Home / News / Urgent Appeals / PHILIPPINES: Farmers detained for theft for harvesting crops they cultivate

PHILIPPINES: Farmers detained for theft for harvesting crops they cultivate

November 30, 2007

URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION URGENT ACTION

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Urgent Appeal

30 November 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
UA-332-2007: PHILIPPINES: Farmers detained for theft for harvesting crops they cultivate

PHILIPPINES: Right to land; peasants; women; child rights; police; rule of law
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) writes to inform you that four farming couples and three other persons had been arrested and detained for theft for harvesting the crops they themselves cultivated on 18 November 2007 in Cebu. One of those arrested was breastfeeding her nine-month-old infant at the time. The farmers cultivated the crops in a land owned by the government where they also live. However, a wealthy person claiming ownership over the land has been able to charge them with qualified theft.

CASE DETAILS: (Based on the information from the regional office of the Alliance for the Advancement of Peoples' Rights, Central Visayas (Karapatan))

On November 18, at about 7:20am, the victims namely Jocelyn Arias, Florencia Mojado, couples Arsenio and Anastacia Pasumala, Abello and Lolita Arias, Tomas and Elizabeth Mainit, Ceasar and Avelina Balibad and their nine-month-old daughter, Kindel Rose Ann, were at their residence in Barangay (village) Marmol, Tuburan, Cebu, when police and soldiers arrived.

The arresting police and military officers were attached to the Tuburan Municipal Police Station and 78th Infantry Battalion, Philippine Army respectively. Eight of the policemen reportedly passed through highland areas while the soldiers had passed through the river banks in going to the farmer's village.

Once they arrived at the village, while they were pointing their guns at the farmer, they started rounding them up by forcibly pulling them out from each of their houses. Altogether the policemen and soldiers took them to municipal police station. While the farmers are being held in detention, staff members of Karapatan who tried to help them to ascertain their condition have reportedly been denied entry by jail authorities.

Five of the farmers, namely Ceasar and his wife Avelina Balibad, Arsenio, Abello and Tomas are detained at the municipal police station. Avelina's daughter is also with her at the municipal police station. They were separated from where the male detainees are detained. The others have already been transferred to the Cebu Provincial Detention and Rehabilitation Center, Cebu City on November 20.

Prior to their arrest, similar charges were also filed against them by complainant Virgilia Balbuena but they have already been dismissed by the court. On 8 August 2003, the farmers were taken to the court after they were charged for qualified theft but the case was subsequently dismissed in 17 December 2004.

Once again, on 25 December 2004, another similar case has been filed against them by the same complainant that was also dismissed on 23 February 2005. However, when the complaint and her heirs appealed the case before Regional Trial Court (RTC VII), Branch 29, in Toledo City for some reasons the court decided on their favor and obtained orders for farmers' arrest. Twenty four other farmers named as respondents are also object of arrest. The court set the bail for their temporary release for Pesos 42,000.00 (USD 980) each.

In her complaint, Virginia claimed having legal right over the 10-hectare land by which the farmers and their families were living and were planting their crops for a long time. It is reported that she has claimed to have been paying for the land taxes even though it has already been declared as timber land. On 9 December 2003, an officer of the City Enviroment and Natural Resources (CENRO), Illuminado Lucas, had announced the land which is located in Barangay (village) Marmol had been declared as part of a timberland area.

After the farmers learned of this, they started not giving one-third share of their harvest demanded by Balbuena. This incident is said to have prompted the complaint of persecuting them legally by filing charges of theft on the crops they have been tilling and in the land where they resides.

The complainant's payment of land taxes is said to have been given weight by the court in deciding her complaint of qualified theft in her favor. However, the farmers' lawyer argued that the complainant's payment of taxes is not a proof of her ownership. Timberland areas are government property and could not be claimed by private individuals. These areas are also not subject to land titling.

Apart from that, the location where the supposed crime of theft by farmers took place is not included in the land the complainant claiming ownership.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Farmers being charged for theft are common on cases involving land dispute and the implementation of the land reform in the Philippines.

In July 2006, hundreds of farmers were also charged for qualified theft for harvesting their own crops. In this case, the land owner began legally persecuting the farmers after the latter made application to include their land for distribution which the owner opposed. Under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Programme (CARP), long term tenants could qualify ownership to land they cultivate and develop for a certain period.

In this case, regular courts should have had no jurisdiction to hear the qualified theft cases because it involves land dispute. It should have been the Department of Agrarian Reform Arbitration Board (DARAB) to hear the case. However the court nevertheless took jurisdiction over hearing the case and issued arrest orders. The action that has been taken by the prosecutor after the complaint was filed before his office was also flawed.

Under the rules of criminal procedure, respondents should have been properly informed by public prosecutors of the charges being filed against them. But in this case, the public prosecutor resolves the farmers should be tried in court without them knowing that charges have been filed against them, and giving them opportunity to respond. The notices of the complaint have not reach the farmers and the prosecutor also fails to ensure this.

