Home / News / Urgent Appeals / UPDATE (Philippines): Further delay in review of death sentences, torture complaints

UPDATE (Philippines): Further delay in review of death sentences, torture complaints

June 20, 2007

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

ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME

Update on Urgent Appeal

20 June 2007

[UA-182-2007: PHILIPPINES: Supreme Court fails to review death sentences of five torture victims seven years on]
---------------------------------------------
UP-086-2007: PHILIPPINES: Further delay in review of death sentences, torture complaints

PHILIPPINES: Torture, denial of the right to have a fair trial, excessive court delays, inadequate medical attention to detainee; failure of justice system
---------------------------------------------

Dear friends,

The AHRC writes to inform you of yet another delay in the intermediate review of the death sentences of five men, known as the “Abadilla 5”, by the Court of Appeals (CA). In our previous appeal we mentioned that for over two years, the CA has failed to make its decision due to the frequent transfer of the case and replacements of Justices. On May 23, the review was once again transferred to another Justice after Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, who is previously handling the case, excused herself from reviewing the case on May 21. Also, the complaint of torture against the policemen involved in arresting and allegedly torturing the victims is also yet to be resolved by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (MOLEO). The resolution is expected to drag on further after the Deputy Ombudsman, who is in charge of case where it is pending, was replaced last April.

UPDATED INFORMATION:

In our previous appeal we mentioned that the intermediate review of the death sentences of Lenido Lumanog, Augusto Santos, Senior Police Officer 2 (SPO2) Cesar Fortuna, Rameses de Jesus and Joel de Jesus, have been pending before the Court of Appeals (CA) for over two years. It was first pending before the Supreme Court (SC) for five years before the latter unduly transferred it to the CA citing a new ruling on review. Please read our previous appeal for details, UA-182-2007.

The new rules, the “Mateo ruling”, effectively transferred all cases concerning the death penalty and reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment) to the CA for intermediate review, this effectively included the “Abadilla 5” case. The transfer of the “Abadilla 5” case was not so much a matter of the SC giving the CA authority to conduct the review but of the SC transferring all such pending cases for review. The manner of transfer was done wholesale and that there were no consideration of as to how long the case had been pending for review, or whether the case was old new.

When the case was transferred to the CA in January 2005, one of the legal counsels of the victims, Soliman Santos, filed a petition and subsequently a motion asking the SC to reconsider the transfer and complete the review instead, but the latter denied it. The legal counsel argued that the mandatory review had been pending before the SC for over five years and that it should have decide it, instead of transferring it to CA. Also, the “Mateo ruling” took effect on July 2004 but case was submitted to the SC four years earlier. The victims’ petitions and motions were however denied twice by the SC.

Since the CA has taken jurisdiction over the case, under the existing procedure, once the CA affirms the trial court's conviction it would be once again sent back to the Supreme Court for final review. However, if the CA reverses the trial court's conviction and rules an acquittal the case stops at that stage, in effect the detainees would be released. This, of course, is what the “Abadilla 5” is hoping for.

It is therefore necessary for the CA to promptly complete the intermediate review and come out with an early decision, which has also been the subject of urgent motions for early decision by the legal counsel on June 13. However, although the case has been submitted for decision on 29 November 2006; however, it has not been decided yet. Further delays had been taking place; for instance, the Justices assigned are frequently replaced or the case is transferred to other Justices. On May 21, Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison, inhibited herself from the case because the murder victim, Rolando Abadilla, was one of her wedding sponsors.  The case was supposed to be with her sometime early this year but she took a leave of absence last April, due to her husband's candidacy in May 14 elections. As of May 23, the case is with Justice Rosmari Carandang of the 5th Division. She is the seventh Justice to be assigned so far to review this case.

In another development, the complaint of torture and other human rights violations against the policemen involved in arresting and allegedly torturing the victims eleven years ago also suffers further delay. After it was pending before the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor (OCSP), on 27 September 2004 it was endorsed to the MOLEO for approval of the DoJ’s resolution. The MOLEO likewise has yet to act on the Partial Motions for Reconsideration by the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and private complainants, both dated 6 September 2004, to the DoJ’s Resolution dated 25 March 2004. The DoJ’s resolution did not include the torture aspect of the victims’ complaints. The DoJ, however, had advised the legal counsel to submit their motions to the MOLEO considering that the latter now has jurisdiction to approve or otherwise, the DoJ’s resolution after it was forwarded to the MOLEO’s office.

But when the case was followed up on June 13 with the MOLEO, nearly three years after the DoJ’s resolution and the complainant’s partial motion for reconsideration was submitted, it is learned that the Deputy Ombudsman assigned on the case, Orlando Casimiro, had been replaced by Emilio Gonzalez in April. It is not known whether the resolution was resolved or not. The legal aid inquiring on the status of the case was not allowed by the guard to see Gonzalez, citing supposed policy that no personal follow-up can be made at his office. Only the letter from the victim’s legal counsel inquiring about the status of the case was received.

Furthermore, updated information also revealed as many as six of the police officers who are respondents of the torture complaints have already died. Two of the deceased police officers were Senior Superintendent Romulo Sales and Senior Police Officer (SPO4) Dario Anasco. The names of other deceased police officers are not yet known. One of the senior officers, Chief Supt. Bartolome Baluyot, was able to retire from police service before being prosecuted.

While the review of the case and the complaint are dragging, the condition of Lenido Lumanog, one of the detainees who had a kidney transplant, is worsening due to inadequate medical attention and the poor conditions inside the jail. Lumanog’s family have to produced P27, 000.00 (USD 581) for his regular medication. The family is having difficulty doing so because the amount is huge. Lumanog’s medical condition is deteriorating, presumably aggravated by his operation. Lumanog was diagnosed to have suffered diabetes, difficulty of breathing and hernia.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write letters to the authorities below, in particular the Court of Appeals, requesting for the early decision of the intermediate review of the death sentence of the five men without delay. The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Enforcement Offices (MOLEO) must also resolve the complaint of torture and other human rights violation the victims filed. They must also ensure that adequate medicines and attention is afforded to kidney transplant patient, Lenido Lumanog.

