Home / News / Urgent Appeals / PHILIPPINES: Activist forcibly taken by soldiers disappear while in custody

PHILIPPINES: Activist forcibly taken by soldiers disappear while in custody

November 5, 2007

URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal

5 November 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
UA-315-2007: PHILIPPINES: Activist forcibly taken by soldiers disappear while in custody

PHILIPPINES: Torture; human rights defenders; illegal arrest and detention; impunity
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) writes to inform you that an activist, Ruel Munasque, who was forcibly taken by soldiers on 24 October 2007, has disappeared while in their custody. Ruel was together with Roger Morales, a farmer, when they were taken by soldiers at a checkpoint in Dumalinao, Zamboanga del Sur. The soldiers later released Roger after psychologically torturing him but Ruel remained in custody. It was Roger who reported the incident to his colleagues. Three days later, Ruel's sister received a phone call from a person who introduced himself as a soldier threatening her against taking legal action to obtain her brother's release.

CASE DETAILS: (Based on the testimony of the victim obtained by the Alliance for the Advancement of People's Right (Karapatan))

According to the information received, on 24 October 2007, Ruel Munasque and Roger Morales were on their way to Tigbao town in Zamboanga del Sur on board a passenger van. At around 9pm, as they were approaching Pagadian City, the van they were riding in was stopped by soldiers manning a checkpoint in Barangay (village) Poblacion, Dumalinao of the said province. The soldiers are attached to the 53rd Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army. A jeep and a blue pick up truck were also seen parked close to them.

The soldiers ordered all the passengers to alight for a routine inspection. Ruel and Roger alighted and were also subjected to a body search. After the search, they were ordered to return to their van. But when Ruel was about to enter the van, one of the soldiers for some reasons squeezed hard his knee which has wounds on it. When the soldier noticed he was bleeding, they again ordered Ruel and Roger to alight and once again searched them. This time, the soldiers took their wallets, mobile phones and other personal belongings.

The soldiers then handcuffed and blindfolded them. They also took them to a nearby place where they were subjected to questioning. The soldiers later took them onboard their jeep and traveled for about an hour. Roger recalled that he could hear music being place at the background in the place where he and Ruel were taken. While inside the jeep, the soldiers threatened to kill them if they refused to cooperate with them by clicking their guns as if making them ready to fire. They were made to choose whether they wanted to be freed, jailed or killed.

At the time, the soldiers also took with them persons in front of the victims they claimed to be rebel returnees. The victims were forced to disclose the names of their supposed rebel comrades, their connections and those who are giving them orders.

At around 2am on October 25, the soldiers took Ruel to the hospital for treatment of his now profusely bleeding knee. His treatment, however, was said to be in exchange for his cooperation with the soldier. Ruel boarded a pickup truck that went in an unknown direction while Roger was left behind in the jeep. Roger was later taken somewhere with his blindfold still on where he was later released. They traveled for about an hour before stopping.

At around 4am, Roger was ordered to alight soon after the jeep stopped. But before leaving, the soldiers instructed him not to remove his blindfold until he could no longer hear the sound of their jeep's engine. Roger found himself abandoned in an intersection going to the direction of Pagadian City Integrated Bus Terminal soon after removing his blindfold. Only his mobile phone was given back to him while his other belongings were taken by the soldiers. His phone though no longer had SIM card on it.

At 12 noon October 28, a person who introduced himself as Frank or Paul Chua contacted Ruel's sister by phone informing her that her brother was with them undergoing treatment. The caller also claimed he is a soldier. He warned her not to inform anyone about their conversation or attempt to file petitions for writ of habeas corpus or writ of amparo. The caller has claimed to have been monitoring her and that he knew she sought a lawyer for legal assistance for Ruel. She was threatened that if she continued to do so, they would produce a lawyer that could eventually convict her brother.

Ruel's sister was also able to speak with him after the caller unexpectedly gave the phone to him after she requested to speak with her brother. It is said that Ruel had ask her not to seek any assistance from any group particularly Karapatan. It is not surprising though why the victim had to dissuade his sister and family from taking action. This incident has illustrated how grave and frightening his condition must be in the custody of the soldiers. It was the last time he was contacted and his whereabouts remains unknown.

It is reported that Ruel's relative nevertheless filed a petition for writ of amparo before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20 in Pagadian City defying the threats made against them by the soldiers. The petition is a newly approve rule by the Supreme Court of the Philippines which would, once approved, require the soldiers to ascertain Ruel's plight and for them to explain why they are taking him in custody. The respondents named in the petition were Major General Nehemias Pajarito, chief of the 1st Infantry Division and Major Samuel Gayo Ngorsa, commander of the 53rd Infantry Battalion, all of the Philippine Army.

Ruel is a leader of the Christian Youth Fellowship and a community development worker of the Consortium of Christian Organizations in Rurban Development, a church based youth and community development institutions under of the United Church of Christ of the Philippines (UCCP) respectively. He is also an organizer of a political party Bayan Muna.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write letters to the concerned authorities for them to take appropriate action. The soldiers must disclose the whereabouts of activist Ruel Munasque. An impartial inquiry must be conducted into this case and the soldiers responsible for unlawfully taking him into their custody must be identified. Unless Ruel is surfaced he must considered victim of enforce disappearance and that appropriate action must be taken on this. His companion, Roger Morales, who was released by the soldiers, must be kept up to date in the investigation.

