Home / News / Urgent Appeals / PHILIPPINES: Two more activists killed
 

PHILIPPINES: Two more activists killed

April 19, 2006

URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal

20 April 2006
------------------------------------------------------
UA-130-2006: PHILIPPINES: Two more activists killed

PHILIPPINES: Extra-judicial killings; violence against activists and their families; violence against women and children; collapse of rule of law
-------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) deeply regrets to inform you that two more activists have been killed in separate incidents. On April 5, Florencio Cervantes (27) was killed inside his house in Barangay (village) Sta. Cruz, Rosario, Agusan del Sur. His wife Elsa and their three children were able to escape when the armed men shot him. On April 15, activist Rico Adeva was murdered in front of his wife Nenita in Talisay, Negros Occidental. Adeva and his wife were on their way to the town proper when attacked by armed men. Adeva was a land rights activist deeply involved with the peasants’ struggle for land reform.

According to a report from Karapatan (Alliance for the Advancement of Peoples’ Rights), Florencio and his family were sleeping when, at around 2am, armed men clad with bonnets forcibly broke in and started shooting at Florencio. Florencio’s wife Elsa fought with the attackers by grabbing their rifles to prevent them from shooting their children who were lying beside her husband. While Elsa was struggling with the attackers, Florencio told her to escape and to take their children with her. While escaping, Elsa and her children came across five accomplices of the attackers who were attempting to block their way. They also noticed several armed men in plain clothes cordoning their place. Elsa and her children heard several gunshots coming from the house as they were escaping.

After the attackers later left in their two service vans, the victim’s neighbours started coming out from their houses. Elsa and her children then also returned. She saw that her husband was seriously wounded and dying. Florencio had suffered 47 gunshot wounds to his body.

An hour later, two vans carrying armed men in complete military uniform arrived. They started asking the victim’s family and villagers what had happened. After taking pictures of the victim and his house, the military men left. The crime scene has reportedly not been adequately investigated.

On 7 April 2006, Sun Star Davao, a local newspaper reported on the killing of Florencio. In the report, they mentioned that Florencio was caught in crossfire during an encounter with the New Peoples’ Army (NPA) and elements of the 36th Infantry Battalion, Philippine Army, led by Captain Bungcarawan. The report clearly contradicts the victim’s family’s version that he was murdered.

This is yet another case wherein the military men involved in incidents of massacre and extra-judicial execution of civilians are claiming that the victims are casualties of either encounter or cross fire. (Please see our previous appeals related to these incidents: FA-06-2005; UA-48-2005; UA-72-2005).

During the 2004 elections, Florencio was an active supporter of the political party Bayan Muna (People First). He was also vocal on various issues regarding peasants in his community. He also served as a member of the lay organisation of their parish church.

Meanwhile, on 15 April, Rico Adeva and his wife Nenita were on their way to the town proper of Talisay in Negros Occidental when attacked. It was around 4pm when the couple was passing through the Imbang River when three men, wearing jackets armed with .45 caliber pistols, blocked their way. Rico was shot after they were told to turn their backs and lie down with their face to the ground. He suffered seven gunshot wounds in the head, ears, hands and torso.

In a statement by the Partnership for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Services Inc. (PARRDS), a coalition of local non-governmental and peasant organisations, they quoted Nenita as saying that Rico’s murder was prompted by his involvement in the struggle for agrarian reform. He was a staff member of the Task Force Mapalad (TFM), an agrarian non-governmental organisation assisting peasant beneficiaries of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Programme (Carp) to claim lands awarded to them.

The murders of Florencio and Rico demonstrate yet another failure by the Philippine government to ensure the protection of activists and their families. In past similar cases the police authorities have failed to reach any conclusive findings in most instances to identify and effectively prosecute the perpetrators due to the absence of credible witnesses. Most of the witnesses and families of the dead have refused to cooperate for fear of their life. The implementation of the Republic Act 6981, an Act for Witness Protection, Security and Benefit the existing law, is completely inadequate. The witness protection programme in the country is completely ineffective. (Please see our previous appeals on this: UP-156-2005 and AS-74-2005).

Even though the government, in particular the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (CHRP) are aware of the urgent need for an effective witness protection programme and method of investigation, they have failed to recommend or initiate measures to meet this objective. (Please see our previous statements on this: AHRC-OL-002-2006; AS-126-2005).

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write letters to the agencies below asking them to ensure an impartial and effective investigation into the murder of Florencio Cervantes and Rico Adeva. The victims’ families must be afforded with adequate protection and security once the investigation commences. Regarding the case of Florencio, the military official concerned and his men must be investigated to answer to the allegations made against them. Immediate sanctions must be imposed upon them if the investigation reveals a probable cause.

Finally, please request the Philippine government, in particular the Department of Justice to take steps to ensure that the RA 6981 is effectively implemented. They must recommend pro-active measures that would respond with urgency to the need for security and protection for the families of the dead and witnesses.

