Home / News / Urgent Appeals / UPDATE (Philippines): Court's review in Abadilla Five petition lacks transparency

UPDATE (Philippines): Court's review in Abadilla Five petition lacks transparency

October 9, 2009

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal Update: AHRC-UAU-030-2009

9 October 2009

[RE: AHRC-UAU-002-2009: PHILIPPINES: Ailing Abadilla Five detainee receiving threats following renewed campaign to release them]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
PHILIPPINES: Court's review in Abadilla Five petition lacks transparency

ISSUES: Torture victims; right to liberty and security; judicial system; administration of justice
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Abadilla 5: jailed for a decade without justice
http://campaigns.ahrchk.net/abadilla5/ 

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

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) writes to inform you of the lack of transparency by the Supreme Court (SC) in hearing the petition of the Abadilla Five. The petition, which sought to declare as null and void their conviction for murder, suffered further delay due to the lack of transparency and arbitrary court procedures. The SC has resolved to consolidate the separate appeals without the knowledge of, or asking the opinions of their lawyers.

UPDATED INFORMATION:

In our previous appeal (UAU-059-2008), we mentioned that two of the Abadilla Five detainees, Lenido Lumanog and Augusto Santos, have filed their Petition for Review on Certiorari on May 5, 2008. The Supreme Court's (SC) Third Division at the time laid out a requirement for the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to comment, giving them until the first week of August 2008 to submit it.

While Lumanog and Santos filed their petitions to the SC, the three other detainees, Cesar Fortuna, Rameses de Jesus and Joel de Jesus, pursued other legal strategies in filing their respective appeals. They were represented by different lawyers.

The OSG's comment on the petitions of Lumanog and Santos was first due on August 2008, but for two occasions in July and September 2008, they have sought to extend the deadline in submitting comments further delaying the conclusion of the review. On one such occasion, the SC granted the OSG's request for extension without giving their lawyer, Atty. Soliman Santos, the opportunity to challenge or question the merit of their request.

On Fortuna's part, he filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which sought for the Court of Appeals (CA) to reconsider its decision convicting them. His appeal, with Case. No. GR 185123, was later elevated to the SC. The conclusion of Fortuna's appeal with the SC has also suffered further delay when the OSG, once again, sought an extension in submitting their comment on four occasions until May 2009.

On the part of Rameses and Joel de Jesus, their appeals have also suffered further delay. Their case, No. CA-GR CR-HC 00667, was only elevated to the SC after the CA issued its resolution on May 20, 2009 rejecting their appeals. It was only at that time the SC took jurisdiction of their case.

Since Lumanog and Santos' Petition for Certiorari was filed in May 2008, the SC failed to conclude their petition despite having it filed much earlier than other detainees. However, even before the SC could conclude theirs, it has ruled to consolidate their petition to the appeals of the other detainees without properly informing promptly or asking the comments of their legal counsel, Soliman Santos.

Also, when the SC En Banc issued its resolution on June 23, 2009 resolving to consolidate all the appeals, lawyer Santos has also not been aware of their resolution until August 2009. The SC's resolution was in response to the OSG's request made on June 17, 2009 seeking to have it consolidated for reasons that "the petitioners in both cases are the same accused charged with and found guilty".

After lawyer Santos learned of the OSG’s request for consolidation, he made a submission vehemently opposing it on July 1, 2009, citing questions of legality without knowing that the SC has in fact already ruled on it on June 23, 2009. His opinion has effectively not been considered as a result of this.

The SC has not yet concluded the review of all the petitions made.

Please write letters expressing your concern regarding this case; or respond to previous appeals that we have issued by accessing the Abadilla Five's campaign website: Convicted without real review - http://campaigns.ahrchk.net/abadilla5/ 


Thank you.

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

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Update
Document ID :
AHRC-UAU-030-2009
Countries :
Campaigns :
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.