To support this appeal, please click here:

Suggested letter:

Dear ___________,

PHILIPPINES: Further delay in review of death sentences, torture complaints

I am writing to draw your attention to the further delay in the review of death sentences of five men, known as the “Abadilla 5”, by the Court of Appeals (CA). The five men, namely, Lenido Lumanog, Augusto Santos, Senior Police Officer 2 (SPO2) Cesar Fortuna, Rameses de Jesus and Joel de Jesus, were sentenced to death by a trial court in August 1999 but the mandatory review of their case is yet to be decided. It was first pending before the Supreme Court (SC) for over five years until it was unduly transferred to CA in January 2005, where is it pending for over two years.

I presume that you are aware of this case as your notice had already been drawn to this in several occasions previously. I had been informed that although the case is already submitted for decision since November 2006, the CA is yet to come out its decision following frequent delays; for instance, the Justice in charge is frequently replaced, the case is transferred to other Justices, amongst others. Once again, I was informed that Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison of the CAs 15th Division, who is supposed to decide on the case after it was assigned to her early this year, inhibit herself from reviewing the case on May 21. She was unable to complete the review for months promptly only to find out later that she would inhibit from it.

As of May 23, the case is presently with Justice Rosmari Carandang of the CAs 5th Division after it was transferred to her. I fail to comprehend why the mandatory review of this case is taking enormously too long. As you are aware, this case had been pending before the SC for five years and over two years now with the CA. I am extremely disappointed by the SC and CA’s failure to promptly resolve this case. The years of delay and subsequent denial of the detainees’ right to speedy disposition of their case is inexcusable in this case. I therefore urge you to ensure that an early decision in this case is made without further delay.

Additionally, I have also learned that the complaint of torture and other human rights violations by the victims against the policemen involved in arresting and allegedly torturing them eleven years ago is yet to be resolved. I am aware that although the Department of Justice (DoJ) has completed the resolution of the complaint in September 2004, no charges have so far been filed against the alleged perpetrators. The resolution, which also did not include the victims’ complaint of torture, was submitted to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (MOLEO), who for over two years have yet to resolved the case. The MOLEO is likewise is yet to act on the motions by the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and the complainants to include the allegations of torture in the complaint.

I have learned on June 13, however, that the Deputy Ombudsman, Orlando Casimiro, who was previously in charge to resolve the DoJ’s resolution, the CHR and complainant’s motions, was replaced by Emilio Gonzalez, the newly appointed Deputy Ombudsman. The complaint had been pending for years with the DoJ and Office of the Chief State Prosecutor (OCSP) before it was endorsed to the MOLEO for its approval, and yet it was not resolved since. Once again, I fail to comprehend why such a complaint of torture, which has been dragging on for over eleven years, could not be resolved promptly by the MOLEO. The delay by which this complaint suffered is completely unacceptable and outright denial of the victim’s right to seek legal remedies for violation committed against them.

As you are aware, the medical condition of one of the detainees, Leniod Lumanog, had been worsening since his kidney transplant operation. It is believed that the brutal torture he and his colleagues had suffered by the policemen involved had aggravated his condition; therefore it is completely unacceptable that their complaint have not been acted upon or resolve since. More so that the resolution filed by the DoJ did not include torture and other human rights violation.

I therefore urge the MOLEO to act on this complaint and to resolve the CHR and complaint’s motions to include the allegations of torture without delay. I am extremely disappointed by the manner the MOLEO is handling the case, in particular the replacement of Ombudsman handling the case without first resolving this case. I am extremely concerned that frequent replacement of Ombudsman handling this case would in effect result to further delay of the complaint. As you are aware, no criminal charges have so far been filed against the policemen involved in court; and that some of the respondents have already died while other were able to retire from service.

Finally, I urge you to ensure that adequate medicines and medical attention is afforded to one of the detainees, Lenido Lumanog. As you are aware, he is a kidney transplant patient. I am deeply concerned of his deteriorating health condition while in detention at the New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City. I am aware that the cost of his regular medication is so huge that his family could hardly afford it. Lumanog in recent times had likewise diagnosed to suffer more illness; for instance, diabetes, difficulty of breathing and Ernia. His health condition is believed to have been aggravated by his kidney operation. I fear of Lumanog’s imminent death should his health concerns is not intervene with urgency.


Yours sincerely,
---------------------------------------------

PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTER TO:

1. Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno
Supreme Court of the Philippines
New Supreme Court Building Annex Padre Faura St., Ermita,
1000 Manila
PHILIPPINES

2. Justice Rosmari Carandang
Court of Appeals, 5th Division
Ma. Orosa St., Ermita
1000 Manila
PHILIPPINES
Tel.: +63 2 523 2113
Email: email: ca_manila@yahoo.com

3. 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

4. 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@yahoo.com

5. Director General Oscar Calderon
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

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

7. Mr. Emilio Gonzalez
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
Email: omb1@ombudsman.gov.ph

8. Mrs. Esperanza I. Cabral
Secretary
Department of Social Welfare and Development
3/F DSWD Building, Batasang Pambansa Complex,
Constitution Hills
Quezon City
PHILIPPINES
Tel: +63 2 931 7916 / 931 8068
Fax: +63 2 931 8191
Email: eicabral@dswd.gov.ph

Thank you.

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


Document Type :
Urgent Appeal Update
Document ID :
UP-086-2007
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.