Suggested letter:

Dear _________,

PHILIPPINES: Two more activists killed

Case 1:
Name of the victim killed: Florencio Perez Cervantes (27), a resident of Barangay (village) Sta. Cruz, Rosario, Agusan del Sur, Mindanao. He had three children. He was also a member of their Barangay Council
Name of victims harassed: His wife Elsa and their three children.
Name of alleged perpetrators: Elements of the 36th Infantry Battalion, Philippine Army, led by Captain Bungcarawan
Place of incident: Inside the victim’s house in Barangay Sta. Cruz, Rosario, Agusan del Sur
Time and date of incident: 5 April 2006 at 2am

Case 2:
Name of the victim killed: Rico Adeva (39). He was a staff member of the Task Force Mapalad (TFM).
Name of victim harassed: His wife Nenita.
Name of alleged perpetrators: About three armed men
Place of incident: Imbang River, Talisay, Negros Occidental
Time and date of incident: 15 April 2006 at 4pm

It has come to my attention that two more activists, namely Florencio Cervantes and Rico Adeva were killed in separate incidents. On April 5, Florencio was murdered inside his house in Rosario, Agusan del Sur. His wife Elsa and their three children were able to escape from their attackers. On April 15, Adeva was murdered in front of his wife Nenita in Talisay, Negros Occidental.

According to the information I have received, Florencio was sleeping together with his wife Elsa and three children inside their room when the armed men clad in bonnets forcibly broke in and repeatedly shot him. Elsa and her children were able to escape by running outside their house after she fought with their attackers. Florencio suffered 47 gunshot wounds to his body. I have learned of the announcement made by elements of the 36th Infantry Battalion, Philippine Army, that the victim was killed in crossfire. Such claims are totally unacceptable in the absence of an adequate investigation to look into the allegations that he was murdered.

I urge you to have Captain Bungcarawan and his men investigated to answer to the allegations made against them. The allegation of the victim’s family that he was murdered must be looked into. Attempts made on the life of Florencio’s wife Elsa and their children must likewise be investigated. Immediate preventive suspension and sanctions must be imposed upon the military men involved. If it is proven that the victim was murdered, appropriate charges must be filed in court against the military men involved.

Meanwhile, I have also learned that on April 15 Rico Adeva was murdered in front of his wife Nenita. Rico and his wife were crossing the Imbang River on their way to Talisay, Negros Occidental when three armed men blocked their way. Rico was shot several times after he and his wife were ordered to turn their backs and lie down with their face to the ground. Rico suffered seven gunshot wounds to his body. Although Nenita was not harmed, I am deeply concerned she may have suffered severe trauma.

I hold grave concerns for the alarming level of violence perpetrated against activists and their families in your country. I am extremely shocked by the government’s failure to ensure the protection of activists and to take effective measures to remedy this situation. It is frightening that activists are being killed in front of their families, and yet the police authorities have been unable to reach any conclusive findings to identify and effectively prosecute the perpetrators. Further, the families of the dead and witnesses have been denied the possibility of government-sponsored witness protection and security due to the ineffective implementation of the RA 6981.

I urge you to commence an impartial and immediate investigation into Florencio and Rico’s murders. The Department of Justice (DoJ) must ensure the victim’s families are placed in the witness protection programme once the investigation commences. Appropriate compensation and assistance must also be afforded to them. Appropriate counseling must also be afforded to the victim’s families to ensure their recovery, in particular to Florencio’s children who may have suffered trauma.

Finally, I urge the DoJ and the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines to take appropriate measures with urgency to ensure the effective implementation of the RA 6981. I am deeply concerned that although they are aware of the urgent need to ensure protection to witnesses and families of the dead their efforts to meet this objective has been negligible. An effective and functioning witness protection programme is a precondition to an investigation and prosecution.

I would like to remind the Philippine government of its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), in particular regarding the right to life of its citizens. The 1987 Constitution likewise stipulates the protection from arbitrary deprivation of life. The government must take genuine action to implement effective measures to ensure the protection of rights it claims to uphold.

I trust that you will take action in this case.

Yours sincerely,


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

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:

1. Ms. Purificacion Quisumbing
Commissioner
Commission on Human Rights
SAAC Bldg., Commonwealth Avenue
U.P. Complex, Diliman
Quezon City
PHILIPPINES
Tel: +63 2 928 5655 / 926 6188
Fax: +63 2 929 0102
Email: drpvq@chr.gov.ph

2. P/DIR Gen. Arturo Lumibao
Chief, Philippine National Police (PNP)
Camp General Rafael Crame
Quezon City
PHILIPPINES
Tel: +63 2726 4361/4366/8763
Fax: +63 2724 8763

3. Mr. Raul Gonzalez
Secretary
Department of Justice
DOJ Bldg., Padre Faura
1004 Manila
PHILIPPINES
Fax: +63 2 521 1614
Email: sechbp@infocom.com.ph

4. Gen. Generoso Senga
Chief of Staff
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
Armed Forces of the Philippines General Headquarters Offices (AFP-GHQ)
Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo
Quezon City
PHILIPPINES

5. Mr. Orlando Casimiro
Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and
Other Law Enforcement Offices
3rd Floor, Ombudsman Bldg., Agham Road
Diliman (1104) Quezon City
PHILIPPINES
Tel: +632 926 9032

6. Ms. Hina Jilani
Special Representative of the Secretary General for human rights defenders
Attn: Melinda Ching Simon
Room 1-040
OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 93 88
Fax: +41 22 917 9006 (ATTN: SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS)
E-mail: MChingSimon@ohchr.org

7. Mr. Jacob Egbert Doek
Chairperson
Committee on the Rights of the Child
OHCHR-UNOG
8-14 Avenue de la Paix
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Fax: +41 22 917 9022

8. Ms. Yakin Erturk
Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women
c/o Ms Lucinda O'Hanlon
Room 3-042
OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 9615
Fax: +41 22 917 9006 (ATTN: SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN)
E-mail: lohanlon@ohchr.org 


Thank you.

Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ahrchk@ahrchk.org)

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
UA-130-2006
Countries :
Campaigns :
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.