Home / News / Urgent Appeals / UPDATE (Philippines): Police apparent cover up on Cabanit murder investigation reproved in Melo Commission hearing
 

UPDATE (Philippines): Police apparent cover up on Cabanit murder investigation reproved in Melo Commission hearing

January 25, 2007

[NOTICE: The AHRC have developed a new automatic letter-sending system using the "button" below. However, in this appeal, we could not include e-mail addresses of some of the Philippine authorities. We encourage you to send your appeal letters via fax or post to those people. Fax numbers and postal addresses of the Philippine authorities are attached below with this appeal. Thank you.]

UPDATE ON URGENT APPEAL UPDATE ON URGENT APPEAL UPDATE ON URGENT APPEAL

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Update on Urgent Appeal

25 January 2007

[RE: UA-140-2006: PHILIPPINES: Another activist killed, several others seriously wounded in separate attacks; UP-175-2006: PHILIPPINES: Flawed police investigations into killing, with no arrests made despite gunmen having been identified]
-----------------------------------
UP-009-2007: PHILIPPINES: Police apparent cover up on Cabanit murder investigation reproved in Melo Commission hearing

PHILIPPINES: Extra-judicial killings; defective police investigation; impunity
------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received updated information regarding the murder of the activist Enrico Cabanit, which took place in Panabo City, Davao del Norte, Mindanao, the Philippines on 24 April 2006 (See further: UA-140-2006). He was the Chairperson of WADECOR Employees Agrarian Reform Benificiaries Association Inc. (WEARBAI) at the time of incident. It is reported that the president appointed Melo Commission conducted a hearing to review the police investigation about this case on 11 December 2006 but took little action about the inconsistence of eyewitness's testimony and several irregularities of the police investigation found during the hearing. The AHRC has already raised its serious concern that the police investigation into this killing might have been flawed (See further: UP-175-2006). This illustrates that the families of the victims of alleged extra-judicial killings have little chance to get effective redress and justice due to dysfunctioning investigation bodies in the Philippines. We call for your urgent intervention to pressure the Philippine government to ensure proper and impartial inquiry into this case. 

UPDATED INFORMATION:

According to a press release issued by Ugnayan ng mga Nagsasariling Lokal na Organisasyon sa Kanayunan-Philipinas (UNORKA-Pilipinas), UNORKA-Mindanao, Philippine Ecumenical Action for Community Empowerment Foundation (PEACE) Foundation, Inc., Mindanao Farmworkers Development (MFDC), and the Partnership for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Services, Inc. (PARRDS), the discrepancies and the violation of police investigation protocols have surfaced through the hearings of the Melo Commission that indicates that the police and investigation authorities have been trying to cover up the murder investigation..

On 11 December 2006, it was reported that the Melo Commission heard the testimonies of Police Officer 3(PO3) Domingo Ranain and Police Intelligence Chief Wilfredo Puerto on the Enrico Cabanit Murder case. AHRC has pointed out the police authority's flawed investigation on this murder case (See further: UP-175-2006).

On 5 December 2006 just several days before the hearing on Cabanit's murder by the Melo Commission, Cabanit was exhumed by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for an autopsy at the request of the victim's family. According to the result of the autopsy, Dr. Edgar Savella of NBI testified that the two fatal wounds found in the victim's head were caused, not by a 9mm handgun which the police claimed during the hearing, but by 45 caliber ammunition.

In the hearing, it was especially learned from the police eyewitness' testimony that “he was able to identify the face of the cadaver of one Enrique Monching Solon based on his recall of the face of the alleged assassin during the murder”, on the contrary however, the eyewitness' sworn affidavit indicated that he was not able to see the face of the alleged assassin.

When Police Intelligence Chief Wilfredo Puerto testified before the Commission, he stated that the Cabanit case is closed as the main suspect in the killing was killed last 26 May 2006 based on their investigation. Furthermore, when Chief Counsel Vinluan raised the failure of the police to follow basic rules and procedures in handling murder cases since the police failed to conduct an autopsy on Cabanit, PO3 Domingo Ranain, on the witness stand, stated that the failure to conduct the autopsy do not constitute a violation of police procedures. It seems that Police Officer 3 (PO3) Domingo Ranain does not feel any responsibility for the police’s dereliction which resulted in the failure to conduct neither an autopsy nor a postmortem examination as well as the unfairness with which he demanded money from the victim’s family as expenses for autopsy.

Despite these flawed investigation and sufficient suspicions that Cabanit's killing might be politically motivated and the police was deeply involved in his murder, the Melo commission has merely reproved the defects of the police investigation. Even though some specific contradictions in the police investigation and witnesses' testimonies were found by the Melo Commission, if the police implicated in the murder cannot be thoroughly disclosed and no punishment is given against them, the extra-judicial killings and endemic impunity in the Philippines will remain unabated.

As a matter of fact, this limited function of Melo Commission was pointed out in AHRC past statement (AS-211-2006) and Urgent Appeal (UP-174-2006). As the Commission has no power to prosecute a case as well as has never investigated into a murder case thoroughly and independently, few cases are brought to the Commission by the victim's families.

BRIEF REMINDER OF THE CASE: 

Enrico Cabanit, who was the secretary general of UNORKA-Mindanao) working for agrarian reform in the Philippines, was killed by multiple gunshots on 24 April 2006 (For details, see: UA-140-2006). The Panabo City Police authority has failed to investigate this murder case by the basic rules and procedures.

