumba, Jovy Ortiz, Samsung Castillo, Mark Estrellado, Miann Oseo, Selvia Pajanosta, Lolibeth Donasco, Jenelyn Pizaro, Ramon de la Cruz, Jacqueline Gonzales, Maria Elena Serato, Mercy Castro, Lea de Luna, Judilyn Oliveros, Valentino Paulino, Edwin Dematera, Sherilyn Riocasa Tawagon, Jenmark Barrientos and Mark Escartin. 

The victims and their legal counsel filed a petition of habeas corpus questioning their arrest and subsequent detention at the military camp.

The Court of Appeals (CA) in Manila, after receiving the petition, reportedly ordered General Victor Ibrado, Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and Director General Jesus Verzosa, chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP), to produce the victims in court to explain their detention on February 12 but it was not until February 15 that the hearing took place.

The refusal by the military and the police to produce the victims on February 12, the hearing date in which the court had required of them, was on the pretext of being logistically unprepared and that they lacked adequate security to transport the victims to court. It was only on February 15 that the military produced victims in court for the petition hearing.

During the hearing, the victims' counsel also petitioned the court to have the victims transferred from military detention at Camp Capinpin in Tanay, Rizal to the police at Camp Crame in Quezon City. Camp Capinpin is the headquarters of the 202nd Infantry Brigade of the Philippine Army (PA) and is not a regular detention facility.

After the petition was heard, the court had given the victim's counsels of the victims and the respondents 48 hours to submit their memorandums containing their arguments. The court is expected to issue its decision after the petition has been submitted for decision.

On February 25, the families of the victim filed a complaint before the head office of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) asking them to have the victims' allegations of torture be investigated. A dialogue between the Commissioner, Leila De Lima, chairperson of the CHR and the families of the victims also took place. In our previous appeal, we have already mentioned the initial findings that Commissioner De Lima has made in public affirming the victims' allegations of torture.

On February 26, another group of volunteer doctors has also released their findings in public that some of the victims had been tortured. The doctors were able to visit the victims at the military camp on February 11, five days after the victims' arrest. On February 24, a follow-up visit and medical examination also took place. However, of the three doctors that were supposed to examine the victims, the military only allowed one of them to enter the camp.

Also, although the military allowed one of the doctors to examine the victims it was under heavy restrictions; for example, the check-up had to be completed in 10 to 15 minutes for each of the patients. While the examination was being performed, about 2 to 3 security escorts were standing closely supervising the doctor and the patients, which made the victims uneasy.

After the check up, the military had been properly informed of the needed medical intervention for the victims, but so far has not taken any action. According to reports from some of the victims' families, two of whom have already asked the military that they be treated urgently but their requests were ignored.

MORE DETAILS ABOUT THEIR ARREST:

In addition to the details that we have mentioned in our previous appeals, we bring to you this information below to illustrate how difficult it was for families of the victims to locate their loved ones and to visit them while held in a military camp.

In the afternoon of February 6, Roneo Clamor, husband of Dr. Merry Mia and deputy secretary general of a local human rights organization Karapatan, had gone to Camp Capinpin in Tanay, Rizal to inquire about his wife and the other 42 victims. He was with Olive Bernardo, head of the Karapatan's Services; Atty. Ephraim Cortez, Dr. Geneve Rivera and Dr. Edelina De La Paz, chairperson of Health Action for Human Rights (HAHR). However, the group was not allowed entry into the camp.

Again on February 7, the families and relatives of the victims had gone to Camp Capinpin to visit and see the condition of the victims.  The group, while waiting outside the gate of the camp, also held a short program where the families and relatives of the victims had spoken. But the military played loud music aimed at drowning their speeches.

Though Clamor and Dr. Caguiat were at first allowed to entry to the camp they were not allowed to see the victims claiming that they would have to be presented for an inquest proceeding. The group again waited until late in the afternoon but no inquest had taken place.

When Commissioner De Lima arrived, the relatives requested her to intercede to allow them to see the victims which she agreed.  However, Commissioner De Lima, Dr. Rivera and two relatives of the victims had been allowed entry at the camp. It was only after De Lima's intervention that the group was allowed in. De Lima came to the camp to personally interview and check the condition of the victims.

At around 3pm that day, the families and relatives of the victims were only able to get the information about the condition of their loved ones after De Lima briefed them after coming out from the camp. Only after De Lima told the soldiers to allow the other relatives to see their loved ones that the military had started allowing the families and their relatives in to the camp.

However, while inside the camp each of the visiting families and relatives were only allowed 30 minutes to speak to the victims. They could not freely talk because they were closely guarded by soldiers.

MORE VICTIMS' TESTIMONY AND DETAILS OF TORTURE:

Dr. Alexis Montes, 62 years old
As a result of long period of being handcuffed and blindfolded, he complained to his son that his shoulders were aching. He also told his son that he had been subjected to a simulation of nearly falling off into a cliff or ravine when they were interrogating him. They told him that he was standing at the edge of a cliff or ravine and that every time his answers did not satisfy the interrogators, they poked his back prompting him to move backwards to supposedly avoid from falling.

He also said that he was electrocuted. Although he did not lose his consciousness, he felt his body going numb for some time.

Montes said that on the first two days of their detention, he was held in a solitary confinement. He now had difficult of walking due to the long period of being blindfolded and handcuffed. He also felt humiliated as somebody had to pull his pants and underwear down to answer the call of nature.

On February 18, Montes' niece, Necta Montes-Rocas, led a protest in Hong Kong calling for immediate release of her uncle and the 42 others. The video clip of her speech is below and the full text of her speech can be read at: AHRC-PRL-005-2010

Dr. Merry Mia Clamor, 33 years old
She told her husband, Roneo Clamor, that she was interrogated by way of a "bad cop and good cop approach". While one of the interrogators was kind to ask her about her personal details, the other one would threaten her and was told that if she refused to cooperate: "You know what we are capable of doing to you and your family. We will soon know who your husband is."

She was also repeatedly asked where she lived, where she studied, and what her task was during their training, amongst others. On one occasion, three men had interrogated her simultaneously. They also threaten to harm her family. One of them told her: "We're not done with you yet.  I will come back for you and will not let you sleep tonight." She was also heard voices of men and women screaming pain.

Ely Castillo
He did not elaborate to his sister how he had been tortured; however, in whispering to her he told her he had been tortured. He could only whisper to her sister to avoid being overheard by the military who is closely guarding them during her visit. Thus, the details regarding Castillo's experience of torture have yet to be known.


SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please make use of the sample letter that we have issued in our previous appeal (AHRC-UAU-003-2010; AHRC-UAU-005-2010) in responding to this one. You can send your letters by fax or post mail.

You can also click on this button or pass on this link to others for them to respond to this appeal. By clicking this appeal, your appeal letter will be sent directly to the recipient of the appeal.

In writing your appeal letters, please include the 22 names of victims in the body of this updated appeal, in addition to the 17 names that has already been issued. The AHRC will keep you informed of any progress regarding this case.


Thank you.

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

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Update
Document ID :
AHRC-UAU-010-2010
Countries :
Issues :
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.