Arrest orders were then issued on them and the bail imposed for their temporary liberty has been huge making it not possible for them to pay. These circumstances have forced some of the respondents or other farmers who are objects of arrest to turn their selves over to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) seeking their intervention. Please read our previous appeal for further details: FA-016-2006.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write letters to the concerned authorities requesting their intervention to ensure that charges against these farmers are reviewed adequately. The case must be withdrawn if found to have no sufficient evidence to hold them into trial. They must also ensure that the welfare of these detainees, particularly the women and child are properly treated. The AHRC is writing a separate letter to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention for intervention in this case.

To support this appeal, please click here:

Sample letter:

Dear ___________,

PHILIPPINES: Farmers detained for theft for harvesting crops they cultivate

Name of the persons arrested and in jail:
1. Jocelyn Arias
2. Florencia Mojado
3. Arsenio and his wife
4. Anastacia Pasumala
5. Abello and his wife
6. Lolita Arias
7. Tomas and his wife
8. Elizabeth Mainit
9. Ceasar and his wife
10. Avelina Balibad and her nine-month-old daughter, Kindel Rose Ann
[All of them are residence of Barangay (village) Marmol, Tuburan, Cebu. They are separately detained at the Tuburan Municpal Police Station and the Cebu Provincial Detention and Rehabilitation Center, Cebu City. They are also members of a local peasant group Nagkahiusang Mag-uuma sa Marmol (NAMAMA)-KMP]
Arresting officers: About 20 soldiers and policemen led by Sergeant Jomar Pipit of Charlie Company 78th Infantry Battalion, Senior Police Officer 3 (SP03) Lino de los Santos SP01 Carlo Conseco of the Tuburan Municipal Police Station
Complainant: Virgilia Balbuena
Place of incident: Barangay (village) Marmol, Tuburan, Cebu
Date of incident: 18 November 2007

I am writing to draw your attention to the case of several farmers whose names are mentioned above. They were arrested after a person, Virgilia Balbuena, who claims ownership of the land where they do farming and where they lives files charges of qualified theft. I am deeply concerned by the irregularities in the filing of charges against these farmers and the issuance of arrest orders on them.

I have learned that the crops these farmers have supposedly stolen are the crops they planted and cultivate. These crops were also planted in the areas declared by the local government as timberland area. As you are aware, timberland areas are government owned; and they could not be owned by private individuals or subject to land titling.

However, for some reasons the farmers, who had been doing the farming and living in the said areas for some time, have been charged with qualified theft. I am aware that these charges are yet another instance whereby the supposed land owner files charges. However, in the past they were all dismissed by the court.

I have learned that the farmers were forcibly pulled out from their houses during their arrest, including a mother whose breastfeeding a nine-month-old infant. They were then taken to the municipal police station. Some of them are still detained there, including a mother and her infant, while others were transferred to the provincial jail. I urge you to ensure that these detainees are properly treated while in detention. I am deeply concern over reports that persons supposed to assist them were prevented by jail authorities to visit them.

I urge you to take appropriate action to ensure that the charges against these farmers are adequately reviewed upon. I have learned that even though the supposed owner had been paying land taxes for the land, this alone could not be considered as a proof of ownership to the land, particularly when the land itself is government owned. It is disappointing that these farmers have instead been needlessly persecuted by the land owner.

I have learned that the conflict began after the farmer refused to continue remitting shares of harvest of crops to the supposed land owner after they learned the land they were farming are government owned and part of timber land. I am aware that conflicts between the farmers and land owners are common in the Philippines particularly when the farmers began to assert ownership over land they are cultivating.

However, it is disappointing that the government has continuously failed to adequately and effectively address this problem particularly in this case. I am deeply concerned that poor farmers asserting their fundamental social and economic rights have been routinely legally persecuted by influential land owners. They too have been subjected to violent attack and continuing deprivation of their rights for their basic survival.

I therefore urge you to take adequate 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

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

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
E-mail: bluetree73@gmail.com

4. Mr. Raul Gonzalez
Secretary
Department of Justice (DoJ)
DOJ Bldg., Padre Faura
1004 Manila
PHILIPPINES
Tel: +63 2 523 8481
Fax: +63 2 521 1614
E-mail: agnesdeva@yahoo.com

5. Mr. Alejandro Alonso
Regional Director
Commission on Human Rights-7
PHILIPPINES

6. Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia
Province of Cebu
Capitol Bldg., Escario Street
Cebu City 6000
PHILIPPINES

7. Benjamin Lascuña
Jail Warden
Cebu Provincial Rehabilitation and Detention Center
Barangay Kalunasan
Cebu City 6000
PHILIPPINES

Thank you.

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

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Case
Document ID :
UA-332-2007
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.