To support this appeal, please click here:

Sample letter:

Dear ________,

PHILIPPINES: Activist forcibly taken by soldiers disappear while in custody

Name of disappeared activist: Ruel Munasque, 33 years old, married with three children, leader of the Christian Youth Fellowship-United Church of Christ of the Philippines (CYF-UCCP), community development worker for Consortium of Christian Organizations in Rurban Development (CONCORD-UCCP), organizer for political party Bayan Muna (People First) in Western Mindanao
Name of the victim released: Roger Morales, 32 years old, farmer, married with four children, a resident of Barangay (village) Mati, San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur
Alleged perpetrators: Elements of the 53rd Infantry Battalion, Philippine Army (IBPA) under the Tabak Division based in Labangan, Zamboanga del Sur
Place of incident: At the soldier's check point in Barangay Poblacion, Dumalinao, Zamboanga del Sur
Date of incident: At around 9pm on 24 October 2007

I am writing to draw your attention to the case of Ruel Munasque and Roger Morales who were forcibly taken by soldiers in Dumalinao, Zamboanga del Sur on October 24.

I have been informed that Ruel and Roger were on their way to Pagadian City when the passenger van they were riding in was stopped by soldiers attached to the 53rd Infantry Battalion, Philippine Army. While the other passengers were allowed to go soon after the inspection the soldiers prevented Ruel and Roger from leaving. No explanations however were given to them as to why they were being held.

The soldiers had them handcuffed and blindfolded and they were taken to a place where they were subjected to questioning. Later, the soldiers boarded them into their jeep. The victims had noticed to have travelled for about an hour before stopping in an unknown place. In the place where they stopped, they were presented in front of persons whom they were told are supposedly rebel returnees. The soldiers then started questioning them and forced them to disclose their supposed comrades, their connections and those giving them orders.

While they were inside the jeep, the soldiers threatened to kill them if they refused to cooperate with them by clicking their guns as if they were ready to be fired. They were made to choose whether they prefer to be freed, jailed or killed. The soldiers had accused them of having supposed involvement in an illegal armed group. Later, at around 2pm on October 25, the soldiers offered to take wounded Ruel to a hospital to treat his injury supposedly in exchange of cooperating with them. It was the last time his whereabouts was known.

At 4am, Roger, who was left in the jeep, was later released at an intersection of a bus terminal in Pagadian City. Ruel remains in custody and his whereabouts remain unknown. He must be considered a victim of disappearance until he surfaced by the soldiers. I have also learned that on October 28, Ruel's sister had received a phone call from a person who introduced himself as a soldier and identified himself as Frank or Paul Chua, threatening her from taking legal remedies or seeking legal aid to obtain her brother's release. At that time also, she had been able to speak with her brother on the phone. However, the details of their conversation were not mentioned.

I am shocked by the manner of arrest of the two victims and for continuously illegally taking into their custody Ruel. As I mentioned, there have been indications that Ruel has remained in custody; however, his family have not been properly informed of his whereabouts nor been given opportunity to visit him to ascertain his condition. In fact, Ruel's sister was instead threatened from taking any legal action for his release to which they nevertheless defied by filing petition for writ of amparo. I am deeply concerned that the actions taken by the victim's family would eventually result to violence against them. The soldiers' complicity in this case is completely unacceptable.

As you are aware, the manner the soldiers arrested and took the victims into their custody is contrary to the conditions of lawful warrantless arrest under the Revised Rule on Criminal Procedure Section 5, Rule 113. A person can only be arrested without a warrant once caught in the act of committing a criminal offense, or those arresting a person have had with them witnesses or had personal knowledge of the criminal act immediately after the supposed criminal act was committed. This condition has not been met to justify the soldiers forcibly taking of the two victims, and for continuously holding Ruel in custody.

If the allegations are true, to arrest persons without valid warrants, question them in the absence of their legal counsel, to deny their family to be visited by refusing to disclose their whereabouts is completely is unconstitutional. The soldiers involved must surface the victim and afford him due process; otherwise, they should be held to account for their complicity into his continued enforced disappearance. I am aware that this incident is one of the many instances of a systematic and widespread practice by the security forces.

I therefore urge you to promptly ensure that the soldiers involved in this case are investigated to answer the serious allegations against them. Actions must be taken against soldiers who continuously take Ruel in their custody against his will. His family must also be afforded with adequate protection to prevent possible violence that would be taken against them for defying the soldiers' threats from taking legal actions to seek for the victim's release.

The victim who had been released, Roger, must also be promptly given adequate protection as a requirement once he is involved in the process of investigation. His participation is extremely essential into holding those soldiers responsible and in determining the circumstances of the incident. His allegations against the soldiers must be given adequate attention and also be thoroughly investigated promptly. The soldiers involved must be imposed with sanctions once they are identified to ensure an impartial inquiry into this case.

I trust that you take immediate action in this case.

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
Email: corres@op.gov.ph

2. Mrs. 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@yahoo.com

3. Deputy Director General Avelino Razon
Chief, Philippine National Police (PNP)
Camp General Rafael Crame
Quezon City
PHILIPPINES
Tel: +63 2 726 4361/4366/8763
Fax: +63 2724 8763
Email: bluetree73@gmail.com

4. Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera
Officer in Charge
Department of Justice (DoJ)
DOJ Bldg., Padre Faura
1004 Manila
PHILIPPINES
Fax: +63 2 521 1614
Email: agnesdeva@yahoo.com

5. Prof. Manfred Nowak
Special Rapporteur on the Question of Torture
C/o OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 9230
Fax: +41 22 917 9016 (ATTN: SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR TORTURE)

6. Ms. Hina Jilani
Special Representative of the Secretary General for human rights defenders
Room 1-040
C/o OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 93 88
Fax: +41 22 917 9006 (ATTN: SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS)

Thank you.

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

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
UA-315-2007
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.