It was reported that the police authority was negligent in securing the crime scene, collecting evidence and securing photos or sketches of the crime scene. In addition, neither autopsy or postmortem examination, which are necessary procedures for murder cases was conducted due to the absence of PO3 Domingo Ranian, one of the police investigators, for a month from the beginning of the investigation. It was learned that PO3 Ranain demanded payment of P 25,000 (US$ 512) from Cabanit's family as expenses as the family wanted Cabanit's body to be exhumed for autopsy. In the adoption of witnesses and their testimonies, it was allegedly reported that the witnesses the police investigated were in fact police informants and the police authority failed to take other reliable witnesses into account. Despite the inconsistency among the witnesses and the allegation regarding a hired killer's relation with the police, the police authority has tried to close the murder case as the alleged murderer was killed in General Santos City in a shooting incident on 26 May 2006.


SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write letters to agencies listed below requesting them to conduct thorough and impartial investigations regarding Enrico Cabanit's case.

To support this appeal, please click:

Sample letter:

Dear __________,

PHILIPPINES: Police apparent cover up on Cabanit murder investigation reproved in Melo Commission Hearing

Name of victim killed: Enrico Cabanit, a.k.a. Ka Eric. An ex-chairperson of WADECOR Employees Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association Inc. (WEARBAI)
Alleged perpetrators:
1. An unidentified armed man who was wearing a bonnet (for killing)
2. Wilfredo Puerto: Police Chief Intelligence Officer (for improper investigation)
3. Domingo Ranain: Police Officer 3 (for improper investigation)
Place of assassination: At a public market of Panabo City
Date and time of assassination: 24 April 2006 at 6pm

I am writing to draw your attention to the cases of murdered activists Enrico Cabanit of Panabo City.

According to the latest information that I have received, during the Melo Commission Hearing held on 11 December 2006, the shortcomings and the contradictions of the police investigation were proved once again. Especially the police eyewitness’s testimony that he was able to identify the face of the cadaver of one Enrique Monching Solon based on his recall of what he had seen during the murder. On the contrary, the eyewitness’s sworn affidavit indicated that he was not able to see the face of the alleged assassin. In addition, the police report that the murder weapon was a 9mm handgun was inconsistent with the result of autopsy conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) a few days before the hearing according to the request of the victim’s family.

I was informed that despite these discrepancies of the police investigation, Police Intelligence Chief Wilfredo Puerto stated that Cabanit case was closed as the main suspect in the killing was killed last May 2006. It was also reported that Police Officer 3 (PO3) Domingo Ranain who had been absent during the police investigation and requested the victim’s family for expenses of autopsy later told that the failure of the autopsy did not constitute a violation of police procedure.

I believed that insecurity of the crime scene, lack of indispensable legal procedure including autopsy and postmortem examination, adoption of inadequate witness and sufficient suspicions of a politically motivated killing and police involvement were indicated once again in this Melo Commission Hearing on Cabanit’s murder case.

However, if the Cabanit’s case is considered closed without more thorough and independent investigation, not only the Commission’s hearing would not deserve to exist but the political killings in the Philippines could continue unabated. According to the findings of an independent International Fact Finding Mission in June 2006, who investigated the worsening agrarian reform and human rights violations in so called ‘AR Hotspot Area’ in the country side, political or agrarian related crimes like Cabanit case should be tasked by independent special composite team.

As I leant from the police investigation, especially by Police Chief Intelligence Officer Wilfredo Puerto and PO3 Domingo Ranain exposed endemic dereliction and apparent cover-up of this alleged extra-judicial killing. They are also responsible for deliberate inaction into police inquiry of this case.

I therefore urge that you intervene that the punishment should be taken against them so that the impunity can not be tolerated and in addition to that, their superiors should be charged for their responsibility.

I trust that you will take immediate action concerning these matters.

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 / 927 0467
Fax: +63 2 929 0102
Email: drpvq@yahoo.com 

2. Mr. Orlando Casimiro
Deputy Ombudsman
Office of the 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
Fax: +63 2 926 8747

3. Director General Oscar Calderon
Chief, Philippine National Police (PNP)
Camp General Rafael Crame
Quezon City
PHILIPPINES
Tel: +63 2726 4361/4366/8763
Fax: +63 2724 8763

4. Mr. Raul Gonzalez
Secretary
Department of Justice
DOJ Bldg., Padre Faura
1004 Manila
PHILIPPINES
Fax: +63 2 521 1614

5. Mr. Ronaldo V. Puno
Secretary
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)
A. Francisco Gold Condominium II
EDSA cor. Mapagmahal St., Diliman
Quezon City
PHILIPPINES
Voice: +63 2 925 0330 / 31
Fax: +63 2 925 0332
Email: rvpuno@dilg.gov.ph 

6. Mr. Philip Alston
Special Rapporteur on Extra-judicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions
Attn: Lydie Ventre
Room 3-016
c/o OHCHR-UNOG
1211 Geneva 10
SWITZERLAND
Tel: +41 22 917 9155
Fax: +41 22 917 9006 (ATTN: SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR EXECUTIONS)


Thank you.

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

Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Update
Document ID :
UP-009-2007
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.